Wesnoth Bestiary

[thespaceinvader]

Design-wise, it would look a lot better if the horizontal rules for statistics and advancements lined up with each other - this would also leave more space for long descriptions.

[Velensk]

Is there a good way to represent AMLA? Saying that it levels into itself is correct but still a bit awkward.

[StDrake]

Simply noting it as "maximum level (AMLA type)" could work?

[em3]

Doesn't an empty list of available advancements imply it is "AMLA type"... or rather isn't it logically biconditional?

[StDrake]

Technically an empty advancement results in infinite accumulation of xp over the max(if by "empty" you mean null)..or a crash. AMLA has to be declared, usually in a units profile.

[em3]

[quote=UnitTypeWML]The special value 'null' says that the unit does not advance but gets an AMLA instead. [/quote]
As I understand, a unit type either advances to other unit types or has an AMLA. There are no other valid options - no advancements without AMLA is an error in unit design, and maybe should generate a warning or something. What I mean, is that from bestiary's point of view, a unit with no advancements is an AMLA-type.

[StDrake]

Wishful thinking. I've just run a test on 1.9.4 - a unit without a specified AMLA just gathered xp over the max, no advancement at all. Same thing if there was just an empty advances_to= . I'm trying to remember what was screwed up in ageless 4.6 that leveling up some units caused a boot from the game, probably either different behaviour in mp or some faulty unit id

[Gambit]

The special value 'null' says that the unit does not advance but gets an AMLA instead.

As I understand, a unit type either advances to other unit types or has an AMLA. There are no other valid options - no advancements without AMLA is an error in unit design, and maybe should generate a warning or something. What I mean, is that from bestiary's point of view, a unit with no advancements is an AMLA-type.

Wha? You mean you want to make it impossible to have a unit that doesn't advance at all?

[em3]

OK, my bad.

[ancestral]

Minor update. I've got new labels for defense and movement. The section is now called "Terrain Adjustments."



Next I need to sort the table and optimally allow re-sorting by clicking on the labels. (jQuery add-ons should help with this.)

Design-wise, it would look a lot better if the horizontal rules for statistics and advancements lined up with each other - this would also leave more space for long descriptions.

That's a decent proposal. I'll play around with that and see how it flows.

I still need to add in advancement, I know. But keep the comments coming and I'll continue to make progress.

[salade]

just fyi that every unit on my units table has a link to Bestiary.

ancestral: re. unit tree,

• if you want to make a clear tree structure, it is better to use a specialized js library rather than HTML table. other than thejit that i've mentioned to you before, there is another js library, Google Visualization Org Chart that may be used
• for the current unit tree, the navigation is not really usable. A simple way to fix is to turn the left hand side menu to a on-click panel like in Google translate. The main content is organized by race, so there should be a ToC like menu on top that list all the races, and after every race section, provide a back to the top button (or even better, display a Google translate like panel on click)
• certain content seems to be missing, e.g. there is no dark adept in the undead section and the "tree" looks very odd. Indeed, at the top, Armageddon Drake's "tree" is odd to me too.

i think as reference database, the unit tree is fine as long as it fixes its navigation. for now, i'll simply use Ctrl-F and then type a keyword to locate the section.

[em3]

certain content seems to be missing, e.g. there is no dark adept in the undead section and the "tree" looks very odd. Indeed, at the top, Armageddon Drake's "tree" is odd to me too.

Dark Adept is a human (by race), not undead. He is in the "Undead" faction, not race.

[Reepurr]

Indeed, at the top, Armageddon Drake's "tree" is odd to me too.

Are you trying to say that the Inferno advances to an Armageddon?
It doesn't.

In special campaign situations, the Inferno advances to Armageddon. Most of the time however, it does not.




On another note, the bestiary doesn't show advancements in the "Advancements" section for me. I have checked Dark Adept, Ancient Wose and Arch Mage - still no luck. I use a Mac, 10.4.11, running Firefox 3.6.13. Is this a known bug?

EDIT: And while I'm at it - why are the Saurians in the "lizard" race? They're saurians...

[Hulavuta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saurian

My guess is that it used to be that, and suddenly changing it from Lizard to Saurian will make content harder to port, and people will have to remember to type Saurian...I'm not really sure though.

[salade]

certain content seems to be missing, e.g. there is no dark adept in the undead section and the "tree" looks very odd. Indeed, at the top, Armageddon Drake's "tree" is odd to me too.

Dark Adept is a human (by race), not undead. He is in the "Undead" faction, not race.

so the a fundamental "problem" is the data is group by race but not faction. For experienced players who know the difference of race and faction clearly, they won't need to check that table anyway. For new players, when they play a game and choose undead (faction), there are DA, skel etc. I would argue that group the unit by faction is more useful to new players.

Indeed, at the top, Armageddon Drake's "tree" is odd to me too.

Are you trying to say that the Inferno advances to an Armageddon?

no, i have no idea what advances to an Armageddon and i have never used one, but showing a single standalone L4 units without any description is just odd to me. the current way maybe correct, or maybe it is the best possible way already, but it isn't a way that is clear enough for a new player to know what does an Armageddon upgraded from.