From The Battle for Wesnoth Wiki
Revision as of 17:51, 12 February 2006 by Soliton (talk | contribs) (See Also)

Since we often have many of the same ideas posted again and again, we've decided to gather a list of commonly repeated ideas which were rejected by the developers. This is not to say that people are forbidden from reposting any ideas on this page, if they feel they can look at in a new light, or have anything to add, but by the same token, people posting previously mentioned ideas should note that people may not want to rediscuss old topics. (Some topics are against the WesnothPhilosophy and so are marked on this page)

If you have a new entry for the list, edit the page, but first make sure it deserves to be on the list.

IMPORTANT: More importantly than not reproposing an idea, you should make sure that it does not violate a Wesnoth Acronym:

WINR: Wesnoth Is Not Realistic. If you want a realistic game, search the Internet for "wargame". Wesnoth is not a wargame.

WIN: Wesnoth Is Not (based on any other game*). For example, multi-hex ranged attacks (see below) are in most other strategy games, but they are not in Wesnoth.

KISS: Keep it Simple, Stupid: Keep things easy to program, or you will have to program them yourself...

  • actually it is based on the game Master of Monsters, but it is different from MoM in several aspects (such as MHRA)

Other relevant acronyms:

HAPMA: Hexes Are Possibly Miles Across: However, WINR. See

RIPLIB: Reduction In Power Leveling Is Bad: when a unit advances, it should have at least one advancement which is better in all aspects* than the original.

TWP: The Wesnoth Philosopy: WesnothPhilosophy

BWH: Been suggested before. We think it's a good idea. Hope to add it eventually.

  • other than upkeep and experience to the enemy, which are determined by level directly.

There should be options which affect gameplay.

Background: when an idea is controversial, it is often reproposed as an option so that people who don't like it will not have to use it.

Result: Since most people use default settings, even a small number of options is difficult to maintain. Each new feature must be tested for every possible combination of options to prevent bugs; the difficulty of this increases exponentially with the number of options. Also, many developers feel that gameplay options will reduce a common playtesting base, since everyone will use different options.

New Races/Factions.

Background: many people have proposed new races or factions, for various reasons, sometimes with art, usually without.

Result: Only one race made by a user has been added, and that was over a year ago. The developers mostly feel the game has enough races as it is, although a few more might be accepted, if they fit the feel of the game; the more outlandish the race or faction idea, the less likely it will be accepted. A barbarian or easterling variation on humans, for example, is more likely to get in than dark elves, which are more likely to get in than insect warriors.

Balancing suggestions

Background: many people who play the game think it is unbalanced.

Result: Although the default era is not completely balanced, much work already goes into balancing it. It is felt that people who don't play the game very often, or against bad players or the AI, are unlikely to get a good idea of how to balance Wesnoth.

There should be a 'deterministic', 'non random' mode which one can play in.

Background: some people, apparently frustrated at losing their units in random battles, feel that there should be a non-random way of playing the game.

Result: the developers feel that randomness is a large part of the game, and that taking the randomness out of the game would be somewhat akin to taking the randomness out of most card games. Some patches (FIXME: insert link) are available on the forums that will produce a non-random version of wesnoth, although use of them will make you unable to play multiplayer, and the patches are not supported by the wesnoth development team. (Don't post again, unless it is about a patch.)

There should be campaigns with more than one human side.

Background: people want to play campaigns with their friends; i.e. "multiplayer campaigns". This is currently not possible.

Result: It will probably be added eventually, but is not currently due to technical difficulty.

Most units should have more than 3 levels of advancement.

Background: lots of people think that the typical 3 levels of advancement for each unit is insufficient, and that most units should have 4, 5, or even more levels of advancement.

Result: The developers feel that 3 levels is enough. Avoiding the creation of 'super units' is high on the developer's priority list, and even if there were level 4+ units, the most powerful units wouldn't be more powerful than the current level 3 units. This would also drain art resources, as well as reduce the contrast between units -- too many units would seem like boring repetitions of other units.

It is thought that a better, more interesting way to do things would be to have more alternate paths of advancement within the 3 levels rather than have 4+ levels of advancement.

More Units.

Background: some people think the game should have more units (and often more advancement paths).

Result: Units are being worked on, although the developers do try to somewhat carefully vet units that are added to the game. The game has well over one hundred types of units, so it cannot be considered to only have a few units. People are welcome to submit ideas for specific types of new units. Ideas that have graphics are more likely to succeed.

Better Graphics.

Background: some people think the game should have better graphics.

Result: The game already has good graphics, especially considering it's a Free game. The developers feel that improving the games graphics even further, where possible, would be great. However the developers live in the real world and have limited resources. If resources to produce better graphics are acquired they will likely be used to produce such graphics.

Castles should be more difficult to attack.

Background: this discussion has taken place on numerous occasions, with references to the difficulty to besiege a castle in the real world, how the game would be more interesting if castles were harder to attack, and so on and so forth. Many variations on the way to accomplish this have been discussed

Result: the developers feel that the game is not about attacking castles, it's about RPG-party style skirmishes. 'Castles' in the game are a somewhat abstract notion, and one shouldn't dwell heavily on how 'realistic' it is if a castle is only moderately more defensible than other terrain.

Units that occupy multiple tiles.

Background: this idea involves large monster-type units that can occupy multiple tiles in the game.

Result: the developers feel that while such units might be appropriate for games where battles take place on a smaller scale, in a game where an entire village is a single tile, it is not appropriate. Also, it would substantially complicate the game mechanics for little real benefit. Images that can extend into surrounding tiles are being considered. (Don't propose again)

Stacking Units.

Background: suggestions to be able to place multiple units in a single hex

Result: The developers feel that this would make the game more complicated, and distort the game rules alot from what they are currently. (Don't propose again)

Magic spell system with mana/magic points etc.

Background: there have been numerous proposals of magic spells, either global or per unit, involving magic points/mana, etc

Result: the developers direct attention to the Wesnoth Philosophy page ( WesnothPhilosophy ) which outlines why Wesnoth's system for magic is different. We are fairly happy with our magic system. (Don't propose again)

Sides should be able to build buildings.

Background: it should be possible to build various buildings on the battlefield

Result: the developers feel that the game is not about building things (other than your army). Furthermore, it is felt that although every other strategy game seems to be moving toward having a 'building' component, there is no reason why we should follow.

There should be different/more types of resources and types of buildings that provide them.

Background: people suggest different types of resources (e.g. lumber) and buildings that provide them (e.g. lumbermill, gold mine which gives lots of gold, towns, healing fountains)

Result: the idea of Wesnoth is not to be about resources. The resource system is intentionally as simple as possible. Some special buildings like healing fountains could be placed by a scenario designer at their discretion.

There should be (more) special items for units to get that make them more powerful.

Background: suggestions of various kind of special items (powerful bows, swords, etc) that make units more powerful. Various methods of acquisition have been suggested, including forging them at one's keep, finding them, or buying them at a shop. A related idea is adding many more items of the same manner that exist currently.

Result: although the Wesnoth engine supports a reasonably sophisticated system for items that make units more powerful, the developers feel that keeping these items few and far between is better than creating a 'collect the power-ups' game. Any user made campaign could have as many items as it wants, but most have less than one per scenario.

Ranged weapons should be able to reach across multiple hexes.

Background: suggestions that units such as archers (or perhaps catapults) should be able to fire their weapons across multiple tiles

Result: although the game engine originally supported this, the developers did not feel it enhanced the game, and, since the feature caused many bugs, it was removed. Even when it was supported, it was rarely used, since commonly using it would fundamentally change the nature of combat in the game. Among other changes, it would be very difficult to protect units from dying. (Don't propose again)

There should be more traits.

Background: many different traits have been suggested, with some gaining a fairly large amount of support.

Result: Most traits that have been suggested sound contrived, overly-powerful, lacking in variety, confusing, or awkward. The current traits are all fairly simple, and the developers agree that only simple traits should be added. Suggestions for new traits are welcome, but it is noted that unless they are very simple, they are unlikely to make it. Also, they must not be overpowered; loyal was the first trait added that did not exist originally, and it was removed from general use, now being only available for campaign heroes, because it was too good.

Healing should give experience.

Background: it is felt that levelling-up some units with healing abilities is too difficult, and they should get experience through healing.

Result: it is felt that allowing units to gain experience without risk would make levelling-up of such units inevitable. Further, one of the motivating examples of this is so that units such as shaman can have a hope to level up in multiplayer. It is pointed out that if the experience gains were high enough to allow shaman to level up in a single multiplayer game, then it would be trivial to gain the best type of healing unit in a campaign very quickly. Also, playing with low experience settings will allow you to possibly get a few advanced shamans.

There should be ships in the game.

Background: there have been various proposals on ships/boats being present in the game as units, that perhaps can carry other units.

Result: the developers feel that the RPG-party skirmish feel of the game does not allow for ships being a regular unit in the game, as they would be too large a scale for the individual character feel of the game. Ships and boats can and are scripted parts of various campaigns, but are not planned as a regular unit.

There should be transportation units in the game that can carry other units.

Background: there have been various propsals of units that can carry other units

Result: the developers feel that this would unnecessarily complicate the game, and its interface, and has little point other than to circumvent a unit's slow movement or poor movement on particular terrain.

There should be a fear/morale system in the game.

Background: there have been a number of different suggestions for a fear/morale system in the game. The implementation suggestions have been varied, but generally include the concept of units becoming 'afraid' based on various heuristics that calculate how much danger they're in. 'Afraid' units would be made to make certain movements, or have restrictions on what movements they can make

Result: After lengthy discussion, it has been decided that this would over-complicate the game, and frustrate players. It is felt that this kind of idea is more suited to a 'wargame' than a simplified fantasy-strategy game which aims for simplicity and fun. (Don't propose again)

Movement or combat calculations should be based on a combination of the two hexes across which they occur.

Background: some people have suggested that, for instance, archers firing down from mountains onto a unit on grassland below should gain an advantage from firing from a higher terrain than a grassland. Likewise, some people have suggested the concept of a 'canyon' terrain that is difficult to move into or out of, but moving from one canyon hex to another is easy. (Note that the idea of canyon terrain has not been rejected, but the idea of cliffs on the edges that operate like this has).

Result: the developers feel that the current system of each hex operating as a seperate entity is simple, elegant, and works nicely. (Don't propose again)

Units levelling up should not get full healing.

Background: many people have suggested different formulae for allowing partial healing or no healing at all when a unit levels up.

Result: many developers agree with this, however many developers and users also disagree. I (David) prefer it the way it is.

Transferring gold between allies in multiplayer.

Background: some people have suggested that allies should be able to transfer gold to each other in multiplayer

Result: The developers feel that this would reduce the semantics of a team game to little more than players sharing control of a single side. Part of the strategy of a team game is to manage your gold resources and the position of your leaders. One player might have alot of gold, but can't use it, because their leader doesn't have access to a keep. This is simply part of the strategy to decide if it's worth giving up access to your castle for some time while you perhaps migrate your leader or use him to attack enemies. Allowing transfers of gold would disintegrate most of this strategy.

Basing a campaign or scenario on copyrighted material

Background: Many have suggested a campaign based on Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, or other copyrighted work

Result: While this sounds at first like it could be fun, this is also generally illegal, and we don't want to expose the project to attack because you couldn't be creative enough to come up with something original. We don't want anything of this nature hosted on the campaign server, forum, or wiki. We also would like to keep the forum free from discussion about how you plan on doing this. It may be possible to skirt legal issues through careful research and compliance with the laws involved, but this never happens in practice.

See Also