The Declaration of RIPLIB

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
User avatar
Viliam
Translator
Posts: 1341
Joined: January 30th, 2004, 11:07 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia
Contact:

Post by Viliam »

:idea: An idea; what you think about this:

Unit does not have to upgrade when receiving enough XP. One choice in advancement tree would be "do not upgrade". In such case XP remains - later, you can select a unit and click "upgrade now" in menu, and upgrade it.

Good thing: It solves both RIPLIB problem, and a problem of unit upgrading in multiplayer in opponent's turn (if for technical reasons player cannot decide what type of upgrade it should be, the "do not upgrade" option is used automatically).

Bad thing: The upgrade is connected with healing all HPs. Having upgrade later, means having HP healed later, at any time user decides to - that may be too much of advantage.
squasher
Posts: 55
Joined: July 27th, 2005, 9:20 am

Post by squasher »

turin wrote:
squasher wrote:Why?
Lets take an example you used: A unit that is 7-4 going to a unit that is 6-6.

If there is a unit on the level that only has 7 health left, but does enough damage to kill your unit in one blow, you would prefer not to level, because then one hit from you kills him, and so he only has to miss once for you to have a chance to kill him, but if you level and become 6-6, he has to miss twice, and you hit twice, which is more unlikely. So, in that case, you wouldn't want to level up. That should never be true, and it only is if RIPLIB is violated.

The basic definition of RIPLIB is that, if such a situation as I describe exists, the 7-4 unit violates RIPLIB.
I'm afraid that was not my example. Anyway, i see your point and i would happily agree this RIPLIB violation is bad.

It is still not clear to me why RIPLIB violation is always bad. Stating that this or that unit violates RIPLIB sounds to me like a dogma, like a systematic application of a rule without discriminating between reasonable and unreasonable losses.

Turning back to my example, losing ranged attack in favour of massive melee gain is not bad, IMO that is. It's a matter of specialization. To wield a better sword, the unit has to drop his bow (and vice versa)

So, i wonder, what would 'happen' if i created a branch of units that have several upgrades like these in my example? Would everyone start screaming "This and That unit violates RIPLIB" and want to mute me, not paying any attention to the work i did, or would someone start thinking "Whoa, these units severely violates RIPLIB, but they at least offer a decent choice"?
My intention with these units is to 'force' players to create a mixed army and having units to work together in a very efficient way, focussing on strategy. But as far as i understand, some 'fundamentalistic RIPLIB abiders' would become very very nervous...
phpBB error: signature not found
User avatar
Viliam
Translator
Posts: 1341
Joined: January 30th, 2004, 11:07 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia
Contact:

Post by Viliam »

The idea behind RIPLIB is that player should never be sorry for having his unit levelled up (besides paying higher upkeep).

If player has two mixed-attack units, he can fight against 2 close-attack enemies, or against 2 ranged-attacked enemies. If they upgrade e.g. to one close-attack and one ranged-attack, then player will have trouble against 2 close-attack enemies coming together, or against 2 ranged-attack enemies. (Yes, against 1 close-attack + 1 ranged-attack he will have advantage.)
squasher
Posts: 55
Joined: July 27th, 2005, 9:20 am

Post by squasher »

I understand this idea.

What i don understand is why a player should never feel sorry about leveling a unit (due to losing an attack) while it is no problem to make him feel sorry about recruiting the wrong units.
I don't see these as too different.
phpBB error: signature not found
User avatar
Ankka
Posts: 594
Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 2:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by Ankka »

Elvish Pillager wrote:
Casual User wrote:Actually, the mage of light is more powerful in every possible stat than the white mage. The illumination thing is hardly a problem since white mages are almost always paired up with lawful units, or neutral ones, and are lawful units themselves. Thus they get the equivalent of a +25% at crepuscule/night, and other units in their army either get the same or nothing at all. So, I would say it is only in very strange conditions that illuminates can e detrimental.
Princess of Wesnoth, Gryphon Mountain, Ford of Abez, Mages in Mountain Pass, Home of the North Elves, Return to Wesnoth, Test of the Clans, The Battle for Wesnoth, Thieves, Thugs, Footpads, Poachers, and that's only what can go wrong with them in HttT.
I thought every ability should have a downside, too.
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8137
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

squasher wrote:I understand this idea.

What i don understand is why a player should never feel sorry about leveling a unit (due to losing an attack) while it is no problem to make him feel sorry about recruiting the wrong units.
I don't see these as too different.
He explicitly chose to recruit those units. Levelling up is not always a choice, although it's usually an implicit choice. Also, the fundemental meaning of levelling up is to make units more powerful: Imagine a Knight who trains in an arena. No matter how hard he trains, he will either get slower or weaker. On the other hand, if he doesn't train, he keeps his current power.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
szopen
Posts: 631
Joined: March 31st, 2005, 12:51 pm

Post by szopen »

3) A unit may NOT be said to violate RIPLIB even if it is inferior in any way to any unit it advances from, if the unit(s) it advances from do(es) not violate RIPLIB as per rule 1.
Uhm... What? Can someone explain it in simpler words, so also mere mortals, for whom English is not native language, will understand? Do I understand it correctly as saying, that advancement does not violate RIPLIB if there is another advancement for base unit which is not inferior?

Ok, yes, I'm stupid and I have louses on navel.
rezaf
Posts: 99
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 6:02 pm

Post by rezaf »

szopen wrote:
3) A unit may NOT be said to violate RIPLIB even if it is inferior in any way to any unit it advances from, if the unit(s) it advances from do(es) not violate RIPLIB as per rule 1.
Uhm... What? Can someone explain it in simpler words, so also mere mortals, for whom English is not native language, will understand? Do I understand it correctly as saying, that advancement does not violate RIPLIB if there is another advancement for base unit which is not inferior?

Ok, yes, I'm stupid and I have louses on navel.
If I got that right, in common english this means:
A unit may NOT be said to violate RIPLIB even if it is inferior in any way to the unit it advances from, as long as there's another upgrade choice that is more powerful in every way.

I.e., if there's one upgrade choice not violating RIPLIB, the other choices essentially can ignore any RIPLIB rules.

Take the Swordsman / Pikeman / Javelineer. For me, the Javelineer is the far least attractive choice of the three, it does not have a level 3 upgrade and is not useful enough to compensate for this shortcoming. It's an alibi choice to allow Swordsman and Pikeman to lose their ranged attack.
rezaf

"This pisses me off!"
Urinal, the Elvish Marshal
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8137
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

An even simpler way to put it:

Only one superior upgrade is needed to appease the gods of RIPLIB.

:P :wink:
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
scott
Posts: 5243
Joined: May 12th, 2004, 12:35 am
Location: San Pedro, CA

Post by scott »

RIPLIB is axiomatic. Check out thread 1423 for proof.
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
User avatar
Viliam
Translator
Posts: 1341
Joined: January 30th, 2004, 11:07 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia
Contact:

Post by Viliam »

Elvish Pillager wrote:Imagine a Knight who trains in an arena. No matter how hard he trains, he will either get slower or weaker.
Yes, that's approximately how it works in reality! :twisted: There are two types of muscle fibers: The "slow oxidative fibers" (red fibers) use air, and make slow powerful moves for a long time. The "fast anaerobic fibers" (white fibers) use sugar, and make fast moves for a short time.

So if the Knight is training slowly with heavy weights, and takes a lot of time to breath regularly, his muscles will grow in volume and he will become stronger and slower - Grand Knight. But if the Knight is training fast movements (e.g. "martial arts"), he will become faster but will not gain much muscle volume - Paladin. The "martial arts" students also learn not to do unnecessary violence and avoid fight if possible - that's why Paladin has weaker attack against living sentient beings.

Yes, usually Wesnoth is not that much realistic, but... sometimes it happens. :wink:
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8137
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

Viliam wrote:
Elvish Pillager wrote:Imagine a Knight who trains in an arena. No matter how hard he trains, he will either get slower or weaker.
Yes, that's approximately how it works in reality! :twisted:
Not when the knight in question is riding a horse!

But that's completely beside the point. Since when does training your strength in one way reduce your strength in another?
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
rezaf
Posts: 99
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 6:02 pm

Post by rezaf »

Elvish Pillager wrote:On the other hand, if he doesn't train, he keeps his current power.
Yeah, exactly. Say somebody is an athletic. If he doesn't train for six months, he will of course have the same amount of skill if then he engages his sport activities again, right?
Elvish Pillager wrote: But that's completely beside the point. Since when does training your strength in one way reduce your strength in another?
If you're concentrating on developing your power in one way, neglecting another one, you will slowly loose skill/strength in the other area. Depends a bit on what we're talking about, though.
rezaf

"This pisses me off!"
Urinal, the Elvish Marshal
squasher
Posts: 55
Joined: July 27th, 2005, 9:20 am

Post by squasher »

scott wrote:RIPLIB is axiomatic. Check out thread 1423 for proof.
Interesting... I never before saw a proof of an axiom (j/k)
Seriously, i don't get your point. Do you mind to elaborate?
Elvish Pillager wrote:An even simpler way to put it:

Only one superior upgrade is needed to appease the gods of RIPLIB.

:P :wink:
mmm, this forces one to develop brances that include silly, weak units - to avoid RIPLIB violation.
turning back to my infamous thought-experiment

Code: Select all

lvl 1 2-2 melee; 2-2 ranged; 26 hp, 5 mp
---> lvl 2 3-2 melee; 3-2 ranged, 28 hp, 5 mp (no further advancements)
---> lvl 2 6-4 melee, 42 hp, 6 mp 
     ---> lvl 3
---> lvl 2 7-3 ranged, 38 hp, 6 mp
     ---> lvl 3
would not violate RIPLIB?

Theoretically, it would not. There is an upgrade that is strictly better ... Nevertheless, players are somehow forced to choose one of the alternatives.
That silly unit, which would never be used, would drain art resources etc etc, just to avoid a 'not so smart' rule.

I would say, RIPLIB is not a measure, rather a rule of thumb.
phpBB error: signature not found
scott
Posts: 5243
Joined: May 12th, 2004, 12:35 am
Location: San Pedro, CA

Post by scott »

I'm saying the lead developer has both defined RIPLIB in this way and prescribed it as the standard for unit advancements. I'm not proving the axiom, I'm proving my claim that it is one ;) .
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
Post Reply