I know this has been discussed before, but I really think there should be command BERSERK UAC. Considering we can type MSTRIKE KICK or MSTRIKE KICK TARGET, I really thing berserk could be rather trivially allowed to allow BERSERK UAC. That said, I would ask that no other changes be made to berserk if that happened.
KHARIZ555
ARMSTRONGR1
CAVEMANIAC
KHARIZ555
Re: UAC Berserk
06/13/2017 07:25 PM CDT
And here is why I'm saying it's trivial:
Right now berserk works like this: When you type berserk, if there is more than one critter in the room, it mstrikes with a fixed roundtime and fixed stamina cost per mstrike. If there is only one creature, it focused mstrikes that one create, if there are none, it stops.
Since MSTRIKE [UAC] (jab/kick/punch/grapple) already exists. And since MSTRIKE [UAC] TARGET also exists, it should literally take less than a few hours to code in the few extra considerations for "If the player types BERSERK UAC, then use MSTRIKE JAB and MSTRIKE JAB TARGET with the same fixed roundtime and stamina rules that standard berserk uses".
It wouldn't otherwise have to change anything at all about how berserk works, other than allowing the use of the UAC system instead of standard brawling rolls for brawling weapons. And the only reason I'm being this brash about claiming triviality is because MSTRIKE UAC and MSTRIKE UAC TARGET already exist. There just shouldn't be a barrier to hooking this up.
NIR, please inform me if I am wrong and, if so, why.
Right now berserk works like this: When you type berserk, if there is more than one critter in the room, it mstrikes with a fixed roundtime and fixed stamina cost per mstrike. If there is only one creature, it focused mstrikes that one create, if there are none, it stops.
Since MSTRIKE [UAC] (jab/kick/punch/grapple) already exists. And since MSTRIKE [UAC] TARGET also exists, it should literally take less than a few hours to code in the few extra considerations for "If the player types BERSERK UAC, then use MSTRIKE JAB and MSTRIKE JAB TARGET with the same fixed roundtime and stamina rules that standard berserk uses".
It wouldn't otherwise have to change anything at all about how berserk works, other than allowing the use of the UAC system instead of standard brawling rolls for brawling weapons. And the only reason I'm being this brash about claiming triviality is because MSTRIKE UAC and MSTRIKE UAC TARGET already exist. There just shouldn't be a barrier to hooking this up.
NIR, please inform me if I am wrong and, if so, why.
LEEJ187
Re: UAC Berserk
06/13/2017 07:45 PM CDT
< There just shouldn't be a barrier to hooking this up. >
Not a NIR, but...to be fair.
Try plugging a regular Nintendo into a 4K HDTV. It sounds silly, but because Berserk is tied into the combat system ( the Nintendo of this scenario, old decrepit and you have to blow on it to make it work! ) tying in UAC is not as easy as it sounds, and nothing is easy as a few hours when it comes to this.
When dealing with large systems ( combat, justice, death even ) it's not a simple A to B result. Consider it more of a web, where your request is to play with one string except it's connected to 20 more in haphazard fashion, yet somehow the old version of the web still stands. You're asking for a modification to a script very old with multiple combat checks ( if person has cman/guild training, plus brawling ranks, hands, injuries, etc ) and I'm no expert in UAC but I don't think the premise of a berserking warrior is to use the most timid form of the combat desired. So then you'd have to consider balance, randomization into the once simple formula.
Not saying it can't be done, as the people who work on these systems are brilliant and exceptionally talented, but it's not a nose wiggle and exaggerated nod kind of change.
I got a Nintendo and a I Dream of Jeanie reference into the same post. Boosh.
~James/Stunseed
Not a NIR, but...to be fair.
Try plugging a regular Nintendo into a 4K HDTV. It sounds silly, but because Berserk is tied into the combat system ( the Nintendo of this scenario, old decrepit and you have to blow on it to make it work! ) tying in UAC is not as easy as it sounds, and nothing is easy as a few hours when it comes to this.
When dealing with large systems ( combat, justice, death even ) it's not a simple A to B result. Consider it more of a web, where your request is to play with one string except it's connected to 20 more in haphazard fashion, yet somehow the old version of the web still stands. You're asking for a modification to a script very old with multiple combat checks ( if person has cman/guild training, plus brawling ranks, hands, injuries, etc ) and I'm no expert in UAC but I don't think the premise of a berserking warrior is to use the most timid form of the combat desired. So then you'd have to consider balance, randomization into the once simple formula.
Not saying it can't be done, as the people who work on these systems are brilliant and exceptionally talented, but it's not a nose wiggle and exaggerated nod kind of change.
I got a Nintendo and a I Dream of Jeanie reference into the same post. Boosh.
~James/Stunseed
KHARIZ555
Re: UAC Berserk
06/13/2017 08:18 PM CDT
I just don't think that's correct in this case. They already did the hard work by coding MSTRIKE UAC and MSTRIKE UAC TARGET. Telling berserk to use those verbs instead of MSTRIKE and MSTRIKE TARGET is the change that needs to be made. All the other stuff would still work exactly the same. I'm a coder myself, and I certainly can understand and conceptualize why exactly this could be a complicated task, but the underpinnings and the systems are complete and would not need altered by this task. It would just need to call a different mstrike function than it already does each round.
LEEJ187
Re: UAC Berserk
06/13/2017 09:35 PM CDT
< I just don't think that's correct in this case. >
You are well entitled to your opinion and I value your thoughts on the matter. We will just agree to disagree, as I know you underestimate the difficulty of modifying systems made when a 14.4k modem was all the rage.
< I'm a coder myself, and I certainly can understand and conceptualize why exactly this could be a complicated task, but the underpinnings and the systems are complete and would not need altered by this task. >
I've touched a little bit of code myself in my day, so I can completely understand the binary shaded glasses you wear.
< It would just need to call a different mstrike function than it already does each round. >
Yes, you're requesting callmatches for a system created just a few years ago based on the standards of that time, to mesh and integrate seamlessly with a system built in the 90's. Based on your experience coding, you do understand how dubious this sounds and your steadfast stance on it, I hope?
By the by, I'm all for improvements to Warriors and Berserk, and truly for the sake of others hope they get this implemented.
~James/Stunseed
You are well entitled to your opinion and I value your thoughts on the matter. We will just agree to disagree, as I know you underestimate the difficulty of modifying systems made when a 14.4k modem was all the rage.
< I'm a coder myself, and I certainly can understand and conceptualize why exactly this could be a complicated task, but the underpinnings and the systems are complete and would not need altered by this task. >
I've touched a little bit of code myself in my day, so I can completely understand the binary shaded glasses you wear.
< It would just need to call a different mstrike function than it already does each round. >
Yes, you're requesting callmatches for a system created just a few years ago based on the standards of that time, to mesh and integrate seamlessly with a system built in the 90's. Based on your experience coding, you do understand how dubious this sounds and your steadfast stance on it, I hope?
By the by, I'm all for improvements to Warriors and Berserk, and truly for the sake of others hope they get this implemented.
~James/Stunseed
KHARIZ555
Re: UAC Berserk
06/13/2017 09:57 PM CDT
I think it's a reasonable inference based on what we do know. We know that the current berserk is directly using mstrike in its cslls because the number of targets it hits for its focused and unfocused waves correlates with the number of MOC ranks you have. So it has to be calling an mstrike function to determine what to hit and how many times. Making that call to an alternate mstrike function instead of the one it does make is the change that it needs for this to work.
I can understand using an excuse like "berserk is not balanced for UAC", meaning that it could be unfair or unbalanced without further considerations (which I also don't accept because mstrike works with it and uses less stamina than mstriking with my weapons anyway), but the coding argument (at least the particular argument hat you are making in this thread) doesn't seem to be there. I understand that this coding language is ancient, but I really think you are too deeply discounting the fact that all the work for berserk and its correlation to mstrike has already been done. It would be up to the player to add the extra operator that signifies "Call MSTRIKE UAC instead of MSTRIKE". But with no further changes being needed to the mechanics of berserk, the system is doing whatever it already would when a player types MSTRIKE [UAC VERB] and setting the arbitrary RT and Stamina values like Berserk does now.
In summary, you think I'm over-simplying the coding project, and I think you are over-discounting how much of the work has already been done. The truth is surely somewhere in between. I accept that.
I can understand using an excuse like "berserk is not balanced for UAC", meaning that it could be unfair or unbalanced without further considerations (which I also don't accept because mstrike works with it and uses less stamina than mstriking with my weapons anyway), but the coding argument (at least the particular argument hat you are making in this thread) doesn't seem to be there. I understand that this coding language is ancient, but I really think you are too deeply discounting the fact that all the work for berserk and its correlation to mstrike has already been done. It would be up to the player to add the extra operator that signifies "Call MSTRIKE UAC instead of MSTRIKE". But with no further changes being needed to the mechanics of berserk, the system is doing whatever it already would when a player types MSTRIKE [UAC VERB] and setting the arbitrary RT and Stamina values like Berserk does now.
In summary, you think I'm over-simplying the coding project, and I think you are over-discounting how much of the work has already been done. The truth is surely somewhere in between. I accept that.
LEEJ187
Re: UAC Berserk
06/14/2017 11:22 PM CDT
< It would be up to the player to add the extra operator that signifies "Call MSTRIKE UAC instead of MSTRIKE". But with no further changes being needed to the mechanics of berserk, the system is doing whatever it already would when a player types MSTRIKE [UAC VERB] and setting the arbitrary RT and Stamina values like Berserk does now. >
As a fellow berserker of 10+ million experience, the way Berserk is handled now would have to be modified for any interaction by the player outside of the basic fluff like SHAKE that adds no mechanical benefit. Yes, the current incantation of the script I'm sure checks against a warrior's Multi-Opponent skill and calls that information in some fashion, I don't question that at all.
Most new setups don't go the same route as berserk and its archaic framework and are identifiable in multiple ways ( integration with SF is a pretty decent indicator of "current" standards ) . The UAC system created by Finros is a fine example of what can be done with today's standards in comparison.
I absolutely want improvements to the class itself, and I see Berserk as a fantastic means to achieve that. At the same time, in my opinion, as humble as it may be, you're asking for a controllable situation on a skill that's never had that factor before. Work with UAC? Yes, I think that is a fantastic idea. Control of what kind of UAC your persona is using while in berserk? I don't see it, or if it is considered it shouldn't modify the roundtime in the favor of unarmed combat in comparison to the others ( clarity of the "balance excuse" ).
To add the versatility you wish, it would take a new callmatch as well as the outdated portion of the script to acknowledge the verbiage including applicable parsing. Not to mention testing and QC processes! Can it be done? Yes, I have complete faith the Combat DEV's in general can do it, they are great people without question.
I would simply advise that people who haphazardly say "This can be done in X hours!!one", are better off using that time and filling out the application to join the forces of the Dev team. Take the red pill, stay in Wonderland and see how deep the rabbit hole truly goes :)
~James/Stunseed
As a fellow berserker of 10+ million experience, the way Berserk is handled now would have to be modified for any interaction by the player outside of the basic fluff like SHAKE that adds no mechanical benefit. Yes, the current incantation of the script I'm sure checks against a warrior's Multi-Opponent skill and calls that information in some fashion, I don't question that at all.
Most new setups don't go the same route as berserk and its archaic framework and are identifiable in multiple ways ( integration with SF is a pretty decent indicator of "current" standards ) . The UAC system created by Finros is a fine example of what can be done with today's standards in comparison.
I absolutely want improvements to the class itself, and I see Berserk as a fantastic means to achieve that. At the same time, in my opinion, as humble as it may be, you're asking for a controllable situation on a skill that's never had that factor before. Work with UAC? Yes, I think that is a fantastic idea. Control of what kind of UAC your persona is using while in berserk? I don't see it, or if it is considered it shouldn't modify the roundtime in the favor of unarmed combat in comparison to the others ( clarity of the "balance excuse" ).
To add the versatility you wish, it would take a new callmatch as well as the outdated portion of the script to acknowledge the verbiage including applicable parsing. Not to mention testing and QC processes! Can it be done? Yes, I have complete faith the Combat DEV's in general can do it, they are great people without question.
I would simply advise that people who haphazardly say "This can be done in X hours!!one", are better off using that time and filling out the application to join the forces of the Dev team. Take the red pill, stay in Wonderland and see how deep the rabbit hole truly goes :)
~James/Stunseed
KHARIZ555
Re: UAC Berserk
06/16/2017 12:13 AM CDT
I respect what you are saying. I certainly oversimplified the task, which I readily admit. I certainly understand that's it is not literally as easy as I was initially and somewhat smuggly stating.
But the "intelligence" built into the MSTRIKE capabilities of the UCS, seem to lie in the MSTRIKE itself. The mere fact that you mstrike with any of the UCS abilities, seems to invoke this almost automatic vulnerability progression (you can do better as a player that knows what he's doing, but its very nice to not have to think or pay attention when using mstrike version of UAC abilities). I'm not advocating that a player continue to have direct control over the vulnerability progression during a berserk. I'm advocating that each individual "wave" of berserk be treated as if the player just typed "mstrike kick" or "mstrike kick target", and let the already built-in logic of UCS MSTRIKE work its magic each wave.
Since I've never seen the underpinnings of berserk, I've always just assumed that since the roundtime and stamina rates appear "fixed" per wave of berserk, that those underpinnings could just be left the same for the sake of UCS Berserk, and that wave could be treated as a seperate mstrike for the vulnerability progression logic already coded into mstrike.
I still think it's a viable project. I still don't really see a balance issue. Buying a 4x maul and berserking with it, or berserking with a claidhmore is still an amazingly efficient way to hunt for warriors. In general, UCS Beserking is still going to be less "efficient" of a way to kill things, especially at cap, but it sure would be fun to watch and read as the screen scrolls by.
I just hope it happens some day, regardless of how much work someone has to put into it. I think it would be neat. Thanks for staying civil in the face of my persistence, Stunseed, I appreciate it.
But the "intelligence" built into the MSTRIKE capabilities of the UCS, seem to lie in the MSTRIKE itself. The mere fact that you mstrike with any of the UCS abilities, seems to invoke this almost automatic vulnerability progression (you can do better as a player that knows what he's doing, but its very nice to not have to think or pay attention when using mstrike version of UAC abilities). I'm not advocating that a player continue to have direct control over the vulnerability progression during a berserk. I'm advocating that each individual "wave" of berserk be treated as if the player just typed "mstrike kick" or "mstrike kick target", and let the already built-in logic of UCS MSTRIKE work its magic each wave.
Since I've never seen the underpinnings of berserk, I've always just assumed that since the roundtime and stamina rates appear "fixed" per wave of berserk, that those underpinnings could just be left the same for the sake of UCS Berserk, and that wave could be treated as a seperate mstrike for the vulnerability progression logic already coded into mstrike.
I still think it's a viable project. I still don't really see a balance issue. Buying a 4x maul and berserking with it, or berserking with a claidhmore is still an amazingly efficient way to hunt for warriors. In general, UCS Beserking is still going to be less "efficient" of a way to kill things, especially at cap, but it sure would be fun to watch and read as the screen scrolls by.
I just hope it happens some day, regardless of how much work someone has to put into it. I think it would be neat. Thanks for staying civil in the face of my persistence, Stunseed, I appreciate it.
LEEJ187
Re: UAC Berserk
06/16/2017 02:22 PM CDT
< I still think it's a viable project. >
I absolutely agree, it would be a great step towards providing the Warrior class combat mastery ( which they should have, 3x CM pros and cons regurgitation aside ), and allow more versatility. Outside of a few ideas I'm sending to Simucon this year to bribe Coase, I'd say it could be the 2nd coolest thing to have happen.
The first being, I acquired a tower shield shaped like a rack of ribs. I plan on getting fire flares put on it, and after Auvreaian kills someone/thing, I plan on throwing pickles on their corpse and whispering OOC they got McRibbed.
Your idea is certainly a close second, though.
~James/Stunseed
I absolutely agree, it would be a great step towards providing the Warrior class combat mastery ( which they should have, 3x CM pros and cons regurgitation aside ), and allow more versatility. Outside of a few ideas I'm sending to Simucon this year to bribe Coase, I'd say it could be the 2nd coolest thing to have happen.
The first being, I acquired a tower shield shaped like a rack of ribs. I plan on getting fire flares put on it, and after Auvreaian kills someone/thing, I plan on throwing pickles on their corpse and whispering OOC they got McRibbed.
Your idea is certainly a close second, though.
~James/Stunseed
KRAKII
Re: UAC Berserk
06/16/2017 02:29 PM CDT
The old character, "Rumproast", in fact had quite a few item alterations built around The Walking Deli concept. :)
