[SP Campaigns] Elvish Shyde, Enchantress, and Sylph are too deadly.

[Dalas121]

Describe the desired feature

In 1.18, the Elvish Shyde, Enchantress, and Sylph had their damage increased by 75%/45%/60%, respectively. This is comparable to increasing the Royal Guard's damage from 11x4 to 17x4. Combined with the unit lines' already impressive stats, this raises several issues:

• these units are now too strong in comparison to other mage units. The Sylph now dramatically outclasses the Great Mage, and the Enchantress is generally superior to both the Arch Mage and Lich. Sure, these are different factions, but power levels should be at least in the same ballpark.

• these units compete with the also-buffed Elvish Sharpshooter for the "mage" role. The Enchantress's lower damage is more than compensated by its higher accuracy, slow attacks, magical retaliation, and L4 advancement.

• campaigns and add-ons balanced around earlier versions of the Shyde/Enchantress/Sylph are significantly less balanced. +75% damage is a massive buff.

I suggest reverting the Shyde to her old stats (which were already very powerful), and either reverting the Enchantress/Sylph too, or rebalancing the Enchantress/Sylph as lower-damage mixed support units while leaving the Elvish Sharpshooter as the Elves' mage-equivalent.

[Dalas121]

ATM Sylph costs 42xp more than the Great Mage (and the first 32xp on the shaman are hard to get), and they're different races, so I think it's fine for the Sylph to be a little stronger overall. But I'd be against massively turning up the XP requirements as a way to nerf the Enchantress/Sylph, unless we're creating a new level 3 elf and pushing the Enchantress/Sylph up to level 4/5 (and that seems unlikely).

Note that unlike the other thread, I don't think there was an issue with the process of making these changes. IIRC they sat in that forum thread for several months for feedback, though admittedly they were kinda buried on the 3rd page. I just don't think they're good changes and would prefer them altered.

[nemaara]

I'm having trouble agreeing that old shyde had superb stats, as 8-3 is barely stronger than the lvl 1 mage in neutral tod.

I did mention to hej before that the new stats might be a bit high but I really think the higher exp for elves should stay and he suggested the payoff is only worth it if the stats are higher. What if we went with a middle ground where we lower the required exp a bit and also the stats?

[loonycyborg]

Maybe also give some interesting secondary attack to the magi to counterbalance slow from elf line?

[nemaara]

Personally I think a buff over the old stats is actually good esp for shaman lines, just how much of a buff is the question. I agree they are strong but as I'm aiming to slightly restrict shaman usage and exp you can get in future campaign designs, they may not actually be that strong. Plus I most likely will not really let you get sylphs much.

[stevecotton]

If we're talking about UMC SP campaigns, a possible answer would be an add-on with a custom era that has the old balance, which any campaign add-on could use instead of the default era. I'm not taking a side in the balance debate, just pointing out a way to avoid changes when porting UMC.

[Dalas121]

I'm having trouble agreeing that old shyde had superb stats, as 8-3 is barely stronger than the lvl 1 mage in neutral tod.

I think you're looking at the Shyde as artillery, while I feel it's more of a mobile utility/support. If we compare the old Shyde to the MoL, the MoL has +50% damage and Illuminates. The Shyde has flight, +1 move, more defense/durability, and a slow. I'd consider those fairly balanced - the MoL is a damage-dealing frontline healer, while the old Shyde was an agile, resilient, slowing healer. Also note that I consider the MoL one of the best level-3s in the game.

Or if we compare the old Shyde to the Saurian Seer, the old Shyde has flight, more defense/durability, and a slow. The Seer has +1 move and +1 ranged damage. I'd consider the Seer meaningfully inferior to the old Shyde, not to mention the new one.

I also feel that mobile utility/support is a good role for the Shyde (and even Enchantress/Sylph) to fill. The level-1 Shaman is utility/support, and we already have the Sharpshooter to fill the role of artillery. And it helps show how elf magic is different than human magic.

I can cut stats but that with come with xp cut. Both were problemactic decision was made, high xp stays.

I don't think XP is a great balancing mechanic for high-level units. A unit's level is supposed to tell the player information about that unit's power - 2 units of the same level and a similar role should be similar in power, even if XP costs are different.

In addition, while many campaigns are being shortened, we shouldn't rely on that when balancing units. XP might make the difference between getting a Shyde in scenario 3 vs 4, but that doesn't really matter if you're playing an older (or UMC) campaign with 20 scenarios.

Kinda for fun I will also mention that we can for some time now set units recall_cost in stats. :sip:

Variable recall costs - I'm not confident this would be a improvement over 20g, and I feel it's also a far more extreme change than damage/hp/xp. With that in mind, I don't feel it's something we should move towards.

[loonycyborg]

Slow is still the most powerful debuff accessible to playable units I think.

[nemaara]

I cannot agree that the shyde had more durability than MoL, at best they were similar. I think pierce is also generally worse of an attack type than arcane. So I think regardless of her use as utility/healer, 8-3 is too low. But 14-3 might be too high too (need hej to comment on pierce dmg type vs others)

Like I said I'd like to keep the exp similar to before but the damage is probably too high, so what do you think we should do? I'm actually okay with a straight nerf personally, but hej will want to lower exp then.

Regarding supporting old campaigns, yes it is important to keep them in mind but I don't think we should let them keep us from making any improvements or changes at all, or else we will be stuck in the past forever.

[Dalas121]

I cannot agree that the shyde had more durability than MoL, at best they were similar.

Some effective HP values broken down by terrain:

Terrain	Shyde	MoL	MoL vs Chaotic	MoL vs Lawful
Flat	102	78	104	59
Forest	170	94	125	71
Hill	102	94	125	71
Castle	128	118	157	89
Frozen	85	59	79	44
Shallow Water	85	59	79	44
Swamp	85	59	79	44
Cave	73	78	104	59

Vs non-fearless chaotic creatures, when it's not daytime, the MoL beats the Shyde on 5/8 of the tested terrain types (and only just barely on flat). In all other situations, vs any other enemy (except ghosts), the Shyde is more durable.

Not to mention the survivability inherent to mobility - the Shyde can pick and choose good fights, and has a better chance of escaping from a bad one.

so what do you think we should do? I'm actually okay with a straight nerf personally, but hej will want to lower exp then.

For the Shyde at least, I would support a revert to the 1.18 version, which I already considered very strong. If it needs buffs I'd support buffing the slow over the magical; I think support feels like a good role.

If we can't agree on a stats analysis, perhaps we should poll the discord (the regular one, not the definitely-biased UMC) and get player opinion on the old Shyde's power? A lot of stuff comes down to feel, and things like mobility are hard to quantify (for me also).

[CelticMinstrel]

poll the discord

Like I said earlier, decisions of this kind shouldn't be based solely on things that go on behind closed doors. If we're doing a poll, it should go on the forum where everyone can see it and it remains in posterity indefinitely. (It can of course be linked from the Discord to get people to actually vote tho.)

EDIT: Turns out I previously said it in #8741, maybe you missed that…?

[nemaara]

I thought you meant hp and resists by durability, as you also mentioned defense and agility which I took to mean chance to dodge. I agree that shyde has better overall surviving power but I meant that her hp and resists were not and still aren't really better.

I think illuminates is being underestimated in this comparison, which is part of the reason MoL feels so good imo. But hej has hard numbers on the damage types so I'd like to see his response on those.

[Dalas121]

Like I said earlier, decisions of this kind shouldn't be based solely on things that go on behind closed doors.

Absolutely, thanks for the reminder.

I thought you meant hp and resists by durability, as you also mentioned defense and agility

Ah, yes I agree their raw HP/resists aren't meaningfully different. Sorry for the confusion.

I do consider Illuminates to be really, really good, and it's a big part of the reason I consider the MoL one of the best level-3s in the game. But I also think that mobility and a slowing attack are also really really good, even if the Shyde's raw damage isn't that high.

[babaissarkar]

Personally I think a buff over the old stats is actually good esp for shaman lines, just how much of a buff is the question. I agree they are strong but as I'm aiming to slightly restrict shaman usage and exp you can get in future campaign designs, they may not actually be that strong. Plus I most likely will not really let you get sylphs much.

That's not taking into account UMC content.

Like I said I'd like to keep the exp similar to before but the damage is probably too high, so what do you think we should do? I'm actually okay with a straight nerf personally, but hej will want to lower exp then.

It's fine to lower exp if the damage is also reduced.

Another point is that nobody, especially on the mainline ever directly recruits Lvl 3 or 4 units, so their recruit costs are redundant.

I agree with @Dalas121 that Shyde is a support unit. I think the game gets more versatility this way if there are units you have to be careful to not send into the frontlines. The tutorial also mentions it, IIRC. That said, increasing the damage a bit shouldn't hurt, maybe +3 or +4? Not +6 though.

Sylph, on the other hand is a Lvl 4 and has mobility and also supposed to be an offensive unit, but again +6 seems like too much extra damage, plus that is also magical. I think +2 or +3 would be enough.

Also, sorry, I accidentally edited one of the earlier posts, but fixed it.

[babaissarkar]

I think #8741 and this one seems like duplicates of each other. Considering the discussion, we can't probably close either though.

[CelticMinstrel]

Also, sorry, I accidentally edited one of the earlier posts, but fixed it.

It's certainly helpful that we have (mostly) full edit history on GitHub!

(I think I've almost done that several times, though I don't think I ever got as far as actually submitting the edit…)

[Discontinuum]

I agree they are strong but as I'm aiming to slightly restrict shaman usage and exp you can get in future campaign designs, they may not actually be that strong. Plus I most likely will not really let you get sylphs much.

I think it makes more sense to do it in the reverse order: first a new campaign design appears with new stats and then if it's successful, the changes might go further.

[nemaara]

I think #8741 and this one seems like duplicates of each other. Considering the discussion, we can't probably close either though.

For now can we use the other issue? It covers this one as well as the other units that may need tweaking, while this one only talks about a subset of units.

[ForestDragon-wesnoth]

I think #8741 and this one seems like duplicates of each other. Considering the discussion, we can't probably close either though.

For now can we use the other issue? It covers this one as well as the other units that may need tweaking, while this one only talks about a subset of units.

As creator of #8741 I support switching to 8741

[Dalas121]

I completely disagree. This makes so many things not fun, this leads to restrictions in design space and makes the game more boring. Cost is what should indicate power level. So thats off the table.

I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with you on this one. AFAIK cost only has 2 direct impacts on standard Wesnoth gameplay - recruit cost and AI target priority. In a typical mainline campaign, both of these are fairly minor.

Level, on the other hand, is a stat we continually shove at the player. It's used for experience, it's used for upkeep, it's used for leadership. And whatever we do with Wesnoth, level is used by other games to indicate power level. It's only natural that players expect level to be used for power level in Wesnoth too.

The tutorial, for example, mentions level over 20 times; recruit cost isn't mentioned once. In the help menu, a unit's level is the second thing we show the player, right after the unit's name - cost is buried on the 5th row, 3 columns down, and we don't even bother showing it in the UI side panel. The only place we emphasize cost is when recruiting, and nobody's out here recruiting level 4 Sylphs.

Imagine if I proposed a new directly-recruitable level 4 unit that costs 5 gold and deals 10x2 damage - that might be balanceable (low cost, high upkeep, high experience feed), but it would never fit in with existing units.

Oh Im sure you already tested it but the feedback so far was really good. Thats also why I made UtBS like that, I have units that are by far stronger than what is standard and they dont break anything. Im sure that if I put Sylph there nothing would get broken AND if i changed the unit but adjust the cost also nothing will get broken thats the perfect way of stopping balance changes from mattering in cmapaigns most fo the time. So in the future I will be using it, in various variations.

I used to be in favor of variable recall cost, but after playing UtBS and WoF I'm much less sure. From my experience with these campaigns I've found that it takes a lot of the power and joy out of progression. In many cases (UtBS mostly) I was actively trying to avoid leveling my fodder units, spreading XP around as widely as possible. Since progression is an absolutely core part of Wesnoth, I would be very hesitant to change this without overwhelming support from the playerbase.

But if we do have a poll or similar that shows the overwhelming support you suggest, then we actually need to make the change, not hide it away in one or two campaigns. Yumi and I would probably need to be changing all our rework campaigns to use variable recall costs. And we should make this the official recall mechanic, instead of a case-by-case exception that needs disclaimers before every campaign.

Also note that I personally dislike the "my units are superheroes" design philosophy used in UtBS, but that's just my personal opinion so I'm not going to try and pretend it holds much weight.

pretty useless for mp anyway (and Im not going to balance units around single campaigns).

To my understanding these units appear far more often in singleplayer than multiplayer, no? Or do you mean specific single campaigns (which I agree with), not single player campaigns?

And again you can just check gold cost to see who is stronger instead of trying to prove a point. Survivability Shyde is 98, MoL is 90. Damage wise Shyde is 46, MoL is 43. This is some comparison but these values dont actually scale linearly so thats just like raw comparison.

You mean, check gold cost to see who Hejnewar thinks is stronger? I don't necessarily disagree with your cost/power numbers (including for the old Shyde), but unless the formula/process you use is universally-agreed-upon we shouldn't suggest it's objective truth.

Nope, that issue is basically just arguing about visibility of changes and attacking eachother,

I agree with this; I feel conversation in the other thread is unlikely to be productive. (as opposed to this one, where we're only somewhat unlikely to be productive 😂)

[Discontinuum]

You just really opened a pandora box here. You dont disagree buty you dont trust me or from the sound of it you are greedy for the "formula" because it has to be public otherwise it cannot be accepted (if it even exists). No matter what you just say that I do a job that cannot be trusted!

It's because your formula or whatever you use produces so outlandish results and changes, so that many people feel them wrong and disagree.

Maybe take over the balancing duties then, you will surely be better. Its not like I do a good job anyway.

I'm actually ready to do the balance. I've been doing balance for Afterlife Rated and got pretty good results. I have a lot of wesnoth friends of different playstyles to get the opinions. I would be happy to do it with Dalas as well cause I see his reasons and he does pretty good job with SP aspects

[Dalas121]

You dont disagree buty you dont trust me or from the sound of it you are greedy for the "formula" because it has to be public otherwise it cannot be accepted (if it even exists). No matter what you just say that I do a job that cannot be trusted! If you want one make one yourself. Maybe take over the balancing duties then, you will surely be better.

And here we were talking about how we're trying to have a productive conversation! Resorting to hyperbole (somehow I doubt you actually want me to take over balance) is unlikely to be helpful for either of us, or the game as a whole. If balance really isn't something you want to do I'm sure that can be talked about with Pent/Disc/whoever, but that's not my intent with any of my comments.

I don't think that "one person's balance numbers aren't guaranteed to be objective truth" should be a controversial statement, no? Mine certainly aren't objective truth.

It actually already did and provided quiet interesting change of gameplay pace so no, you are wrong and I will use that in the future for sure.

We have a popular add-on with a 10x2 damage level 4 unit? (and no powerful abilities/specials) I have a hard time seeing a unit like this being publically accepted for mainline, but if the community at large is fine with that then I'll eat my words.

If we wanted to put something like this in mainline, my opinion is that much better design would be to make it a level-1 unit with an ability that increases it's upkeep / death XP.

But they arent. Stalwart is the most noticable example. But thats like one unit. Others are close in power to the regular mainline counterparts.

I more mean the custom mechanics, rather than the raw power level. Multiple attacks per turn, ray/nova damage without retaliation, +12 healing, a bajillion AMLAs, etc. And tons of enemies + tons of XP costs. It's not my cup of tea, but that's just my preference and I don't want to pretend like I represent the community at large on this.

And if you think that makes the progression worse, just use 100% for lvl 1, 70% for lvl 2, 40% for lvl 3, and it still works, you keep close to the 20g you had per unit, but you deal with balance changes and stronger or weaker units anyway.

I think this gets us the worst of both worlds, unfortunately. You still have the increased complexity of variable recall costs with a different ratio for each campaign, but it also doesn't fix the balance issue - if we use 30% for level 4 (for example), the difference in power between a 48g Sylph and a 33g Great Mage is way more than 15g.

This also runs into issues where higher-level units are actually cheaper than lower-levels. With the numbers you gave, for example, a Duelist would cost 20g to recall but a Master-at-arms only needs 18g.

I'm also still not clear what's wrong with 20g recalls? IMO balancing units around a major change like this needs to be solving a massive issue, or else I don't feel it's worth breaking all our existing campaigns and UMC.

LoW is MP campaign, tons of single scenario survivals that are really improved by this, World Conquest, heck even AoH because leveling lvl 2 unit is not unheard of there.

Ok, that's fair.

[AnekronCZ]

I agree with Dalas on almost all his points; thought I'll mention that so it doesn't look like he's the only one with such views.

I used to be in favor of variable recall cost, but after playing UtBS and WoF I'm much less sure. From my experience with these campaigns I've found that it takes a lot of the power and joy out of progression.

This complaint is particularly close to my heart. I can totally see how variable recall costs can add to player's experience. Tbh, it's probably the only way to keep the really long campaigns interesting without resorting to recall list wipes. That being said, many people get really attached to their units, which is quite easy since in Wesnoth, almost every unit has a unique name, traits, can carry unique items and so on. Not being able to recall a unit you really enjoy using can detract from the fun quite a bit.

Are you crazy? Your results are also bad for the amount of time and tools you had (and friends it seems). Its not like Im going to even hear sorry from you for all the shit you talked about me that is not even true. And it seems Dalas also likes your opinions.

I regret that it comes to this us versus them framing again. I don't think the balance changes from 1.16 were for the worse overall. The elvish buff was imo and I'd like to see it at least partly reverted, but I don't mean that as a slight against your work and definitely not against you personally. Can we (on both sides) just keep discussing the matter at hand and refrain from attacking people and dividing into feuding groups?

Edit: grammar

[Discontinuum]

Your results are also bad for the amount of time and tools you had

Disagree, I believe my results are pretty good, at least I have clear metrics that go into a favourable direction after my Afterlife changes were introduced

you cant agrue your changes you just have to attack the person

The description of #8740, of #8741, comments https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/issues/8741#issuecomment-2051748683 , my comment https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/issues/8741#issuecomment-2051790816 , comments by Dalas here... You answered only my "public discussion" point (in exchanges with me), and I criticised the way you handle the feedback of other people, I see it as not really constructive, my opinion is such.

and then ask for something like that? Are you crazy? <...> If you didnt try so hard to attack me presonally, then honestly I would just give you a test and see how you do with your friends

To add to @AnekronCZ 's, that line really sounds as if you are the owner of this game's balance, and you alone will decide who can touch it and who cannot. I understand that you may be really heated after how this discussion was going, but this "proprietary" thinking is really unconstructive and goes against the community-spirit of the game. I was really sad to hear that

[Pentarctagon]

To add to @AnekronCZ 's, that line really sounds as if you are the owner of this game's balance, and you alone will decide who can touch it and who cannot. I understand that you may be really heated after how this discussion was going, but this "proprietary" thinking is really unconstructive and goes against the community-spirit of the game. I was really sad to hear that

As per https://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?t=52693, he's the person responsible for multiplayer content, which of course includes multiplayer balance as well. That doesn't mean balance changes can only be done by him, but he needs to agree with them (ie: approving #8749).

[soliton-]

I think the controversial changes that are currently being talked about are regarding high level units that are pretty far from the usual multiplayer balance. If this was really needed for some mp scenarios like world conquest then I'm very curious about an explanation. Perhaps there are other ways to reach the same goal.

While balancing decisions certainly shouldn't be a free-for-all the current situation of having a single person in charge of balance is not great. Previously the balancing team consisted of 3 people. If we could return to that I think that'd help a lot.

[Discontinuum]

As per https://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?t=52693, he's the person responsible for multiplayer content, which of course includes multiplayer balance as well. That doesn't mean balance changes can only be done by him, but he needs to agree with them (ie: approving https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/pull/8749).

I understand he's a multiplayer maintainer. But in my understanding, a maintainer is supposed to arrange tasks in a certain field of responsibility for the benefit of the community. If considerable part of active community members have strong objections to certain decisions or plans, the maintainer shouldn't be able just obstruct the concerns and continue to implement plans in concern no matter what.

But another aspect of this wording that's worrying me is that it sounds like he kinda "excludes" me and others from any participation just because of our heated exchanges and opinions. "Then honestly I would just give you a test and see how you do with your friends" sounds like persons need special approval to touch anything balance related, "to be given a test". I understand that it was in the heat of the moment but that sounds really disturbing, especially considering strong community support of the changes in question. This proprietary thinking in such controversial and hot questions should be avoided and discouraged.

I also agree with the entirety of the latest message of @soliton- and I also support that balance needs to be done by a team. I believe balance is extremely vast and multi-faceted, and we need people of different views, philosophies and playing experiences to do it better and more prudently

[ForestDragon-wesnoth]

I agree with soliton, a 3-person balance team would be healthier for the game than the current system

[inferno8]

I wholeheartedly agree with Solition's perspective and fully support Discontinuum's argumentation as well. As someone who has been actively developing his own MP era for over a decade, I can attest to the fact that striking the right balance between unit statistics is no easy feat, especially for one person, no matter how skilled that person is.

Currently, there are three individuals responsible for unit balance within the EoMa add-on, and their collaborative approach has proven to be very effective. In my opinion, implementing a similar democratic 3-people control system for mainline balance would not only improve the overall balance of units but also help avoid potential miscommunications in the future. By involving multiple perspectives and expertise, I think it is possible to create a more comprehensive and fair balance for players.

I'd also like to highlight that despite recent events, Hejnewar's efforts in revising a vast number of unit statistics are still truly impressive. I have known him for a considerable amount of time now, and I can confidently say that he did put a lot of effort to improve the game. It's essential to recognize and respect his hard work amidst any current challenges or controversies.

[Dalas121]

I'd also like to highlight that despite recent events, Hejnewar's efforts in revising a vast number of unit statistics are still truly impressive. I have known him for a considerable amount of time now, and I can confidently say that he did put a lot of effort to improve the game. It's essential to recognize and respect his hard work amidst any current challenges or controversies.

I agree with this, and I wanted to thank you for bringing it up. Hejn catches a lot of flak for being difficult to work with, but if we look at the actual changes he's made, I feel that the vast majority have been positive and I agree that he's putting a lot of work into improving Wesnoth.

And while I may disagree with him on this particular issue, I think Hejn did a perfectly acceptable job with the process of presenting stats to the community. If I were in his place, I would be understandably upset with the sudden uproar about changes that were made available for public feedback nearly a year ago.

Could the balancing and feedback process have been handled better? Absolutely, in my opinion. But that certainly does not justify the personal attacks and insults that have been cropping up from both sides with regards to this issue.

Previously the balancing team consisted of 3 people. If we could return to that I think that'd help a lot.

I would be generally in favor of a 3-person balance team. But I also fear such a team might be permanently tainted with memories of the high tempers that brought it about.

[ForestDragon-wesnoth]

I would be generally in favor of a 3-person balance team. But I also fear such a team might be permanently tainted with memories of the high tempers that brought it about.

Still better than the alternative of keeping a system where a single person has a complete monopoly over something as important to the game as balance

[Pentarctagon]

Who would be the additional two people?

[igorbat]

I'm prepearing a document for @Pentarctagon while I know about at least 2 independant discussions of candidacies, so, please, have at least a day for a final decision.

[knyghtmare]

Who would be the additional two people?

I suppose two can be picked from dwarftough, Dalas and IPS.

[ForestDragon-wesnoth]

I believe dwarftough definitely should be one of the people in the balance team. The other suggested candidates are good too, but it depends on which of them would be willing and available to work on the game's balance.

[Mirion147]

Let's keep in mind that we are all looking to work towards what is best for the game. I think it's important enough that we can maybe tone down to a more constructive tone, eh? Obviously there's the people who are actively devs and the people who aren't, but at the end of the day we're all looking towards the same goal. (Or I guess that could just be an assumption of mine)

[Mirion147]

tone down to a more constructive tone, eh?

If you said that before my message, maybe. But now. I dont have any reason to. I dont have any reason to accept anything in fact. Thats already my courtesy. I have nothing to care about. My dev status? Bitch please. The community? Im already not in the part that is so negative about me anyway so why should I? The game? I can work alone as well. So yeah, maybe you (as in the negative people) had a hand once, but thats beautiful display of fucking up. And before you (as in you) say anything. Dont. I dont care.

Well now that that's out of the way. Can we be constructive now?

[Pentarctagon]

@Hejnewar You've clearly put a lot of effort into improving Wesnoth, but if you don't want to be constructive, don't care about being a developer, don't care about large parts of the community, and don't care about the game itself, then I'm confused. Why are you here if you don't care at all about any of those things? Is being the Multiplayer Content maintainer a role you actually want to have?

Members of the Project Council are expected to be willing and able to explain why they made a particular change, not to derail an entire discussion over someone else's false statement (#8741). Developers in general are also expected to follow the Community Guidelines written over on the forums.

[CelticMinstrel]

If you try to force me to work with someone with whom I wont want to work with I will just quit

I just want to note that this is not a problem. No-one should be forced to work with someone that they don't want to work with.

[ForestDragon-wesnoth]

If you try to force me to work with someone with whom I wont want to work with I will just quit

I just want to note that this is not a problem. No-one should be forced to work with someone that they don't want to work with.

Well, the community was also being forced to work with Hejne due to his radical changes affecting mainline, so in my opinion that it is not one-way.

[CelticMinstrel]

I don't think that analogy really holds. The community was not collaborating with Hejnewar. Hejnewar was doing the work more or less my himself, maybe with community feedback, but it wasn't a collaborative effort between him and anyone else.

[ProditorMagnus]

Would make sense to backport the campaign stat changes.

[stevecotton]

Would make sense to backport the campaign stat changes.

Which ones are those? It all seems to be core units.

[CelticMinstrel]

My interpretation of Ravana's words is to add minimal unit types using [base_unit] to modify these units to be like the 1.19 version in mainline campaigns that use them… but that's probably actually a lot of work so I don't think it would be worth it.

I think making a [modification] to do it and putting that on the add-on server is probably easier and better.

[ProditorMagnus]

I was thinking of event based adjustment for less effort, but base_unit would look nicer in help.

[CelticMinstrel]

Either way, it's probably better to do it as a [modification] in my opinion, rather than copy-pasting all that code into every campaign that has elves. That also enables it to be used on non-mainline campaigns.

[ProditorMagnus]

I would do it as mainline [resource] included in mainline campaigns, but addon [modification] which loads this resource may be provided in addition.

[CelticMinstrel]

If the consensus is that that should be done, I suggest using "future" as part of the resource's ID.