What to do about level 3 units

[MadMax]

Uhm! Seems like a nice idea: every time a maxed unit would gain [n] XP it gains [n] HP instead. Reset after the end of scenario. I'm an avid fan of after-max-level advancement, but I guess I could live with such a solution.

With this, killing blow delt by Delfador is no longer a disaster (at least at the beginning of a scenario --- and later on you can usually pick your kills better) and the Lancer and the Outlaws are quite nice if played specially (collect kills with a Lancer and then send him to assasinate ).

you mean to gain 8 HP per kill?

[Bandobras]

> you mean to gain 8 HP per kill?

Now that I think of it, berseker with several accumulated kills would be a nuke on wheels. But perhaps heal by [n] and if fully healed then increase by [n]/2 (or [n]/4)?
Healing by 8 HP is nothing new and could be made non-accumulative with normal healing.

Edit: And I do not mean to raise the max HP of the unit, only the actual HP (but possibly above the max).
Edit2: OK, I stay with the standard (?) persistent after-max-level advancement. I should be more faithful, I guess.

[Dave]

IMO it would likely make the game more fun if we made it that one could obtain small improvements from gaining experience after a unit reaches max-level. Since it's already coded, I guess we can put it in a development version and see how people like it.

David

[Bandobras]

Yippee!

[yeti]

Uberunits? Hardly. If it takes you 200 xp to gain 2 hp, the reward is nice

OK, 1:100 is better than some of the proposals I've read here, but it may be still too much. For any epsilon > 0 if hp_gained/xp_wasted > epsilon, it may be too much ;-)

The hp/xp ratio units normally gain when they level up can be used as a measure, and this extra hp should be IMHO significantly lower to prefer using xp for normal leveling. The former can be as low as 1:27,5 for mages (but can more than 1:10 for tank units).

[quartex]

IMO it would likely make the game more fun if we made it that one could obtain small improvements from gaining experience after a unit reaches max-level. Since it's already coded, I guess we can put it in a development version and see how people like it.

David

I agree with miyo that in later scenarios leveling up level 1/2 units instead of just using level 3 units is an important part of the strategy. But if for example, you give maxxed out units 1 hp per 100 XP they gain, I don't think that it will overbalance the game. It will make people who like to use maxxed out units happier, but the rest of us will still know that you army will be stronger if you use that XP to level weaker units instead of wasting it for the extra few HP.

On the other hand, I often accidentally kill an enemy with a maxxed out unit, and over time this experience does accumulate, so it would be nice to have it be worth something.

[autolycus]

The 1:100 hp:xp ratio also has one other virtue - it is easy to remember and thus calculate, especially when you are about to use one unit to attack another and possibly level the wrong unit.

Although I appreciate yeti's epsilon stuff, I think that it's good also to look at how much loss of opportunity is caused by using your 'uberunit' to kill lots of opponents (say, 800xp worth to get 8 hp), instead of levelling most of the rest of your army...

[Integral]

Personally, I think that any increase in hp for xp should either be significant, or should not happen at all: I hate game rules that I never actually invoke because the cost is larger than the benefit. Players should have a real choice between leveling cannon fodder and improving their high-level units; adding one or two hit points (and it'll never be more than that if you give them 1 hp for 100 xp) to a unit that already has 60-80hp is almost completely pointless and you'd never do it on purpose.

I'd suggest increasing the unit's hp by 10% of its base HP or 5 hit points for every 100 experience points.

Daniel

[turin]

Personally, I think that any increase in hp for xp should either be significant, or should not happen at all: I hate game rules that I never actually invoke because the cost is larger than the benefit. Players should have a real choice between leveling cannon fodder and improving their high-level units; adding one or two hit points (and it'll never be more than that if you give them 1 hp for 100 xp) to a unit that already has 60-80hp is almost completely pointless and you'd never do it on purpose.

I'd suggest increasing the unit's hp by 10% of its base HP or 5 hit points for every 100 experience points.

Daniel

Agreed. (i just think it should be the not at all part, not the significant part).

Adding this will mess with the purists' (read: my ) mind(s) and not actually change gameplay much at all.

[autolycus]

Personally, I think that any increase in hp for xp should either be significant, or should not happen at all... (snipped) ...I'd suggest increasing the unit's hp by 10% of its base HP or 5 hit points for every 100 experience points.

Whether 1% or 5% return of hp:xp is a different matter. My main point, through any threads purporting to balance or adjust the system that exists, is that the easiest way to balance any faction/group/unit etc is to modify the hp or xp or gp cost. Why? because your quantum is small and obvious, so you can fine-tune things with a clear idea of what the effect will be. Using new abilities or vulnerabilities or magic or whatever else is more difficult because calculations get more complex.

[Invisible Philosopher]

The [advancement] system, IIRC, makes the unit return to full HP whenever it happens. This is not a good thing. The [effect]s can already make it heal_full if that is desired. In this situation, I think increasing max HP without healing the unit would be good, depending on how much XP it takes to get an advancement.

[Bandobras]

I propose that we add something significant (and perhaps not only HP). In this way, after a testing period people will say: "Wow, such a big change, and it didn't change my strategy." or "Now I play totally differently." or "It added to my options, sometimes I play as of old, and sometimes differently, as I fancy and depending on a scenario or campaign." or "No, no, no, remove the +damage part, because I win consistenly using only 4 units from the 5th scenario onward!" or "Heh, I tried all the week with 7 uberunits and I couldn't beat scenario X in campain Y, only hordes of 2st level units with some leadership and healers do it properly". This way we will actually learn something. If we add something insignificant this will be no real experiment and we'll end in 1.0 with an untested feature.

[miyo]

Wesnoth should encourage using lower level units. There will always be people who will train uber-units.... if such is possible... think if persistent armies is allowed for multiplayer... there could be units with 10'000 xp - would these not become uber-units?

- Miyo

[Darth Fool]

how about 10 hp for 100*pml. where pml stands for (post max level) so the first 100 xp you get after leveling gets you 10hp, the next 10 hp comes when you get another 200xp, etc... This way it makes it always worth more to give the xp to a lower level (or pmlevel) unit then to give it to your strongest unit.

[Bandobras]

Wesnoth should encourage using lower level units.

Agreed. After-Max-Level-Advancement (AMLA) can even help in this (at least theoretically ).
1. Low level units need leadership and healers. With AMLA, leaders and healers have more HP, so they are easier to keep alive (e.g. when the line of 1st level units breaks).
2. 2nd level units with no further advancement (and 1st level such ones, I think there should be more of them) are more appealing with AMLA, so they will be used more often.

There will always be people who will train uber-units.... if such is possible

This is another matter. And I agree Wesnoth should prevent:
a. People naively training a 4-person RPG uber-squad and then compaining all over the forum that they loose. This should be prevented by the usual anit-idiocy pills and by the points in story-line telling that the hero is to build a well-flexed army, reiterating this with every new unit that is made recruitable, so that no impression is made that the player only needs 1 of each kind: 1 horsemen, 1 mage, etc.
b. Actuall campaign winning (unless this is a RPG campaign) with, say 7-person well-diversified uber-squad. This can be prevented (and probably is prevented already, but we will not know until we test it with strong ALMA) with interesting scenarios early on, where 7 units can't properly maintain big enough ZOC, hold enough villages, pass together through a difficult terrain on time, immobilize an uber-monster, etc. On the other hand if a player has managed to gather a 30-person, well-rounded team of uber-units then this is not the fault of AMLA, but the campaign is too easy, and anyway, if he can afford to use uberunits as cannon-fodder, why should we forbid him?

... think if persistent armies is allowed for multiplayer ... [etc.]

I know nothing about multiplayer, but could you test it first? Perhaps then you can keep adjusting the AMLA parameters in MP, just as you usually adjust the experience needed for normal leveling in MP.