What to do with the Ulfserker?
Moderator: Forum Moderators
- Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
There's too much luck involved as to whether he dies. It would be very risky attacking with an Ulfserker with that idea against a powerful enemy with only one open attack slot, because it may or may not die and open up the slot to further attack.
I just don't see why this would be preferable to the 3-round solution.
I just don't see why this would be preferable to the 3-round solution.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
What about a second attack ('cripple') that stops when either participant is one blow away from death? If that's slightly weaker, the game will still choose berserk on defense, like the 8.11 behavior. That would make it useful in SP for 'prepping' enemies for experience.Fluffbeast wrote:Perhaps the ulf should be given a second attack, either ranged or melee. That will increase its usefulness, and make second level ulfs more valuable as well.
That would be an extremely powerful attack, probably better than current berserker in some ways (although not all).
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
Here's an interesting idea - what if "Berzerker" changed the nature of units such that they had an uneven number of attacks on offense and defense?
e.g. - a unit with berzerker would have 50% more strikes on the attack, and 50% less strikes on defense. An ulfzerker would be 4-6 on the attack, and 4-2 (or more likely, 5-6 and 5-2).
This would remove one of the primary inconsistencies that the unit currently introduces, which is that right now he can have an entire battle in the space of a turn. It would completely change the nature of the unit. However, it might well be that very issue with it that currently causes so many problems.
Ulfs would still be very useful for attacks, but would be very bad for defense - however, they would have to be fielded in groups, rather than singly, as they are now. Also, a level-3 ulf would be useful, as it could have something like 7-6 standard, which would result in 7-9 on the attack, and 7-3 on defense.
-----
This would be very different from charge in the following 2 ways:
a] Charge has no penalty on defense - rather, it has a penalty on offense, should you get hit.
b] This would increase the unit's chance of hitting by providing more strikes.
e.g. - a unit with berzerker would have 50% more strikes on the attack, and 50% less strikes on defense. An ulfzerker would be 4-6 on the attack, and 4-2 (or more likely, 5-6 and 5-2).
This would remove one of the primary inconsistencies that the unit currently introduces, which is that right now he can have an entire battle in the space of a turn. It would completely change the nature of the unit. However, it might well be that very issue with it that currently causes so many problems.
Ulfs would still be very useful for attacks, but would be very bad for defense - however, they would have to be fielded in groups, rather than singly, as they are now. Also, a level-3 ulf would be useful, as it could have something like 7-6 standard, which would result in 7-9 on the attack, and 7-3 on defense.
-----
This would be very different from charge in the following 2 ways:
a] Charge has no penalty on defense - rather, it has a penalty on offense, should you get hit.
b] This would increase the unit's chance of hitting by providing more strikes.
well, i guess that is something i hadn't considered, but that is an extremely specific circumstance! This does seem like the arguement of someone who uses the ulfserker in a specific fashion and doesn't want changes to it to affect their tactics - something that I already highlight as being a very limiting position in this debate.Elvish Pillager wrote:There's too much luck involved as to whether he dies. It would be very risky attacking with an Ulfserker with that idea against a powerful enemy with only one open attack slot, because it may or may not die and open up the slot to further attack.
I just don't see why this would be preferable to the 3-round solution.
if the balancing of the ulf depends on making it still operate the same in situations that some people find it tactically useful it'll never happen.
I would like to see what the percentage to kill script could tell us about this case.
Also, you say it depends too much on luck - that does seem like a very solid arguement to me, everything depends on luck in wesnoth - it just requires a reassessment of tactics - something it will probably be necessary with any BIG change and the MINOR changes don't seem to have got it very far.
i don't see what is "risky", it's still an approximately calcuable risk i think, which is the main thing!
i think it's preferable to 3 round limit because:
a) makes the ulf vulnerable in defense when already weakened - which i think is a good halfway between having or not having berserk. and makes logical sense - even tho it presents a new tactical situation (is this sooo bad?)
b) it reduces the chances of the ulf suiciding on his own attack - by how much we can't tell.
besides - the actual health of the berserk unit is also going to greatly affect the outcome of a 3 round limit combat anyway!
what does everyone else think?
Signature dropped due to use of img tag
How about this idea
Lets roll the Ulf back to 8.9 when nobody complained about it (save for elvish pillager) and people were happy. Isn't that the simplest and the best solution of all? All these complex answers are not needed when the simple and elegent solution of having berzerk on offence AND defence has existed for some time, and worked flawlessesly up until it was changed.
I have STILL after over a month of argument not seen a good reason why the original ulf was flawed or unbalanced. Only its "fixes" have been unbalanced.
Lets roll the Ulf back to 8.9 when nobody complained about it (save for elvish pillager) and people were happy. Isn't that the simplest and the best solution of all? All these complex answers are not needed when the simple and elegent solution of having berzerk on offence AND defence has existed for some time, and worked flawlessesly up until it was changed.
I have STILL after over a month of argument not seen a good reason why the original ulf was flawed or unbalanced. Only its "fixes" have been unbalanced.
Again arguments about the effectiveness of the ulf in campaigns really has nothing to do with the ulf itself. I can't stress this enough. It has everything to do with the AI strategy which prioritizes attacks weak units. In Multiplayer where you see infinitely different strategies, the Ulf was a balanced unit until it was reverted. The only person who said that it was overpowered was elvish pillager (in the face of most multiplayer opinion I might add.) If the AI utilized different tactics then people would not be arguing about the percieved ineffectiveness of the Ulf. Moreover might I add that most campaign games are heavily loaded against the ulf because the computer has units the burn. if you change the AI behaviour (which some of us have been thinking of designing new AIs) then you;ll see the difference,
If you want to make a game specifically designed to play against an AI, state that clearly. I think thats a very very bad idea, and essentially you'll lose one of the most popular parts of the game, the Multiplayer side, because of poor balancing.
If you want to make a game specifically designed to play against an AI, state that clearly. I think thats a very very bad idea, and essentially you'll lose one of the most popular parts of the game, the Multiplayer side, because of poor balancing.
- Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
The 3-rounds solution is not complex.Noy wrote:All these complex answers are not needed when the simple and elegent solution of having berzerk on offence AND defence has existed for some time, and worked flawlessesly up until it was changed.
I have stated my views on this before; if you disagree with them, that's OK, but it doesn't mean that they have no significance.Noy wrote:I have STILL after over a month of argument not seen a good reason why the original ulf was flawed or unbalanced. Only its "fixes" have been unbalanced.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
my proposal is not at all complex either - and is certainly not more complex than the healing system! it seem scomplex at first but when you actually play it is all the more clear.
i still think my suggestion adds more than the 3 round solution, which seems almost arbitary (aside from turins points), and the weakned berserker being less vicious adds more colour i feel
EP has given his feedback - thanks to him - anyone else?
i still think my suggestion adds more than the 3 round solution, which seems almost arbitary (aside from turins points), and the weakned berserker being less vicious adds more colour i feel
EP has given his feedback - thanks to him - anyone else?
Signature dropped due to use of img tag
- Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
When does the HP bar go red?dibblethewrecker wrote:my proposal is not at all complex either - and is certainly not more complex than the healing system! it seem scomplex at first but when you actually play it is all the more clear.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
it doesn't go red as a result! when any unit loses a certain percentage of hp their hp bar goes red, is that correct? I am suggesting that at that point, where the bersekr has reached that percentage, he can no longer go berserk.
It's quite simple really. When my units have red hp bars that is my main indicator that they are on the way out and have to be pulled back so it seems easiest to link the loss of the berserk ability to such a visual prompt.
also, cos the berserkers have such high hp levels, the remaining health they have when they reach the "critical" percentage level is generally more than the units against which the berserker is effective
It's quite simple really. When my units have red hp bars that is my main indicator that they are on the way out and have to be pulled back so it seems easiest to link the loss of the berserk ability to such a visual prompt.
also, cos the berserkers have such high hp levels, the remaining health they have when they reach the "critical" percentage level is generally more than the units against which the berserker is effective
Signature dropped due to use of img tag