Scholarship ability

autolycus · Post by **autolycus** » July 6th, 2004, 9:00 pm

Maybe we should have a scholarship ability as follows:

Leadership gives an attack bonus to adjacent friendly units of lower level, right?

Scholarship gives a 5% experience bonus to adjacent friendly units who earn experience that round. Sort of having a coach... alternatively, it only works for mages, and the scholarship bonus can only be applied to mages 2 levels lower than the scholar.

You can therefore tone down the melee damage done by ancient mages who are supposed to be frail and learned, and give them scholarship instead!

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » July 6th, 2004, 9:03 pm

5% is way too small, and any percentage is unbalanced. Better would be "Whenever an adjacent unit on your side gains experience, it gains additional experience equal to the difference between its level and the scholar's."

neil · Post by **neil** » July 6th, 2004, 9:08 pm

I like it

autolycus · Post by **autolycus** » July 6th, 2004, 9:21 pm

Hmmm. The relative bonus based on level difference is a much better idea than mine. I think I was looking at how it compared with the 'intelligent' trait.

The 'scholarly' trait (do we use adjectives or nouns for traits, perhaps we should be consistent here, would prefer nouns) would be useful in providing a little variety - make it rare among fighters, but those who have it would be useful indeed, or make it only found in a fighter unit called 'bard'

Gafgarion · Post by **Gafgarion** » July 6th, 2004, 9:26 pm

autolycus wrote:Hmmm. The relative bonus based on level difference is a much better idea than mine. I think I was looking at how it compared with the 'intelligent' trait.

The 'scholarly' trait (do we use adjectives or nouns for traits, perhaps we should be consistent here, would prefer nouns) would be useful in providing a little variety - make it rare among fighters, but those who have it would be useful indeed, or make it only found in a fighter unit called 'bard'

Heh this idea has been rejected a few times. I even made graphics for a Bard

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » July 6th, 2004, 9:37 pm

Interesting... Fighter types who teach fantasy story heroes are all too common but aren't ever implemented in computer games.

Invisible Philosopher · July 6th, 2004, 9:39 pm

autolycus wrote:The 'scholarly' trait

It would be an ability, not a trait.

(do we use adjectives or nouns for traits, perhaps we should be consistent here, would prefer nouns)

No, we use verbs. Illuminates, Regenerates, Heals, Cures, Nightstalk, Ambush, Teleport

Although there are a couple nouns, used differently: Skirmisher (unit is a skirmisher), and Leadership (unit possesses the quality of leadership)

So it might be scholar. Or schools, or teaches, or something (I know my suggestions don't sound right)

Dacyn · Post by **Dacyn** » July 7th, 2004, 1:19 am

Invisible Philosopher wrote:No, we use verbs. Illuminates, Regenerates, Heals, Cures, Nightstalk, Ambush, Teleport

these are abilities not traits. IIRC all traits are adjectives, while specials are verbs...

Invisible Philosopher wrote:Although there are a couple nouns, used differently: Skirmisher (unit is a skirmisher), and Leadership (unit possesses the quality of leadership)

IMO all abilities should be the same part of speech; maybe "Skirmishes" and "Leads" should be the names of these abilities...

Post by **turin** » July 7th, 2004, 1:35 am

IMHO, the amount of XP you get from something should only vary based on the level of what you kill. there should be no sources of XP other than killing enemies.

so i would say no to this idea.

autolycus · Post by **autolycus** » July 7th, 2004, 1:40 am

Just for the sake of argument, the 'intelligent' trait gives you an XP bonus. In a sense, you don't get the extra XP because you killed something, but because you were smart enough to learn more from killing it. It's a fine distinction, but it builds a case for - why can't intelligence be transferable in effect? This is the case with leadership - it effectively is battle skill which is transferable in effect, what would happen if 'strong' was spread to lower-level units around you.

Post by **turin** » July 7th, 2004, 2:26 pm

autolycus wrote:Just for the sake of argument, the 'intelligent' trait gives you an XP bonus. In a sense, you don't get the extra XP because you killed something, but because you were smart enough to learn more from killing it. It's a fine distinction, but it builds a case for - why can't intelligence be transferable in effect? This is the case with leadership - it effectively is battle skill which is transferable in effect, what would happen if 'strong' was spread to lower-level units around you.

intelligence gives you a lower XP goal, though, not more XP.

Leadership is nothing like what would happen if strong was transferrable. Leadership=+25% of damage per level higher the leader is than you, and strong gives you +1 damage. There's not really a correlation.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » July 7th, 2004, 2:34 pm

turin wrote:Leadership is nothing like what would happen if strong was transferrable. Leadership=+25% of damage per level higher the leader is than you, and strong gives you +1 damage. There's not really a correlation.

Yes: The same kind of lack of correlation between -20% XP and +x XP.

sanna · Post by **sanna** » July 7th, 2004, 10:18 pm

I definitely agree with the concept that gaining XP should only be related to actual fighting.

So the only way I could see a scholar/tutor or whatever you want to call him fitting in to Wesnoth would be if he had the effect that units standing next to him would gain more XP from their fighting than they would on their own. (Look, how easy it was to kill that orc when you placed the arrow right in the joint of his armour. Well done!

)

Scholarship would then be an ability that certain units or characters (f ex Delfador) has.

The idea would then be something along the line of +1 XP for a kill (i.e., 5 to kill a level 0, 9 to kill a level 1 etc.). Probably no effect on just fighting, since that would be too powerful I think.

But then again, I'm far from certain that this would improve the game.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » July 7th, 2004, 10:28 pm

sanna wrote:Probably no effect on just fighting, since that would be too powerful I think.

It's hard to fight four times... much harder than it is to get a kill. If it gave 2 XP per fight, then you would gain as much as for getting a kill. I think this is good.

Post by **turin** » July 7th, 2004, 11:07 pm

Elvish Pillager wrote:
sanna wrote:Probably no effect on just fighting, since that would be too powerful I think.
It's hard to fight four times... much harder than it is to get a kill. If it gave 2 XP per fight, then you would gain as much as for getting a kill. I think this is good.

um... so you want it to triple the XP you get for fighting? if that isn't overpowed, what is?