Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Drake Additions

[Richard S .]

> > 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.

First off, please cut the condescending attitude please, this is a 
developer's mailing list which calls for civility, and my email did not 
make any rude comments or questioned your intelligence or ability to 
read.

You may have mentioned it somewhere,  but this has come as a complete 
shock to many people in the community. I do read, as do most of the 
people I talk to (including several devs) and they were unaware that 
these changes were in the works until your email. For the massive 
effects that they have on the game, they should not be made by you and 
should have a wide discussion across the board even before they are 
implemented. That most certainly did not happen in this case.

> > 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].

Is that the artistic side?Or unit/balance wise?  Honestly I think 
balance-wise with the exception of about a dozen or so issues (several 
of which I discussed in the other email), the fundamental basis of 
units is good, and should not be touched. The factions are generally 
balanced overall and changing them at this point is far more trouble 
than it would ever be worth.
> > 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...

No it doesn't. Which do you think people are going to notice more; The 
esthetics of your change or its tactical effects? Few will really 
notice a small conceptual change between drain and magic much less 
judge the game poorly over it,  however they will quickly notice 
factional unbalances which are glaringly apparent,  which this change 
will most certainly achieve.

> > > 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.

Isn't one of the key ideas of wesnoth that magic is represented in as 
simple fashion as possible? I quote from the wesnoth philosophy page: 
http://wesnoth.slack.it/?WesnothPhilosophy

  " So, from the beginning I decided that all spells would be implicit, 
or simply a type of attack."

When I look at a tribalist and imagine him in my mind using magic, I 
think of it as a different type of attack than other magic users. I 
think of it as some primeval sort of voodoo attack rather than the 
trained learned spell of a mage. Him being animated with a different 
type of magic attack further reinforces that. Sure making it drain 
instead of magical would make a bit of difference, but I really don't 
think its that needed in the first case, and is certainly outweighed by 
the major negative balance problems it will create.


> > > 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...

No, conceptual stuff does matter, and I've argued this consistently 
through all my points. I said as much in this thread: 
http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5621&start=30 when 
discussing distinctiveness between factions. However a balance must be 
found between gameplay and esthetics, and gameplay should take 
precedence over it to some degree. I still do not think they are 
mutually exclusive categories, and that esthetics can be maintained 
while having stellar gameplay.


> > 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.

No it is 20% difference. Tribalists get a 10% bonus vs pierce and the 
drake gets a -10% which equals a 20% difference between the two units 
of comparison. Furthermore as I said before, the glider was a good unit 
before all these changes, and was fairly balanced given its costs, its 
abilities, and when compared to its contemporaries. Any addition to its 
capabilities (and now you're advocating two, a change in movetype and 
marksmanship) will necessitate an increase of cost, which is exactly 
what the Drake faction does not need given that people are already 
complaining about all its units being too high in cost.

> > 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.

Actually, throughout this email and my posts I have consistently said 
that I'd rather not see massive changes done at all. However I am of an 
open mind to consider them, and if they must be done I'd rather see 
them proposed all at once rather than discuss them piecemeal, so that 
their effects can be seen. Furthermore I'd like to have the opportunity 
to have a discussion on these major changes, which in reality was what 
my first point was all about.