Dwarvish Berserkers Going Berserk

[Dave]

I think that the current implementation of Beserk is the best precisely because some people think it is overpowered, and some people think it is underpowered/makes the Berserker too vulnerable.

That's precisely what makes it interesting - a skill which is so very different from the normal way of fighting, and which makes the 'common wisdom' of the best way in which to play the game useless, but which has its own appeal.

I also think that 'for now' the Berserk attack should be the Berserker's only option, at least at lower levels. Perhaps at higher levels, they will gain a non-Beserk attack.

David

[Guest]

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

but then why use speed as the explanation for this? The reasons seem clear: you don't want to invalidate your idea by having a contradictory explanation for it. But I think speed as an explanation is already a contradiction.

i don't see why certain people (sorry, Guest ) keep trying to argue with it,

The reason I keep arguing this is that the framework behind this new specialty is illogical. Earlier I could just play and pretend that my explanation was in the game, but now this stops me from doing this.

since their suggestions are very unbalanced and/or illogical.
sorry if that was mean.

are you saying my idea of a berserker with infinite unretaliated strikes is unbalanced? Here is why I think otherwise:
An archer has two attacks. He has to hit on both attacks to kill the berserker, and has a 49% chance of doing so. This is probably greater than his chance under the current specialty; the difference is that there is less suspense.

or were you referring to another idea?

I think that the current implementation of Beserk is the best precisely because some people think it is overpowered, and some people think it is underpowered/makes the Berserker too vulnerable.

That's precisely what makes it interesting - a skill which is so very different from the normal way of fighting, and which makes the 'common wisdom' of the best way in which to play the game useless, but which has its own appeal.

I also think that 'for now' the Berserk attack should be the Berserker's only option, at least at lower levels. Perhaps at higher levels, they will gain a non-Beserk attack.

David

this is the same motivation as behind my idea, however I think mine makes more sense.

[Sangel]

The way "Speed of Attack" is handled in Wesnoth is both simple and intuitive. Yes, it can be picked apart for inconsistancies, but this is the case with most of the game. If you think that "realism" or "detail" should win out over simplicity, then you're missing the design principle behind Wesnoth.

Similarly, the way "Beserker Rage" is handled now is both simple and intuitive. A Beserker just won't stop fighting. Certainly, there are other ways to handle it, but this is both the simplest (it does change the way combat works at all, it just adds more of it) and most balanced suggestion so far.

With respect, if your vision of Wesnoth is spoilt by the mere fact that speed of attacks and beserker rage is not handled in a realistic way, I think you need to adjust your perspective on the game.

[Guest]

The way "Speed of Attack" is handled in Wesnoth is both simple and intuitive. Yes, it can be picked apart for inconsistancies, but this is the case with most of the game. If you think that "realism" or "detail" should win out over simplicity, then you're missing the design principle behind Wesnoth.

I do not think that '''realism' or 'detail' should win out over simplicity". I was saying that since the explanation is illogical, we need a better explanation, not a better way of handling a so-called 'intuitive' explanation. My problem with it is not just that it is inconsistent; the problem is that it doesn't even do its job: to explain why strike #s are handled the way they are.

Similarly, the way "Beserker Rage" is handled now is both simple and intuitive. A Beserker just won't stop fighting.

No it is not intuitive. IMO intuitively there is no reason for the archer to continue defending during the berserker's infinite attack.

Certainly, there are other ways to handle it, but this is both the simplest (it does change the way combat works at all, it just adds more of it) and most balanced suggestion so far.

It does change the way combat works, in three ways:
One, the berserker is allowed to attack multiple times in the same turn.
Two, the berserker is allowed to attack infinite times in the same turn.
Three, the player controlling the attacker does not decide when a round of combat starts.

With respect, if your vision of Wesnoth is spoilt by the mere fact that speed of attacks and beserker rage is not handled in a realistic way, I think you need to adjust your perspective on the game.

Sorry, I just said that because I didn't have much time to write and couldn't think of anything better... but I still think it makes no sense.

[Kamahawk]

No it is not intuitive. IMO intuitively there is no reason for the archer to continue defending during the berserker's infinite attack.

When you go berserk you continue to fight regardless of the injurys you sustain, even fatal ones. In this situation the dwarfen berserker it not getting infinite attacks, he is simple refusing to disengage the archer in combat, wich means the archer can still strike back in respose to being attacked.

[turin]

No it is not intuitive. IMO intuitively there is no reason for the archer to continue defending during the berserker's infinite attack.

When you go berserk you continue to fight regardless of the injurys you sustain, even fatal ones. In this situation the dwarfen berserker it not getting infinite attacks, he is simple refusing to disengage the archer in combat, wich means the archer can still strike back in respose to being attacked.

Exactly...
the reason most combats stop after a certain # of strikes is after a certain amount of time, the attacker withdraws, because otherwise it would be too dangerous. the archer, who has less strokes, could have continued to defend AT THE SAME RATE, had the attacker been willing to continue the attack. The berserker refuses to give up, so the battle continues for twice as long, or three times as long, until it is resolved.Since it is based on speed, the defender is able to give 2 defensive shots to the berserkers 4, so whenever the berserker initiates a new round (because the old round was inconclusive) the archer can keep up his rate of fire.

[Dave]

The way "Speed of Attack" is handled in Wesnoth is both simple and intuitive. Yes, it can be picked apart for inconsistancies, but this is the case with most of the game. If you think that "realism" or "detail" should win out over simplicity, then you're missing the design principle behind Wesnoth.

I do not think that '''realism' or 'detail' should win out over simplicity". I was saying that since the explanation is illogical, we need a better explanation, not a better way of handling a so-called 'intuitive' explanation. My problem with it is not just that it is inconsistent; the problem is that it doesn't even do its job: to explain why strike #s are handled the way they are.

The speed/agility of the unit is the explanation.

Why the units exchange strikes until one unit is out of strikes is done simply because that's the simplest to implement, and the simplest for players to understand.

The 'endurance' explanation doesn't work either -- because if the number of attacks was due to endurance, then a Troll would have more attacks than an Elvish Fighter (and anyhow, different types of attacks have different numbers of strikes, even for the same unit).

I'm sorry, but if you want an explanation for why every game feature is the way it is that correlates with reality, you are simply not going to get it. In terms of reality, the game is full of gaping holes. I don't think any developer has ever denied that.

David

[Eponymous-Archon]

In terms of reality, the game is full of gaping holes.

Wait...Elves don't exist?

[Guest]

the reason most combats stop after a certain # of strikes is after a certain amount of time, the attacker withdraws, because otherwise it would be too dangerous

but the attacker does not decide when to withdraw...
Or maybe it was an option I missed. It sure will be useful to attack with my troll and only get 1 retaliation!
If the end of combat is a decision made by the attacker, why would an archer ever stop attacking a Troll?

The speed/agility of the unit is the explanation.

Why the units exchange strikes until one unit is out of strikes is done simply because that's the simplest to implement, and the simplest for players to understand.

so the current strike system is a system that has been implemented to fit with an idea of some units striking faster than others.
The problem with strike #s as an explanation is that currently they have nothing to do with speed- in fact, as I suggested earlier, it may even be reverse. It would be better to have no explanation at all.

The 'endurance' explanation doesn't work either -- because if the number of attacks was due to endurance, then a Troll would have more attacks than an Elvish Fighter (and anyhow, different types of attacks have different numbers of strikes, even for the same unit).

My idea was that a unit that needs to expend more effort to attack has less strikes. This fits with the game currently because a unit with a heavier weapon will need to use more energy to attack, and vice-versa. If you are saying that this makes no sense because a Troll should naturally have more endurance than a Fighter, I reply that this is only a minor inconsistency, and does not undermine the idea itself.

I'm sorry, but if you want an explanation for why every game feature is the way it is that correlates with reality, you are simply not going to get it. In terms of reality, the game is full of gaping holes. I don't think any developer has ever denied that.

David

Yes, but you seem to be saying that speed is an explanation. Speed is not a logical explanation, but I am not saying we actually need an explanation (but it would be better to have one, as it would provide a basic idea of how specialties like this should be implemented).

Wait...Elves don't exist?

Elves have no explanation.

[turin]

how is speed not a logical explanation? you keep claiming that, but you don't give any evidence to support it.

think of it like this. the battle lasts for one minute, no matter what. (just assume thats what happens).
the troll takes 30 seconds for each attack.
the fighter takes 15.
so the troll gets 2 attacks in the one minute (60/30) and the fighter gets 4 (60/15).
dave has already said why it does not go troll-fighter-fighter-troll-fighter-fighter : sometimes the game makes oversimplifications because it makes the game better, not because it makes it more logical.

[Darth Fool]

how is speed not a logical explanation? you keep claiming that, but you don't give any evidence to support it.

think of it like this. the battle lasts for one minute, no matter what. (just assume thats what happens).
the troll takes 30 seconds for each attack.
the fighter takes 15.
so the troll gets 2 attacks in the one minute (60/30) and the fighter gets 4 (60/15).
dave has already said why it does not go troll-fighter-fighter-troll-fighter-fighter : sometimes the game makes oversimplifications because it makes the game better, not because it makes it more logical.

And ther berserker fits into this explanation how? I have two possibilities for those who absolutely need rationalizations in their lives:

1) The berserkers don't follow standard laws of war and keep fighting after everone else would normally quit (doesn't fit with monster/wild animal types)

2) By always rushing into battle with out preperation, the berserker cuases battles to start sooner and last longer than they normally would since he is pursuing his enemies to the death.

[Guest]

how is speed not a logical explanation? you keep claiming that, but you don't give any evidence to support it.

think of it like this. the battle lasts for one minute, no matter what. (just assume thats what happens).
the troll takes 30 seconds for each attack.
the fighter takes 15.
so the troll gets 2 attacks in the one minute (60/30) and the fighter gets 4 (60/15).
dave has already said why it does not go troll-fighter-fighter-troll-fighter-fighter : sometimes the game makes oversimplifications because it makes the game better, not because it makes it more logical.

But the problem with this is that there is a fundamental difference between strike #s and damage #s.
The only advantage having more strikes can possibly give (except under this new specialty) is to make it so that your unit swings longer than their unit.
However, a damage # allows you to do more damage than your opponent, even if the battle is going to go on for an infinitely long time (except for in this specialty).
If there was no such fundamental difference it would make the game worse; there is no point in having two different statistics if they are both going to do the same thing.
However, this makes the idea of units swinging at different rates affecting strike numbers entirely illogical; if anything, they should affect damage numbers.
But obviously there are two reasons why you want to keep this around. One I said earlier; it makes the new specialty appear to be less inconsistent. The other is that the idea of different rates was thought of before strike #s were implemented; they were an attempt to implement an attack speed system. Well it turns out that you accidentally implemented a better system, but now you don't even want to admit that it is different.

[turin]

look.

you do different amounts of damage based on how hard you swing.

you get different numbers of strikes based on how fast you swing.

what is so illogical about that?


wat makes no sense is your theory. how is amount of damage based on how fast you attack? how will you do more damage per stroke the faster you attack? and how will you get more strokes the stronger you are?
to me, your argument is just illogical. you want to defend your original position, so you think up strange arguments to support it.

we know that strike numbers don't completely imitate speed- but they're not supposed to. as dave said, many thing are intentionally overly simplified.

[miyo]

Well it turns out that you accidentally implemented a better system, but now you don't even want to admit that it is different.

Turin did not implement attack system.

- Miyo

[Guest]

look.

you do different amounts of damage based on how hard you swing.

you get different numbers of strikes based on how fast you swing.

what is so illogical about that?

or to put it in other words:

you swing harder if you do more damage

you swing faster if you have more strikes

It makes no sense to define something that is already defined in the game in terms of something undefined in the game. We're not trying to base our games on reality, are we?

wat makes no sense is your theory. how is amount of damage based on how fast you attack? how will you do more damage per stroke the faster you attack? and how will you get more strokes the stronger you are?

Actually this is not my theory. One of the points in my theory is that there is no such thing as a fast attack; all attacks go the same speed. This may seem impossible, but remember this is fantasy. And stronger units do not get more strokes, units that take less effort to swing get more strokes.

to me, your argument is just illogical. you want to defend your original position, so you think up strange arguments to support it.

BTW I believe I said this first, about you.
I do not want to defend my original idea, which was infinite infinitely-retaliated attacks handled in what I think was a semi-reasonable way. (It seemed simpler, at least).
I just don't want a new specialty that changes many things about combat to get into the game because it is based on somebody's (IMO illogical) intuitive concept of what an infinite infinitely-retaliated attack would be like.

we know that strike numbers don't completely imitate speed- but they're not supposed to. as dave said, many thing are intentionally overly simplified.

But why should they try to imitate speed at all? This is what I do not understand.