Burn baby, burn

[Assasin]

I know most of you don't think I'm serious about most things, which is totaly true, but I'm trying to keep my crap at the OT forum. I've noticed the Drakes don't have any abilities what so ever, so I thought of one for the Burners. It's [dramtic music]BURN![/dramtic music] Its a different attack that the Burner can do, which gives him the option of attempting to give his opponent lv. 3 burns. Burn would take away 4 hp of the units health, until he either was cured by a curer, or healed in a village. It could not kill him, just like poison, but simply take away his health until it reached 1 hp.

[AT]

While I'm not sure I like the implematation, I do like the idea; It would be quite ammusing if we emphisised the 'BURN!' aspect of the Burners somehow.
I just played Lego Star Wars, so I've grown to appreciate the amount of fun that can be had with a serious game with some slight absurdity thrown in.

[Simons Mith]

How about damage of 6 5 4 3 2 1 unless the unit entered a village, died, or entered a water/swamp hex?

[turin]

How about damage of 6 5 4 3 2 1 unless the unit entered a village, died, or entered a water/swamp hex?

I guess that by "entered a village", you mean "was cured"*, and that by "died", you mean died of other causes (burn can't kill you)?

I would have it go down geometrically, not artithmetically (so 8 4 2 1, not 6 5 4 3 2 1), but either way is fine.

I think that having it go off when entering a water/swamp hex is too complex, but other than that its a good idea...

*: and when it is healed, it takes no damage for the turn but is not healed any

[Elvish_Pillager]

Interesting idea. I like the decrease, although I think it should be more dramatic: 9 6 3 (0), so that it doesn't take so long to wear off. Burns don't keep doing damage for a whole day!

geometrically, not artithmetically (so 8 4 2 1, not 6 5 4 3 2 1),

BTW, the more correct terms would be 'exponentially, not linearly'

[stillnotelf]

A geometric progression shows exponential growth/decay.
An arithmetic progression shows linear growth/decay.
I'd say functionally they're the same here...

EDIT: "They" refers to using "geometric" as a synonym for "exponential", and "arithmetic" for "linear", not cross-wiring them. Sorry...

And for my final mathematical statement:
FIRE = GOOD

[Elvish_Pillager]

Gee I didn't know that.

And for my final mathematical statement:
FIRE = GOOD

Yup. And High Elves are GOOD. So, High Elves = FIRE

[turin]

A geometric progression shows exponential growth/decay.
An arithmetic progression shows linear growth/decay.
I'd say functionally they're the same here...

Huh? Do you mean "functionally geometric progressions and arithmetic progressions are the same here", or "functionally geometric progressions and exponential progressions are the same here"? The latter one makes sense, the former one, not really.

Oh, and I think its best if this thread doesn't get too off-topic... there was an actual interesting idea proposed...

[Simons Mith]

How about damage of 6 5 4 3 2 1 unless the unit entered a village, died, or entered a water/swamp hex?

I guess that by "entered a village", you mean "was cured"*, and that by "died", you mean died of other causes (burn can't kill you)?

[/quote]

Well, no. I was envisioning a situation where healers can't help you. You need the fire brigade
So my criterion was that you keep taking damage until you find a supply of water, which villages, water and swamp hexes are deemed to have, healers not. Actully 24 hours burning is obviously far too much, so a 9-6-3 damage progression would be better. But then to be honest even 8 hours' burning for a living creature is still preposterous. We just have to invoke 'WINR' and ignore this, otherwise a cool^Whot feature can't be considered.

This is a case where entering a certain terrain does make sense as a cure. Whether the coding complexity is worth it is not for me to say. I will say I like the idea, but I'm not too hung up on its implementation.

@Elvish Pillager. Yes, and a ham sandwich is better than heaven. Proof available on request.

[bonehead]

Is Trogdor a possible name for a Burner? 'Cause it should be.

[romnajin]

A new acronym! WINH! Wesnoth is not homestarrunner! Assasin; good idea, too powerful for lvl 1 burner, maybe for one of the upgrades.

[Arthelorn]

Is Trogdor a possible name for a Burner? 'Cause it should be.

ha ha! Yeah, Trogdor, the Burninator!

Okay seriously, I don't think names are based on unit types, but this would be hilarious.(sp?) I believe the names are generated randomly, choosing letters from a list of possible names by race and gender (IE Male elf names, female elf names, Male human names, Female human names etc), taking bits and peices. I wonder what adding Trogdor in there would do for their names...

[Assasin]

The Burninator!!! My friend renamed one of his Burners that!! To get back on to topic...

Your right, maybe it should do damage for one turn. A Fire Drake could BURN, and an Inferno Drake could SCORCH, which would be a better version of BURN. BURN could do 8 damage, and SCORCH could do 11 damage. And, it could kill, cause it's only good for one turn, and you can burn to death.

[drachefly]

Your SCORCH idea sounds like a normal attack to me... Ah, but it wouldn't work if the target was in water.

In any case, you don't want Trogdor. A single arrow hit or sword hit will kill him (unless it was wielded by a peasant).

[romnajin]

Yeah, assasin, you might as well just add damage to the attack of the burner and it's line...