headers
Fabian Mueller | 2 Apr 2010 03:57
Picon
Picon

My attempt on the luck hatters

I have just finished a small patch that introduces a new slider in the 
game creation dialogue
in MP.

The slider can be set from 1 to 3 and gives the times the unit's 
statistics are multiplied with.
Multiplied are the HP, the attack numbers and all healing/poison.

The double or even more the triple statistic mode will give a much more 
predictable attack result.
Beside the fact that slow/poison will occur more often the original 
balance of the game should be almost transferred.

I would like to commit the patch into trunk to give people some 
playground to test it out.
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Guillaume Melquiond | 2 Apr 2010 09:40
Picon

Re: My attempt on the luck hatters

On 2010/4/2, Fabian Mueller wrote:
> I have just finished a small patch that introduces a new slider in the
> game creation dialogue
> in MP.
>
> The slider can be set from 1 to 3 and gives the times the unit's
> statistics are multiplied with.
> Multiplied are the HP, the attack numbers and all healing/poison.

I'm not sure this is the way to go, as it would cause all the
balancing effort to be lost. I think it would be better for units to
always do damage, but with weak hits and critical hits. Only critical
hits would apply abilities and their chance to hit would be the
current one. The slider would then decide how damage is split between
weak and critical hits. (Note that setting critical hits at 100%
damage gives precisely the current system.) That way, the combat
system would still have the exact same statistical properties (average
damage, chance to apply abilities, etc) than the current one, hence
ensuring that unit balance is preserved.

Best regards,

Guillaume
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Mark de Wever | 2 Apr 2010 12:37
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Scrollwheel behaviour

Hi,

Some people think the scrollwheel behaviour in gui2 should change, since
I don't use the scrollwheel I'm not sure what the best behaviour is.

The current behaviour is that the scrollwheel follows the keyboard
focus; this means you need to select the widget and then you can use the
scrollwheel and regardless where the mouse is it scrolls that widget.

The behaviour wanted by some is that the scrollwheel follows the mouse
focus; this means it scrolls the widget hovers above and if not above a
widget or a non-scrollable widget nothing gets scrolled.

Obviously I won't change the 1.8.x behaviour, but if more people think
following the mouse focus is the right thing™ I'll change the behaviour
for 1.9.

--

-- 
Regards,
Mark de Wever aka Mordante/SkeletonCrew

_______________________________________________
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
Wesnoth-dev <at> gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Fabian Mueller | 2 Apr 2010 13:00
Picon
Picon

Re: My attempt on the luck hatters

On 04/02/2010 09:40 AM, Guillaume Melquiond wrote:
> On 2010/4/2, Fabian Mueller wrote:
>    
>> I have just finished a small patch that introduces a new slider in the
>> game creation dialogue
>> in MP.
>>
>> The slider can be set from 1 to 3 and gives the times the unit's
>> statistics are multiplied with.
>> Multiplied are the HP, the attack numbers and all healing/poison.
>>      
> I'm not sure this is the way to go, as it would cause all the
> balancing effort to be lost.
Are you talking about slow/poison only or is really "all the balancing 
effort" lost
for some reason I don't see?
>   I think it would be better for units to
> always do damage, but with weak hits and critical hits. Only critical
> hits would apply abilities and their chance to hit would be the
> current one.
The critical hits that can apply abilities (you are still talking about 
slow and poison, right?)
is a good idea to balance the abilities, but giving the damage always is 
much to radical for
my taste.
I like Wesnoth's luck system and don't want to remove it completely.

Another way to balance poison and slow would be to reduce their affect 
accordingly to their
increased occurrence.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Ilor | 2 Apr 2010 13:33
Picon

Re: Scrollwheel behaviour

On 2 April 2010 12:37, Mark de Wever <koraq <at> xs4all.nl> wrote:>
> Obviously I won't change the 1.8.x behaviour, but if more people think
> following the mouse focus is the right thing™ I'll change the behaviour
> for 1.9.
I recall that on some old Windows machines the default behaviour was
following keyboard focus, but installing the manufacturer's mouse
drivers (a4tech) made it scroll whatever was under the cursor, without
changing the keyboard focus. I think the latter is more convenient, so
count me in.

Also, why not change the 1.8 behaviour if it's essentially an interface patch?

--
Ilor
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mark de Wever | 2 Apr 2010 13:42
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Scrollwheel behaviour

On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 01:33:40PM +0200, Ilor wrote:
> On 2 April 2010 12:37, Mark de Wever <koraq <at> xs4all.nl> wrote:>
> 
> Also, why not change the 1.8 behaviour if it's essentially an interface patch?

Since it's no bug fix and I prefer only to back-port bugs or huge
problems. Since nobody ever filed an FR to change it, I don't see it as
an high priority item.

--

-- 
Regards,
Mark de Wever aka Mordante/SkeletonCrew
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Guillaume Melquiond | 2 Apr 2010 13:39
Picon

Re: My attempt on the luck hatters

On 2010/4/2, Fabian Mueller wrote:

>> I'm not sure this is the way to go, as it would cause all the
>> balancing effort to be lost.
> Are you talking about slow/poison only or is really "all the balancing
> effort" lost for some reason I don't see?

Yes, slow and poison. (And all the campaign abilities, since I don't
see a reason to restrict this mode to multiplayer only.)

>>   I think it would be better for units to
>> always do damage, but with weak hits and critical hits. Only critical
>> hits would apply abilities and their chance to hit would be the
>> current one.
> The critical hits that can apply abilities (you are still talking about
> slow and poison, right?)
> is a good idea to balance the abilities, but giving the damage always is
> much to radical for
> my taste.
> I like Wesnoth's luck system and don't want to remove it completely.

Neither do I. In case it wasn't obvious: weak hits deal reduced damage.

For instance, a 33-67% split between weak and critical hits for a unit
with 70% chance to deal 10 damage currently would cause the unit to
deal 4 damage when missing and 8 damage when hitting. (I'm not saying
the 33-67% split is an interesting split, it's just to give an
example.)

The 0-100% split is the current system. The 50-50% split is a system
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Fabian Mueller | 2 Apr 2010 13:58
Picon
Picon

Re: My attempt on the luck hatters

On 04/02/2010 01:39 PM, Guillaume Melquiond wrote:
> On 2010/4/2, Fabian Mueller wrote:
>
>    
>>> I'm not sure this is the way to go, as it would cause all the
>>> balancing effort to be lost.
>>>        
>> Are you talking about slow/poison only or is really "all the balancing
>> effort" lost for some reason I don't see?
>>      
> Yes, slow and poison. (And all the campaign abilities, since I don't
> see a reason to restrict this mode to multiplayer only.)
>
>    
Every ability that influences HP or amount of strikes can be multiplied 
as well,
I see no problems there.
>>>    I think it would be better for units to
>>> always do damage, but with weak hits and critical hits. Only critical
>>> hits would apply abilities and their chance to hit would be the
>>> current one.
>>>        
>> The critical hits that can apply abilities (you are still talking about
>> slow and poison, right?)
>> is a good idea to balance the abilities, but giving the damage always is
>> much to radical for
>> my taste.
>> I like Wesnoth's luck system and don't want to remove it completely.
>>      
> Neither do I. In case it wasn't obvious: weak hits deal reduced damage.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Timotei Dolean | 2 Apr 2010 15:39
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Eclipse UMC Plugin and _main.cfg

Hello everybody!
I'm "timotei21" and I am a student who wants to participate in gsoc. So, I've decided to take on the project "Eclipse U(ser) M(ade) C(ontent). The plugin will create with some wizards, the campaigns/scenarios/eras/etc. After that, you can edit the files in the custom editor.
Now, there is an issue. The editor isn't just for single-file editing, it's for editing an entire project. So the problem that showed up is how can I import the existing campaigns/scenarios/etc in the eclipse workspace, so we can edit them and still have the features like autocompletition, etc.

The talk is here: http://wesnoth.debian.net/%23wesnoth-dev-2010-04-02.log . The first part is between 13.50 to 14.18  and the second part between 14.33 to 15.16.

So, what should I use in achieving the "importing" task, and also not to forget, to be able to edit manually the files.

Regards,
Timotei Dolean aka "timotei21"
_______________________________________________
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
Wesnoth-dev <at> gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Fabian Mueller | 2 Apr 2010 15:59
Picon
Picon

Re: Eclipse UMC Plugin and _main.cfg

On 04/02/2010 03:39 PM, Timotei Dolean wrote:
Hello everybody!
I'm "timotei21" and I am a student who wants to participate in gsoc. So, I've decided to take on the project "Eclipse U(ser) M(ade) C(ontent). The plugin will create with some wizards, the campaigns/scenarios/eras/etc. After that, you can edit the files in the custom editor.
Now, there is an issue. The editor isn't just for single-file editing, it's for editing an entire project. So the problem that showed up is how can I import the existing campaigns/scenarios/etc in the eclipse workspace, so we can edit them and still have the features like autocompletition, etc.

The talk is here: http://wesnoth.debian.net/%23wesnoth-dev-2010-04-02.log . The first part is between 13.50 to 14.18  and the second part between 14.33 to 15.16.

So, what should I use in achieving the "importing" task, and also not to forget, to be able to edit manually the files.

Regards,
Timotei Dolean aka "timotei21"
_______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev <at> gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
To precise the core point of the discussion:

We can go two different ways with the plugin design:

1. The plugin itself knows about what it can expect from a single file that is part of the current project.
    That could be handled by a stricter syntax of the _main.cfg file for example.
    For example would a file in scenarios/ be treated as a single scenario what would give many advantages
    regarding the plugin functionality.

2. The plugin does not expect a predefined file structure and respects the macros/includes.
    It only knows that a file that is called .cfg will include WML code.
    If the wml parsing fails for some reason and the plugin does not know about the WML that is included
    in the file it will display everything that is known from python tools or the engine itself.
  
I would like to stick to the second option.
Surely the first will create a better eclipse plugin in a shorter time.
But the second one will show the need where the output of our python library tools or the engine itself
can be improved.

That way the project will give a benefit for every wesnoth coder, no matter if he uses emacs, vi or the
eclipse plugin.
_______________________________________________
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
Wesnoth-dev <at> gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane