Scholarship ability

[Monger]

Has anyone ever considered a "training" ability. Where a unit would be able to select another with less XP, and train them. It makes sense that units could share knowledge. However by making both units involved not able to do anything else for that turn, you should be able to prevent excessive use of this ability.

Will wesnoth ever use directed non-attack abilities?

[Elvish_Pillager]

Will wesnoth ever use directed non-attack abilities?

No.

[Na'enthos]

5) is it too perturbing to the way we play now? i suspect not, but many here play BfW a lot more and have the higher-level skills to run simulations etc in their heads! and is this a valid reason NOT to have it?

I think it is. But, by all means (this to all other posters) prove me wrong. Personally I'd think this is not needed and not desirable. Whether it is doable and balanced or not.

[Invisible Philosopher]

1 - You can actually see or hear effects in the game such as combat damage, slowing, healing, illuminates, leadership...

I didn't even know there was a leading picture until I heard about it and looked closely for it. Most of the action is focused on the actual combat. Same for healing - a sound and a number are quite fast and distracting, and why should there be a healing animation (that is, I had no idea such things existed.)

[Dacyn]

I still haven't seen a proper argument saying why it is bad, which I haven't refuted. Of course, I don't mind people saying 'we don't want it'. What I feel awkward about is that the main arguments against a new idea like 'scholarship' are arguments you could probably use against an older idea like 'leadership'.

yes; the difference is that already being in the game actually is an argument for being in the game.

Let's look at existing traits (not abilities): one adds damage + better healing, one adds a movement point but lowers hp, one adds hp, one lowers experience requirement by 20%.

you forgot 'loyal'...

If you subjected them to the same arguments, the last is probably the worst.

Either 'intelligent' or 'loyal', yes, but one of the things about Wesnoth traits is that unlike abilities it is reasonable for them to not be combat-based, since they are supposed to add variety to your units.

[autolycus]

You're right! Loyal is easily quantified - half-price unit, saving 1 gold per round... *grin* that's 45 gold if the scenario is 45 turns.

Returning to the idea in the other thread about scholarship being 'another way to gain xp':

Well, you can think of leadership as another way to cause damage. You don't cause it yourself, but whoa, every adjacent lower-level unit gets +25% damage or something - every time they hit! That can be huge. And if it leads to them having a higher kill score, they even get xp, all because of you, the unit with 'leadership'.

In fact, since leadership probably allows you to survive more combats, kill more enemies and thus gain more xp, it's probably worse than scholarship, which does it in reverse sequence (like intelligence) - you gain levels faster, and thus can survive more combats and kill more enemies.

Another argument against scholarship which I've seen is that it awards xp for not actually fighting. Not true - the award is only obtained if you fight and survive - you just learn more, that's all. For intelligence, the de facto bonus is granted in ever-increasing amounts at the beginning of each new level - if you need 80 to level up, you already get 16 to begin with; and if the next level is 160, you are given 32 points. And all that without striking a single blow.

The third argument I've seen is the award progression. Well, I've come to believe it should be 1 xp per level differential. Instead of thinking about it as a doubling if you get 2-for-1, think of it as an addition. You would need 16 fights to get that bonus to match the 'intelligence' bonus for a 80-xp level unit. If the scholar 'supports' four units, that's 4 fights each, during which the scholar is probably not earning xp himself, which means his level differential will cease to exist once those four units level up. The only problem is a Delfadorian mage, at L5 - but this is a weak argument, since Delafador's not going to be in every campaign, and he can't be all over the place anyway.

[turin]

Well, you can think of leadership as another way to cause damage. You don't cause it yourself, but whoa, every adjacent lower-level unit gets +25% damage or something - every time they hit! That can be huge. And if it leads to them having a higher kill score, they even get xp, all because of you, the unit with 'leadership'.

the thing is, things that change the amount of damage dealt are allowed. there is night/day, strong, leadership, resistance, so on. It is legal to have ways to change the amount of damage dealt. It is not allowed to change the amount of XP you get. That is only allowed to fluctuate based on the level of the opponent you fight/kill.

Saying that the result of a specialty is the specialty doesn't work. You can't say leadership gives you XP because it helps you kill units... that would be just as logical as saying the day/night cycle gives you XP because it help you kill units. (IE completely illogical).

The problem is, you are approaching XP and damage dealt as if they are the same type of value, which they are not. XP is a statistic of the unit, damage dealt is based on many different values. They are fundamentally different.

[Dacyn]

Loyal is easily quantified - half-price unit

um.. loyal means the unit costs upkeep=1.

[Na'enthos]

I find it odd to have a scholar which gives additional XP through battle.

Scholars are teachers.. and we already have strategists/tacticians (units with leadership) who are able to make other units fight better.

If one wants a form of 'learning' xp (and I am not convinced of it's merits yet).. this by rights should go to units with leadership.. unless (as I wrote in the other thread) it is made to be a second way of gaining xp which is not connected to battle.

Of course, when I write that it makes the mosts sense for units with leadership to have this if it is gained through combat means that I think this is not a good idea.. units with leadership (who know the most about battle and command) lead and instruct thereby enabling other units to fight better. Why should another unit enable them to learn faster.. especially in combat (where the leadership-units do the talking)?

This last to further clarify my stance on this particular point.

[autolycus]

Dacyn: oops, sorry, my mistake - right now am playing units with an average level of 2, so I forgot and said loyal = half-price. Anyway, point still stands (corrected) - you can evaluate the price of loyalty quite easily...

Na'enthos: the question then arises, why does leadership result in a damage bonus? Do you mean that the leader goes around shouting, "Hit him, you fool, with the edge of your sword, not the flat!" ? Why not a defense bonus? "Use your shield, idiot!" Or a #attacks bonus - "This is how you fire a bow, soldier!" The point is that yes, you can think of teaching as a leadership function - but it isn't one in BfW. Hence I proposed scholarship as an alternative to leadership. Units can't have both - Delfador would be a scholar but not a leader.

Turin: now it has come down to what's legal and illegal in the game - but why is this defined so? If Dave has said so, I apologise. But I don't think he has. If you are right about this, then you can evaluate ideas by clear rules: e.g. you cannot affect XP gain. But remember that intelligence trait actually gives XP bonus without having to lift a weapon - it lowers the level-up requirement by 20% - the unit is teaching itself because it is more clever than the average unit. In BfW, xp is not accumulated across levels, so it is a pure xp gain, given at the start of each level.

In the case of strength, the unit intrinsically does more damage. Leadership adds damage by a slightly different means, is a temporary extrinsic effect, and works in a 1-hex radius. My proposed 'scholarship' is like intelligence - makes units learn more from encounters (which is not as easy as the way intelligence gives xp), is a temporary extrinsic effect, and works in a 1-hex radius.

Of course damage and xp are different things. But the game effect of increased damage is that your unit earns xp faster. You cannot affect day and night at will (unless you have a mage of light - aha!) but you carry a healing aura or a leadership aura where you want it, and these things also lead to directed xp gain, although less directly.

[turin]

are you saying that XP is not cumulative over different scenarios? this is false.

and, as i said, you can't confuse the effect of something with what it does. this is what you are doing by saying leadership effects your XP.

also, there is a difference between XP and your XP goal. intelligence changes your XP goal, not your total XP. it doesn't start you with 20%/100% of your normal XP, it starts you with 0%/80%. there is a difference, not ingame, but logically*. yes, IIRC, there is a rule saying you can't effect XP gained. at least, if there isn't a written one, there is an unwritten one.

the basic rule, as i see it, is XP is based on your enemy (different XP for different level enemies), damage is based on you and your allies (if you are lawful or not, if there is someone leading you, etc.)

*: he doesn't teach himself, he just doesn't have to learn as much. so you can't say that intelligence is a way to get XP outside of fighting.

[autolycus]

are you saying that XP is not cumulative over different scenarios? this is false.

Sigh, no - I said that XP is not cumulative over levels. IOW, if you need 80 to get to L2, you start at 0/x the round after you level up. This is important, because it means an intelligent character needs 20% less to reach that point, and he will get an even larger 20% bonus for his next level, and so on. If his advancement tree has 5 levels, he gets progressively larger free bonuses four times.

and, as i said, you can't confuse the effect of something with what it does. this is what you are doing by saying leadership effects your XP.

The effect of something IS what it does.

also, there is a difference between XP and your XP goal. intelligence changes your XP goal, not your total XP. it doesn't start you with 20%/100% of your normal XP, it starts you with 0%/80%. there is a difference, not ingame, but logically*. yes, IIRC, there is a rule saying you can't effect XP gained. at least, if there isn't a written one, there is an unwritten one.

Well, I'm sorry I didn't know about the rule. If there is such a rule, you could have told me earlier on instead of messing around... I will address your 'logical' point below.

the basic rule, as i see it, is XP is based on your enemy (different XP for different level enemies), damage is based on you and your allies (if you are lawful or not, if there is someone leading you, etc.)

That seems like an empirical rule - it's based on what exists (is observed) rather than logic. If that's the case, new ideas can only be accretions, and not innovations. However, the XP 'bonus' derived from intelligence is based on 'you', so if there is a mentorship ability, it would fit because it would be derived from 'your allies'.

*: he doesn't teach himself, he just doesn't have to learn as much. so you can't say that intelligence is a way to get XP outside of fighting.

This must be wrong: he has to learn as much, but the amount of points he needs to get there is smaller. Why do I say this? The intelligent unit gains exactly the same abilities as a unit which doesn't have the trait. Hence it has learnt the same things. And that means he can learn the same things using fewer points. But if he is learning, and the situations he learnt from are the same as for someone else, why does he make do with fewer situations? Because he is a more efficient learner - he has a mindset which does the work of a coach or a spare processor or a teacher or whatever. It is probably equivalent to 'teaches himself'. It would be very odd to say the situation teaches him.

[turin]

sorry about the misunderstanding... but this doesn't make sense. his total XP doesn't change, it just isn't displayed. how it works, IMO, is you need, say, 40 XP to get to level 2, and 120 XP to ge to level 3, but you already have 40 XP, so you only need 80 more... it just doesn't display it like that because that would be confusing.

what i meant by 'effect' was, increasing damage is what leadership does. it is the action taken. that, in turn, 'causes' something else to happen, ie gaining XP, but only sometimes.

there is no official rule against your idea... but there is an unwritten rule meaning that most people seem to oppose it.

it is a property of the value. that doesn't seem empirical to me, really...but it might be, i don't know a whole lot about the rules on that...

traits are allowed to do things abilities can't, IIRC... like loyal, and nothing else, can change the upkeep of a unit.

[Dave]

I don't think that 'scholarly' should be a trait, as it forces people to play in ways they don't want to. I fairly clearly articulated reasons for this elsewhere.

It might be good as an ability. Perhaps for shaman. Still, I think it's far from necessary, and its addition kinda goes against the quote in my signature.

I don't think it's like Shaman et al are overly difficult to advance already.

David

[autolycus]

And that, gentlemen, is that...

Just a couple of loose ends, Dave, please?

1) Leadership is an ability, not a trait, right?
2) And could you please elaborate on 'forces people to play in ways they don't want to'?

For the second point, my opinion is that people play that way already, to take advantage of leadership units, the light mage aura, and healers - if you mean tactically, that is. Strategically, it wouldn't force anyone - or we'd all be picking intelligent units over all others until they maxed out.

I don't necessarily disagree with you in principle. I'm willing to accept idea-disposal based on everyone's agreed interpretation of the Wesnoth philosophy. Thanks.