These units with only 3 traits...

[Airk]

I'd like to lay down my vote for "Why did we remove Strong from the Dark Adept?"

You can debate "relative value" of the trait until you are blue in the face (and, indeed, it seems you are well on your collective way) but the simple fact remains that it is -not- entirely without value, and that value increases if the unit manages to level (which not impossible.)

The real arguement I have against removing Strong from the Dark Adept is that it opens a monstrous and ugly can of worms about "Well, since we removed strong from the dark adept, why don't we also remove it from [Mages|Elvish Shamans|Dwarven Thunderers|Bob|A Monkey's Uncle]? And while we're at it, shouldn't we remove Dextrous from [Elvish Fighters|Elvish Shamans|Elvish Bee Keepers]? What about removing Quick from [Griffons|Elvish Scouts|The Winged Victory of Samothrace|Trolls]?"

I really think you set a terrible precedent with this action, and I hope you undo it. I don't really expect anyone to listen, or to change their mind, but I felt I should speak up regardless.

Clearly, the Dark Adept was not broken or underpowered as a result of getting Strong, so the arguement that it is "balancing for multiplayer" is not relevant. The only arguement that seems even to be applicable is the "We didn't think Strong was useful enough for Adepts" line - and that, my friends, is opening the lid of a can of firey arguements back and forth between now and the end of time about whether Trait X is "good enough" for Unit Y. Please don't do this.

[Sapient]

I really think you set a terrible precedent with this action

1) No, the precedent was already there: trolls.

2) Trait utility, while certainly a valid argument for strong removal from adepts, is not the only valid argument.

3) The slippery slope theory makes no sense, since it isn't random people run amok who are committing these changes, but a tiny cabal of MP Developers (who are already taking all of these factors into consideration).

[Airk]

I really think you set a terrible precedent with this action

1) No, the precedent was already there: trolls.

Incorrect. Trolls have a trait missing for "thematic" reasons. I'm not sure I agree with that one either, but it is quantifiably different.

2) Trait utility, while certainly a valid argument for strong removal from adepts, is not the only valid argument.

It is the only oen I've seen presented here that stands under its own weight - as the "balance" arguement has already been thrown out.

[quoote]3) The slippery slope theory makes no sense, since it isn't random people run amok who are committing these changes, but a tiny cabal of MP Developers (who are already taking all of these factors into consideration).[/quote]

Perhaps, but you certainly are forced to endure feedback from countless sources.

This really, at it's root, seems to me to be a violation of KISS. No one has presented what seems a solid reason for the removal of this trait from adepts.

[bert1]

I agree with airk.

Re: trolls. All trolls are dumb. But some trolls are dumber than others.

I also like the 0-1 melee idea for strong adepts.

Just my two pence.

[Squig]

trolls don t get intelligent trait for balance, not 'theme'

but i would find 1-1 strong adepts nice

[Airk]

trolls don t get intelligent trait for balance, not 'theme'

I've never heard anyone say anything to this effect before. Where do you draw this conclusion from?

[JW]

I agree with airk.

Re: trolls. All trolls are dumb. But some trolls are dumber than others.

I also like the 0-1 melee idea for strong adepts.

Just my two pence.

0-1 attacks would be the same as 1-1 attacks. Attacks always deal at least 1 damage on a successful hit.

..therefore Strong would still be a useless trait on this unit....

[zookeeper]

0-1 attacks would be the same as 1-1 attacks. Attacks always deal at least 1 damage on a successful hit.

..therefore Strong would still be a useless trait on this unit....

Obviously strong-traited adepts would get a 1-1 attack, and others would not.

[Wintermute]

Obviously strong-traited adepts would get a 1-1 attack, and others would not.

LMAO. That is too good zookeeper

[Gus]

0-1 attacks would be the same as 1-1 attacks. Attacks always deal at least 1 damage on a successful hit.

..therefore Strong would still be a useless trait on this unit....

Obviously strong-traited adepts would get a 1-1 attack, and others would not.

What JW means is this:

0-1, if it hits, will deal 1.
1-1, if it hits, will deal 1.

No difference.

[zookeeper]

What JW means is this:

0-1, if it hits, will deal 1.
1-1, if it hits, will deal 1.

No difference.

That would be stupid. Why assume the interpretation that's stupid, instead of the one that makes at least some sense?

[JW]

What JW means is this:

0-1, if it hits, will deal 1.
1-1, if it hits, will deal 1.

No difference.

That would be stupid. Why assume the interpretation that's stupid, instead of the one that makes at least some sense?

Obviously because that's what he said....

I also like the 0-1 melee idea for strong adepts.

[mrchadt]

OK just to clarify.

0-1 attack is the same as a 1-1 attack as in wesnoth all attacks do a minimum of 1 damage. But what if it's night and the unit being attacked has a weakness to this damage type, could 1-1 increase to 2-1 under these circumstances? This would make 0-1 worse.

But if a strong addept gets 0-1 what does an adept without the strong trait get? The same as now, no attack. Was Bert1 suggesting 0-1 for all adepts not realizing 0-1 still does damage, thus giving strong adepts a melee attack.

[bert1]

Elvish Pillager said:

Yes, damage on any swing rounds up to 1.

It would be simple, though, to make the Strong trait, as a special case for the Adept, give it a 1-1 or 1-2 impact attack as well as increasing the other attacks it gains when it advances. (It would also be possible to take away the extra attack once it gets an actual decent attack, but not nearly so simple.)

What I should have said was that I like the idea of strong adepts having a 1-1 melee attack, while adepts without the strong trait have no melee attack, as discussed earlier in this thread. Apologies to JW for not being clear.

But mainly I wanted to support airk in his desire to keep the traits system simple.

But it doesn't matter. I'm happy with DAs being strong and having no melee attack too. They're still good units.

I see no problem with traits being of varying usefulness to different units, as long as balance is not affected over all.

mrchadt:

But what if it's night and the unit being attacked has a weakness to this damage type, could 1-1 increase to 2-1 under these circumstances?

Yes, I don't see why not. It's still a measly attack.

Was Bert1 suggesting 0-1 for all adepts not realizing 0-1 still does damage, thus giving strong adepts a melee attack.

I was, and that was my mistake. In any case, EP said it was still possible to make an exception for the DA such that it has no melee attack except in the instance that it has the strong trait, in which case it gets a 1-1 attack.

Thanks to zookeeper and squig for overlooking my poor expression.

[Sapient]

Lol, I really can't believe this argument is still going. Sure, there are advantages and disadvantages to removing the strong trait for dark adepts. Those pros and cons have been painstakingly listed here.

And now I will make a silly argument:
Imagine the undead get a new unit called the 'Elfdraug' that steals the revenant line from the skeletons. It is an elf that fights with a large two-handed axe and has no ranged attack. Then on its third level it turns into an undead unit very similar to the Draug but it can also throw rocks that do 1 damage. Now should it get the dextrous trait?

If you answered 'yes' to that question then I guess you will never agree, no matter how much arguing is done, with the people (who I believe are in the majority) glad to see strong removed from the dark adept line. Regardless, I don't see any indication that the MP Developers who made this change are considering to revert it.