Topic: military buildings option

Options are Bad. Wesnoth even made this an acronym they use in the forums often (OAB). There is a reason they vanish in comercial games more and more: very few people change them, they introduce high complexity into the code which needs testing, they separate the community of players into smaller chunks (Oh, we never play with THAT option, go and play with someone that does). So, no, there will be as little as possible variation in the rules of the game through options.

That said, the feature you describe is an important strategic concept and helps the attacked to delay the advancement of the attacker.

Top

Quote

To prevent missunderstandings: I generally agree with SirVer that the implementation of optional features should only be done with features that are quite popular. And I personally see no reason for this particular feature to be included as option. However as other people of the community might see things different and feed back is always a good thing :

Maybe we should create a page, where registered users (to avoid spam and double votes) can post possible options like this one and can vote on this and other options - similar to a poll, just with only the "I am for this option" button. That way it would be easier to reflect the opinion of the community on possible options/features. And after some time it's easier to draw a line whether or whether not a specific idea might be "feature creep" or really "worth implementing".

And THAN... a feature/option with many votes can get a comunity poll (maybe) followed by an implementation.

Okay I have to admit this sounds like on of the super complicated democratic election systems of modern democratic states, however there is a reason those states have such a system...

any opinion on this idea?

Top

Quote

This has quite a few implications both ways. Firstly, as it is now, dismantling a building the moment the last soldier is killed really seems like a cheap and, quite honestly, ridiculous way to save yourself. Especially when you consider what would happen were this "real". A chieftan or prefect suddenly deciding to dismantle a building would have absolutely no impact on what his opponent does with that now-empty building that is supposedly scheduled for dismantling. Not to mention how ridiculous it sounds to somehow cause the building to spontaneously explode the moment the last person available to set off the explosion dies...

Considering the implications in game, I would find it very annoying to send a large attack wave, fighting through a swarm of defenders and whittling the units in the Fortress down bit by bit until I finally win, killing the last soldier... All to have it suddenly say "Dismantle Site" instead of "Fortress", causing all my soldiers to go back home and have the whole point of the attack negated just because of some cheap game mechanic dictating that a site scheduled for dismantling is no longer a valid target to be taken even though the builder won't be there possibly for minutes. It is a frustrating scenario to say the least.

However, I must admit that I've used this exact tactic myself with quite effective results and it would be a shame to see this "feature" be turned off... I agree that an option like this could easily split players into a group that like or dislike it, causing them not to play with those who choose the opposite of their preference. And with such a small player base to begin with, then yes, in this case Options Are Bad.

All things considered though, I personally feel that this should not be an option... It should be a requirement. The game should restrict any buidling that is directly under attack (not the nearby buildings though) so that it is unable to be dismantled or destroyed until after the attack has finished. It should be set to this by default with no option to change it... This would prevent the frustration of having your whole attack negated with the click of a button and prevent the feeling that your opponent used a cheap trick to gain an advantage. It would also require more effective strategies for defending your territory rather than relying in part on the easy defense button. And anything that causes more strategy to be used is, in my book, always a Good Thing.

Top

Quote