--- Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think on the easiest difficulty level a poor
player should be able to win any
scenario with the minimum gold and no leveled up
units.
On the easiest difficulty you want the player to be
able to win the final scenario with just the start
--- Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's kind of who I thought Easy would be for.
Adult beginners might play
on Easy once, certainly I wouldn't expect them to
play multiple campaigns.
(Well I do know one person who really liked Warsong,
but was terrible at
it. But he had fried
My big problem with changing the way that the early
victory bonus works is that players will discover
that you get more gold by delaying victory than by
ending early. You Gold Silver Win system would
give the player paltry amounts of gold compared to
what they could earn in a few turns with a map
I am still pretty ignorant about the fine points of
file formatting and image size reduction. Since UTBS
is one of the larger campaigns in the mainline, if you
are able to reduce the file sizes without hurting the
quality of the images, then I encourage you to do so.
I entrust the mainline
Thanks for posting the mockups. The general vs. druid
example looks nice.
I think that there's a real danger of displaying too
much information. Since no ability changes the chance
of being hit, and since this is the damage calculation
window, I don't think we need to display the chance of
being
One last thing that bugged me with the General vs.
Druid mockup:
Why are some of the modifiers being listed as +25% and
others as *0.9? Can't they all be listed as
percentages? I understand what times 0.9 means, but
can't it be listed as -10% and thus keep the
formatting consistant? The modifiers
Dear wesnoth devs,
It saddens me to write this, but I have been
spending less and less time keeping up to date with
wesnoth's development and so now has come the time to
admit the obvious and remove myself from the wesnoth
developers mailing list.
I'm very very happy that wesnoth has
Hi,
I would post this bug to http://bugs.wesnoth.org/
but when I went to the bug listings it wouldn't let me
post a new bug. That option was crossed out. However I
did update the wesnoth support wiki page so that it
pointed to Gna instead of Savannah.
I was looking through the wesnoth
Dear David and Sanna,
Sorry to hear that you both have been becoming
frusterated with Wesnoth. I admit that after 18 months
of being active in the Wesnoth community, I have also
gotten a bit tired of patrolling the forums and
keeping up with the day to day conversations. I'm not
leaving, and I
Au contraire, I think adding the non-binary saves option to the preferences window is a VETY important feature and should not be removed. We have always had plaintext saves until recently, and I don't remember "cheating" being an problem. Besides it isn't our job to keep people from editing their
Nils makes some good points in this post. I wanted to
respond to a few.
Campaigns: I agree that unless it gets completed
somehow, in it's current form The Dark Hordes is the
weakest campaign currently included. It's a shame
because it's one of the only campaigns I know of that
feature the
Isaac,
I suppose it doesn't hurt to pursue this offer, but I
am suspicious of the idea of selling wesnoth. If we
offer a complete version for free on our website, I'm
not sure that a pretty box and manual would justify
people spending money for it. Of course people might
buy it at a store not
I think Jetryl's idea is a very good one. Does this
mean that we would have to add a preference selections
allowing the user to choose which set of unit graphics
he wants to use? Because if you play SoTBE, and half
of the units have Neorice's humorous artwork and the
other half have Jason's more
Hello,
I have noticed recently that there are situations
where the player gets more money by delaying the
completion of a scenario, than from the early finish
bonus. The whole idea of the early finish bonus is to
keep the player from having to artificially extend the
length of a scenario just
It's clear the changes in 0.9.0 have had unexpected
consequences for some campaigns. I was testing my
campaign to see if there were any major errors with
0.9.0. One big change I noticed was that commands that
occur during the prestart event now occur on the
screen. I thought the whole idea of the
I'd like to add myself to the people who are supporting requiring egistration before editing the Wiki. It's a easy thing for a user to do, and it makes it a lot easier to track who made recent changes andI think it will really help improve the quality of the wiki.
As a campaign developer I'd prefer if you could find a
letter besides x,y or z to use for the new ford
terrain. Those lettes are being used by at least
several custom campaigns and I don't want to create a
conflict.
Thanks,
Asa
__
Do you
Personally I like the top panel the way it is. The
time of day image is a nice break between the map and
the unit info. And the order of the gold, income,
expenses etc. along the top makes sense to me. Mainly
I'm just used to the interface becuase it has been the
same for over a year, but I don't
I don't think we need to change the number of traits
units have, nor do I think quick occurs too often. Do
the math, every unit that has traits gets two,
(ignoring dexterous, which is only for elves) there
are four traits units can have. Thus the chance of
getting quick is 50%. I think it's
Dave wrote:
Perhaps instead of increasing the dwarvish
guardsman's movement to 4, we should keep it at 3, but
make him a full-fledged fighter? We could give him an
attack close to the fighter: 7-3. After all, he is a
tough fighting dwarf. He'd be pretty nasty to kill,
but would be very slow to
Hi everyone,
This discussion over how artwork and units is added to
the game is really a matter of philosophical
differences in game design. Watching the arguments
spiral downhill I would hate to see it end with one of
our key developers or artists leaving. I think there
are really several
My thoughts on dwarves:
I like the idea of dwarves getting 40% defense in
grassland becuase dirt is an alias of grassland and
dirt is a terrain that is often common underground.
Why should dwarves be so terrible when fighting on
dirt? Removing dirt limits the types of terrains a
scenario
Having allies be able to move together would have a big effect on scenarios, especially if each side could somehow work together or coordinate thier attacks. However I think scenario developers should definitely be allowed to turn this off in the WML. Imagine if I create an event, where are the
The question is: do we want people on the forums
arguing over decision we make in the ML, or
critisizing us for comment/decisions we make in the
ML?
If the mailing list becuase exactly like the forums,
then why was it created? Or if Dave talks about dev
discussion retreating from the forums to
24 matches
Mail list logo
