A Balancing Act
Moderator: Forum Moderators
The only concern I would have with the three-map approach (and the reason I don't use it) is that if you want to go back and alter parts of the map not related to difficulty, it'll take three times as long. I suppose that if you're pretty certain your maps are solidified, then the three map solution may be better.
- b.
- b.
Point taken. What's especially a pain is when you finish a map, then set all the WML, and then realize your map is broken or unbalanced and have to redraw it, and thus recalculate all the WML coordinates.aelius wrote:The only concern I would have with the three-map approach (and the reason I don't use it) is that if you want to go back and alter parts of the map not related to difficulty, it'll take three times as long. I suppose that if you're pretty certain your maps are solidified, then the three map solution may be better.
- b.
Very solid thoughts.
I'd like to add that changing village_gold is one more way to balance scenarios. Also you can give the AI unexpected reinforcements at some point during the scenario. At higher difficulty, players should be better equipped to deal with surprises, and the difficulty level could test that capability.
I'd like to add that changing village_gold is one more way to balance scenarios. Also you can give the AI unexpected reinforcements at some point during the scenario. At higher difficulty, players should be better equipped to deal with surprises, and the difficulty level could test that capability.
I think the point is not to have a different tactical problem, but rather modify the challenge level of the tactical problem while keeping the type of the tactical problem consistent with the scenario's theme.turin wrote:I still haven't seen WHY it is a good idea to have a different tactical problem on different difficulty levels....
Try some Multiplayer Scenarios / Campaigns
I've created a wiki page that has most of the info from this thread, but I'm terrible at editing it to look nice. If a kind soul wanted to format it properly for a wiki, I'd be most grateful.quartex wrote:aelius, if you know how to edit the wiki (and it's reallt easy), you should make a page of tips for changeing the AI and difficulty and copy this info onto the wiki so people can access it in the future.
http://wesnoth.slack.it/?BuildingScenariosBalancing
- b.
I have formatted it. 
Now, to start following it in my scenarios...
Now, to start following it in my scenarios...
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
As I involuntarly launched the discussion, surely I have to intervene :
When I wrote about gold to balance scenarios I was not implying it was good design, it was just the first simple way I thought of...
Aelius, you have very strong arguments, but overall they're all around "let's make different challenges according to difficulty". It's an option, but not the only one - and in fact a rationale can also be made to have different scenarios in this case !
OTOH, one can think of "1 scenario = 1 challenge", and just try to make it more or less arduous with difficulty. Oftentimes the difference between success or failure is made by just 1 more or less unit, according to luck and/or tactical errors. And the simplest way to have some more or less units is gold... In my first HttT game I was losing after Bay of Pearls mainly because I was broke, even if I "won" technically up to that point (I also had near to 0 level 2-3 units, but without gold they won't have helped much).
One can also argue about the poor learning value, as you just give players more room for errors : newbies will make errors anyway, that they transform into victory or defeat aren't a sure bet that they will learn more or less.
In the end now I rather think that a good way to balance scenario rather than +/- gold could be to give some extra units to player (for example of one sort useful to the challenge, as an hint ), or adjust enemy units recruitment lists. It's more "thought out" than just piles of gold.
Adding owned villages to one side looks a good option too - it doesn't much change the "at start" situation nor the challenges, and villages have to be kept also.
My 0.02 cents, without any balancing experiencing except on the receiving end
When I wrote about gold to balance scenarios I was not implying it was good design, it was just the first simple way I thought of...
Aelius, you have very strong arguments, but overall they're all around "let's make different challenges according to difficulty". It's an option, but not the only one - and in fact a rationale can also be made to have different scenarios in this case !
OTOH, one can think of "1 scenario = 1 challenge", and just try to make it more or less arduous with difficulty. Oftentimes the difference between success or failure is made by just 1 more or less unit, according to luck and/or tactical errors. And the simplest way to have some more or less units is gold... In my first HttT game I was losing after Bay of Pearls mainly because I was broke, even if I "won" technically up to that point (I also had near to 0 level 2-3 units, but without gold they won't have helped much).
One can also argue about the poor learning value, as you just give players more room for errors : newbies will make errors anyway, that they transform into victory or defeat aren't a sure bet that they will learn more or less.
In the end now I rather think that a good way to balance scenario rather than +/- gold could be to give some extra units to player (for example of one sort useful to the challenge, as an hint ), or adjust enemy units recruitment lists. It's more "thought out" than just piles of gold.
Adding owned villages to one side looks a good option too - it doesn't much change the "at start" situation nor the challenges, and villages have to be kept also.
My 0.02 cents, without any balancing experiencing except on the receiving end
PDF
-
ollobrains
- Posts: 14
- Joined: January 26th, 2005, 10:29 am
Was this enjoyable or frustrating? I had to start HttT over I think three times before I got a decent sized army out of it. One of my axioms for scenario design is this:PDF wrote:In my first HttT game I was losing after Bay of Pearls mainly because I was broke, even if I "won" technically up to that point (I also had near to 0 level 2-3 units, but without gold they won't have helped much).
"A scenario should be winnable with the default gold value and an empty recall list."
Now, having lots of gold and a good recall list should certainly make a scenario easier, but scenarios designed to be played by new players should never, ever, require you to have done well in a previous scenario. They should be self contained as far as difficulty goes.
I wholeheartedly agree. You can also give more units to the player by giving him a larger keep and the enemy a smaller keep.PDF wrote:In the end now I rather think that a good way to balance scenario rather than +/- gold could be to give some extra units to player (for example of one sort useful to the challenge, as an hint ), or adjust enemy units recruitment lists.
- b.
-
Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
I really disagree with this. It is good in a lot of cases, but when you take a scenario like The Battle for Wesnoth, if you could win that with 100 gold, then imagine how easy it would be with 5 Elvish Avengers, 5 Dwarvish Lords, 4 Elvish Champions, 3 Elvish Sharpshooters, 2 Silver Magi, and thousands of gold!aelius wrote:"A scenario should be winnable with the default gold value and an empty recall list."
Now, it might be good in Easy difficulty.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
Point taken. Here' I'm referring to normal scenarios on the easiest difficulty level in campaigns meant to be played by beginners. Though, I would say that if you need, say, a minimum of 500 gold to have a chance at winning The Battle for Wesnoth, then the designer should set that as the gold minimum.Elvish Pillager wrote:I really disagree with this. It is good in a lot of cases, but when you take a scenario like The Battle for Wesnoth, if you could win that with 100 gold, then imagine how easy it would be with 5 Elvish Avengers, 5 Dwarvish Lords, 4 Elvish Champions, 3 Elvish Sharpshooters, 2 Silver Magi, and thousands of gold!
My point was that it's rough on new players to have to replay the beginning of a campaign over and over to get a "good army" or make sure they're not "bankrupt" for a later scenario. That's frustrating. At least, it was for me.
- b.
Aelius,
About frustation : yes, it's frustating when you begin to play to realize on 5th scenario that you've blown the campaign (not enough gold/xped units), after believing that you've won easily the first scenarios !
When one knows the game a little more it becomes more natural to think this way !...
After that there sure is difference in expected balance between a starting newbie scenario and the final acme of a grand campaign : the latter HAS to be rather unwinnable with level 1 units, even if starting gold should be high to allow for players going broke from last scenarios .
About frustation : yes, it's frustating when you begin to play to realize on 5th scenario that you've blown the campaign (not enough gold/xped units), after believing that you've won easily the first scenarios !
When one knows the game a little more it becomes more natural to think this way !...
After that there sure is difference in expected balance between a starting newbie scenario and the final acme of a grand campaign : the latter HAS to be rather unwinnable with level 1 units, even if starting gold should be high to allow for players going broke from last scenarios .
PDF