Suggestion about leveling

Gus · Post by **Gus** » May 18th, 2007, 6:49 pm

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.

-> What i might be working on · Post by **Eleazar** » May 18th, 2007, 6:55 pm

When a unit gets "leveled" during another unit's attack, the lack of control would become extra annoying.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » May 18th, 2007, 6:58 pm

Sorry, what do you mean exactly ? I don't understand the situation you describe.

TL · Post by TL » May 18th, 2007, 7:08 pm

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!)

Gus · Post by **Gus** » May 18th, 2007, 7:12 pm

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 ?

Troy · Post by **Troy** » May 18th, 2007, 7:32 pm

Gus wrote:Ok, i see. Too bad this "feature" is still around.

if I'm not mistaken, this might become a meta thread.

Post by **zookeeper** » May 18th, 2007, 8:01 pm

Troy wrote:
Gus wrote:Ok, i see. Too bad this "feature" is still around.

if I'm not mistaken, this might become a meta thread.

You are mistaken.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » May 18th, 2007, 8:07 pm

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

Post by **Becephalus** » May 18th, 2007, 9:03 pm

This would make sense if the AMLA was actually worth anything.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » May 18th, 2007, 9:06 pm

In my mind, the "AMLA" i'm talking about would need a re-haul. Things like +HP, +dmg, +res, and so on, and maybe also some abilities.

theotherhiveking · Post by **theotherhiveking** » May 18th, 2007, 9:15 pm

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

Gus · Post by **Gus** » May 18th, 2007, 9:29 pm

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.