The Tavern

At the current state of the game formicids seem underpowered. They are heavy armored warriors who have the *potential* to have late game, but struggle to get there along the warrior path due to many limitations that come with perm stasis. It seems that stopping berserk in general is a grand idea, because of the haste within it, but people don't always berserk for hasting. Why can't a bug get angry? An at will might potion + health boost is more than enough to have berserking formicids be a threat, and it really doesn't make them overpowered (because minotaurs, cmon).
Off Topic : Also on formicids. They have 4 hands so why can they not wield 2 pairs of gloves or 4 rings?

In general, whether something is "underpowered" should not really be a design concern. If you want to change how stasis and berserk interact because it, for example, creates more interesting situations then that's fine, but I don't think it really does. Also you would need to make the change in general and not just for formicids, which adds complexity. In short it is added work and complexity for no real benefit.

With regards to gloves and rings, it's because flavor does not come ahead of gameplay. If you want lots of flavor, crawl is not the place to find it.

If you allow formicids to berserk sans haste, it would mean they'd come out of the berserk sans slow. I don't know about you, but the real reason why I usually hesitate to berserk all the time isn't food cost, it's because walking around slowed is usually a bad idea.

In other words, this would just give formicids reason to berserk down every enemy in later floors when they have enough food to sustain themselves. I don't know about you, but that sounds like boring, scummy play.

Also, what WalkerBoh said. Not every species needs perfect balance parity.

Well Boh, in the " read this before posting " it gives an example about _ is overpowered...and I think _ would help. So I think it is a design concern. If under/over powered concerns were never addressed I think we would still have summons off screen killing entire floors of enemies.

Also on topic of Sans haste to Sans slow. Yes they wouldn't be slowed, but the hunger cost of berserk is still huge, and people usually just wait after berserking and killing an entire floor anyway. There is basically no difference. Berserk is already abused the way it is.

Huh? The slow is the main reason not to berserk in every encounter - there are plenty of chunks to eat all over.

TheArcanist wrote:If you allow formicids to berserk sans haste, it would mean they'd come out of the berserk sans slow. I don't know about you, but the real reason why I usually hesitate to berserk all the time isn't food cost, it's because walking around slowed is usually a bad idea.

IMHO, that is a function of bad design implementation.

The "slow" from berserk represents the natural slow one gets from exhaustion / over-exertion. It should not ever be stasis-applicable; it is not magically-sourced. The potion of berserking didn't cause your slowness; the natural "being crazed" of being berserk did it.

The "slow" from Swiftness, on the other hand, is magically-sourced and should be affected.

Additionally, IMHO, stasis shouldn't affect potion-based berserking at all, as I interpret that as someone taking a body-enhancing speed drug, but that's me making a distinction between potions and Trog-effects. Worst case, give Formicids all the bonuses except speed, and give them all the penalties.

Finerminer wrote:Well Boh, in the " read this before posting " it gives an example about _ is overpowered...and I think _ would help. So I think it is a design concern. If under/over powered concerns were never addressed I think we would still have summons off screen killing entire floors of enemies.

It is not a design goal that all Crawl races be of relatively equal power, or even that there should be no races significantly weaker than the others. The example in the stickied post is telling you how to format your posts, not what does or does not constitute a design issue.

The summoning change you mentioned was not made because summoning was overpowered, but because it encouraged handling every encounter with tedious backtracking to ensure maximum safety. The fact that it made summons weaker was a side effect, not an explicit goal.

Regardless, my point stands that your proposed changes to Fo add additional work and complexity to the game. To justify that, you need to provide very powerful evidence of an improvement. "Fo seems weak, and this would make them not as weak" does not fall into that category.

Edit: also you violated like half of the things in that sticky topic so...

Edit: your criticism is hardly constructive. This is my first post and it would've been nice to see some actual feedback instead of "What you said doesn't really make much sense, seems pointless."
Back to the topic. Berserking is a free auto haste, is it not? Removing the haste would also justify removing the slow. You're not speeding up, therefore why slow down? You're just getting mad and hitting harder. I do think berserking should be possible through stasis. It's more than just a haste.

johlstei wrote:Huh? The slow is the main reason not to berserk in every encounter - there are plenty of chunks to eat all over.

I can berserk in every encounter, then eat what I killed then 5 spam until full health again and not think twice about it. The slow has never stopped me. The Exhaust on the other hand has stopped me in several occasions. Even if the slow is stopping me, I just haste wand up to normal speed.

Finerminer wrote:The slow has never stopped me. The Exhaust on the other hand has stopped me in several occasions. Even if the slow is stopping me, I just haste wand up to normal speed.

Exhaust does literally nothing except prevent you from berserking again. Slow is a crippling status effect that can outright kill you, and the only way to counteract it is to "just" use up charges of the best item in the game. Without Slow, berserk has no downside worth mentioning!

I have no idea why Formicid is even mentioned in this thread since this would not actually buff them. They would still be worse than almost every other race by exactly the same margin for exactly the same reasons. FoBe is the only Fo that significantly benefits anyway, and FoBe is already easily the best Fo.

Finerminer wrote:Edit: your criticism is hardly constructive. This is my first post and it would've been nice to see some actual feedback instead of "What you said doesn't really make much sense, seems pointless."

It's pretty constructive criticism actually. It's called game design discussion. You made a proposal, and I concisely told you why it doesn't meet the design goals. I even explained why in detail the second time. I'm not sure what more you expect from feedback...

It would be more constructive of you to actually address the concern I brought up rather than dismissing them out of hand.

TheDefiniteArticle wrote:
Finerminer wrote:The slow has never stopped me. The Exhaust on the other hand has stopped me in several occasions. Even if the slow is stopping me, I just haste wand up to normal speed.

Exhaust does literally nothing except prevent you from berserking again. Slow is a crippling status effect that can outright kill you, and the only way to counteract it is to "just" use up charges of the best item in the game. Without Slow, berserk has no downside worth mentioning!

I have no idea why Formicid is even mentioned in this thread since this would not actually buff them. They would still be worse than almost every other race by exactly the same margin for exactly the same reasons. FoBe is the only Fo that significantly benefits anyway, and FoBe is already easily the best Fo.

Are any of you taking into consideration that they don't get the haste from the berserk? If haste is so good, and they wouldn't get the haste, then what would be odd about not receiving a slow? It would become more similar to hero, that it gives a minor boost in power for a limited time, and then you'd just go back to not being as mighty, and not be able to re-use it right away again.

Well they just currently have no abilities to escape any situation other than hoping to be naturally faster than the enemy, passwall, or Logunu blink? Their only option in most cases is fighting.

Am I missing something?

WalkerBoh wrote:
Finerminer wrote:Edit: your criticism is hardly constructive. This is my first post and it would've been nice to see some actual feedback instead of "What you said doesn't really make much sense, seems pointless."

It's pretty constructive criticism actually. It's called game design discussion. You made a proposal, and I concisely told you why it doesn't meet the design goals. I even explained why in detail the second time. I'm not sure what more you expect from feedback...

It would be more constructive of you to actually address the concern I brought up rather than dismissing them out of hand.

It's also a "discussion" board, sorry if I'm a little turned off that no discussing was going on, rather just a blatant shooting down of an idea. I'm not that into arguing, I just want to talk about the idea, not get immediately dismissed.

So you're suggesting that formicids should have on-demand might and a 50% hp boost for the cost of half a chunk's worth of satiation? But I guess that according to your logic, that's already the case for all races, since the slow doesn't actually matter.

asdu wrote:So you're suggesting that formicids should have on-demand might and a 50% hp boost for the cost of half a chunk's worth of satiation? But I guess that according to your logic, that's already the case for all races, since the slow doesn't actually matter.

Hero costs a quarter of Berserk, next to no piety, and has no harmful effects. But yes, I guess spending a whole contam chunk every fight for might would get overpowered, only a problem if you're having trouble finding food. Point taken.

I find it weird that Berserk (supposedly a mental condition) is blocked by stasis at all. Clarity, yes I understand...but Stasis? The haste portion of it is supposedly natural and non-magic haste and the slow portion is also supposedly natural. I'm all for it working normally. I do admit this would open the door on Poison-based Slow/Paralyze affecting those with stasis (Wasp; but I'm fine with that too [just make sure those are resisted with rPois instead]).

tl;dr: Potion/Poison-based Slow/Paralysis and Berserk shouldn't be blocked by Stasis. Poison-slow/paralysis should stick to rPois; berserk should stick to clarity.

Basically berserk is a huge pile of awesome effects that is balanced by the slow at the end. If you don't have the slow at the end, there is basically no cost, and you still get 2/3 strong effects, and now they are effectively permanent as long as you have food. Berserker is a strong background and I don't think they need +50% hp and permamight for free at all times when it is relevant.

bcadren wrote:I find it weird that Berserk (supposedly a mental condition) is blocked by stasis at all. Clarity, yes I understand...but Stasis? The haste portion of it is supposedly natural and non-magic haste and the slow portion is also supposedly natural. I'm all for it working normally. I do admit this would open the door on Poison-based Slow/Paralyze affecting those with stasis (Wasp; but I'm fine with that too [just make sure those are resisted with rPois instead]).

tl;dr: Potion/Poison-based Slow/Paralysis and Berserk shouldn't be blocked by Stasis. Poison-slow/paralysis should stick to rPois; berserk should stick to clarity.

Are you proposing this to solve some game balance issue you have noticed, or 'because realism'?

bcadren wrote:I find it weird that Berserk (supposedly a mental condition) is blocked by stasis at all. Clarity, yes I understand...but Stasis? The haste portion of it is supposedly natural and non-magic haste and the slow portion is also supposedly natural. I'm all for it working normally. I do admit this would open the door on Poison-based Slow/Paralyze affecting those with stasis (Wasp; but I'm fine with that too [just make sure those are resisted with rPois instead]).

tl;dr: Potion/Poison-based Slow/Paralysis and Berserk shouldn't be blocked by Stasis. Poison-slow/paralysis should stick to rPois; berserk should stick to clarity.

Well what then would be the effects of moving all berserk blocking into Clarity, and allowing the haste and slow of a berserk through stasis? Would that seem more logical? It would basically make it that berserk is completely blocked by clarity of the mind (which seems to make sense) and then allowing berserking through stasis, with all the effects that come with it. I'm assuming that allowing a haste through stasis somehow would end up not jiving though.

You guys are getting way too caught up in what things are named. The way it works is you choose what effects an item will have based on how you want it to affect gameplay, and after that you choose an appropriate name.

You don't pick a name for an item and try to then design all the effects so they fit the name regardless of how it affects the game. This is completely backwards.

Patashu wrote:Are you proposing this to solve some game balance issue you have noticed, or 'because realism'?

Petrify and Sleep are already not blocked by stasis because they aren't magically slowing/speeding but 'being turned into a statue' and 'going to sleep'. Sleep is a mental effect as well. Similarly the body change slowing caused by statue isn't blocked; nor any of the form change speed differences. Berserk is understood as a physical (non-magic) effect; having it blocked by stasis is...counterintuitive to a non-spoiled player. Also, Passage of Golubria also isn't blocked for some reason...why isn't passage blocked? I'd never have figured that one out without spoilers...

WalkerBoh wrote:You guys are getting way too caught up in what things are named. The way it works is you choose what effects an item will have based on how you want it to affect gameplay, and after that you choose an appropriate name.

You don't pick a name for an item and try to then design all the effects so they fit the name regardless of how it affects the game. This is completely backwards.

Then I instead suggest changing the name of beserk. Possibly to mystical rage?

I would personally rather change the name of stasis if anything, since it is way more confusing. I wouldn't expect an item named stasis to prevent paralysis, for instance. I think Berserk is perfectly clear and describes how you would expect the effect to work.

WalkerBoh wrote:I would personally rather change the name of stasis if anything, since it is way more confusing. I wouldn't expect an item named stasis to prevent paralysis, for instance. I think Berserk is perfectly clear and describes how you would expect the effect to work.

Stasis is a confusing word, it can mean not moving as well as not changing....it's easy to see how noobs like me would get easily confused by it.
It's not as cool sounding, but a status called "Locked" I think could describe the ability to not be paralyzed, hasted, slowed, tele, blink, etc. Basically saying you are locked as you are. Idk. I pretty much am out of ideas at this point.

amulet of resist slowing

duvessa wrote:amulet of resist slowing

Amulet of movement never changing and always staying similar.

While we're at it, what's the deal with bishops only being able to move diagonally! I've been to churches. And why isn't the FIDE answering my letters???

e: do not even get me started on the misandry of chess

Finerminer wrote:Off Topic : Also on formicids. They have 4 hands so why can they not wield 2 pairs of gloves or 4 rings?

That's why people have suggested changing the flavour from "4 arms" to "2 strong arms".

Alternatively, the second set of arms is vestigial and only functional enough to help hold a shield. Feel free to think up your own justification.

WalkerBoh wrote:You guys are getting way too caught up in what things are named. The way it works is you choose what effects an item will have based on how you want it to affect gameplay, and after that you choose an appropriate name.

You don't pick a name for an item and try to then design all the effects so they fit the name regardless of how it affects the game. This is completely backwards.

No, both are wrong.

What you're proposing first works for completely or mostly abstract games, e.g. board games. Video games that have realistic elements, and that are supposed to be playable intuitively (eg. adventure games), without explicit knowledge of the rules (ie. spoilers), need to have their internal objects and gameplay elements named in such a way that their behavior is mostly intutively understandable, that players can at least for the most part guess what they're supposed to do. It's a trivial consequence of intuitiveness as a design goal.

Unless your definition of "appropriate" includes this, then both approaches must be used - the design of the object must surely be first based on the overall game design, but the name and description of the object must also lead players to correctly intuit its behavior (and even the behavior of similar objects) in most circumstances. If this is not true, it's bad design, unless the game is meant to be played with a rulebook/manual/spoilers.

I think it has already been told if not one then multiple times that the thing that balances berserk is the slow you receive afterwards.
And yes, it does matter - going from +50% Hp, +50% Speed and being mighted to having none of these things and being 50% slower than normal a crippling aftermath that prevents you from carelessly using it.

Here's a good example of how splitting slow/paralyse into physical and magical could get confusing.
Currently starcursed masses can paralyse you with a psychic chorus of blasts. Is that physical or magical? (They're not casting a -spell-, per say.)
What about Rupert's paralysis? It's flavoured to be a shout of terror e.g. it is a physical/mental effect, but game-mechnically it is a spell. Is that physical or magical?

Patashu wrote:Here's a good example of how splitting slow/paralyse into physical and magical could get confusing.
Currently starcursed masses can paralyse you with a psychic chorus of blasts. Is that physical or magical? (They're not casting a -spell-, per say.)
What about Rupert's paralysis? It's flavoured to be a shout of terror e.g. it is a physical/mental effect, but game-mechnically it is a spell. Is that physical or magical?

Well, sleep/petrify and form change speed changes not being blocked might be unexpected by the unspoiled as well. In a lot of cases if you changed to blocking the speed change and NOTHING else, you'd be fine, though.

Amulet of Acceleration and Displacement Resistance

Patashu wrote:What about Rupert's paralysis? It's flavoured to be a shout of terror e.g. it is a physical/mental effect, but game-mechnically it is a spell. Is that physical or magical?

Given that we are offered little metaphysical insight into the exact vectors by which the players own spells accomplish their effects (does the Fear spell send out a magical wave of fear energy on the luminiferous aether or does it work internally to inspire the casters innate ability to instil fear in other creatures through natural channels) it is almost impossible to extrapolate, the game presents similar difficulties in identifying in what respect Invisibility has anything at all in common with any other spell in the Hexes school - the effect being cast upon oneself with no opportunity for those who are affected by it to counter it via their Magic Resistance, the case of apparently intangible creatures such as ghosts also bears little logical scrutiny, as they can be effectively attacked using both spells such as Stone Arrow (which claims to be wholly physical in nature) and even the crudest of mundane weapons such as an unenchanted, unbranded club, and while I'm on the subject what's going on with undead and health bars, regeneration and stair use???

P.s. I'm pretty sure the tiles for hippogrifs and griffons are the wrong way round too.

Unless your definition of "appropriate" includes this, then both approaches must be used - the design of the object must surely be first based on the overall game design, but the name and description of the object must also lead players to correctly intuit its behavior (and even the behavior of similar objects) in most circumstances. If this is not true, it's bad design, unless the game is meant to be played with a rulebook/manual/spoilers.

This is... exactly what I said?

WalkerBoh wrote:
Unless your definition of "appropriate" includes this, then both approaches must be used - the design of the object must surely be first based on the overall game design, but the name and description of the object must also lead players to correctly intuit its behavior (and even the behavior of similar objects) in most circumstances. If this is not true, it's bad design, unless the game is meant to be played with a rulebook/manual/spoilers.

This is... exactly what I said?

It may have been what you intended, however you only wrote of a one way relationship where you come up with an object and then give it a somewhat appropriate name. That ignores the latter part that when you're then expanding the game and linking it to other objects you should indeed expand and adjust its behavior according to its theme/name/appearance if the goal is intutiveness, or add descriptors that make it obvious it does not behave as you would expect it to.

Not a big issue here, though, just a comment in general.

Intuitiveness is not a design goal. You can tell by the fact that Crawl is not intuitive and makes no effort to become more intuitive.

TheDefiniteArticle wrote:Intuitiveness is not a design goal. You can tell by the fact that Crawl is not intuitive and makes no effort to become more intuitive.

Minor design goals wrote: clarity (playability without need for spoilers)
internal consistency

TheDefiniteArticle wrote:Intuitiveness is not a design goal. You can tell by the fact that Crawl is not intuitive and makes no effort to become more intuitive.

To expand on damiac's quote

The Manual wrote:N. Philosophy (pas de faq)

In a nutshell: This game aims to be a tactical fantasy-themed dungeon crawl. We strive for strategy being a concern, too, and for exquisite gameplay and interface. However, don't expect plots or quests.

You may ponder about the wisdom of certain design decisions of Crawl. This section tries to explain some of them. It could also be of interest if you are used to other roguelikes and want a bit of background on the differences. Prime mainstays of Crawl development are the following, most of which are explained in more detail below. Note that many of these date back to Linley's first versions.

Major design goals

challenging and random gameplay, with skill making a real difference
meaningful decisions (no no-brainers)
avoidance of grinding (no scumming)
gameplay supporting painless interface and newbie support

Minor design goals

clarity (playability without need for spoilers)
internal consistency
replayability (using branches, species, playing styles and gods)
proper use of out of depth monsters

Intuitiveness is generally considered the hallmark of good interface, too. No, can't provide a citation tho, just seems like it.

DickhardLionheart wrote:What you're proposing first works for completely or mostly abstract games, e.g. board games. Video games that have realistic elements, and that are supposed to be playable intuitively (eg. adventure games), without explicit knowledge of the rules (ie. spoilers), need to have their internal objects and gameplay elements named in such a way that their behavior is mostly intutively understandable, that players can at least for the most part guess what they're supposed to do. It's a trivial consequence of intuitiveness as a design goal.

Correct. Misnaming something in a game where you are intended to be able to win "spoiler free" is an artificial interface screw.

Better names for "Amulet of Stasis" (which implies "Amulet of Hibernation"):

Amulet of Consistency
Amulet of Stability

DickhardLionheart wrote:It may have been what you intended, however you only wrote of a one way relationship where you come up with an object and then give it a somewhat appropriate name. That ignores the latter part that when you're then expanding the game and linking it to other objects you should indeed expand and adjust its behavior according to its theme/name/appearance if the goal is intutiveness, or add descriptors that make it obvious it does not behave as you would expect it to.

Yes, what I wrote does ignore the latter part, because it's not immediately relevant to this topic. My point is just that rather than adopting the mindset of "the effect's name is stasis, so let's change its attributes so that they perfectly match the name", you should instead design with the mindset of "these attributes have an interesting effect, let's select a name that intuitively explains them".

Tldr: I agree names should be intuitive, but the design should drive the name and not the other way around. I think we are in agreement regarding this.

XuaXua wrote:Amulet of Stability

Almost makes me want to see this as a combined Amulet of Stasis / Amulet of Resist Mutation.

gdd: where the only thing we discuss is names

Description text for amulet of stasis wrote:An amulet meticulously constructed with magical wards to block magical and physiological effects that would otherwise teleport, slow, haste, or paralyse its wearer. While the amulet is effective against most translocular magic, plane shifts such as banishment are beyond its ability to block.

I think that's pretty clear, although admittedly you could add berserk just to be 100% clear.

Do note however that it says "magical and physiological effects." Just tested in wizmode and the amulet of stasis does prevent slow and paralysis from the poison of yellow and red wasps, respectively, though of course both of those guys can still give you Pois. There's even a bit of flavor text about the amulet giving a mild shock when it "works" to prevent slow/paralysis from poison. I assume it does same with the slow from curare but I didn't test; if there are loopholes I'm sure those are bugs not features and should be reported to Mantis.

In short, explicitly adding berserk after haste in the description would be an improvement. Beyond that I'm really not sure what else you expect the game to do to convey this information, it is already spelled out explicitly.

Personal opinion: Stasis is a good name, at the very least it is far better than anything else suggested.

Dare I bring up Finesse, the other god power Fo can't use because of stasis?

archaeo wrote:Dare I bring up Finesse, the other god power Fo can't use because of stasis?

IMO we should let them use finesse, but just without the part that speeds you up.

I mean all I'm saying is that if we throw Berserk into the Stasis description, which seems like a good idea, Finesse ought to go in too. But yes, good show arrhy.

e: all I'm saying now, anyway; I guess I was pretty general up above.

what i'm wondering is why can't formicids use large rocks anymore in trunk? did they really need that nerf?

goo wrote:what i'm wondering is why can't formicids use large rocks anymore in trunk? did they really need that nerf?

Because it made them and Ogres/Trolls less distinct.

The Tavern

Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)

Re: Formicid Tweak: Allow Berserk ( minus hasting)