Dwarvish Berserkers Going Berserk

[Dave]

Dave: what are strike #s supposed to represent?

They're meant to represent how fast a unit can wield their weapon. Units with large heavy weapons tend to get fewer strikes, and units who are more agile with smaller weapons get more strikes.

have the berserker be able to attack indefinitely, but not have the archer be able to retaliate indefinitely

This may not be as unbalanced as I thought originally if the unit was given low enough HP/defense (think 8HP, same defense as troll). The trick would be in the balancing.

Hmm...this seems to me to be equivalent to saying "if the archer doesn't kill the berserker with his first round of attacks, then the archer dies immediately" -- because once the berserker gets to attack indefinitely with no response from the archer, well, there's only one possible outcome: the archer dies, and the berserker lives.

David

[Guest]

Dave: what are strike #s supposed to represent?

They're meant to represent how fast a unit can wield their weapon. Units with large heavy weapons tend to get fewer strikes, and units who are more agile with smaller weapons get more strikes.

Wait...I thought 'wield' was a continuous verb, not an action verb. Aren't units always wielding their weapons?
The word 'fast' seems to imply that strike #s have something to do with how fast the unit attacks. If this is true, why is the order of attack always the same? How does a troll, who is supposed to be slow, get in all of his damage before a 'faster' unit can get in two strikes (which is less damage than the troll)?

Hmm...this seems to me to be equivalent to saying "if the archer doesn't kill the berserker with his first round of attacks, then the archer dies immediately" -- because once the berserker gets to attack indefinitely with no response from the archer, well, there's only one possible outcome: the archer dies, and the berserker lives.

Yes, that is the idea. In fact, this is probably how it should be implemented because it would be annoying to have to wait until the berserker did enough damage to kill.

[Boucman]

Hmm...this seems to me to be equivalent to saying "if the archer doesn't kill the berserker with his first round of attacks, then the archer dies immediately" -- because once the berserker gets to attack indefinitely with no response from the archer, well, there's only one possible outcome: the archer dies, and the berserker lives.

David

yes, that would be realistic as far as the berserker is concerned, but I'm afraid ofhow it would turn out, gameplay wise....

did anybody play test it yet ?

[Eponymous-Archon]

First it should be -serker (with the r).
Second, it's not an English word, but one we borrowed (Old Icelandic?), so we probably shouldn't just change the animal part of it to create a new word. Why not just give him another name.

I like the wolfpelt idea though.

[Christophe33]

First it should be -serker (with the r).
Second, it's not an English word, but one we borrowed (Old Icelandic?), so we probably shouldn't just change the animal part of it to create a new word. Why not just give him another name.

I like the wolfpelt idea though.

Actually it is Berserk (no er at the end). Yes it comes from old Norse and old (and moderrn) Islandic is still very close to that. We could replace the world "wolf" by its equivalent in old Norse or give it a a new name. Something like Frenzy warrrior or wild fighter for the lvl1. My reason to give a level 1 is that the berserk is raher different from the fighter in attitude and doesn't wear the typical heavy armor (so drop it at level2?). Also itt gives the dwarf one more lvl1 unit to recruit at the start of a game...and the dwarf are in dire need of lvl1 units, specially for the age of hero version of multiplayer.
I could make use the version without wolf pet as lvl1, give the pelt to the present lvl2 and a bear pelt for the lvl3.

[Circon]

*indicates AoM, who did their homework*
Ulfsark is there the wolven version of the Berserk (which means Bear-strong or Bear-strength) .

it is possible to change the name that way, as Christophe said, as long as you do it in Icelandic or Old Norse.


How about Dwarven Rusher for the first level unit?

[Eponymous-Archon]

First it should be -serker (with the r).
Second, it's not an English word, but one we borrowed (Old Icelandic?), so we probably shouldn't just change the animal part of it to create a new word. Why not just give him another name.

I like the wolfpelt idea though.

Actually it is Berserk (no er at the end).

"Berserker" is the earliest citation in the OED. "Berserk" is generally used today as an adjective (sort of, "to go berserk"; you decide).

Yes it comes from old Norse and old (and moderrn) Islandic is still very close to that. We could replace the world "wolf" by its equivalent in old Norse or give it a a new name. Something like Frenzy warrrior or wild fighter for the lvl1. My reason to give a level 1 is that the berserk is raher different from the fighter in attitude and doesn't wear the typical heavy armor (so drop it at level2?).

I agree that the berserk mode is rather different from regular fighting. We ought therefore to limit the name to the unit that does that. No need to do some bizarre recreation of a non-existent Old Icelandic word. Let's just call it something else.

[Dave]

They're meant to represent how fast a unit can wield their weapon. Units with large heavy weapons tend to get fewer strikes, and units who are more agile with smaller weapons get more strikes.

Wait...I thought 'wield' was a continuous verb, not an action verb. Aren't units always wielding their weapons?

I'm sorry, replace 'wield' with 'strike with'.

The word 'fast' seems to imply that strike #s have something to do with how fast the unit attacks. If this is true, why is the order of attack always the same? How does a troll, who is supposed to be slow, get in all of his damage before a 'faster' unit can get in two strikes (which is less damage than the troll)?

Basically because it's the simplest way to do it, and it leads to easy understanding of order of attacks.

Wesnoth often intentionally makes over-simplifications like this. It's a feature of the game.

David

[Eponymous-Archon]

Ulfsark is there the wolven version of the Berserk (which means Bear-strong or Bear-strength) .

My old Icelandic is pretty weak, but the OED says this on the etymology:

[Icel. berserkr, acc. berserk, pl. -ir, of disputed etymology; Vigfusson and Fritzner show that it was probably = ‘bear-sark,’ ‘bear-coat.’]

Just FYI.

[Circon]

Disputed etymology? Never heard that dispute.
Norwegian word for strong: sterk.

Oh, Katharine Kerr (Deverry series) uses "baresark" for the same term, so it's definitely a case of disputed spelling.

Can someone split this off to a thread of its own??

[Eponymous-Archon]

Can someone split this off to a thread of its own??

Done. http://wesnoth.whitevine.net/forum/phpB ... 2931#12931

[Christophe33]

Can someone split this off to a thread of its own??

Done. http://wesnoth.whitevine.net/forum/phpB ... 2931#12931

Good... Each time there is a discussion about an unit, we end up spending more effort and energy on the naming than on the characteristics of the unit .
Back to my question, should there be a separate branch for the berserker, with lvl1 to 3.
My proposal is a lvl1 without pelt/wolf head, based on the picture here....
A lvl2 with the wolf pelt like the one I show previously (plus fur pants?).
A lvl3 derived from the present lvl2 plus a bear head and pelt (and maybe a shield).
Note that without healer around (in multiplayer) or regeneration the berserker who survive a fight will usually end up quite well wounded and with little way to recover. The usual tatics is to spread the charge of killing a unit in between a few units, which also spread the wounds.
Will the berseker always fight at double damage/to death in the new version or will it conserve the choice to fight "normally".

[turin]

it should not, IMO, be forced to fight in the berserk style, they should also be able to attack with a normal attack.

the currently implemented way of berserker specialty is the best, i don't see why certain people (sorry, Guest ) keep trying to argue with it, since their suggestions are very unbalanced and/or illogical.
sorry if that was mean.

[Darth Fool]

Done. http://wesnoth.whitevine.net/forum/phpB ... 2931#12931

Good... Each time there is a discussion about an unit, we end up spending more effort and energy on the naming than on the characteristics of the unit .
Back to my question, should there be a separate branch for the berserker, with lvl1 to 3.
My proposal is a lvl1 without pelt/wolf head, based on the picture here....
A lvl2 with the wolf pelt like the one I show previously (plus fur pants?).
A lvl3 derived from the present lvl2 plus a bear head and pelt (and maybe a shield).
Note that without healer around (in multiplayer) or regeneration the berserker who survive a fight will usually end up quite well wounded and with little way to recover. The usual tatics is to spread the charge of killing a unit in between a few units, which also spread the wounds.
Will the berseker always fight at double damage/to death in the new version or will it conserve the choice to fight "normally".

I think the lowest level unit should only have the berserk fight to death attack. maybe at the highest level you could have a non-berserk attack as the berserker learns to control and direct his rage.

[turin]

it seems to me the lowest level berserker wouldn't have enough rage to get the berserker specialty, so maybe it shouldn't, an only the higher level berserkers should get it. just a thought, no need to kill me for it.