-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Lari Nieminen schrieb:
> Having played a bit with the fullheal AMLA, I've noticed the following:
> 
> It's indeed actually useful in campaigns. I've played TRoW quite a bit, 
> and have found myself fullhealing badly wounded units reasonably often. 
> It's a real lifesaver sometimes. However, I don't see it as being too 
> useful, as in making a campaign considerably more easy as a whole.

Thanks for the feedback about it. Good to hear that it is not really 
unbalancing everything.

> However, there's one issue I'd like to fix: when it's not your turn (in 
> network MP) and you level, you don't get to choose the advancement. 
> Thus, you might end up receiving a completely dumb AMLA as a result: +3 
> HP when you're 1 HP away from dying, or fullheal when you're already in 
> full health, thus basically wasting the AMLA or the whole unit. Sure, 
> the player knows this can happen, just like he knows it can happen with 
> regular advancements, but the potential for annoyance still seems a bit 
> high (when advancing normally, you still get the fullheal no matter what 
> the advancement is, and thus there's no potential for it being a 
> complete waste).

Yeah, that is really annoying about advancements you can not choose yourself... 
Maybe it would make
sense to differ a little in this regard when we are in a singleplayer game vs 
being in a multiplayer
game. Though this would probably going to be *hell* once real mp-campaigns do 
work.

> So, what I'd actually propose doing would be to again just have a single 
> AMLA instead of two: +3 Max HP, +25% Max XP, fullheal. So, just the old 
> +3 HP AMLA, but with fullheal attached. KISS in pretty much every way 
> imaginable. Since this would obviously be even more powerful than the 
> dual-AMLA now, I'd also up the default XP limit for AMLA to 150 (from 
> 100). 150 XP, 187 XP, 234 XP, etc. Doesn't sound too powerful to me, 
> considering that you'd only realistically get it a few times for any 
> single unit in a campaign (more only when it's a primary heavy hitter 
> like Delfador or when you're really investing XP in that unit). I 
> wouldn't protest an even higher limit, but 150 seems ok to me.

Sounds reasonable to me. Would be nice to have it in the next release (and I 
have no idea when it
will be ready, will have to talk to the mac packager first if he already 
managed to tackle the probs
he did suffer under) so that it can get some testing and such.

Cheers,
Nils Kneuper aka Ivanovic
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHakoPfFda9thizwURAvgzAJ9o6qRnYEOvIB5NwebiYB0teuUJzwCfTUVt
/Frpan8EitPfSomDBjY4xKs=
=6qWm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev

Reply via email to