Guide to UMC campaigns / eras

[AxalaraFlame]

Oh, yeah. IE is not very balanced, we've mostly focused on providing units for campaign. There used to be a balanced and an experimental version, but as I understand it it was too difficult to maintain both. As it if, if you want to play the IE multiplayer, it's moderately respectable if you don't use the Arendians (who are too weak) or the Issaelf (who are too good). That said, I think the campaigns, particularly EoV and FoS, are very playable.
Well, they were playable to suck me back into Wesnoth after years and take over working on them, anyway, that must mean something.

I'm going to try "Forward They Cried" next, based on the review on the page, looks like fun.

EoV is a badly balance campaign on hardest difficulties. Some scenerios are but insanely hard, while in general the whole campaign does not even have enough scenerios to cultivate a good numbers of Lv3s. I hope you guys would still be willing to maintain it.

[UnwiseOwl]

Since this thread isn't about EoV, let me refer you here for my response:
http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php ... 8&start=15

[taptap]

I wonder whether it is wise to add clearly abandoned / broken campaigns to the guide at all. I first thought adding everything, and the information given helps you decide, but "the settlers of light" was removed by the author itself from the guide, maybe this is the better policy.

[Adamant14]

I wonder whether it is wise to add clearly abandoned / broken campaigns to the guide at all.

The reason why I added 'Unlikely Alliance' was to warn other potential players.
To warn them not to download this so called 'campaign' .
I downloaded Unlikely Alliance because nobody warned me, and there is no tool on the server that tells me which campaigns are playable, and which are broken.
For that reason I vote for adding also the broken campaigns.

... , but "the settlers of light" was removed by the author itself from the guide, maybe this is the better policy.

Does anybody know why the author has removed it?

[taptap]

... , but "the settlers of light" was removed by the author itself from the guide, maybe this is the better policy.

Does anybody know why the author has removed it?[/quote]

isn't this in this very thread?

he didn't want to encourage players to play it as it is abandoned. i believe the non-listing of the campaign (as soon as the list comes close to full coverage) might be be a better way than just listing it with all information and a note that it actually doesn't work. just advertising those who do (somehow) or might do soon might be better, same result without the negativity.

[UnwiseOwl]

If an author doesn't want to encourage people to play his campaign, can't he just remove it from the server?

[taptap]

Well yes, he probably can. I just wanted to point out that opinion may vary on this subject.

What do you say, should the page use dates or version numbers to the reader / updater an indication how old the entry is? While I prefer version numbers, I reckon some add ons don't update version numbers systematically between releases. Should the page be a platform to start some review/ranking of UMC or should this be better left to the forum? Setting up a subforum with threads / polls for each campaign is very easy after all - while the wiki page might be somewhat more obscure.

Why is a whole number of high profile UMC campaigns still not in the list? To Lands Unknown, the whole Bad Moon Rising arc, the campaigns by Lord Knightmare - any takers? I won't because I did not play them yet (so can't say anything about completeness and difficulty).

[Adamant14]

The version numbers are already included,-
but I think to add the date of the entry would be a very good idea.

About the reviews:
A link to a such topic in the forums would be great.

About the missing UMC's:
I don't think I add many Add-Ons the next weeks.
And I prefer short and 'quick to play' campaigns, so I leave the long ones for somebody else to add.

[Gambit]

This is very well done! Kudos on the effort.

I have added it to the Important Links for New Users global announcement.

[Iris]

Is there any particular reason these wiki pages don’t use templates to reduce format duplication?

[taptap]

Is there any particular reason these wiki pages don’t use templates to reduce format duplication?

No. But you know, it is a wiki.

[Iris]

I tried working on a template-based system, but it turns out that our current MW installation is a little “limited” in that regard and there aren’t enough features to not make things even more counterproductive with templates. It will have to wait for someone who can “improve” our software set-up.

Incidentally, a notable shortcoming of the current system is that add-on authors need to be on the hunt for new reviews or add the reviews page to their watchlist (if they have a wiki account) and get notified of completely unrelated reviews for other campaigns. It would be nice if people adding reviews posted in the campaign’s topic or something.

[taptap]

In my wiki experience people have a really hard time when the first edit they do on a wiki involves templates. It by far isn't as intuitive as the basic syntax and unless you make complicated tables, it is not really necessary. It isn't the most convenient system, but both the player reviews subpage as the guide to umc campaigns pragmatically take a stab at establishing player information / review system that has been discussed on off for years, so for me: simple handling >> best functionality. And yes, I wish reviews would be better demarcated from normal feedback given in the forum, the UMC guide usually does refer to campaign development/feedback threads afaik.

[Iris]

So there is a reason after all. All right, then.

[Adamant14]

A question about the possible size of a wiki page:

Because the Guide to UMC Campaigns wiki page grows and grows,
and there are still a lot campaigns left to add, I wonder what the maximum size is?
I'm concerned that the size can break the page someday.

Maybe we should split the page on time?