Berserk tactics, so much the norm.

[Stingray1]

I find that most of the time I set tactics to berserk, the only downside to this is that you get a big discount on DV.

By doing this you mostly kill opponents in one turn, so the loss in DV is mostly not a factor. If you do get hit because you did not kill the opponent and it gets a damaging shot in, the lost HP is quickly recovered by spenseweed anyway.

I feel like suggesting that setting tactics to berserk has some more drawback. Either there is a chance of the weapon slipping out of your hand scaling with strength, the lower the PC's strength bigger the chance or/and a chance for the weapon to break scaling with strength of the PC and material of the weapon(eternium will almost never break)?

[Mobius]

...
I feel like suggesting that setting tactics to berserk has some more drawback. ...

You don't train shields when Berzerk.
DV is very important when surrounded, or fighting beasts that bypass PV.

[Stingray1]

Oh yeah, it doesn't train shields. That is so unimportant, I totally forgot about it.
They can't bypass your PV if they are destroyed though.

Edit - If you play as aggressively as I do, your opponent is destroyed or down to critical when it reaches melee range and is destroyed in the first round of melee combat. DV almost never comes into play then.

I would like to see some more drawback to berserk missile combat also, but it is difficult to think of something that would make sense. Especially with regard to bows and crossbows. Another alternative I am contemplating is that there be a chance of straining/tearing/breaking a muscle/tendon/bone, which would do some damage and reduce the Strength attribute. The chance possibly scaling with the Toughness attribute.

[_Ln_]

The only necessary fix to tactics is to make switching a turn-consuming action IMHO.

[Soirana]

Oh yeah, it doesn't train shields. That is so unimportant, I totally forgot about it.
They can't bypass your PV if they are destroyed though.

Edit - If you play as aggressively as I do, your opponent is destroyed or down to critical when it reaches melee range and is destroyed in the first round of melee combat. DV almost never comes into play then.

Well, none of you starting proposal actually helps with situation described in edit:).

I do agree that berserk archery is pretty much norm if you do any archery to start with.

As far as fixing this is complicated as I see:

either simply give serious to hit penalty on berserk [or even more likely progressing penalty than rising tactics above normal] - after all I have never heard of berserkers being good at precise stuff like archery [or lockpicking or whatever]

or make something more complicated - like remove all tactics bonus [maybe half penalties too] from ranged combat, instead giving reasonable +to hit/+to damage if not envolved in close combat [it is really easier shoot without distraction and especially if target moves straight on you - as long as your nerve holds - could be awesome use of Courage too] and give analogical penalty if involved.

[Stingray1]

Well, as I see tactics settings it is concentrating more on your attack and less on your defense when set towards the aggressive side of things and vice versa.

So, even for archery you are concentrating more on being accurate(precise) the more aggressive the setting.

We need something that makes sense from my understanding(view of) of tactics settings to make berserk archery more risky than it currently is.

[GordonOverkill]

During my last westside attemp about which I posted here, I would surely have died if I hadn't changed my tactics to defensive or in the end even very defensive. Berserk is just horrible whenever you have to fight against many opponents at once. I usually use it out of pure laziness... it saves some turns an real life time... but there are many situation when it's not the most effective option.

[Stingray1]

I agree with you Gordon, there is situations where a defensive approach is required. In most mid to late game situations when weapons are trained, weapons damage is good, strength is higher, HP is high, spenseweed is in the backpack; berserk tactics is the norm for me.

[plllizzz9]

or make something more complicated - like remove all tactics bonus [maybe half penalties too] from ranged combat, instead giving reasonable +to hit/+to damage if not envolved in close combat [it is really easier shoot without distraction and especially if target moves straight on you - as long as your nerve holds - could be awesome use of Courage too] and give analogical penalty if involved.

this is probably the best idea, it always kind of baffled me why tactics setting applied to missle combat [well, except the obvious explanation of being the easiest way to code]

[asdf]

By doing this you mostly kill opponents in one turn, so the loss in DV is mostly not a factor.
I suggest you to wait until pre21, you may reconsider your opinion.

[Stingray1]

... it always kind of baffled me why tactics setting applied to missle combat [well, except the obvious explanation of being the easiest way to code]


Well, as I see tactics settings it is concentrating more on your attack and less on your defense when set towards the aggressive side of things and vice versa.

So, even for archery you are concentrating more on being accurate(precise) the more aggressive the setting.

That is why in my mind I explained it this way to myself.


I suggest you to wait until pre21, you may reconsider your opinion.

Good point, we might need all the overpoweredness we can gather. ;)

[SirTheta]

Soirana is right...it's not berserk tactics that are broken, but berserk tactics (and tactics in general) applying to missiles.

[sylph]

Personally, I don't think berserk missiles are broken at all. They already apply to missiles less than they do to melee... There are *times* when it's a good idea to defensively missile, because missiles have such a high +tohit that they are also quite effective under the 'coward' setting, so I find myself using coward missiles almost as often as I use berserk if I'm in melee or expecting return fire.
i think the tactics setting offers a *massive* amount of strategic depth to ADOM, and removing it (or making it take a turn to switch) would have to be justified with a similar replacement in tactics. that is to say, if the concern is that tactics make the game too easy, I'd advise making monsters stronger, rather than removing our tactical choices as a player.

Oh, and while I'm on the subject, despite the current implementation of tacticcs, neither melee nor missile weapons are anywhere near as strong as spellcasting at the moment.

[SirTheta]

The problem is that no matter how much 'less' they apply, it's still completely broken. There are very few non-spellcasting ranged attack monsters in the game that are a serious threat [really, off the top of my head: fire giant king, titan, greater titan]. Sure, there are some very rare situation where you don't want to be in berserk tactics for missiles, but they are so rare as to not even figure in the argument. There is little drawback to being in berserk while shooting missiles most of the time, since the idea is that you aren't in melee range a good chunk of the time. Whereas when you are in berserk in melee, you are much more likely to be hit, and unless you can kill everything in the game in one shot (you can't), that presents a trade-off.

In ideal world, spellcasting would have progressively higher chance to fail when below normal, that would fix a lot of things. But it's another symptom of tactics being broken for non-melee.

[anon123]

Tactic-switching is one of those tricks that increases your average PC's lifespan when you're new to the game and ever since; and berserk archery is another potentially life-saving technique. It might not make much sense, but there's no reason everything in the game must be realistic. As a game mechanic, I think they're already well-balanced by their direct penalties and/or secondary effects (can't train shields on berserk, can't train weapons if too defensive). ADOM is already hard to win with these advantages, there's no need to make it harder.

PS: if you think Berserk is overpowered, try berserking the Bug Temple in melee :p

[SirTheta]

PS: if you think Berserk is overpowered, try berserking the Bug Temple in melee :pThis guy didn't have much trouble :p http://ancardia.us.to/adom_users/sirtheta/flgs/litrully.flg

Then again, I've also died to a greater claw bug in a D:48 mixed tension room on a gnome barb w/ Vanquisher :D

[Soirana]

Tactic-switching is one of those tricks that increases your average PC's lifespan when you're new to the game and ever since; and berserk archery is another potentially life-saving technique. It might not make much sense, but there's no reason everything in the game must be realistic. As a game mechanic, I think they're already well-balanced by their direct penalties and/or secondary effects (can't train shields on berserk, can't train weapons if too defensive). ADOM is already hard to win with these advantages, there's no need to make it harder.


Could you repeat, which of penalties do apply to berserk archery? [for record my preferred weapon on archer used to be quicksilver quaterstaff, shields... yeah.]

As game being hard.... it is mostly hard since one does not use all tricks. As they get added it becomes progressively easier. If all tricks need to preserve or not is overall valid question.
I think boring ones - which are dead simple to apply and have no trade off - might as well go away. Berserk archery is clearly boring one.

[Moeba]

For meleeing, I generally prefer 'very agressive' as the berserk removes much more DV. In fact, when surrounded by 3 or more monsters I usually fight with very defensive on, since the DV bonus given much more benefit then. I do agree that the missile bonus for berserk is hugely overpowered; I would go for giving it no bonus to hit although giving bonus damage. Then it's still somewhat overpowered, but I think that's mainly because there are too little NPC's with good ranged attacks.

[SirTheta]

The +damage is the overpowered part of berserk missiles, not the +to-hit...

[Superteeth]

If I have a melee tank with no spells (which I usually do), the only way I do the Bug Temple is using berserk tactics and melee. The bugs go down in one hit that way, assuming I don't miss (and the chances of missing go down in berserk).

I don't think berserk is "broken", but I do think it is odd that spellcasters can be so proficient at fighting hand-to-hand (whereas melee-oriented characters can't really get much out of spellcasting). But that is another topic entirely.

[Marek14]

How about making tactics giving bonuses/penalty for visibility range? I.e. when you are careful, you see further, but when you lust for blood, you are so enraged you only notice things that happen close to you?

[Stingray1]

I don't see(intended) how that would make a big difference, I'd just change tactics to coward to spot the enemy and then switch to berserk and manually target the tile I now know the enemy is on. Unless it is changed so that you cannot target tiles outside line of sight.

[Marek14]

Or you could get penalties for targeting things you can't see (basically same as if they were invisible).

[Stingray1]

In the end it has the same netto result as making tactics give less of a bonus to missile attacks. Only difference is you don't see the enemy and how much it is damaged, you can then just switch to a coward and then with the healthbars see how much you damaged it.

Unless you are saying things like perception, farsight spell and necklace of the eye, etc. must play a big role.

[Harwin]

It seems like some of this is just a problem with the name "berserk". I just think of it as a continuum trade-off - Hit+Damage vs. Defense. When you're on "aggressive", it doesn't seem odd to have a bonus to hit, and it mirrors a natural penalty to hit on "defensive".

Sure "berserk" doesn't sound like something with accuracy, but compare it to the defensive option and it makes sense.

Whether it should affect missile settings at full strength is something else, but I think it should roughly behave in the same way as melee - the aggressive side is more hit and damage, the defensive side is less hit and damage. If you don't want it to affect damage, then that's one thing, but it shouldn't change the general way it works.

[Stingray1]

That is the way I see tactics too, the words used is not that important. One side gives bonuses to attack and penalties to defense and vice versa. The issue at hand though is that the most aggressive tactics setting is used mostly during melee and missile combat(especially missile combat). The reason being that it has the best bonuses to to-hit and damage and the penalty to defense is in most situations irrelevant. I think there needs to be some more drawback to setting tactics to "berserk".

[Marek14]

All right, what is the main problem here? That high-aggression settings on missile combat give you the bonuses, but not penalties.

Possible solutions are, therefore:

1. Reduce bonuses. Easiest way to do it would be to make Tactics affect missile and melee combat separately, with different set of bonuses for each. One thing I'm wondering about is whether it would make sense to REVERSE to-hit bonuses for missile attacks. When you're very aggressive, I feel you'd make maybe stronger shots, but much wilder, and therefore with lower chance of hit. On the other hand, being defensive means you'd take more time to aim. (This would, of course, not apply to melee combat where you're, after all, able to guide your weapon to enemy during the whole swing.)

2. Increase penalties. My visibility reduction was one attempt to do that. Another would be to increase prevalence of missile combat for enemies (but that would have other effects).

[Stingray1]

1. "Aggressive means you are concentrating more on your attack and "Defensive" means you are concentrating more on your defense. This is what the bonuses and penalties tells us.

2(a). By penalties you mean less bonus to to-hit and damage or a bigger penalty to DV? 2(b). That is a consideration.

If you are just saying reduce the bonuses then everyone is still just going to use the berserk setting or whatever setting gives the best bonuses for missile combat.

[Marek14]

Yes, mere reduction of bonuses would not eliminate the use of berserk setting, but it might limit it a bit. Bigger penalty to DV doesn't seem to be useful since people who use this tactics don't get hit that much.
Here's an idea: how about making aggressive settings increase the energy cost of missile attacks (of course, with no reductions for defensive settings)? Aggressive missile attack, to get the bonuses, would take longer to aim, AND you'd have to spend more effort and time tauting the bow, cocking the crossbow or whirling the sling.

With this, the sweet spot of maximum damage output would no longer be just "strongest attacks" because you would be able to make less of them.

[Stingray1]

Yes, I considered that. Let's hear what others think.

Another solution I just thought of is, how about the higher your tactics setting the bigger the chance of the missile being destroyed and the bigger the chance of a returning missile not returning. You are so accurate that the missile gets deeply imbedded in the enemies skull or whatever and you cannot retrieve it or something in that vein. This would not affect a xl 50 Archer though as his/her missiles just ploughs through everything, although maybe it still gets destroyed against the wall?

[Marek14]

Higher destruction is certainly an option. After all, you're also shooting these things with higher force. Reduced catching of returning weapons? Certainly -- after all, catching these things probably uses the same set of abilities you use to dodge normal attacks and which are impaired by aggressive setting.

[Stingray1]

I was rather thinking reduced chance of returning, as the missile gets stuck in the enemy thus not able to return. No for ghosts, spectres, etc. maybe. :p

[SirTheta]

I think the solution is simpler: reduce +to-hit and eliminate +to-damage bonuses for missile attacks above normal [penalties for below normal can stay because if you're standing next to something, you shouldn't be able to be in Coward and not have any penalties].

[Marek14]

I was rather thinking reduced chance of returning, as the missile gets stuck in the enemy thus not able to return. No for ghosts, spectres, etc. maybe. :p

If they are corporeal enough to be hit, they are corporeal enough to get the weapon stuck in them.

[Stingray1]

I think the solution is simpler: reduce +to-hit and eliminate +to-damage bonuses for missile attacks above normal [penalties for below normal can stay because if you're standing next to something, you shouldn't be able to be in Coward and not have any penalties].

As I've stated earlier, everyone will still choose the best setting. All your solution will do is to make missile combat weaker, that is not what I think should happen. I enjoy a strong missile attack and I think it is good to give the player choice. Currently and with your suggestion there won't be much tactics setting choice wrt missile combat.

I'd rather see a solution that gives more drawback to aggressive tactics settings.

[Harwin]

I think the "missiles are destroyed more" works. It's not a pure penalty - you also need to fire fewer shots, but really you're using it for times you want to make those shots count, so it can be worth it, but you've got the defensive penalty already if an enemy happens to be in melee, or can shoot back.

[Silfir]

To me, "berserk archery" represents completely zoning out of your surroundings, neglecting your defenses, in order to concentrate fully on aiming. Sort of like zooming through a sniper scope in an FPS; you lose peripheral vision for a short while, but make the target and its weak spots easier to hit. Not long enough to completely forget about what's going on around you, but long enough to have a much harder time dodging incoming attacks. That's exactly what happens in ADOM right now.

The damage and to-hit bonus from berserk for ranged combat is just low enough. It only has no downside when the player is doing well, i.e. is not engaged in melee combat, and berserk archery becomes a complete non-option once shit really hits the fan. It can make a difference a combat situation between killing things running at you just quick enough and taking potentially fatal damage from their melee attacks - which is good because that's a bloody exciting and rewarding scenario for those who are willing to learn about the tactics system. It's the very opposite of a mindless game mechanic.

It's also the weaker classes that really benefit from berserk archery, all things told, because it improves the impact of the early game damage sources they do have. Thieves, for instance, don't really have much to work with except a higher than average Dexterity stat - those extra points of to-hit and damage can go a long way on their thrown rocks. The classes higher on the power scale don't have a reason to care, not even archers - they hit so hard with missiles already that the berserk bonus is a drop in the bucket.



Don't fix what ain't broke.

[Stingray1]

You know what, I press F1 when a monster is not adjacent to me and then t followed by t. Never do I consider pressing F2 to F7 before pressing t followed by t when my target is not adjacent to me. Even against giants. It is a pretty mindless action for me by now. All I'm asking for is for some thought to go into choosing which tactic setting to use in ranged combat. It is really boring to always choose exactly the same tactic setting when engaging an enemy at range. It may not be broken, but it is a bit dull.

[Silfir]

"when a monster is not adjacent to me" - there we go.

You might as well claim that chess is mindless because there is no reason not to checkmate the enemy king once you're given the opportunity. There is not actually a problem here.

[Stingray1]

In chess you create that opportunity and your opponent tries to counter those opportunities while create it for him/herself. Nothing mindless in that.

ADOM just gives you the opportunity.

[Silfir]

I'm not sure there is a polite way to express how much I disagree.

ADOM throws monsters in random compositions and random numbers at you, with random battlefields and dungeon layouts. Berserk archery is something of a "win more" element; if you're several spaces away from all enemies already, you're in a pretty good position no matter what. All the extra points do is make it a little easier to maintain it or win outright. But once the monsters have closed the distance, the downside of berserk mode is felt again.

Through smart moving and careful picking of targets, you constantly end up creating additional opportunities to shoot at monsters unimpeded far more often than the game ends up just "giving" them to you.

[aerol]

An easy fix for the whole "berserkering doesn't make sense with missile combat" thing, which I agree with, would be to make Berserk bonuses for missile combat identical to Very Aggressive missile bonuses.

[asdf]

An easy fix for the whole "berserkering doesn't make sense with missile combat" thing, which I agree with, would be to make Berserk bonuses for missile combat identical to Very Aggressive missile bonuses.
more +damage but less +to-hit, perhaps?

[Soirana]

ADOM throws monsters in random compositions and random numbers at you, with random battlefields and dungeon layouts. Berserk archery is something of a "win more" element; if you're several spaces away from all enemies already, you're in a pretty good position no matter what. All the extra points do is make it a little easier to maintain it or win outright. But once the monsters have closed the distance, the downside of berserk mode is felt again.

Through smart moving and careful picking of targets, you constantly end up creating additional opportunities to shoot at monsters unimpeded far more often than the game ends up just "giving" them to you.

As far as I know monsters are not generated in line of sight. So yes, game is systematically "giving" space for archery.

[Stingray1]

I think the current bonuses to to-hit and damage and penalties to DV that the various tactics settings, including berserk, gives is fine as is.

I think we should concentrate on finding or commenting on solutions that do not make the "berserk" tactics setting the obvious choice in most circumstances.

[GordonOverkill]

Hmmm, just to mention it by the way, one tactic that I personally use very, very often in almost every run is coward. It's the obvious choice for fleeing, casting, healing, doing whatever takes more time than a single turn and of course for ordinary travelling. Also it has a very nice special feature: The speed bonus for injured chars. Most of my chars are in coward mode a whole lot more often than in berserk mode and for, say, a wizard there is hardly a reason to use anything else. Very aggressive is the best choice while training shields. Defensive or very defensive is what I use when I really don't want to get hit but have to fight anyway... maybe offensive if I feel cocky. Actually the one tactic that I use almost never is normal, but apart from that I think that I use most settings on a more or less regular basis.