Currently Online

Latest Posts

Topic: Destroying a military site which is under attack

the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 456
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-03-28, 14:22

We definitely need a possibility to play both solutions as well. Cause refixing would destroy both, the hero system world saviour favours as well as in balanced version its hard to balance fair especially for new players. 2 installable Versions would be to much, i think, but maybe we can solve it over an option where you chose "chess" or "balanced" just whatever you like to play. Then we have great 1v1 games in chess style as well as happy new players who now can play 3v3 or dont need to exclude world anymore or say lets make 7 against one which is important in an open society. Since widelands is getting bigger i see this especially important.

Edited: 2020-03-28, 14:24

Top Quote
Nordfriese
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 845
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2020-03-28, 15:39

Just two thoughts on this: While balancing is important it should still hold true that better players with better economies have higher chances of winning; and this is diverging from the thread's topic so if you have concrete ideas how to improve the balance please present them in another thread


Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 456
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-03-28, 15:43

Nordfriese wrote:

that better players with better economies have higher chances of winning

This is what we should improve. At the moment the focus is too strong on the military and to little on economy. Sure this can be discussed in another thread but it is linked to the topic very closely (last post) and indeed we should discuss ideas especially if they are very useful. I see how hard it is to find the balance - i tried - but i will now stop searching answers, since good solutions are not what your searching.

Edited: 2020-03-28, 18:31

Top Quote
Nordfriese
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 845
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2020-03-28, 15:53

the-x wrote:

Nordfriese wrote:

that better players with better economies have higher chances of winning

This is what we like to improve.

Who's "we" exactly? You and you?

At the moment the focus is too strong on the military and to little on economy.

Really last post on this topic in this thread.

Yes, this is true. But the military is the end-point of every economic chain so in order to have a strong military you need a strong economy. (except perhaps in short games with early contact). Games without a military component are boring, at least for me, because most economic pathways are simply obsolete there and the peaceful win conditions are also not to my taste. So I would very much like it if some non-military economy pathways were added that make for interesting economic games even if fighting is not a topic. I'm open for ideas how such pathways could reasonably be created/implemented.

But this is going very far away from the question of whether dismantling and/or destroying milsites under attack should be allowed, automated or forbidden.
If you want us to continue this discussion, do so in a new thread.

Edited: 2020-03-28, 15:53

Top Quote
blind3rdeye
Avatar
Joined: 2020-03-26, 08:47
Posts: 46
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Posted at: 2020-03-29, 12:05

I'm a new player, so my opinion on this probably should hold as much weight... but here it is anyway:

  • Regardless of how it works, I don't think it should be an in-game option. Others have explain this more clearly; but I just think option-bloat makes games feel unpolished. I reckon the designers should make a call about how the game mechanics work, and then balance the game around it. (Perhaps it could be in some game mechanics file, like how unit stats and stuff like that is defined - but I don't think it should be an in-game option.)
  • I don't have a problem with how it works now. I do kind of wonder who is setting the building on fire when your last defender is outside in combat... but I'm not too bothered by it.
  • For games vs the AI, I like that military buildings can be captured. I like to be able to re-capture lost buildings, for style and flavour; and I like to be able to steam-roll over the enemy once the economic game has been 'won'.

So I'd vote for leaving things as is (first preference); ~~or making it impossible the burn the building while there is no-one inside (second preference)~~ I wouldn't mind much if it was changed to be no-building captures ever; but I'd vote against having an option for it.

--

[edit] On further pondering, I've changed my mind about the 'second preference' thing above. I think that's not a good idea.

[edit again] I thought ~~ usually indicates 'strike through' in markdown. Oh well.

Edited: 2020-03-29, 22:54

Top Quote
simplypeachy
Joined: 2009-04-23, 12:42
Posts: 142
Ranking
At home in WL-forums
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted at: 2020-03-30, 01:00

blind3rdeye wrote:

I'm a new player, so my opinion on this probably should hold as much weight... but here it is anyway:

Quite the contrary! New eyes are very important for a game with as much history as Widelands. Any considered feedback and opinions are valid, whether you're an experienced player or not. In recent times it sometimes seems to me that more voices in debates about game mechanics would help paint a clearer picture of how people play.

  • Regardless of how it works, I don't think it should be an in-game option. Others have explain this more clearly; but I just think option-bloat makes games feel unpolished. I reckon the designers should make a call about how the game mechanics work, and then balance the game around it.

I definitely agree and for the same reason. Some games are absolutely packed with options and perhaps it suits them but I feel that the emergent gameplay from Widelands is one of its strengths, not adding in more mechanics for an area (combat) which is intended to be a lesser part of the game.

  • I don't have a problem with how it works now. I do kind of wonder who is setting the building on fire when your last defender is outside in combat... but I'm not too bothered by it.

The building will be considered lost once an enemy soldier reaches the door when there are none of your soldiers inside. This can happen if all of your soldiers rush out to defend against many opponents, and a second attack is then launched (I think... face-wink.png

  • For games vs the AI, I like that military buildings can be captured. I like to be able to re-capture lost buildings, for style and flavour; and I like to be able to steam-roll over the enemy once the economic game has been 'won'.

And the knowledge that an opponent can leap-frog across your military sites is another mechanic which one has to carefully account for when deciding how best to spread resources. However, an attacker cannot always rely on this happening, so chance is also at play. I feel that the current mechanic is crucial for these reasons. The thrill of the dice roll!


I need less fish :-(
Update: I definitely need less fish :-((
_aD on IRC

Top Quote