Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Drake Additions

[Richard Kettering]

On May 28, 2005, at 2:25 PM, Richard S. 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.
>
> 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.

Then please don't accuse me of things I didn't do - that's not very 
nice either.  I'm not questioning your ability to read, I'm questioning 
your willingness to do so.
If you haven't read what I said, it's not safe to accuse me of not 
discussing something - I might well have.

For example, I discussed the change of the Elvish Lord's ranged attack 
over seven months ago, and it was approved.  I didn't have time to work 
on it then, I was busy revising all the elvish graphics, but I tacked 
it onto my horrible pile of things to do.

> 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.
>
> > 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.

Unit balance, in a HUGE way.  The art is a mixed bag across the board - 
even in the elves, some of the units need some minor touch-ups (most 
notably - the scout, outrider, shaman, and druid).

It's our unit balance that is really bad, but only in some of our 
factions.  The dwarvish faction and the drake faction are extremely 
powerful in certain situations, and extremely weak in others.  In some 
maps, they are unbeatable, in others, they are powerless.  Granted, 
there will always be some fluctuation, but the level of problems we 
have now has to do with core issues with the unit trees for those 
races.

> > > > 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.

The presence of the "magic" flag is what is causing the major negative 
balance problems.
The new setup is just as simple, gamewise.

He was currently animated with exactly the same projectile as the white 
mage, in the new animation he will have no projectile, unless code is 
made to support reversed directions for projectiles (bits of life 
energy being pulled through the air from his opponent).