Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Aiming for 1.0

[David White]

Okay, these are my thoughts on how to get to 1.0. If developers broadly 
agree with following my plan, I *may* decide to lead it.

Firstly, what should version 1.0 be? 1.0 should be the first version 
which we can happily show to everyone: even end users who have no 
interest in game development. It should be a stable version that the 
team is committed to maintaining and supporting.

It doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be good enough so that 
someone can play it, and have fun, without noticing badly incomplete 
features or awful bugs. It certainly doesn't have to have every feature 
imaginable, and it's not realistic that it will be completely bug-free.

Now there is a danger, and I think this danger is large, that Wesnoth 
will never reach 1.0. The reason for this is that as a community and 
development team we have shown ourselves to continue to want to add 
features. The more features we add, the more features we think of to 
add. The game has been in a state where it needs "only feature x, y, and 
z and then it's feature-complete for 1.0" since perhaps version 0.3. I 
remember when it was "feature complete; all it needs is multiplayer". 
Now that's not to say the features we've added have no value: on the 
contrary the game has improved immensely since 0.3, imo. However, the 
more features we add, the harder it is going to be to stabilize.

I think that currently the single player version of the game is easily 
feature-complete enough for 1.0. The main things which could be improved 
are more animations/graphical effects as Jetryl supports, and campaign 
server improvements, as turin suggests.

However I don't think either of these things are necessary for 1.0. They 
could be added after 1.0 though.

More animations creates more work for artists to do in animating things. 
Considering the lackluster response since I implemented animated deaths, 
I am not optimistic that we could complete extra sets of animation in a 
short period of time.

With respect to the campaign server, firstly it has been improved lately 
in that you can sort campaigns through the new menu system. Secondly, 
I'd like to point out that the campaign server is a luxury. It's a 
feature that few people were even particularly interested in when I 
suggested it. Now that it's implemented, I think it'd be 'nice' to have 
improvements, but hardly 'absolutely necessary'. I don't see any point 
in delaying 1.0 until people find time to improve it.

The one thing that I do think has to be done is to fix the problem where 
downloading campaigns can cause the entire game to fail to load. We may 
use a very KISS solution to this though. (Such as if the game fails to 
load the first time, try loading again, refusing to load from the user 
data area).

In terms of multiplayer, I still think Wesnoth is not nearly as good as 
it is in multiplayer. The interface is a little mediocre, and options 
which I think are important such as time limits on turns aren't 
available. However, Wesnoth could be considered a complete game with 
only single player. Multiplayer is also a luxury in many ways, and it's 
not *that* bad. I think we can ship 1.0 without any multiplayer 
improvements.

So, that's what I think should happen to the engine for 1.0: a complete 
feature freeze. Bug-fixes only. If people really want to add new 
features, then we can consider branching the engine and the people who 
want to add new features can work on that.

In terms of content such as graphics, music, and sounds, I am more 
flexible. They don't have the capacity to de-stabilize the game. I think 
that for instance, if freim finishes his new terrain in time, we can 
include that. New music and sounds would also be highly desirable. 
Completing all animations is something we would definitely want.

Now, in terms of adding new units, these are my thoughts:

- no new factions in multiplayer.
- adding level 3 units to existing factions, such as the Drakes is fine, 
since I don't think it changes the balance that much.
- tweaking units is fine, mainly if the multiplayer community thinks 
it's necessary
- no new level 1 units that are put in multiplayer
- new level 1 units, e.g. the high elves, could be added but they would 
only be used if a campaign developer wanted to use them. They wouldn't 
be in multiplayer in 1.0.

My method of balancing units is usually not to have an 'open forum, all 
in' approach. I think this is counter-productive. I prefer to ask the 
opinion of a few people who I perceive to be knowledgable in the area, 
and then make a decision based on that. I would REALLY love it if there 
was a developer who people trusted to make balancing decisions.

In the example of changing Kalenz's attack to cold, this had been 
discussed quite a few times, and I said I was in favor of it. I still 
think it's a good idea, and I don't think the affect on HttT will be 
that bad.

Some things which I think we really need for 1.0, which can be done 
'safely' in that they will not de-stabilize the game:

- better documentation in the help system
- better sound effects
- Heir to the Throne should be made much easier on 'easy'.
- complete animations
- completed translations

I think that Wesnoth 1.0 could be produced in 3 months. Here is the 
schedule I would propose:

Weeks 1-6:

- work on bug fixes, including cosmetic cleanup and making the game 
acceptably fast in all areas
- continue to work on translations
- work on documentation
- add animations, new units, sound effects, etc.
- finalize list of campaigns for 1.0

-- STRING FREEZE --

Weeks 7-9:

- work on bug fixes, including cosmetic cleanup
- start working on finalizing translations
- no more new units
- animations, sound effects, can still be added

-- COMPLETE INTERFACE FREEZE --

Weeks 10-12:

- work on testing and fixing any remaining critical bugs
- finalize translations
- animations, sound effects may still be added.

-- RELEASE 1.0 --

Of course, this is a rough outline of what I think is possible, not a 
'strict schedule'.

Remember that 1.0 can be seen in some ways as a starting point, not an 
ending point. After 1.0 is released we can more confidently add dramatic 
new features.

David

Nils Kneuper wrote:

> Hi everyone!
> In my last mail I wrote some stuff that seems rather important to me,
> so I do not want to have it lost in a "dead-thread". Some of the
> points also justify a thread for their own. This one will be quite
> long, so sorry for this.
> I Think we should really head for 1.0. The game looks very complete to
> me, though there are some points I want to menition in this mail, that
> could need some work:
>
> 1) CAMPAIGNS:
> Some of the campaigns do not fit into mainline at the moment.
> Either we should work on them, or we should kick them out. I am
> speaking of SotBE and TdH. These are incomplete and do not really fit
> to the rest.
> We should also consider getting them completely out of the game and
> maybe getting one or two good and complete user campaigns into it
> instead.
> Also it would be nice if at least one campaign was designed for
> beginners that do not have much experience in playing TBS games. They
> maybe only played the tutorial and find httt very hard afterwards. At
> least one campaign should be winnable by an unexpierienced user even
> on medium.
>
> 2) UNITS:
> Is it really needed to get in more units? The units in 0.9.1 were
> looking quite complete. Should we really add more units to the game?
> There are already very many units. This makes it hard for beginners
> and even harder to balance.
> We should leave the units (and their attacks) like they were. We
> should only change it, when balancing (next point) needs it.
> I really like the idea of having more drakes personally, but I do not
> think it is good for the game. This will make our progress into the
> direction of 1.0 by far harder. I do think they should stay like they
> are now.
> I also do strongly speak against adding the high elves. This will
> destroy several stuff again. Changing Kalenz to have a "cold" attack,
> makes httt somehow imba, because you have to fight undead in some
> missions in which Kalenz already joind you. And cold is really not
> good against undead. Maybe httt has completele be revised now. Because
> of this I speak for reverting the changes to Kalenz.
> The high-elves may be added as "unofficial-unit-pack". I do not think
> we do really need them for mainline, though they are a nice idea after
> all. But not for mainline ATM.
>
> 3) BALANCING:
> This one is the hardest points. All the unit additions and changes of
> the last days, like changing the saurian, are not best for the game I
> think. The drakes were playable because of this unit that easyly died
> if you are not carefull enough. Witout a magic attack, they will only
> be like the rest. The drakes will be weak and not really usable at
> all.
> I think we should have the units features like in 0.9.1. Some changes
> for balancing are needed, yes. But I think multiplayermode in 0.9.1
> was not too bad. Some tweaking to resistances and defnces or costs,
> yes. But NO big changes like complete new skills to some units (cf
> Tribalist and Sky Drake).
> For these balancing issues we should listen to the experienced
> MP-Players a lot more. If we get MP really balanced, single player
> will be rather balanced, too. The last balancing on singleplayer can
> be done by (very little) adjustments at the design of some maps. We
> got some good players, who know the best tactics, that are even willing
> to help us, why not listen to them?
>
> 4) MORE EXTRA FEATURES:
> Are there more extra features for 1.0 needed? The game looks somehow
> feature complete to me. There may be stuff that could be adjusted and
> improved (modularisation) but these things could also break a lot. I
> do speak in favour of letting the game like it is now, concentrate
> (mainly) on fixing bugs and get it really stable so that 1.0 can be
> realsed. If you know any knew features that really do need to make it
> in, feel free to mail.
>
> 5) TRANSLATIONS:
> That one is the point that concerns me most personally. We do have to
> make a decission when we should add a translation to 1.0. Should there
> only be complete translations, or also the ones just started? I would
> like it, if we included the complete ones, and make it optional to
> install others when they are completed. It could work with a check for
> the existance of the dir of the corresponding language.
> I do not think it would be good to have a translation in the game
> where only 10% are translated. What do you think of this?
>
> 6) LEADING THE GAME TO 1.0:
> I do really think we do need someone that leads the game to 1.0 it has
> to be done with a rather hard hand. The person doing it should be
> familiar with the complete game and the code. So I am not able to do
> this (puhhhh). I would really like it if Dave could continue until 1.0
> is out and hand it over afterwards?
> I think we could really complete Wesnoth to be in the state of
> releasing 1.0 very soon. It should be possible to do this in the term
> of this year. Sometime between autumn and christmas it could be done,
> so please Dave, stay this long and lead us.
>
> So these are the main points I wanted to write about. As I already
> said, it was quite much, but I think it had to be written. Please
> comment on this and help to release 1.0 soon.
> Cheers,
> Nils Kneuper aka Ivanovic
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wesnoth-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
>
>