Suggestion about leveling
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Suggestion about leveling
This has been floating around on my desktop for some time, so maybe the idea's been proposed in the meanwhile, in which case feel free to shoot it down =)
So, quite simply, what i propose would be an option for a unit to use its level-up to gain an AMLA instead of climbing a level.
Among other things, what it does is eliminate the need for RIPLIB-compliant advancements, since the player does have the option of keeping a unit as effective as it was, plus the bonus from "AMLA" (which would require another name). This could potentially mean less units in the tree, since a few wouldn't be needed any more (the Javelineer comes to mind). As a tactical option, chosing this would mean not paying an extra gold per turn, and not (or nearly not) increasing the XP to advance another level (i.e. if a unit needed 20 XP to advance from level 1 to level 2, and chose an "AMLA" instead of leveling, it would need 20 XP, or 22, or 25, not the amount the level 2 would need).
Opinions, comments, and criticism welcome, obviously.
So, quite simply, what i propose would be an option for a unit to use its level-up to gain an AMLA instead of climbing a level.
Among other things, what it does is eliminate the need for RIPLIB-compliant advancements, since the player does have the option of keeping a unit as effective as it was, plus the bonus from "AMLA" (which would require another name). This could potentially mean less units in the tree, since a few wouldn't be needed any more (the Javelineer comes to mind). As a tactical option, chosing this would mean not paying an extra gold per turn, and not (or nearly not) increasing the XP to advance another level (i.e. if a unit needed 20 XP to advance from level 1 to level 2, and chose an "AMLA" instead of leveling, it would need 20 XP, or 22, or 25, not the amount the level 2 would need).
Opinions, comments, and criticism welcome, obviously.
Hard work may pay off in the long run, but laziness always pays off right away.
- Eleazar
- Retired Terrain Art Director
- Posts: 2481
- Joined: July 16th, 2004, 1:47 am
- Location: US Midwest
- Contact:
When a unit gets "leveled" during another unit's attack, the lack of control would become extra annoying.
Feel free to PM me if you start a new terrain oriented thread. It's easy for me to miss them among all the other art threads.
-> What i might be working on
Attempting Lucidity
-> What i might be working on
Attempting Lucidity
In network games, if a unit gets leveled when it's not your turn, you don't get an option to choose between different possible advancements, it just automatically gives you a random one. So it would suck if you had a unit 1 XP away from leveling, then the enemy takes their turn and attacks it and it gets +3 HP instead of advancing.
Plus I'm not really sure why it would be an advantage to have less units in the tree (javelineers are awesome!)
Plus I'm not really sure why it would be an advantage to have less units in the tree (javelineers are awesome!)
Ok, i see. Too bad this "feature" is still around.
As for limiting the number of units in the tree, the fact is, some units are obviously there ONLY to comply with RIPLIB. But even without removing any unit, i still think it could add strategic depth.
Is it worth discussing the concept, setting aside the technical limitation of leveling-during-opponent's-turn ?
As for limiting the number of units in the tree, the fact is, some units are obviously there ONLY to comply with RIPLIB. But even without removing any unit, i still think it could add strategic depth.
Is it worth discussing the concept, setting aside the technical limitation of leveling-during-opponent's-turn ?
Hard work may pay off in the long run, but laziness always pays off right away.
Please forgive me, but I fail to see the point of your message, Troy. I was not attempting to create a thread on said feature, i'm aware this has been discussed elsewhere, i just am not aware of how it was resolved, if it was.
That being said, i specifically added, at the end of my message, that i would like to have some comments on the concept, regardless of its (current) impracticability. Let's stick to that and avoid meta-ing any thread
That being said, i specifically added, at the end of my message, that i would like to have some comments on the concept, regardless of its (current) impracticability. Let's stick to that and avoid meta-ing any thread
Hard work may pay off in the long run, but laziness always pays off right away.
-
- Inactive Developer
- Posts: 521
- Joined: October 27th, 2005, 5:30 am
- Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, Earth
-
- Posts: 188
- Joined: March 20th, 2007, 8:16 pm
- Location: Murcia, spain
- Contact:
that have been posted lots of loads of millions of time,DAVE have his own thread about this too
http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9448
http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9448
Join the dark side.....- We have cookies. COOKIES!! COOKIES MAN!!!! JOIN!!!
Apologies, but judging from the original post by Dave in the thread you linked, this is only remotely linked to what i proposed. Dave's explorations of "interesting" AMLA would be used in conjunction with the proposal i presented in the original post, but the two things are very different.
Hard work may pay off in the long run, but laziness always pays off right away.