Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Aiming for 1.0

[ott]

On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 02:58:15AM -0500, Richard Kettering wrote:
> The game looks like a half-finished mess to me, and one which needs at 
> least six months before we could think of calling it 1.0.

You are in a minority of one here.  Such comments are not useful.
Your work has been very important and I hope to see it continue, but
snide comments are destructive and serve no purpose other than driving
the less thick-skinned contributors away.

In the opinion of many, the game is acceptable for 1.0 with its
current state of graphics, but without solid code, release packaging,
ports to various platforms, balanced gameplay, and general usability
it all amounts to a hill of beans, since no-one is going to play it.
Please keep your own role here in perspective -- we are not making an
artifact to be exhibited at MOMA, but a game to be played and enjoyed
by thousands of people.  It would be very gratifying to me personally
if we could create an artifact that was admired widely for generations.
However, many see the current state of the game as a good point to stop
for a stable release, and I would be sad if we miss this opportunity.
Then we can aim much higher for a subsequent 2.0.

> Our biggest balancing concerns come from - surprise surprise - the 
> factions that are unfinished.

The balancing issues have been expressed well by those who play the game
seriously.  The balancing issues that need to be addressed in the short
term are niggles relating to individual units.  Every time a "little"
change is made to a key unit, it costs _hundreds_ of playtesting hours
to ascertain the effect of that change.  This is why I think we should
value the opinion of those who have developed a reliable feel for the
subtle imperfections in unit balance -- just like we non-artists defer
to the judgement of those who have a refined aesthetic sense.

You seem to be one of the few people prepared to make significant
balancing changes without having the benefit of lots of time to test
those changes first, or for even trying to convince us that the changes
will be good for gameplay.  I suggest you reconsider.

> Balancing is a major concern, but trying to balance something that is 
> unfinished is asking for a failure, which is what our current dwarves 
> and drakes are.
> They are a royal mess.

They seem mostly fine for MP according to the people who play MP a
lot, and the Drake Campaign hasn't obviously suffered either for lack
of high level units.  I think these factions are good enough for 1.0,
with some slight tweaks.  Before 2.0 they clearly need some revisions,
since they don't have the depth of the Loyalists or Elves.

> >4) MORE EXTRA FEATURES:
> A real, scriptable, sprite engine might be nice, and I'd like to try my 
> hand at coding one this summer.

Great, I'd like to see something like this post 1.0.

> Thus I am happy to continue forging as much as I can over the coming 
> months - I have a lot of free time in the next few months.

I look forward to a quick 1.0, and to seeing your contributions on
advancing the game to 2.0.

-- address@hidden