On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 11:48 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 22:52:27 +0200, > David Philippi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If we want to restrict the changes to gold I'm not opposed. Sometimes it > > sounds like the player should always be able to finish a level regardless > > of > > the previous levels. That's a bad change. Reducing the impact of gold is > > fine > > but if you're in scenario 6 of a campaign with only level 1 units on the > > recall list - bad luck, you're screwed. Go play again on a lesser > > difficulty > > level or play an easier campaign. Conserving gold should bear an advantage > > but if it looses it's dominant role I'm fine with that. > > 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.
Sorry, I completely and utterly disagree: such a difficulty level would be called "child". Please remember, "beginner" != "stupid"! We should use the collected stats to see what a reasonable minimal expectation for levelled up units, and gold. It'd be nice to see this documented in the WML comments for each scenario. Perhaps we need more "active balancing" in campaigns (eg. gift them advanced units if they're really behind the minimum expected). Cheers, Rusty. -- ccontrol: http://ccontrol.ozlabs.org _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
