Do the Elvish Shyde/Sylph fly, or not?

[ForestDragon]

actually, there is already 'vision=' option in WML for unit code, so, it's already possible, but most people don't even know such code function even exists

Interesting - half the work seems to be done indeed!
Remains just to give relevant [vision_costs] to all units, so they don't rely on the movement cost for vision anymore, that's but an afternoon of editing unit files.
But that would obviously require an official decree, for obviously everybody playing at BfW would need to use the same units, so we go back to "do people want it?".

well, it can be used by UMC creators, maybe even creating an era with tweaked vision/vision cost, but that's to those willing to do that, the name can maybe be 'Realistic Vision Era'

[beetlenaut]

half the work seems to be done indeed!

I had forgotten that that existed. Half the work? Not at all; it's basically done. All you would need to do is make a macro for the vision costs you want, and paste it into the dozen movetypes we have. That's it. You could wrap that in an era like ForestDragon said and let people try it out. I'm not even a little convinced, but if you make an era, I will try it to see how it changes the game.

[Eagle_11]

hmm, but can this vision= key get influenced during events ? lets say i have made an 'blind' weapon spec and used nullment of mp for an turn for it, would this vision= clash with it or not ?

It could be good for scouting to become more serious in this game rather than having to use cavalry for it.

[ForestDragon]

hmm, but can this vision= key get influenced during events ? lets say i have made an 'blind' weapon spec and used nullment of mp for an turn for it, would this vision= clash with it or not ?

It could be good for scouting to become more serious in this game rather than having to use cavalry for it.

well in 1.13.x, it's already possible to alter vision in effectwml, so, it can be an interesting concept

[kurt751]

If you're aiming for more realism, the orc shouldn't be able to see anything on hexes behind the mountain (not just a straight line behind the mountain but a cone shape). You'll end up with an orc that can go over the mountain onto the hexes he can't see.

So?

Nothing prevents you from moving by smaller steps (instead of spending all your movement allowance in one single movement).
Just move cautiously on potentially dangerous terrain: The AI would need to get taught that, humans i think will figure it out all on their own.

There are likely a bunch of similar problems that would also pop up.

Like?
(Note this isn't me being snide, this is a honest question.)

Currently we have vision=movement by default and it's very simple to grasp.

Vision=vision is just as simple to grasp I think.

I mean Resistance doesn't use the movement value either (though it could), and nobody finds that confusing.

The few strange issues (such as not seeing across deep water) are, in my opinion, not big enough a deal to warrant the change in how vision works.

And if we didn't call it "change"? If we called it "streamlining"?...

[kurt751]

well, it can be used by UMC creators, maybe even creating an era with tweaked vision/vision cost, but that's to those willing to do that, the name can maybe be 'Realistic Vision Era'

It's a little pointless, isn't it?

I know it's an open source project and anybody can fork it and make his own version, but that's counterproductive.

[kurt751]

Half the work? Not at all; it's basically done. All you would need to do is make a macro for the vision costs you want, and paste it into the dozen movetypes we have. That's it.

No, that not all; Because the point isn't just to fix the chasm/deep water myopia. If we do this, we should use that new tool to add new, cool features; Blindness of course, and conditions affecting vision (humans don't see much at night, but undead might be half-blind in bright daylight), and all that.

You could wrap that in an era like ForestDragon said and let people try it out.

Yes, for fixing the default vision ranges. But I don't think it's very useful: I'm pretty sure most won't even notice any difference, for I don't suggest to change the existing ranges, I just want to get rid of the connection between movement and vision range. So, unless you're in some very difficult terrain, there will be almost no difference. But I might try it (when I've finished making my campaign, so please don't hold your breaths!).

What would actually be interesting to implement is what I mentioned above: Using vision to enhance gameplay.

[kurt751]

well in 1.13.x, it's already possible to alter vision in effectwml, so, it can be an interesting concept

Couldn't you change it in 1.12 using [modify_unit]?

[Caladbolg]

Nothing prevents you from moving by smaller steps (instead of spending all your movement allowance in one single movement).

True, but given how important vision is, everyone would likely move in smaller steps most of the time. Which means at least ~4 clicks to move each unit. And with each click, discovering new units in previously unseen areas and having to readjust your strategy accordingly. It seems to be a rather big change in the game mechanics and the gain is...? No fog on deep water?

And what if someone wants (for whatever reason) units to see behind the mountain? They'd have to work around the new system (just like you would currently need to work around having fog on deep water if you want units to see over it). In both the current system and the proposed one there will be situations where you want things to work differently. Thus, nothing is gained by introducing the new system.

Like?

Do units see over mountains? Do they see over forests? What about caves? With each terrain type you can argue about whether units should see or not and how far. Also keep in mind that HAPMA. A single hex might (depending on the context) represent anything from a small field to a huge plain. It makes sense to see over even 10 or 20 hexes of small fields but it doesn't make much sense to see over >4 hexes of huge plains. How will you account for that (if you want realism)?

Also note that most maps are not all plains and you mostly start off with your army cluttered in one place. That means that under the new no-vision-over-mountains-and-forests system, your view will be just a few hexes around your main camp.

Vision=vision is just as simple to grasp I think.

It's adding another stat to keep track of, complicating the game. Not that that's neccesarily bad, but I don't see a good reason to do it.

Anyways, as beetlenaut said, people will try it out and those kinds of ideas are really nice to have for UMCs. I just don't see it going into mainline. What you're proposing is not like tweaking the bat's HP by 2, it's fundamentally changing the gameplay considering that the amount of information you gain from looking at the map will be a lot different.

[kurt751]

True, but given how important vision is, everyone would likely move in smaller steps most of the time. Which means at least ~4 clicks to move each unit. And with each click, discovering new units in previously unseen areas and having to readjust your strategy accordingly. It seems to be a rather big change in the game mechanics and the gain is...? No fog on deep water?

That, and also several vision-related perks some people (and myself) have mentioned further up (and I'm not going to repeat, I already sound like a broken record).

I agree it's not some crucial, vital change, fixing things that are hopelessly broken (but that kind of problems don't exist anymore AFAIK). It's just about making the game better, more interesting.
IMHO, YMMV and all that. That's why I mentioned long discussions to find a general consensus. I knew many people would be opposed to the idea of changing things, and I don't blame them, it's natural.

In both the current system and the proposed one there will be situations where you want things to work differently. Thus, nothing is gained by introducing the new system.

True. The question is, what is likely to suit the majority, and right now there isn't one. I say yes, you say no, both our opinions have the same value. If we (Wesnoth users) manage to establish that most people prefer solution x over solution y, then we're pretty sure to improve the game (as opposed to just get our personal wishes granted).
That's one reason I said it's not that simple. I knew my idea would meet some opposition, for while it seems obvious to me, my "obvious" isn't the "obvious" of everybody. As I said, the technical problem is usually the easiest to solve.

Do units see over mountains? Do they see over forests? What about caves? With each terrain type you can argue about whether units should see or not and how far.

First of all thank you for taking this debate seriously and not just dismissing stuff.
I (me) think the default should just be the things people would expect:
You see some distance over mountains, but not far. Ideally vision should be dependent on altitude, but that's a can of worms I'd rather not open.
Forests? I would limit the vision range inside forests (except maybe for forest creatures, including elves). I mean, forests are usually full of trees...
Caves? No reason your vision should be limited, except because of darkness, which is a new notion I'd love to introduce. A dark cave might limit sight of humans to a few hexes, but other creatures might see perfectly in the dark. Uh-oh, new. But maybe better?
Yes, with all terrain types we would need to establish a consensus of how far one sees. But if we stick to logic, it should only be a haggle for a couple hexes more or less, and content creators can always override the default settings if they think they don't suit them.

Also keep in mind that HAPMA.

No. I won't, because that's part of the game abstraction, like villages only able to accommodate a single unit, or even the way magic works. We all agree on that when we start playing, and we adapt easily when some scenario changes that. Even in the official campaigns, sometimes a "village" icon just represents a single dwelling, and nobody goes into shock because of that.

Also note that most maps are not all plains and you mostly start off with your army cluttered in one place. That means that under the new no-vision-over-mountains-and-forests system, your view will be just a few hexes around your main camp.

And the problem is?

Not that that's neccesarily bad, but I don't see a good reason to do it.

Making the game more challenging, introducing new possibilities.
I think. But as I said several times, it's not my decision to make. My power over that game is relative to the money I paid to play it.

those kinds of ideas are really nice to have for UMCs. I just don't see it going into mainline.

It's too big a change for UMCs. If for instance I implemented this into my campaign, people would be lost, wondering why things don't work like they are used to. More so since it's a subtle change, people would take a while to pinpoint what is different.
As for going "mainline", I'm sorry, I'm too new here to know what it takes to change the official game. I'm just suggesting something I think is a good idea (you might have guessed by now). Adoption by the power that be is out of my hands. *shrug*

I've suggested what I consider to be an improvement, I think it's the community which should decide if this is a good or bad idea to start with. A poll might be in order, but then again this forum seems pretty quiet, so I don't think it would be conclusive.

[Tad_Carlucci]

The concept of vision sounds good. Be careful not to over-complicate it.

I would suggest the mechanics, if they don't already, operate the same as movement. Use the same terrain adjustment types and offer abilities and effects similar to those which movement has quick->far-sighted slowed->near-sighted, etc. The UMC are them free to override, revise and extend as they desire.

That part is easy, given support in the C++ and Lua.

The part which needs to be worked out, as I see it, is how to visually cue the player. For example, when clicking on a unit, the player plainly sees the movement limits; how do you show the vision limits? How does this interact with fog and shroud? And the user will need "where can they see now?" and "if they move the max, where would they see to?" screen overlays like they have with movement.

To me, it's far more important to worry about how the player would perceive it, and use it. They're the important factor. It's all a moot question if the players don't see the value, or don't want it because it's hard to understand or use.

[kurt751]

The concept of vision sounds good. Be careful not to over-complicate it.

No danger - I think we're still far from any possibility to over-complicate it...

The part which needs to be worked out

...is if anybody except us two wants this.
Else we're just daydreaming (in plain english, "wasting our time").

when clicking on a unit, the player plainly sees the movement limits; how do you show the vision limits?

Easy: Unselect the unit, and you'll see them. As it works now.

How does this interact with fog and shroud?

Why, the same way it does right now - Vision range removes shroud and fog.
You would just get fog/shroud cleared at different distances than now. (Exact distances to be determined.)

To me, it's far more important to worry about how the player would perceive it, and use it.

The player would play just like he does now: The only difference is that in some cases the vision distance would be bigger or shorter, that's all. It's not a revolution, it's just a modification. It's like for instance making "quick" units have two additional movement points instead of just one: The player wouldn't need to worry about it, it would just happen.

[beetlenaut]

I'm sorry, I'm too new here to know what it takes to change the official game.

Then I'll explain: Interface changes are made by developers, balance suggestions are made by top players, and new units and maps are made by talented UMC authors. The core mechanics are not messed with at all. Wesnoth never changes because of a poll, or a community discussion, or because the majority of users want it to. Also, this game has been around for about 13 years and has a stable set of rules, so that's why your idea of a rule change is getting a lot of resistance. It's not because people are being close-minded or stubborn as you seem to be implying. The only chance you have of seeing this idea used anywhere is to make an era or campaign that uses it, as several people have tried to explain. Of course you would have to explain the difference, but that's easy: Start UtBS to see how to do it. There have been forks and modifications of Wesnoth that were/are popular, and they all came out of projects like that. That's why it's missing the point to say something like, "Well, I'm definitely not going to make something that uses my idea, but I'm happy to discuss it more!"

[kurt751]

The core mechanics are not messed with at all.

Fine with me, so let's close this useless debate.

It's not because people are being close-minded or stubborn as you seem to be implying.

I didn't!
I said I know people hate change, but it has nothing to do with close-mindedness or stubbornness, it's just human nature (I hate it too).

The only chance you have of seeing this idea used anywhere is to make an era or campaign that uses it, as several people have tried to explain.

I got that (I'm dense, but not black hole grade... ); The problem is, I'm not really interested in defending/showcasing that idea. I thought it would improve the game, but if you (general "you") think it won't, or if it's against the rules, I'm perfectly happy to forget everything altogether about it and never ever mentioning it again. Just tell me so (well, you just did).

The thing to remember is that I'm just a random user. It's summer, I have lots of time on my hands, and I found that game I liked, so I started to get involved, playing, learning, making stuff. If tomorrow I decide this game isn't doing it for me, I've got other games waiting.
My point is, Wesnoth is important to me only as long as it amuses me. As soon as it stops doing so, I'm gone, like everybody else.

(And since this seems to be "misunderstanding evening" - this isn't a threat even if it might sound like one. I'm nothing, just a single unit in the BfW download statistics.)

UtBS

What is "UtBS"?

That's why it's missing the point to say something like, "Well, I'm definitely not going to make something that uses my idea, but I'm happy to discuss it more!"

I'm throwing ideas around. No crime in this, is there?
My ideas come cheap; You (general "you") can keep them or discard them, I don't mind. It's not like I would get paid for them...
(Having ideas is what I make my living with, I can't help it... )

[beetlenaut]

UtBS = Under the Burning Suns (mainline campaign)