Leveling up units in MP games.

[Sapient]

That is strategy, but it is a strategy that relies on an artificial and unintuitive mechanism of the game engine (i.e. that the unit's controller cannot choose the advanced unit). It's difficult to clearly explain, but because the behaviour is not consistent (normally the controller gets to choose), to use it tactically you must consciously make decisions based on knowledge of the game engine, rather than an acquired feel for the rules of the game - and that breaks immersion. That makes it a bad kind of strategy.

I wouldn't call it "artificial." Actually, it makes sense to me. If you are a general commanding your troops you can order them to do the smartest thing. But when they are under attack they may go back to their instincts and choose whatever feels best to them. There is a precedent for this already, because you can't order a unit which counterattack to use if you have more than one melee/ranged option. Should that have a checkbox as well? Probably not.

[turin]

However, there is a system for how that is chosen (one with maximum potential damage), whereas the level-up is random. So, almost always, the computer makes the right choice for what to defend with, but almost half the time it makes the wrong choice with what to level up into.

My proposition would be to either A), create an algorithm to see which of the advancements would be best, and have the computer choose that one, or B), have each unit given a set advancement. It would work like this: When an Elvish Archer advances on defence, it becomes a Ranger. When an Elvish Fighter advances on defence, it becomes a Hero. Always. (The Strictly Superior advancement would be chosen if not all of them were; otherwise, it would either be set manually in the .cfg file, or choose the one with the most damage, or most hitpoints, or something.)

The advantage is, you always know what it will advance into (even if you have no input). But that is also the disadvantage.

[Dacyn]

Unit also gets XP normally in opponents' turn, but never levels up. Only in owner's turn, after killing someone

Interesting.
You could also remove the kill bonus as well, and make this the only benefit of kills (you would have to lower all XPs required...)

The Strictly Superior advancement

that sounds un-KISS... maybe just list it in the CFG file...

Whatever the result of this, it should be recorded in the tutorial, IMO.

Code: Select all

{QUESTION_OPTION (_"What happens when a unit advances?") (_"When a unit advances, it is healed completely and any handicaps on it such as poison are removed (This is known as 'advance-heal'). Also, it transforms into a different unit type. Its new unit type is dependent on what the unit was originally, but occasionally there will be more than one choice of what to advance into; however, during an opponent's turn the choice will be random. Advanced units are usually more powerful and 1 level higher than they were originally. Generally at least one of a unit's advancements is strictly superior to it.
If a unit is at maximum level when it advances, then instead of levelling it will gain a small increase in hitpoints, and will not recieve advance-heal(?). This is indicated by (?)")}

[Darth Fool]

Personally, I think the most straightforward solution is to have units that gain a level during an opponents turn actually level up at the beginning of their owner's turn. Alternatively allowing the owner to specify in advance the default for a unit's next advance would work, although the interface for this would need to be well designed. I do not like the current fact that it can be part of an opponents strategy to deny me the choice of what a unit will level up into.

[guest]

Hello.

I do not like the current fact that it can be part of an opponents strategy to deny me the choice of what a unit will level up into.

You can have perfect control over leveling, as was pointed out by zookeeper. It is part of the game's strategy. You just have to control where you position your unit.

Choosing (and tagging the unit for it) in advance or automated choosing by an algorithm would be preferable, if you really want to change this.

Delaying leveling would have to delay full healing too (otherwise the problems have been pointed out*). This could practically incapacitate your unit, forcing you to take it back, as it could be killed with several units regardless of the fact that it was leveling. Currenly, you at least have a choice of either:
- using the unit in the front line, letting the enemy level it, or
- taking it to the back to wait for next turn.

*) If you don't think there are severe problems with delaying leveling, please explicitly say so.

[Darth Fool]

Hello.

I do not like the current fact that it can be part of an opponents strategy to deny me the choice of what a unit will level up into.

You can have perfect control over leveling, as was pointed out by zookeeper. It is part of the game's strategy. You just have to control where you position your unit.


Choosing (and tagging the unit for it) in advance or automated choosing by an algorithm would be preferable, if you really want to change this.

Delaying leveling would have to delay full healing too (otherwise the problems have been pointed out*). This could practically incapacitate your unit, forcing you to take it back, as it could be killed with several units regardless of the fact that it was leveling. Currenly, you at least have a choice of either:
- using the unit in the front line, letting the enemy level it, or
- taking it to the back to wait for next turn.

*) If you don't think there are severe problems with delaying leveling, please explicitly say so.

I don't think that there are severe problems with delaying leveling. There would be severe differences, however. I don't think that it is a problem, for example, that a unit near to leveling, can be ganged up on to prevent it from leveling. This would change the gameplay. So, while I am in favor of a delayed leveling, and I don't think it would be that hard to code, I am not going to make such a change unless other devs come to a general concensus on doing so.

Also, you may not have the choice that you stated, for a unit may end up stranded at the front after making a failed attack, where if it had killed an enemy unit it would have leveled, but having failed to hit it, it is now stuck up front, vulnerable to the enemies leveling it for you.

Adding an option to allow people to choose the default level advancement for a unit in advance would not change play significantly, however the interface to do that is not something, in my mind, that can be done trivially in a way that is intuitive. So, until I think of how to do it in an easily used manner (or someone else shows me) I won't make that change either.

[drachefly]

I like the idea of making units advance by default into the strictly-superior form. It's not unreasonable for 'offshoot' variants to require a little more conscious effort to produce... and a unit won't suddenly turn into something weaker.

[JW]

I like the idea of making units advance by default into the strictly-superior form. It's not unreasonable for 'offshoot' variants to require a little more conscious effort to produce... and a unit won't suddenly turn into something weaker.

So a Horseman goes to...

and a spearman goes to...

and an Elvish Fighter goes to...

and an Elvish Archer goes to...

****************************

I set those quesitons to make you think about what units are "strictly superior." I for one think that Marksman are far superior to Rangers, but most people I see play exclusively level their archers to Rangers. Also, a Horseman has only a charge pierce attack. A Lancer has a far superior charge pierce attack and a Knight has a good charge pierce attack in addition to a very good regular blade attack. Which unit is superior to the other is difficult to say. The fact that the Knight has the potential to level again whereas the Lancer does not may also play into the decision.

Anyway, I think I just like the way it is now as it is part of the strategy of Wesnoth. If you want to control how your units level then control your units' xp. If you leave your units' xp in the hands of your opponent then you deserve a *chance* of something going against your ideal plans.

Just my two and a half cents.

[Dacyn]

Rather than "strictly superior", the question should be which is most similar to the level 1 unit... if one unit is strictly superior to the lvl1 then it will be most similar as well. Based on that:

So a Horseman goes to

Lancer

and a spearman goes to

Javelineer

and an Elvish Fighter goes to

Hero

and an Elvish Archer goes to

Difficult question... I say Marksman, because AI usage is marked as 'archer' for each. (It is marked as 'mixed fighter' for ranger...) Other than that, they seem very close... however, this is only one case

[Casual User]

Good afternoon!

Anyway, I think I just like the way it is now as it is part of the strategy of Wesnoth. If you want to control how your units level then control your units' xp.

That makes no sense.

It's a little like hitting/not hitting. You can influence how likely it is you will hit in a given situation by choosing your terrain, using magical/marksman, but you can't control when you will hit.

Likewise, you can influence how likely it is to level in the opponent's turn, but you can't control it. Therein lies, I guess, the problem many see : in some cases which you can't really choose, you can't control a situation that you control in most cases.

Case study :

Setup : You are playing loyalists vs undead, it is daytime, on grassland. Your opponent has chosen the zombie horde strategy and advances on a knight of yours with a zillion walking corpses (reminder : The knight, at day, needs only two hits of his sword, at 60% chance to hit, to kill a zombie).

Result : he kills ten zombies (not at all impossible) on the opponent's turn and levels.

Question : Considering you are facing undead, wouldn't you want the option to choose between getting a paladin and getting a grand knight ?

It's not at all an outlandish or strange scenario. Walking corpses and goblin spearmen often cause levelling up on opponent's turn.

If you ask me, the only real solution is to let you pre-choose the advancement. In my example above, you would naturally pre-choose to level to paladin (as for how feasible it is...).

The real problem is that it created an unnecessary asymetry between levelling on your turn and levelling on your opponent's turn, and both choosing by the computer a variant and delaying levelling until your turn keep that asymetry, and can create problems of their own for your strategy.

[JW]

Okay, in response to your scenario, the knight is 40 gold and 10 Walking Corpses are 60 gold. Not only have you killed 10 of his units, advanced healed your newly level 3 unit, and proven that your opponent is a complete imbecile, what else would you like to happen? You'd prefer a paladin. Well, I guess you should have planned for that 10 WC suicide attack on your knight during broad daylight.

You can easily control your xp by controlling what units can get to it. Whether or not you kill units is something you can't really control in the same way (in other words, killing is probability based). If you allow something to happen, then in some probability IT WILL HAPPEN!! Simply do not allow your opponent to level you if you don't want him to - if it's really that big of a deal. For me, it really isn't. Sometimes I'd prefer a different unit, but then I always realize that I'm in a better situation now than I was before and I use that to my advantage.


************

I was wondering if that's what you meant by "strictly superior." According to that definition I believe you'd have to go with Marksman because they are more true archers than Rangers are. A potential problem arises though that Javelineers and Lancers don't level past level 2.....perhaps this is just something people will have to take into account?

[Noyga]

Okay, in response to your scenario, the knight is 40 gold and 10 Walking Corpses are 60 gold. Not only have you killed 10 of his units, advanced healed your newly level 3 unit, and proven that your opponent is a complete imbecile, what else would you like to happen? You'd prefer a paladin. Well, I guess you should have planned for that 10 WC suicide attack on your knight during broad daylight.

If your opponnent has tons of golds like in some campaign scenarios, that's not a big deal for him... Yes you can plan this attack, but when your unit is already ZOCed, what can you do ?

You can easily control your xp by controlling what units can get to it. Whether or not you kill units is something you can't really control in the same way (in other words, killing is probability based). If you allow something to happen, then in some probability IT WILL HAPPEN!! Simply do not allow your opponent to level you if you don't want him to - if it's really that big of a deal. For me, it really isn't.

And how do you simply do that ? On some campaign scenarios it is not that easy...

[irrevenant]

The lesser of all evils seems to be to pause the game until the other player picks the advancement. It's kind of un-KISS, but then, so are all the alternatives. And it seems like the fairest un-kiss option.

[Sapient]

Selecting advancement is a fast decision in my experience. The main annoyance in MP would be AFKers. Considering that a lot of people rely on the turn bell while they do other stuff, you would need to ring it. Also, you might potentially have to kick someone if they never made a decision.

[JW]

If your opponnent has tons of golds like in some campaign scenarios, that's not a big deal for him... Yes you can plan this attack, but when your unit is already ZOCed, what can you do ?

I thought level 0 units had no ZoC...when did that change? Also, if you mean by other units, then it appears that he got you good with this strategy. If you could have protected you knight from getting ZoCd so close to that many WCs maybe you wouldn't have been in such a scenario.

And how do you simply do that ? On some campaign scenarios it is not that easy...

Why do you keep mentioning campaign scenarios? This is about MP. Yes, there are some MP scenarios, but ultimiately, you know that what you do with your units is under your own control. If you leave the remotest possibility that an opponent coul suicide all of his units to level up your unit randomly, then it may very well just happen.

*You are totally overlooking the fact that no matter what your unit levels to that you have a better unit and your opponent has wasted an attack in that it leaves no damage on your unit.*

I really don't see this as being an issue. If youcan give me one possible, remotely likely ACTUAL scenario that could occur where it would be a deal of moderate proportion, then I will reexamine the argument. Until then, I think it's irrelevant.

-edit-

Let me be so bold as to argue that if your opponent levels your unit on his turn that he should actually be the one deciding the advancement. A player is to control all controllable aspects on his turn, and if the advancement were controllable then your units advancement would happen on your opponents turn. Also, a logical argument would go as such: battle conditions often condition a unit towards advancement: under certain circumstances he advances thusly, under others, thusly; if your opponent chooses the conditions that your unit levels up in, then the control of the conditions of the advancement are out of your control and in the hands of your opponent. Therefore either
a) actual conditions of battle should determine a units advancement, not either player
or b) the opposing player should determine the advancement as he controls the conditions under which the unit advances.

-of course, neither of those makes playable sense where the current system does. Whether you agree or disagree with the theoretical principles behind the curent system you have to agree that the playability is the best under the current system.

There's not much more to say, but I'm sure I'll find myself repeating or clarifying myself later.