What do do about the Ulfserker?

[Chris Byler]

2 rounds. On offense or defense, 2 rounds, no more, no less (unless someone dies in the first round).

Radical, but still leaves berserk different from normal units. Powerful, but not guaranteed (even against a Dark Adept, the only unit I can think of that an ulfserker can guaranteed kill anyway; anything else *might* get lucky and kill him with retaliation before he gets enough hits, even though this might be very unlikely for weak units like Elvish Shamans).

Practically this isn't much different from charge, though, except that it also works on defense. (Including when the ulfserker isn't getting to hit back... use cautiously). But at least it addresses all of EP's points without totally removing the uniqueness of the berserker. And it stops the "stream of berserkers" because they can fail to kill their target without dying.

Of course, if 2 rounds isn't enough and infinity is too many, there are other numbers, like 3...

[Doc Paterson]

2 rounds. On offense or defense, 2 rounds, no more, no less (unless someone dies in the first round).

Of course, if 2 rounds isn't enough and infinity is too many, there are other numbers, like 3...

Look here. You're forgetting the central concept of the ulfzerker; that he or his opponent must DIE before he's willing to stop. "To the death" is what it's really supposed to be about. Make any of the other changes, sure, but this one thing must be the constant. Is the berzerker just going to get tired and quit? Granted, it'd be an easy way to achieve balance (the round limit), but- I think it would be conceptually lame. WEAK if you will.

[Dragonking]

After reading this topic I don't have nothing to add - I tottaly concur with Noy - he wrote everything clear IMO, and what's more important - what he wrote is true.
I really think that ulf from 8.11 was most balanced Dwarwish unit in this game. It's sad for me to read, that devs didn't liked him in 8.11...

[Chris Byler]

Fighting to the death in one round just doesn't fit with other Wesnoth tactics. There's all kinds of things you can do with a guaranteed instant fight to the death that you can't do with normal fighting, including sending in another berserker if the first dies, and a third if the second dies, and... eventually the leader dies, if you had enough berserkers within range.

It's an idea that seems cool at first, but on consideration, it's not ever going to work well in Wesnoth. The idea of an attack so fast that the opponent has no time to react, counterattack, get his wounded to safety, use healers or reorganize his formation to defend against it looks good... from one end. From the other it's clearly unfair.

I'm not opposed to the berserker having, say, abnormally high damage for his level and low or negative physical resistances *without* the high defense most unarmored units have, and possibly charge too; it would be powerful and scary against some units, vulnerable against others and an interesting contrast to the normal dwarves. They would have more shock value than normal troops, but not *infinite* shock value. But considering EP's points, I think either the 0.8.x or 0.9.0 berserk abilities are bad for the game. Combat takes time in Wesnoth, and the fact that combat takes time is one of the fundamental points of the game. It shouldn't be simply discarded.

[turin]

Since each turn is about 4 hours, it would seem impossible for the two to continue fighting infinitely long; they'll run out of time. I support a limit of 3 rounds, but not have it function on defence.

@Noy and Dragonking: It was the most balanced dwarf unit, but that doesn't, IMHO, make it balanced. The whole faction needed a bit of work.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Look here. You're forgetting the central concept of the ulfzerker; that he or his opponent must DIE before he's willing to stop.

You're forgetting that we don't do things that way in Wesnoth. After all, the central concept of an archer is to attack things at long range, no?

[Saurian Bibleist]

Look here. You're forgetting the central concept of the ulfzerker; that he or his opponent must DIE before he's willing to stop.

You're forgetting that we don't do things that way in Wesnoth. After all, the central concept of an archer is to attack things at long range, no?

Hehe. Good point there.

[Doc Paterson]

Look here. You're forgetting the central concept of the ulfzerker; that he or his opponent must DIE before he's willing to stop.

You're forgetting that we don't do things that way in Wesnoth. After all, the central concept of an archer is to attack things at long range, no?

Seriously. Well said.

Alright then-

Conceptual objections aside, three rounds wouldn't be so bad.

[dtw]

My five eggs, following in from new thread about it:

Remove the resistances - the units are (apparantly) unarmoured why should they have these resistances? It reflects their toughness as warriors? Why doesn't the HP do that?

[Noy]

The Ulf was a good unit in 8.11. It was balanced, turin, and not in need of change. As for your suggestion Pillger

1) Extremity. Anything excessively toward an extreme is bad.
Berserk, for instance, has chances to kill far greater than 99.9999%, while its closest rival, a Paladin swinging at a Walking Corpse in Deep Water, has a measly 99.999% chance. It's as close to guaranteed as you'll ever get, and it's especially bad when it kills higher HP units. We shouldn't have Berserk, as it is now, for reasons similar to why we shouldn't have a faction that can recruit a level 10 unit for 1000 gold or have a unit with 50 moves and a 2-1 attack.

I think these are a bit overblown. Before 9.0 the Ulf had an unique and powerful ability that was balanced out by just as serious defect. Although it could ensure killing a weaker unit, you could ensure it being killed by a fighter unit. Thats a balance. You could send an archer or a mage, weaken the ulf, and then finish it off with a fighter. With a different type of unit you wouldn't get such a result. Thats why there were few compaints about the unit before the talk of 9.0 and CVS came along.

2) Strategies. You cannot use your leader in a fight, for instance, if your opponent controls Ulfserkers, because if you expose it at all, you will die instantly. If your opponent places an Elvish Fighter in a forest in a key defensive position, all you have to do is berserk it out of the way. If you ever need to kill something quickly -- and you ALWAYS need to get something quickly -- an Ulfserker can kill it; or open a path to it; or wound it, and leave an open hex for continued attack. Even a wounded Ulfserker has a good chance to take out a full HP enemy fighter, and such an action can often turn a battle.

So it forces you to change strategy... you do that in every game. If you see your opponent is using drakes and you're loyalist, you don't keep making heavy infantry. If you see your opponent is using Ulfs you don't leave secondaries out in the open or your leader in a vulnerable position. Thats a strategy shift. Furthermore, I think you're overemphasizing the power of the Ulf, as I will say below.

3) Power. If a unit has Berserk, then either it is too weak to do anything usefully, or it is so strong that it can take out practiaclly any level 1 unit. In addition to being the absolute best killer of low HP units, it is also the absolute best killer of high HP units. Nothing is safe when two Ulfserkers are against them, and that's why the Tribalist was overpowered, too: Nothing was safe. That includes leaders.

I think you're really overemphasizing the power of the Ulf. Its not that powerful. It loses quite easily against any fighter unit, and badly when that unit is in superior terrain. And if it was overpowered, tuning it down to a 3-4 bezerk is a better option, or making its move 4. (I think in all honesty, its move is a bit high). And I've seen a Ulf die against a Elvish archer in a forest... high defence is a definate asset. Moreover having no ranged makes it vulnerable to secondaries on defence, which can weaken so that when its attacked in melee it quickly dies. Moreover ulfs generally get weakened significantly during an offensive bezerk, if not killed. So its not a perfect kill anyways.

Side note: Noy, if you think it's impossible to always defend a unit by ZoC, you're wrong. I know I can do it, for instance. It's possible in Heir to the Throne, and it's possible in MP too, and I can almost always have my other units attack as well as providing ZoC. While my enemies do sometimes break the ZoC, it is always at a loss.

My point had nothing to do with proving my worth. I made the point that you can break through zocs, and often in followup, you just need to kill one unit to break through. and With a Ulf that has just been in combat (therefore injured) sending a fighter in to kill it will ensure a kill because of defensive bezerk. However without defensive bezerk, that means nothing. Thats unfair, and needs to be changed back.


Really I think this argument is pointless. I don't really believe anybody of note is listening to us argue. They sure didn't a month ago when this exact same argument was had for the first time. I could expain this out a million times, and even come up with statistic tables and nobody would listen. Thats a shame really, when some of the best multiplayer players are here and giving developers first hand accounts of what is going on, then are basically being told that "we will like the changes, and they are better for the game."

Well we didn't want the changes in the first place, and now its a case of I told you so, but then we get told again "well we think that people will..." It was the original proposal in the first place that unbalanced it. Most of the proposals I've seen here aren't going to rebalance it, just the opposite.

Sorry for the rant... it just seems pointless sometimes.

[turin]

The Ulf was a good unit in 8.11. It was balanced, turin, and not in need of change. As for your suggestion Pillger

It may have been balanced, but that does not mean it should not have been changed. I can't emphasize that enough; it was balanced, but it was not the kind of unit the devs had wanted in the first place.

[Noy]

The Ulf was a good unit in 8.11. It was balanced, turin, and not in need of change. As for your suggestion Pillger

It may have been balanced, but that does not mean it should not have been changed. I can't emphasize that enough; it was balanced, but it was not the kind of unit the devs had wanted in the first place.

I understand and wholeheartedly disagree with that. The original motive for this whole change in 9.0 was "balancing" because people thought that the Knalgans and particularly the Ulf were underpowered. Hundreds of games of multiplayer seem to indicate the opposite, that the ulfs were not. Moreover what do you suggest is better turin, that we purposely make units unbalanced? that this is actually a good policy in any case?

The initial belief that ulfs were underpowered was based on (IMHO) #1 improper usage (as a frontline fighter) and #2 AI behavior which prioritized weak units to be killed first. Neither of these are failings of the Ulf unit.

If these changes were based on race balancing or some other motive like making Wesnoth more realistic, I'd have a different view on it, but it wasn't. I and others are offering alternate ways to balance Knalgans that would meet their stated objectives, which 9.0 has clearly failed to do.

[js138]

Or put it this way. With the knalgans as they are currently, I see no reason not to recruit almost entirely guardsmen (who now have plenty of movement) and beserkers who can now hold a spot in a line at a pinch - something they couldn't do before. Before they were more like mages - units which had got hitting power, but needed to be protected. Now they don't until after they've been used and then only against a unit which can hit back a little.

This makes playing them MP kinda boring.

As for guardsmen? Well that's another rant I guess.