What do do about the Ulfserker?

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » April 14th, 2005, 9:42 pm

Just trying to get people's opinions...

Post by **turin** » April 14th, 2005, 9:49 pm

Raise cost by 1, slightly lower resistances, slightly reduce HP, leave speed the same (or, if anything, increase it) AND reduce berserker to 3-4 rounds (I say 4, but I'm willing to switch to 3 if its shown 4 is still overpowered).

IMHO, the berserker should be more of a horseman-like unit. Expensive, but fast and does a lot of damage, but can be killed quickly after it has been attacked.

however, the changes to the berserker specialty should not IMHO be reverted; they made the unit function more like it is intended to, now its just that the stats need to be toned down so it still functions as it should, but isn't overpowered.

AT · Post by AT » April 14th, 2005, 10:50 pm

Agree with Turin, but voted that nothing was wrong out of spite.

scott · Post by **scott** » April 15th, 2005, 12:01 am

Reduce resistances
Beserk on attack and defense

Release and playtest it there

Don't raise cost - as a L1 it should be less powerful and less costly
Not so sure about limiting the rounds or changing HP (although HP is an easy thing to tweak for a not-so-drastic change)

Post by **turin** » April 15th, 2005, 1:03 am

scott wrote:Don't raise cost - as a L1 it should be less powerful and less costly

Eh? Sorry, I just don't get this. Many (probably almost 10% of the) level 1 units cost more than 18. How can you say that it should be kept low because its level 1?

romnajin · Post by **romnajin** » April 15th, 2005, 2:27 am

Horsman, mage, gryphon rider, elvish scout, wose, etc.

Post by **turin** » April 15th, 2005, 12:42 pm

romnajin wrote:Horsman, mage, gryphon rider, elvish scout, wose, etc.

Well, the scout costs the same, at 18. And you missed HI.

But still, there's only about 40 (by my last count) level 1 units. 4/40 is 10%, which is a considerable amount. And my point is made.

Post by **Sangel** » April 15th, 2005, 1:27 pm

Reduce resistances. Reduce HP (by 2). Raise cost very slightly (+1). A number of small conservative changes added together should suffice.

Post by **Noy** » April 15th, 2005, 3:14 pm

Nice poll pillager, good not to add the option that most people would agree with which is return bezerk to offence and defence. Few people complained about the ulf in multiplayer before 9.0 (yes I know you did pillager... but that was the only thread I've seen) so why don't we just put it back to the way it was. Let me bold this one for you

If It isn't broke, don't fix it

There wasn't anything wrong with the Ulf to begin with. A fairly balanced unit that had amazing possibilities with just as frightening disadvantages. Changing the Bezerk unbalanced that completely. A month ago I predicted this would be the end result... and I don't mean to say I told you so but I did.

Reducing cost is pointless. The last thing the dwarves need is another high cost unit. If the ulf was a bit of a deal in 8.9 then that was fine, all races have one. Its resistances aren't that high, do decreasing them would be ruinous to the unit. I'd say the only other option is killing that 5 movement, maybe to 4. But it still doesn't adress the main problem.

Uppi · Post by **Uppi** » April 15th, 2005, 3:44 pm

Noy wrote: If It isn't broke, don't fix it

It was broken. Not in MP but in SP. Because the ulfserker was easily killed by any decent melee unit it was useless in later campaigns were the enemy recuited L2 Units against which the ulfserker stood no chance. And you had nearly no chance to advance him.

Post by **Darth Fool** » April 15th, 2005, 4:51 pm

increase the cost by 2 and reduce resistances to physical attacks to 0(he is not wearing armor after all). If that doesn't balance it, increase the cost more. Having expensive units make the most sense for dwarves. The berserker should not be a suicide unit which it was before the change, and in my mind made it broken and made them both nearly impossible to advance and useless anyways, since the advancement would likely get killed anyways. If this was an orcish unit, then having berserk make a unit suicidal would be fine, but it doesn't make sense for dwarves.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » April 15th, 2005, 7:40 pm

Yeah, Dwarves don't commit suicide.

When an Ulfserker works himself into a rage and swings his axe all over the place, his aim is to kill the enemy, not himself. It would be nice if his unit reflected that.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » April 15th, 2005, 7:48 pm

Ulfserkers kill things.

They do it way too much. Way too much now, way to much before. They tend to kill one enemy a turn, and they can do this for many turns. If you're using them right, the 'berserk-on-counterattack' issue makes no difference whatsoever --- You don't let them get attacked! They almost always have equal defense to and greater resistance than their victims, better attacks, and more HP.

That's if you can use them well, at least. Winning with Ulfserkers now feels like winning with Vampire Bats a while ago... I have a bunch of problems, but beneath that, there's no real question of who's going to win. And there isn't; I didn't lose with Bats then, I don't lose with Ulfserkers now.

And I do lose with Rebels, Loyalists, and even Northerners.

Post by **Darth Fool** » April 15th, 2005, 8:20 pm

Elvish Pillager wrote:Ulfserkers kill things.

They do it way too much. Way too much now, way to much before. They tend to kill one enemy a turn, and they can do this for many turns. If you're using them right, the 'berserk-on-counterattack' issue makes no difference whatsoever --- You don't let them get attacked! They almost always have equal defense to and greater resistance than their victims, better attacks, and more HP.

That's if you can use them well, at least. Winning with Ulfserkers now feels like winning with Vampire Bats a while ago... I have a bunch of problems, but beneath that, there's no real question of who's going to win. And there isn't; I didn't lose with Bats then, I don't lose with Ulfserkers now.

And I do lose with Rebels, Loyalists, and even Northerners.

The only terrain that the ulfserker has good defense(<50%) is in hills mountains and castles. Everywhere else, units have at least a 50-50 chance to hit. Thier defense in grassland and forest is 70%! I don't think you can say they have really that great of a defense. It sounds to me like you use the ulfserker the same way one uses a mage, to finish off already weakened units, but ultimately as a unit that needs protection from other types of units (at which the dwarvish guardsmen conveniently excell). In fact the comparision is quite good, in my opinion. In both cases, however, it requires that you surround the ulf/mage after its attack to prevent the retaliatory strike. The difference beyond the superficial (what range each dominates in) is that you know when you attack with the ulf that either it will be killed, or the hex of the unit it attacked will be open so that you can move a unit into that hex to defend the ulf. This is an advantage to be sure, but I don't think that it is an overpowering advantage. It does imply that the ulf should cost at least as much as the mage, however.

I think I would reject (although I should note, it is not up to me

) any change to the ulf which did not leave it so it would almost always kill ranged only units.

yeeha · Post by **yeeha** » April 15th, 2005, 8:32 pm

I would of liked to see option berserk to back to way it was too. Working himself into rage is kind of strange... Maybe if berserker would have alchemist nearby giving him drugs or something

then i would understand it but just switching on/off button in his mind if he goes berserk is illogical. And old berserk made berserker really interesting strategical unit, who can kill easyly non fighters but have to be well protected against fighters.