Leveling up units in MP games.

[khamul]

Only problem that can occur is situation, where unit levels in enemy's turn. But I've found it as part of wesnoth strategy - for example undeads vs knalgans and attacking ghost near levelup and praying that it will become shadow not wraith...

That is strategy, but it is a strategy that relies on an artificial and unintuitive mechanism of the game engine (i.e. that the unit's controller cannot choose the advanced unit). It's difficult to clearly explain, but because the behaviour is not consistent (normally the controller gets to choose), to use it tactically you must consciously make decisions based on knowledge of the game engine, rather than an acquired feel for the rules of the game - and that breaks immersion. That makes it a bad kind of strategy.

As an example, if there was a bug with the game code such that the last attack in a series of magical attacks always hit, a player who knew about the bug could make _strategic_ decisions to exploit it. But the decisions would be based on a conscious knowledge of the mechanics of the game, not a sense of the rules, and so we would correctly remove the bug, even though it added strategic depth.
I am not suggesting this bug exists, it is merely an example.

The 'delay level up until owner's turn' approach is slightly better, because
-> It is more consistent with the existing rules.
-> It also adds strategy (e.g. you know you can attack the unit without it
levelling, units have to be protected when close to levelling, etc)
-> The idea that a unit can only level when a condition is met _is_ a
convention in RPG games. Units levelling without owner control is a
much less common convention. This makes it easier to understand.

That said, there's not much in it, and it's not a common event or a major problem. I can't see that a change is really necessary.

[merliin]

The problem with delay leveling until the players turn is that the unit could be killed before the next turn and not gain xp for defending.

MERLiiN

[Dragonking]

and praying that it will become shadow not wraith...

I don't want to pray for that. (or anything else)
When will it be a wraith and when a shadow? What are the rules?

AFAIK - random.

Khamul: I did not write current system is good. I wrote that there is _problem_ which occur sometimes and that _I_ found it as part of strategy.
Also I said that I agree with what Yogi did wrote, and he wrote that

So interrupt the game immediately and wait for an interactive decision seems to be the only way.

I think idea about chosing which unit should out current lvl unit became after advancing can be good too - problem is that sytuation on the battlefield changes often and sometimes we can forget about pre-defined lvlup.

[khamul]

Khamul: I did not write current system is good. I wrote that there is _problem_ which occur sometimes and that _I_ found it as part of strategy.
Also I said that I agree with what Yogi did wrote, and he wrote that

So interrupt the game immediately and wait for an interactive decision seems to be the only way.

I think idea about chosing which unit should out current lvl unit became after advancing can be good too - problem is that sytuation on the battlefield changes often and sometimes we can forget about pre-defined lvlup.

Dragonking: apologies, I did not mean to come across as argumentative. I believe we are agreeing violently with each other.

I agree with you that you cannot always predict what unit you will want beforehand, and that it will be easy to forget to set the advancement target. In addition:
-> What if the target is not set?
-> Is there sufficient space on the side bar for the icons?
-> What about different resolutions?
-> What about different languages?
-> It's still inconsistent: you use the icons for your opponents' turns, but
not your own.

However, I'm not really comfortable with interrupting other players turns to pick the advancement target, because it's not KISS. At the moment, the game code has a very simple rule that only one player is active at once, and a player is only active on his own turn. This is a simple, obvious design decision. Breaking this kind of design decision is the kind of change that breaks lots of other things too.
It's also bad because it's not consistent - it's the only situation in which a player would affect the game when not playing. It breaks immersion.


To me, the best solution is to change the levelling rule as follows: "A unit levels up when it has reached its XP goal after attacking". XP increases normally when a unit is defending, but cannot rise above (target-1).

This is consistent with the other behaviour in the game, easy to understand, can be expressed in a single sentence, and adds tactical depth. Hopefully, it would be easy to program as well.

[Dragonking]

To me, the best solution is to change the levelling rule as follows: "A unit levels up when it has reached its XP goal after attacking". XP increases normally when a unit is defending, but cannot rise above (target-1).

I dislike it and I wrote why before. (example about unit near advance being killed by enemy)

What about units which can lavel up to only one certain lvl2 unit (so they have only main branch, nothing more)? Will you give them so big disadvantage too?

Also it would give unfair advantage - attacker gets XP from fighting, but defender does not.

[Dragonking]

I agree with you that you cannot always predict what unit you will want beforehand, and that it will be easy to forget to set the advancement target. In addition:
-> What if the target is not set?

Probably it would work as it works now.

-> Is there sufficient space on the side bar for the icons?
-> What about different resolutions?
-> What about different languages?

This doesn't necessarily need to be chosed in panel - maybe other dialog box?

-> It's still inconsistent: you use the icons for your opponents' turns, but
not your own.

Problem were opponents turns, not ours, yes?

I agree - it isn't simple. Also I doubt that it is easy to program.

Like I've said - current system works well. I don't have problem with it. Some people seems to have and that why we are here discussing this. From all proposed Ideas I've found pre-chosing and dialog-box-during-opponent's-turn ideas as most fair (but not simple and non-KISS probably too) and delaying-advance idea as bad for gameplay idea.

Also I think that it will just stay as it is now (so rather KISS - isn't it?)
Unless someone will find both fair and KISS solution.

[zookeeper]

I think the tactical value of units near leveling is a very good thing, and the gameplay would IMHO lose one of it's most fun details if you couldn't frustrate your opponent by using a unit that he can't kill without leveling him up to hold a key point alone for that one turn, or otherwise do something you couldn't do with a unit with low xp.

So, I'd say keep the behaviour as it is, or make it possible to set the advancement option beforehand. The current system is, actually, not that bad tactically, since while you can "threaten" a level-up by exposing a unit near leveling, you don't get the benefit of getting to choose what to advance to. So usually you can choose between teasing your opponent or choosing what to level into, which I think is a fair situation.

[guest]

So, I'd say keep the behaviour as it is, or make it possible to set the advancement option beforehand. The current system is, actually, not that bad tactically, since while you can "threaten" a level-up by exposing a unit near leveling, you don't get the benefit of getting to choose what to advance to. So usually you can choose between teasing your opponent or choosing what to level into, which I think is a fair situation.

YES!

I whole-heartedly agree with this. This perfectly sums up the benefit vs. disadvantage of the way it currently works. This way, it's a nicely balanced effect, not only benefiting the "leveling player", but giving at least some consolation to the opponent, too, who has to face the leveling unit. That is a feature I have always instinctively liked. For my part, I would request to keep the behaviour as is.

In fact, the unit's controller has the possibility to decide upon the unit's leveling, even now. The decision just has to be done with forethought, thinking about where to put the unit (and where not).

[deserter]

I have one more alternative:
We could have units advance randomly in player's own turn also. Then it would be the same for both player's turns... That would be this proposition's advantage. Disadvantage would then be that you could never choose what to level to.

(I guess that I am a person that tries to find many alternative solutions, not just the best one in my opinion. That's why I'm throwing in all these alternate solutions. I actually can't make up my mind of which way being the best...)

[khamul]

To me, the best solution is to change the levelling rule as follows: "A unit levels up when it has reached its XP goal after attacking". XP increases normally when a unit is defending, but cannot rise above (target-1).

I dislike it and I wrote why before. (example about unit near advance being killed by enemy)

That's intentional - it's where the strategy comes in.

That a unit cannot level when defending is an easily understood rule that can be exploited. So unit near advancing becomes a target for the attacking player - which the defender knows, so he can use it as bait, to distract attacks from a vulnerable area, or re-arrange his forces to protect it, etc. I'm sure you can think of more ways to exploit this than I can.

It's _different_ strategy to that in use today. But that doesn't (necessarily) make it _bad_ strategy. And, IMHO, strategy based on a clear and obvious rule makes for a better game than strategy based on a knowledge of underlying mechanics.

What about units which can lavel up to only one certain lvl2 unit (so they have only main branch, nothing more)? Will you give them so big disadvantage too?

Yes. The rule must be consistent.

Also it would give unfair advantage - attacker gets XP from fighting, but defender does not.

The defender gains XP until it becomes 'pinned' (i.e. 1XP from advancing). Making sure XP is not wasted on a pinned unit is part of the _strategic depth_ this change would introduce.

Like I've said - current system works well. I don't have problem with it.

Agreed.

Some people seems to have and that why we are here discussing this. From all proposed Ideas I've found pre-chosing and dialog-box-during-opponent's-turn ideas as most fair (but not simple and non-KISS probably too) and delaying-advance idea as bad for gameplay idea.

I'm concerned that dialog-box-during-opponent's-turn is impractical, and I think that the delaying-advance idea is KISS and has some potentially interesting tactical consequences.

I have no objection to the pre-chosing idea, _provided that the interface is consistent_ - i.e. you must pre-choose what the unit will level into on your own turn as well.

But, just like you, I see no reason to change current behaviour.

[JW]

But, just like you, I see no reason to change current behaviour.

I think this pretty much sums it all up.

[Naeddyr]

Has anyone suggested a compromise? That when a unit wins a battle on the opponent's turn, it doesn't yet level-up, until the next players turn or if the situation requires the unit to be level-upped (like when it is attacked). The unit, which is about to level-up, could be turned into that white-colour shown when units level-up.

This would preserve the status quo, with the caveat that if a unit level-ups on the opponents turn (at the end of the turn or that it's never attacked after getting the XP to leve-up), there is still a possibility for the player who owns the unit to chose which path to take, if the situation so allows. There are a lot of situations, I would imagine, where a level-upped unit just isn't attacked anymore.[/i]

[deserter]

Has anyone suggested a compromise? That when a unit wins a battle on the opponent's turn, it doesn't yet level-up, until the next players turn or if the situation requires the unit to be level-upped (like when it is attacked). The unit, which is about to level-up, could be turned into that white-colour shown when units level-up.

This would preserve the status quo, with the caveat that if a unit level-ups on the opponents turn (at the end of the turn or that it's never attacked after getting the XP to leve-up), there is still a possibility for the player who owns the unit to chose which path to take, if the situation so allows. There are a lot of situations, I would imagine, where a level-upped unit just isn't attacked anymore.[/i]

Would you attack some guy who starts glowing white and you didn't know what's going on with it? What it would advance to.
Troll whelp levels. It glows white and you shoot it with mage. If the whelp was now a troll there's no problem... But if it was a rocklobber, the mage could be dead.

[Naeddyr]

Has anyone suggested a compromise? That when a unit wins a battle on the opponent's turn, it doesn't yet level-up, until the next players turn or if the situation requires the unit to be level-upped (like when it is attacked). The unit, which is about to level-up, could be turned into that white-colour shown when units level-up.

This would preserve the status quo, with the caveat that if a unit level-ups on the opponents turn (at the end of the turn or that it's never attacked after getting the XP to leve-up), there is still a possibility for the player who owns the unit to chose which path to take, if the situation so allows. There are a lot of situations, I would imagine, where a level-upped unit just isn't attacked anymore.[/i]

Would you attack some guy who starts glowing white and you didn't know what's going on with it? What it would advance to.
Troll whelp levels. It glows white and you shoot it with mage. If the whelp was now a troll there's no problem... But if it was a rocklobber, the mage could be dead.

Stop making sense. Er. Well, you can still cancel in the attack-dialogue, right? That's force a level-up, but wouldn't force an attack, right?

[deserter]

Would you attack some guy who starts glowing white and you didn't know what's going on with it? What it would advance to.
Troll whelp levels. It glows white and you shoot it with mage. If the whelp was now a troll there's no problem... But if it was a rocklobber, the mage could be dead.

Stop making sense. Er. Well, you can still cancel in the attack-dialogue, right? That's force a level-up, but wouldn't force an attack, right?

Nah, I don't think I will...

Now it could be same as it is now, because anyone would like enemy to level-up randomly than the way the opponent wants.