Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Drake Additions

[Richard Kettering]

On May 27, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Richard Shimooka wrote:
> Firstly I'd say it would be prudent that if any change is committed it 
> should be discussed beforehand... not presented as fait accompli. 
> These need to be discussed and argued over even before they are 
> tested. This is especially true of changes that are as major as what 
> you are suggesting.  Also it would be nice if they were all revealed 
> at once, rather than piecemeal. I'm not against a completely new 
> balancing per say, however its  fairly difficult to discern the 
> effects of such a major change in a faction if its revealed one by 
> one.

We did, and it is in the mailing list archives and the developer 
discussions forum.  Try reading.

> Also as I think that at this point there should be a less emphasis on 
> "rebuilding the entire race" when really the drakes are fairly good as 
> is, and don't need massive change. This is  especially true given that 
> people want to see a v 1.0 being put out in the near future, we 
> shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water by making new major 
> changes. Instead the focus should be on little changes that would 
> enhance the already good base we have right now.

Our base right now is terrible, and needs major changes.  Areas that 
are basically fine are [wood elves, loyalists].  Areas that are ok but 
need minor changes are [orcs, undead, mermen].  Areas that are terrible 
and messily half-finished are [dwarves, drakes, saurians, naga].

> So? Just because it was intended to be something and it fit another 
> role even better doesn't mean it should be changed, unless it was 
> unbalancing. Right now it occupies a unique role within the faction,

And design goes out the window...

> > b]  It removes the cliché "mage" unit from the saurians.  
> > +faction_differentiation
>
> Cliche? Its game based in a Fantasy setting. I'd expect some magic 
> being around. Moreover you use the argument that

Cliché, as in maybe the magic user doesn't have to throw around balls 
of damage, eh?  There are many other ways of representing magic other 
than making them shoot fireballs and iceballs like they have some gun 
that shoots magic instead of bullets.

> > A side benefit of this is that the sky drake, which is currently of 
> > questionable use when compared with saurian skirmishers, will become 
> > a much more generally useful unit.  Drake players will have a choice 
> > of attacking with a unit that can help to ensure a hit, or a unit 
> > that can do a lot of damage.  Additionally, by having marksman, the 
> > drake flyer will still be vulnerable to retaliation during the 
> > opponents turn - marksman activates only on the offense, not during 
> > retaliation.
>
> Secondly what is the rational of having marksmanship? Conceptually it 
> doesn't make sense, and even less so on a gameplay basis.

Read the description.  And I thought you said conceptual stuff didn't 
matter, anyways...

> If you think this will make up for removing magical from the 
> tribalist's attack, it won't. firstly, against elvish archers in a 
> forest or a thunderer on a mountain  the glider with 20% less defence 
> against pierce and poorer defence will not be effective at all.

That's 10%, but whatever...
Maybe, like it's brethren the sky drake and hurricane drake, it should 
get the fly movetype as well.

> This brings me to a third point. At this point the drakes already are 
> a expensive race, and individuals have been griping about this. your 
> changes will likely result in the flyer being upped in price... which 
> is exactly not what is needed for an already expensive race.
>
> I think that with the exception of some of the obvious problems I've 
> already pointed out that these changes should not be applied. It makes 
> little sense to make such major changes, ones which will have a 
> detrimental effect on the already problematic balance in wesnoth.

First you want me to make changes in complete blocks, then you want me 
to do little "bite-sized" pieces one at a time.