To me, the main problem with this kind of approach is it tends to make leveling bad. It is also very confusing for me as a player. Instead of "higher level = better" I now have to contend with "well I can recall a 2nd level unit for 30 gold or a 3rd level unit for 40 gold", for instance. It makes it very complex for me to decide what to do.
It also makes me kinda ambivalent as to whether I want to level a unit or not. Level 3 units might tend to become unplayable due to their heightened cost. Additionally, it encourages strange behavior: I'd like to get units close to leveling but not quite leveled so then on a later level I can recall the unit on the cheap and then have it immediately level. David On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Fabian Mueller <[email protected]>wrote: > Hello Devolopers, > this is an issue that is on my mind since long but I didn't dare to talk > about loudly because It concerns an old but unlisted FPI. > > The FPI in question is: > Different recall costs depending on the level of the recalled unit. > > Most proposers go with the proposal for 20 gold per level. > > I want to present a discussion about that topic but let me introduce a > vocab to argument with first. > > The "Downwards Spiral" > > I call a phenomena that can easily be experienced when playing Wesnoth, > in fact most or even all Players will have encountered it at least once, > the "Downwards Spiral". > > Consider you enter a scenario with a critical amount of gold. > Very soon you discover that you need to spend all your gold to win the > scenario and even worse > that spending all gold with a balanced set of recruits/recall isn't > working. > > Let's go in detail what a balanced recruit/recall set is and why it is not > working. > A set of units can be called balanced when it consists of more first and > not maxleveled units than > maxleveled ones. > > You need the first level (or zero level) ones to be sacrificed in place of > high level ones in critical situations. > The not maxleveled units are needed to suck up the experience points and > the maxleveled to solve some situations where > the enemy isn't listening to lesser arguments. > > The obvious problem with such a set is the lack of firepower. > Compared to a maxlevel only recall you get much less bang for your bugs. > Thus the level is still completable if you recall unbalanced but not if it > is done right. > > So, what are the consequences of such a situation? > It depends on how the player acts in the scenario. > > I think there are basically two ways to handle the problem: > > 1) You try to rush and finish the scenario early to gain a better > financial situation, > but that will lead to the loss of some or even many of your high level > units. > The fact that your maxlevel veterans afford a huge amount of upkeep to > maintain can stand in the > way with taking this solution, since you may end with not much benefit > gold wise. > > 2) The player plays very cautious to prevent the loss of the maxleveled > units. > Retreading units often and taking no great risks will certainly work when > done well but that takes time and > there is no improvement of the financial situation to expect. > > Thus the next scenario is entered either with a insignificant amount of > gold again or with a thinned out army to rely on or even both. > > One can guess that this may get worse from scenario to scenario. > Finally the player realises that he has lost the game, not in the present > scenario but some time ago in the past. > He/she needs to restart an earlier scenario that maybe 2, 3 or even more > scenarios ago. > > This is the point where many people quit playing the campaign or Wesnoth > at all. > Some of them complain that Wesnoth is to hard and totally unbalanced but > their voice isn't recognised much. > They are told that Wesnoth is designed like it is for a good reason and to > learn how to prevent the mess early on. > > But I call that a design an epic fail (sorry, Dave). > A good design is to let the player recognise the failure early on to keep > him motivated. > > Now, let's talk about balancing. > Balancing a campaign is hard because when you change something in scenario > 3 you need to play all your way through 17 scenarios to playtest the 20th. > This is not only an issue of gold but more of that there is no suitable > recall list available. > > The current gold carryover system can be used in a way to give the player > at least enough gold to win the scenario even with no carryover. > And it is also a balancing paradigm that a scenario should be winnable by > a good player in easy mode without a recall list with just the minimum > amount of gold the scenario guarantees. > Still this way of balancing does not lift the need to play through the > campaign at all difficult levels. > > Let's assume that the "Age of Heroes" would be balanced as good as > "Default" or that it is accomplishable in a reasonable amount of time and > effort, > considering that the proposal will bring in more feedback about the matter. > Second, recall costs are set to the same amount as recruiting the unit > would cost. > Of course the player still can recruit only lvl0 and lvl1 units, so that > is just a theoretical matter. > > This changes the situation in several aspects. > 1) The amount of gold between the different sides/teams is much better > comparable. > Currently the power the AI can buy with it's gold is a static value since > it relies on recruits only. > It has to be compared to the player's forces which heavily depends on the > recall list. > > Both issues would be eliminated. > While the recall list grants the player the access to some special > features the bare power of the force isn't depending on the available > recalls any more. > Secondly, the amounts of gold are directly comparable between the sides. > > As a result the playtester is able to select a single scenario and test it > at any difficult level without the need to rely on a valid savegame with > recalls. > > 2) This will change the character of Wesnoth. > Gathering a strong army will get less important in favour of a proper gold > management during the campaign. > > 3) This will certainly unbalance all current campaigns. This point might > not that important since the actual system of recall costs can be > customisable thus only converted campaigns will use a "repaired" system. > > 4) Last but not least this prevents the downwards spiral from showing its > ugly head that often. > > 5) This will most likely lead to a better balanced "Age of Heroes". > > A reasonable implementation could work like "recall_costs=20", which > reflects the current behaviour and be the default at first. > "recall_costs=70%" would be an example for a less radical approach that > lessens the effects of all mentioned aspects to some degree. > "recall_costs=100%" means that recall costs equal the recruit costs and > reflects the assumption made above. > > I plan to implement the feature during the next cycle and convert at least > LoW to the new system, most likely going with recall_costs between 60 and > 80 % of the recruit costs. > > Regards, > Fabian Müller aka Fendrin > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Wesnoth-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/**wesnoth-dev<https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev> >
_______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
