Nice and useful report ! Some quick replies: On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:49:54PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > 2) Transition to campaign play could be smoother > > Bug: Fade didn't like the feeling of finishing the tutorial and being > dumped back to the campaign selector with little or no guidance on the > next step towards mastery. I explained that in trunk I had added > information about campaign difficulty levels and length to the > summaries. But she thinks there's another half of the cure. > > Fix: Attach verbiage to the tutorial's end-of-game event recommending > some of the easier mainline campaigns as the next things to try. I've > already done this, though not yet committed it. > > Rating: Minor.
TSG does a nice job in guiding the beginner on the easy difficulty like: - it presents some of the recruitable units and what they can be used for - it presents the enemy units, their strenghts and weaknesses - it suggest a few tricks, like waiting the day before attack chaotics units with your (lawful) units That's really valuable for a new player. However TSG is long, not nicely balanced at the end, and broken. On the contrary TB doesn't help the player, but is short and simple thus good as a first camapign. Maybe adding TSG-like suggestions on TB's easiest difficulty level (disabled on higher levels not to be an annoyance) would be a great idea. > 12) Visibility for unit types in help is too limited. > > Bug: This is the first thing that got Fade really steamed. She > *hated* the you-can't-see-help-on-it-until-you've-encountered it rule, > because it keeps her from (a) making intelligent decisions about which > of her own units to concentrate on levelling up. and (b) making > intelligent decisions about which of her opponents' units must be > *kept* from leveling up. > > Fix: Fade wants every unit in the advancement tree of a unit > encountered to be accessible in help. On IRC some objected that > this would injure the present RPG-like feel where discovering the > world is part of the fun. Mordante suggested a good compromise -- > *next advances* of every encountered unit should always be > visible. > > Rating: Serious. I agree with Mordante's suggested compromise. Moreover, showing the number of level the unit can advance would be nice. Maybe showing a full tree of the advancement (something similar to , with some '?' "unknown" picture showed instead of the unknown units would be a nice thing. > 16) Unit types topping out at level 2 makes them bad investments > > Bug: I'd actually heard this one in my one previous extended conversation > wiith a Wesnoth newbie. Fade, when I explained the advancement tree while > she was complaining about bug 6, concurred. Why toss kills to a unit that > isn't going to advance to the power level of L3? And thus, why build it > at all? > > Fix: L3 everything. Outlaws, ghosts, everything. > > Rating: For her, Annoying. (I think it qualifies as Serious.) In campaigns i agree it's boring when all your units quickly reach max level. It might also depend on the unit. Some level 2 units (the Lancer in particular) are quite powerful and really are level 2.5, so that not easy to add a level 3 Some unit might be limited in level for background reasons or lack of ideas (i'm thinking about the goblins spearmens and saurian mages). That might be true for the outlaws too. Btw i think Mythological and Eleazar have the plan to add the L3 outlaws to mainline (once they get redone and probably disabled in MP mode). _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
