Multiplayer for Beginners

[Melbourne]

I just started playing Wesnoth this week, so forgive me if I fall asleep at the keyboard, but I would like some advice about multiplayer.

Is there a beginners guide to multiplayer? I know how to login and join a game. I would like to know the Dos and Don'ts (or protocol), so that I don't annoy anyone when starting to learn the ropes.

For example, if I join a game, how can I tell how long it will take (e.g. how do you convert turns to minutes?)? That way I know I can finish the entire game. How do I know if I can pick a game at beginner level so I don't waste the time of the other players? How long is reasonable to complete your turn? etc.! What sort of things do you need to agree on and communicate and cooperate with the other players via chat?

Are there any good threads in the forum about this?

[Pladio]

Depending on map size, amount of players and kind of game, the game varies in length greatly. The time you take to finish your turn shouldn't be more than 2 minutes at the start of the game and 4 minutes once you get more units and more options.
People don't like it when you try out every option and then clicking cancel and then trying it out in a different way and losing time like that.

Planning in advance can help a lot, but sometimes that can't be done .
Quitting a game you started is considered very bad and most people who either have a good memory or write your name down on a piece of paper won't want to play with you anymore. If someone else however is taking ten minutes to finish a turn when has only one thing to do and you quit after having endured that for a while then people won't mind too much.

If you play a map with teams, then talking to your teammate should be a must, but asking everything about what you should do is mostly frowned upon. Asking for tips or advice is mostly a good idea, but asking exactly what you should do every single turn isn't.

So, in short. I don't know how to convert turns to minutes since there are too many variables. If you have less than an hour available then I'd suggest not joining a multi player game, unless it's with someone you know and can arrange to reload your game in the future (you can save your games).

When joining a game, it would be wise to look which 'era' it is using, since if you don't have it, you won't be able to play.
Most games either use the Default era (comes with the game) and from what I've seen the Extended Era (can be found in the add-ons).

I hope this helps. Have a nice day/evening/night.

[bert1]

I wouldn't worry about your skill level. Any of the experts who start a game and only want certain people to join, they will usually say something like 'private game' or 'game for so-and-so'. If a game says 'bert's game' (where bert is the host), I suggest you should feel free to join. It's up to the gamemaker to impose restrictions. If a game says 'no noobs', it paradoxically means that that game is exclusively for noobs. It's kind of like when someone says 'I'm real bad' when they really mean 'I'm quite good'. One way to avoid the problem of which game to join is just to create one yourself.

If you want out of a game before it is clear who the winners are, then just quitting without a word is pretty bad form. If you say 'I'm very sorry, but I'm really bored, this game is taking much longer than I expected,' some people will be relaxed about it, noobs will call you a noob (confusing, I know. Treat as a compliment) and others will be apoplectic. Don't worry about it. Apologise and go if you have to. If you can find a replacement in the list of 'observers', all the better. You can always change your name next time you log on to dispel any bad karma.

The length of games is the main thing that stops me playing multiplayer. If sides are evenly matched, even small maps like Isars cross can take a while. It's really hard to predict game length, which is why I tend to forgive people who say, after a reasonable amount of time, 'I've had enough'. One of the 1v1 tournament games lasted seven hours or so, if I remember right. This is one area I'd like to see some kind of change so that length of games can be controlled better. I'm not sure how it could happen though.

It's fine to resign if you're losing IMHO. (So if you want out but don't want to just quit, play badly for a couple of turns and then resign). Some players like to play to the death, though.

In general, communication is good. Say 'hello' if you feel inclined when waiting for a game to start. Also, if you have allies in the game, some like to talk, and some don't. Some obnoxious allies try and tell you what to do all the time. Ignore them. Preferably, do as many dumb moves as possible just to annoy them. A lopsided plan conceived in one mind, typed badly, misinterpreted and executed by the ally is normally a disaster. Just do what you think is best. (Sometimes planned co-ordination is good, but often not.)

Having said that, communication is not necessary. I have played plenty of good games in which nobody has said anything at all.

Remember that there are plenty of different languages around, and if someone doesn't talk much, it might be because they don't speak your language.

Blaming anything on luck (except where the luck is really really extreme) is insulting to the other players' self image. Even if you feel strongly justified, it's probably best to keep quiet about it.

People are generally nice and willing to help. Even opponents will offer guidance to new players if asked. Like with child abuse, if someone is nasty to you, it's them at fault, not you.

'gl and hf' is the lazy typists way of saying 'good luck and have fun'. In general I prefer to avoid abbreviations.

Use 'm' to bring up a chat line in the game. If you are the host and want to kick someone out, use ':' to bring up the command line, then, 'kick <player name>' does the trick. If you want an observer or another player to take over a side, bring up the command line and type 'control <side number> <player/observer name>'.

[krotop]

I won't answer on "how to behave" as bert1 and Pladio quite answered it, except maybe for that sentence

Preferably, do as many dumb moves as possible just to annoy them.

which sounds like putting more oil in the fire , in my humble opinion. But in regard of the context, it may be quite excusable.

Though, in case of you didn't know, there are 2 reference threads on "how to play" which are suited to players skilled from beginners to average players :
http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11161 (maybe obsolete on some points in a near future)
http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9354

[Sombra]

Just to add some conmmetns to Berts long post:

- I like it when a player says at least "hi" when joining a game and responds when asked "ready?"
- Dropping out of a game without a replacement or conceding defeat or a reasonable excuse makes you unpopular fast.
-playing on purpose stupid : Arghh, why join a game at all
- Bad karma if a player says :goggogoo (Usally young teens who will drop out the game after you killed their first 2 units)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To find a good game:

- Look for games with standart settings first : 70% exp etc.


- Usally players who chose their factions are newer players

-You wíll notice certain circles of regulars : Try to join one of their games if allowed because these people play the game at least to the end.

[bert1]

Good advice from Sombra there.

I was half joking about the playing badly bit. But I do occasionally lose the will to live. I continue out of a sense of social responsibility. I don't remember ever actually quitting early unless it was a genuine resignation. Oh, actually I have, in a couple of games as soon as I saw there was no fog of war, and I told them why I was quitting.

[Sapient]

Nice review of Wesnoth etiquette there, bert!

If a game says 'no noobs', it paradoxically means that that game is exclusively for noobs.

The length of games is the main thing that stops me playing multiplayer. If sides are evenly matched, even small maps like Isars cross can take a while.

There are turn limits and time limits available during setup, of course. If you aren't willing to wait indefinitely, then... might as well turn it on.

So if you want out but don't want to just quit, play badly for a couple of turns and then resign.

That's not necessary IMO, and you won't learn anything by intentionally losing. If you really have an emergency or can't bear to play a turn out, you can use the ':droid <side-number>' command to temporarily let the AI take over. Since you're just starting out, the AI may actually play better. (I know what you're thinking, but hey, it's better than going AFK for 10 minutes!) Otherwise, you can save the game and offer to resume it later. In most cases, this will never happen!

Some obnoxious allies try and tell you what to do all the time. Ignore them.

Conversely, if your ally only makes one or two urgent requests, then consider it more seriously. You can always blame them later if it fails...

[toms]

Multiplayer is not good for beginners.

My advice: Play throught the tutorial, then play an easy campaign, like South Guard or Two Brothers.
Then read the strategy guides on the wiki and forum (esp. How to play Series)

[Herduk]

Multiplayer is not good for beginners.

I don't agree.
Multiplayer is the only way to improve yourself.
You know the basis? Yes.
You tried some campaign and/or some mp with AI? Yes.
Then you can (must?) go to multiplayer.
Wesnoth is much funnier on MP then single player.

[Velensk]

I find Wesnoth fun in both areas but a diffrent type of fun.

Multiplayer tends to either be a fun/slightly compeditive duel against another human or a team effort with a human player against another human team. Fighting humans is more fun than facing AI in general.

In the campains however you tend to encounter a greater verity of tactical chalanges, and maps since they aren't designed to be "balanced". In the campains you have the customize your army thing where you build up your forces to eliteness and get to handpick ones to advance to customize your elite forces while not loseing the option of your lower lvls. There is a certain fun on lvls like clearwater port where your small but powerful army can cut down wave after wave of enemies, and in multiplayer you don't get to walk around with a powerful army of GrandKights,Royal Gaurds, Silver Mages, and Mages of Light, or and army of Specters, Night gaunts, Draugs, and Dread Hunters (soul shooters). In the best campains they can make a lvl chalanging dispite the huge power house you've builts up. It is also sometimes fun (or annoying) when the senario throws curveballs at you.

[bert1]

There are turn limits and time limits available during setup, of course. If you aren't willing to wait indefinitely, then... might as well turn it on.

Yes indeed. A turn limit coupled with time limit will guarantee the game is over in a predetermined amount of time. I never used it up to now because I just thought it made no sense for multiplayer games to have a turn limit. (A time limit by itself won't guarantee a short game). Who wins if all the leaders are still alive at the end of the turns? Is it just a draw? Do we count up the money and value of units?

[Sapient]

Who wins if all the leaders are still alive at the end of the turns? Is it just a draw? Do we count up the money and value of units?

That would be a draw, or in chess terms "stalemate." Both players lose. However, there was a proposal for Showing "Advantage" In-Game/End-Game

[bert1]

Who wins if all the leaders are still alive at the end of the turns? Is it just a draw? Do we count up the money and value of units?

That would be a draw, or in chess terms "stalemate." Both players lose. However, there was a proposal for Showing "Advantage" In-Game/End-Game

Yes, that proposal looks like a good idea to me. It would save the players the bother of counting everything up. It's only worth implementing if there are lots of games with turn limits, though, I suppose.