XP in multiplayer

arael · Post by **arael** » December 28th, 2003, 4:46 pm

Mages in multiplayer do not pay. While single player they have many campaigns to get xp, in multiplayer techincs of advencing them are useless against life player becouse he knows what I'm trying to do. Advancing shamans is IMHO imposible. In multiplayer having 2lvl unit happends when game is about to end becouse one player is winning. Why shamans do not get experience for healing? Maybe it would be better to double points gained for fighting and killing in multiplayer, becouse what is the point of creating so many types of units when only 1 lvl will be used.

Kamahawk · Post by **Kamahawk** » December 28th, 2003, 5:25 pm

Right now there is talk of acelerated experiance for multiplayer games and the posibility of keeping armies from one multiplayer game to the next. Its in this thread: http://wesnoth.whitevine.net/forum/phpB ... .php?t=476

Post by **Dave** » December 28th, 2003, 6:15 pm

I am also considering making mages and archers more powerful, but also increasing experience requirements. This would make it impossible for them to advance in multiplayer, but also would make them more useful at level 1.

Having units with 70% hit guarantees in multiplayer is rather powerful.

David

mbabuskov · Post by **mbabuskov** » April 7th, 2004, 5:09 pm

Mage is just too expensive for what it offers in mulitplayer. It should either be more powerful, or cost less.

Well, just my $0.02

Post by **Darth Fool** » April 7th, 2004, 5:23 pm

mbabuskov wrote:Mage is just too expensive for what it offers in mulitplayer. It should either be more powerful, or cost less.

Well, just my $0.02

I think $0.02 would be a little cheap for mages, although, what is the currency exchange in wesnoth between dollars and gold

Shundread · Post by **Shundread** » April 15th, 2004, 2:11 am

Mages DO have their uses in multiplayer... got and units hard to hit on your way? They'll hit them. Of course, getting the mage there is usually painfully hard.

About the XP system and keeping advanced units... why not allow some random (or fixed) "recalls"? Perhaps the player could also choose them or not.... whatever, would be something like 1 LVL 3 recall, 2 level 2 recalls and 3 level 1 recalls halfway to leveling.

Or perhaps you could allow hiring higher level units, for higher prices, of course. Of course it would be a [censored] to balance it.

Just an idea...

Or having a multi-map game. Something like best out of 3 games. Both sides keep their survived units (in case of ties, this makes sense).

Anyway... Just random ideas.

Shundread · Post by **Shundread** » April 15th, 2004, 2:12 am

Curse those emoticons!!! >(

Shundread · Post by **Shundread** » April 15th, 2004, 2:24 am

Another idea... instead of recall you'd have the command restore, which would bring back a dead unit. Instead of costing 20 gold, it would cost 18 + 5 times the level of the unit or something like that... For instance, it would cost 23 to restore a lvl 1 unit, 28 for a lvl 2 and 33 for a lvl 3...

Something better could be worked out, but restoring dead (or destroyed) units would look good...?

Another idea would be a limit to restorations (which I don't know if would really look good), which could be by player (a player can only restore X times) or by unit (like, each unit can be restored only once), or both. Perhaps set by an option in the map options
Like this:
[ ] shroud
[ ] fog of war
[ ] restore
or:
------------x----------- village gold = ONE MILLION DOLLARS
------x----------------- restore times = 3 (goes all the way to 0)

Or perhaps even setable for each player, in the "game lobby" window (when the map's already been created, you know, when you have the button "I'm ready")

mbabuskov · Post by **mbabuskov** » April 15th, 2004, 6:16 am

Shundread wrote:Another idea... instead of recall you'd have the command restore, which would bring back a dead unit. Instead of costing 20 gold, it would cost 18 + 5 times the level of the unit or something like that... For instance, it would cost 23 to restore a lvl 1 unit, 28 for a lvl 2 and 33 for a lvl 3...

Something better could be worked out, but restoring dead (or destroyed) units would look good...?

I dislike the idea. It just makes game last longer. If I tried very hard to kill some opponents unit, and lose many of my units for it, I don't like him being able to "bring it from the dead". If is dead, keep it dead. And also KISS.

Post by **turin** » April 15th, 2004, 12:32 pm

IF it is dead, keep it dead. In the case of undead, though, this might be interesting...

.

maybe mages should get healing, it would make them more worth it in multiplayer while not really ruining the campaigns TOO much.

Shundread · Post by **Shundread** » April 15th, 2004, 1:18 pm

What about the either random of fixed recalls?
Setting a number of units with XP for a player would make it easier for people to have advanced units in a multiplayer game.

I was just expanding my idea of the restoration, not trashing my idea of setting "recallable" units in a multiplayer game.

What the hell does KISS stand for, anyway?

nightwish · Post by **nightwish** » April 15th, 2004, 2:38 pm

KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid

KK_r · Post by **KK_r** » April 15th, 2004, 5:47 pm

how about restoring the units with less xp than when they died? And a lot more expensive.

Slesh · Post by **Slesh** » May 12th, 2004, 6:47 am

might try saving all surviving units between games(and opponents), but before the game starts they can only choose 250 xp of units to bring into that game as recallable. those that weren't chosen would be choosable for the next game as well as the survivors of that game.