Multiplayer Campings

[Banned King]

Hi again, if you like playing campaings, well read this;
I think that we should have multiplayer campaings. I have no idea how to do that but i think that in a futre version we should have them, I mean i love playing campaings in a hotseat mode with my friends but with other players on the web that would be awsome. Just an idea

[Pythagoras]

They would have to be different from the regular campaigns. I imagine a series of branching scenarios where in each scenario human player 1's leader & troops battles human player 2's leader & troops. Whoever won one scenario would impact what the next scenario, probably to benefit the victor. I think that would be fun, and would be neat with some plot built in.

[Rhuvaen]

I imagine a series of branching scenarios where in each scenario human player 1's leader & troops battles human player 2's leader & troops.

There are quite a few different ideas that I've read or heard on MP campaigns:

• A) human vs human in ongoing rounds
  B) team of humans vs AI (such as Elf War which has been suggested for hot seat)
  C) team of humans vs team of humans

I think B) would be much easier to balance, conceive etc because we already have the normal campaigns as a model of how to pitch the human against predictable AI enemies, and AI enemies are dispensable throughout a campaign (even though you need a main villain who keeps reappearing I guess).

The other two options are potentially much more interesting, but also harder to envision. What story can you use so that the series of scenarios would feel like a "campaign" for both sides? Most campaigns tend to have two possible outcomes per scenario: fail and campaign immediately ends, or win/defeat the bad guys and on to the next stage. Would it be the same for these "campaigns" i.e. that one side is scripted to lose, unless they make the campaign fail? There are ways around that, but the whole idea of "campaign" is that you have protagonists who survive and continue the story. This seems rather impossible for both sides in a war from battle to battle, unless you invent deus-ex-machina methods of having them "disappear" just when killed!

One storyline for type A) and C) could be that there's a war first at the border, and each successive scenario brings the war closer to the loser's home. No scenario is ever repeated of course:

Code: Select all

Team A's home <> nearer to A <> border <> nearer to B <> Team B's home
team A loses                    start                    team B loses

Whoever won one scenario would impact what the next scenario, probably to benefit the victor.

Sounds logical, and yet is bound to be a weak concept. After all, who wants to play another scenario against the team that just won, when they're just beefed up with gold and levelled-up units?? I think it needs to get harder for the winning side, at least tactically (meaning yes they might have more gold and levelled units, but they will NEED them!).

All of this is already possible with WML, you just need to add a fake "end-scenario" dialogue, then redress the map, set-up teams again and there you go. Of course the turn counter would just keep counting. I think what we're lacking mainly here is ideas that actually make an attempt to write this worthwhile.

[Pythagoras]

I imagine a series of branching scenarios where in each scenario human player 1's leader & troops battles human player 2's leader & troops.

There are quite a few different ideas that I've read or heard on MP campaigns:

• A) human vs human in ongoing rounds
  B) team of humans vs AI (such as Elf War which has been suggested for hot seat)
  C) team of humans vs team of humans

I think B) would be much easier to balance, conceive etc because we already have the normal campaigns as a model of how to pitch the human against predictable AI enemies, and AI enemies are dispensable throughout a campaign (even though you need a main villain who keeps reappearing I guess).

The other two options are potentially much more interesting, but also harder to envision. What story can you use so that the series of scenarios would feel like a "campaign" for both sides? Most campaigns tend to have two possible outcomes per scenario: fail and campaign immediately ends, or win/defeat the bad guys and on to the next stage. Would it be the same for these "campaigns" i.e. that one side is scripted to lose, unless they make the campaign fail? There are ways around that, but the whole idea of "campaign" is that you have protagonists who survive and continue the story. This seems rather impossible for both sides in a war from battle to battle, unless you invent deus-ex-machina methods of having them "disappear" just when killed!

One storyline for type A) and C) could be that there's a war first at the border, and each successive scenario brings the war closer to the loser's home. No scenario is ever repeated of course:

Code: Select all

Team A's home <> nearer to A <> border <> nearer to B <> Team B's home
team A loses                    start                    team B loses

Whoever won one scenario would impact what the next scenario, probably to benefit the victor.

Sounds logical, and yet is bound to be a weak concept. After all, who wants to play another scenario against the team that just won, when they're just beefed up with gold and levelled-up units?? I think it needs to get harder for the winning side, at least tactically (meaning yes they might have more gold and levelled units, but they will NEED them!).

All of this is already possible with WML, you just need to add a fake "end-scenario" dialogue, then redress the map, set-up teams again and there you go. Of course the turn counter would just keep counting. I think what we're lacking mainly here is ideas that actually make an attempt to write this worthwhile.

Here's what I imagine

One General/Leader/whatever vs another in a campaign with branching scenarios. Each scenario
after the first is based on the outcome of the last scenario.

*******First Scenario
************|
****** +---------------+-------------------------+
****** |*********** |
Potential 2nd Scen A Potential 2nd Scen B ... etc down to 3rd, 4th, wherever the road goes
(asterisks added for spacing)

Naturally this could not be very deep, however scenarios could be reused farther down so long as on any given path down this tree, each scenario was unique.

Consider examples of these sorts of ongoing campaigns one-side against another in world history. Rommell vs Montgomery in the North African dessert, Various Union Generals vs Lee in the US civil war. Each of these ongoing, long campaigns have their own special stories about how one battle ("scenario" in wesnoth world) turned the tide and caused the overall campaign to go in a different direction. Each with their own personalities, developing heros, pagentry, landscapes, etc.

This sort of thing is perfect for the Wesnoth world! Every subsequent scenario your experienced units could be recalled, gold stores maintained, much like the single player campaigns. More importantly a story with human drama could develop around the meaningful gameplay that is alreadybuild into Wesnoth.

[Rhuvaen]

*******First Scenario
************|
****** +---------------+-------------------------+
****** |*********** |
Potential 2nd Scen A Potential 2nd Scen B ... etc down to 3rd, 4th, wherever the road goes
(asterisks added for spacing)

Naturally this could not be very deep, however scenarios could be reused farther down so long as on any given path down this tree, each scenario was unique.

Pretty similar (if I understand you correctly) to what I tried to detail in my post, above:

Code: Select all

'A' wins <-- 'A' winning scenario <--> 'A' plot advances <--> 'A' vs 'B' start situation <--> 'B' plot advances <--> 'B' winning scenario --> 'B' wins

So after the first scenario, the plot of the winning team advances towards an overall victory, while the other side is on the defense. After the second scenario, either the winners from scenario #1 win again, resulting in the scenario where the losing team can be ultimately beaten - or, if the team that lost in scenario #1 wins, their plot advances and they're now at an advantage.

That way, you have a forking path like this:

Code: Select all

                              'A' vs 'B' start scenario
  (A wins scenario)                     |                      (B wins scenario)
                        +---------------+---------------+
                        |                               |
               'A' plot advances (scen. A1)<-+          |
                        |                    |          |
            +-----------+-------------+-------->'B' plot advances (scen. B1)
            |                         ^      |          |
      'A' possible win (scen. A2)     |      +----------+-------+
            |                         |      ^                  |
       +----+-------------------------+      |   'B' possible win (scen. B2)
       |                                     |                  |
    'A' WINS!                                +------------------+-----+
                                                                      |
                                                                  'B' WINS!

Of course, each scenario would only be played once, so if after scenario A1 team 'B' wins but scenario B1 has already been played (with team 'A' winning so you go on to A1, get it?), then the story moves on to B2 (maybe with different story elements interspersed).

Consider examples of these sorts of ongoing campaigns one-side against another in world history. Rommell vs Montgomery in the North African dessert, Various Union Generals vs Lee in the US civil war.

Yes, I was thinking Troy vs, umm, Sparta? (can't remember off the top of my head)

This sort of thing is perfect for the Wesnoth world! Every subsequent scenario your experienced units could be recalled, gold stores maintained, much like the single player campaigns. More importantly a story with human drama could develop around the meaningful gameplay that is alreadybuild into Wesnoth.

Yes, but with current WML the story is always going to be background in MP. For instance, I don't think any of the story tags are working, and all messages are displayed to all players equally (so you can't have individual story elements per side).

The other question is whether you allow players to choose their factions as in standard multiplayer. Then you'd need a story that is fairly universal so it fits all races. Otherwise, you could of course pre-determine the factions for much better balancing and a more immersive story and atmosphere. But then, finding other players willing to play and adapt to these unique factions might be the hard part.

This last part is putting me off this project the most: the thought that people will find such a campaign theoretically interesting, but prefer to play with a faction of their choice on any generic map in either teams or singly, not as dictated by some campaign script.

What would the attraction of playing a campaign composed of multiple scenarios against the same opponents and factions be?
as a loser: learn from your mistakes by playing the same team and factions again, but with a tactical handicap advantage
as a winner: relish your victory, count your gold and recall your units while looking forward to a tougher challenge