Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Yes it is quite common. With just an AMA and one self buff such as iron will you have 26MR.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

I have to agree with these two. After reading this thread I started a game with EA R'lyeh to do some paralysis testing. Against an MR 19 enemy, I had great difficulty getting the spell to land with over half a dozen mages (no boosters, the smaller aboleths) spamming it.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

After finally messing with post-Shattered-Soul Tarts, I'd have to disagree that they were "nerfed". Yes, they have been rendered less ridiculously cost effective, for the few nations who can easily summon them en mass, AND heal them, AND GoR them. Pre-patch, every single Tart I ever summoned was just riddled with afflictions. Now, I can summon them as a Death nation that lacks Nature, and while they will all be Feebleminded, that's about all that's wrong with them (besides the Shattered Soul, of course).


Anyway, that's neither here nor there. I think that Paralyze could definitely use a reduction in duration. Halving the average hit, would make it a little more in line. Though, the CoE mechanic is interesting - though I can see how it might still upset people who are using their SCs as solo raiders, since once Paralyzed, and removed from battle - the battle would be over, and the unit completely lost. :o

z

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Well if paralyze is intended to take you out of the fight for the duration of the battle, it does a good job of it and I guess it should stay as is.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

You don't even know the possible formulas which can be used for shrugging off 2-10 turns and you think it's a bad idea?

Give it more thought. :rolleyes:

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Unfortunately Iron Will and some other self buffing spells will remove the blessings effect on commanders/SCs/mages wearing shroud of the battle saint. It's one of the listed bugs in the bug thread.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Considering that the pro-SC crowd won't accept more than a few turns of paralysis for a fully buffed and kitted out SC, then there really doesn't have to be a discussion.

Buffed and kitted SCs can't be killed in a few turns. Heck, they can't even be killed in twenty turns if they regenerate and have something as common as a Fire Shield (and considering how lucky you need to be to get a Paralyze to land, I don't even know why we are having this discussion).

Basically, asking to reduce the duration is the same as asking to have the spell removed from the game. Considering that a reduced duration of any kind makes it less useful for killing Blessed troops and other powerful units, the only question is "how many strategies are the pro-SC crowd willing to ruin?"

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

I just have to point out how truly awful this argument is. Let's say we reduced the paralyze duration from 7 turns to 6. Would that make it worthless? Of course not. You are creating an all or nothing scenario where none exists. There may be some way to reduce the paralyze duration to something more acceptable, and maybe it doesn't need to change.

No offense intended, but I mean...come on. :re:

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Thank you for your input.

I have not had the time to play around with Tarts post shattered soul. Do they not need GoR anymore? On the surface shattered soul is worse than multiple afflictions as there is no way of getting rid of it.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

My understanding is that SS isn't really all that much worse than being insane, and LA Ry'leh is considered one of the top nations.

Jazzepi

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Thank you for your comment. Point taken

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Insanity for LA R'lyeh do not really do anything harmful. They may stare at the sky for a while, but will not PILLAGE, nor destroy temple. They can even become 2nd, 3rd... prophets. Besides, LA R'lyeh's star spawn mages are seldom insane, and you generally care less if a free spawn leader is insane or not. It is that invading army who have to consider more about the effect of insanity, since they have a different sets of insane actions.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Who really cares about pillaging in the end game? You stick your tartarians in a single low pop province and they can pillage all they want. The temple destruction is irrelevant 99% of the time, because you shouldn't be storing them in a province with a temple, and when you're on offense with them you won't have any temples around anyways.

Now if they blew up /labs/ that would be something to write home about, but all in all, I think the two different commands that they issue "pillaging, and temple destruction" just equate to "doing nothing this turn" rather than anything terribly harmful.

So again, I say that SS is no worse than insanity.

Jazzepi

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Well, if you are sieging enemy capital or just take over it, pillaging is painful. Beside, now they cannot be used as blood hunters. :)

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Getting back on topic, I have read the entire thread to this point and have come to several conclusions. I know that the intention of the spell is to simulate the effect of a unit removed from combat. However, the spell only approximates this effect and doesn't actually do it. This can lead to a number of unintended circumstances.

If you would like an example then I refer you to a post I made weeks ago where paralyze (cast by my own mages) caused me to lose a battle I had technically won. I also can supply additional instances where paralyze has caused a great deal of wackyness because the unit is "removed" but still present. The intention of the spell should not override adjustments to that spell as fairness and balance is much more important.

That said I don't particularly find the spell overpowered. It is only overpowering if you equate paralysis with death, which the original poster has done. Paralysis is not death in the same way that paralysis is not actually removal from combat.

I must admit that I was attracted to NTJedi's idea that some factor should allow you to shrug off some of the effect. Though MR is the most logical choice, it also gives high MR units double the protection by raising only one stat.

Personally, I might be more in favor of a few magical items (existing or new) that can shave the time off paralysis for the super combatant. In my mind, this allows for more rock-paper-scissor action as you can now make a SC nearly immune to paralysis spam and yet less effective against other attacks. I'm in favor of SCs becoming more specialized so that they aren't all the same cookie cutter thugs. This I think appeals to the SC crowd and yet keeps the mage and army crowds happy because they still have options against such beastly beings.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Well first let me say I've been here a long long time and I seriously doubt the developers will make any changes to the current paralyze spell in DOM_3... so you can sleep safely.

Second the reduced duration I mentioned is for addressing two issues, none which have been discussed. The first is because current battle turns have an auto-retreat and an auto-kill too early which conflicts with the duration of battles in history. The auto-kill and auto-retreat were done to prevent a game turn from taking too long, unfortunately despite computers advancing and becoming more powerful the gamers currently have no options for increasing these auto-kill and auto-retreat settings. The paralyze spell basically makes a unit, mage or SC completely worthless for the usually the rest of the battle and if the target is struck with paralyze twice then the unit, mage or SC can be killed not by units but because of a game mechanic due to the auto-kill game turn limit... illogical. The second reason for the suggested reduced duration is because the game links magic resistance and the minds mental strength... hence spells like iron will. The second reason is because it seems only logical a creature of a strong mind(magic_resistance) should be able to break free much more quickly from a mind spell like paralysis compared to say an average militia unit. It's actually baffling to me why size even plays any part for reducing paralysis considering the huge size and seriously low intellect of most dinosaurs.


Summary:
Ideally an option should allow gamers to place their own game settings for the auto-retreat and auto-kill. New types of paralysis spells should be introduced such as ones which effect the targets outside body or inside body or sense of smell or sense of sight. And finally the current spell paralysis which gives the impression of targeting the mind should provide a reduced duration on creatures/beings with strong minds.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

It's only a bad argument if it's taken out of context, as you are doing.

For example, Adept claims in the first post that he sees Paralyzes lasting 20+ turns, and he wants them reduced to d6 +path, with a potential concession of open-ended d6s.

NTJedi wants successful saves to shave 2-10 rounds off per additional MR saves, which for a high MR unit means no Paralyze is lasting more than 10 turns in effect.

You have also asked for open-ended d6s after complaining of a 52 round paralyze, a rather drastic reduction if we accept that 52 round Paralyzes are common.

Except for Executor who asked for a "a little easier to resist or less turn paralyzed", suggestions have been for dramatic reductions in the effectiveness of the spell, therefore in context of the discussion one my argument makes sense. I'll admit I wasn't super-specific when I wrote that bit, but it seems pretty far-fetched that I was arguing against a hypothetical that no one had brought up.

Also, since a one turn reduction is not a "nerf" by any common-sense notion of the idea, it seems that you are criticizing an argument I didn't make.

PS. It is very hard to offend me, but please don't take that as an invitation to try. ;)

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Maybe a resistance to paralysis, in the same way a unit might be resistant to fire, ice, poison, shock?

Alternatively-but along a similar vein-maybe a more broad resistance to psychic attack/mind damage, that also functions as the current fire etc. resistances. The latter would allow more anti-R'lyeh strategies, which would then probably make Late Era games more fun. LA Ermor already has a broad "blast 'em with holy magic!" emergency plan, so something like this seems fitting.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

It's inaccurate to say no Paralyze will last more than 10 turns considering no actual formula for removal of 2-10 rounds has been discussed. If the developers were even remotely interested in adjusting paralysis I'd provide an example formula, but I doubt any change will occur for paralysis, allowing the spell to be more realistic.


Please check my previous post.

Here's my summary of what changes should be performed in my opinion.


Summary:
Ideally an option should allow gamers to place their own game settings for the auto-retreat and auto-kill. New types of paralysis spells should be introduced such as ones which effect the targets outside body or inside body or sense of smell or sense of sight. And finally the current spell paralysis which gives the impression of targeting the mind should provide a reduced duration on creatures/beings with strong minds.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

That's actually somewhat viable. I don't think we'll get it, but a cursed item that made you immune to mind burns, soul slays and charms would be quite useful. Something like a soul manifested as a physical flame.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

And some creatures-void critters, R'lyeh starspawn, Aboleths, etc. might have a natural resistance against such effects-not immunity, but maybe as much as 50%

Along that line of thought, Heroically Stupid heroes might get an increasing resistance, just for being thick-headed and unimaginative. :)

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

After checking your previous post, here is the exact thing you said:

Now, base on simple statistics a high MR unit will make the next ten rolls against Paralysis if he failed once based on the 0.7 chance of failing a save for a MR 25 unit and a base path(as konming has shown, so ask him about the math). I assumed that even with a 60-turn Paralysis, this means an average of 6 turns([2+10]/2) per successful save is shaved off, meaning at the very outside you'd get 10 turns of Paralysis. Yes, I did make a guess that the 2-10 would be evenly distributed, but I think that it's a fair assumption (If the average is lower than 6 then the Paralysis is longer, and if the average is higher than 6 then it is shorter).

So yes, there was actual math at work there based on your suggestion with a little reasonable guesswork and not me misinterpreting what you said for my own purposes.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Logic vs. magic or abstraction means that magic/abstraction always wins. I could seriously come up with ten different reasons why the turn limit for battles exists based or why Paralyze works the way it does based on real-world examples OR magical reasons based on Dominion's system of magic, so any argument based on "but it doesn't make sense to me" doesn't survive.

This is fantasy, so even bad reasons can be logical.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Sweet! We could call it a Slave Collar..... ;)

Well, I guess it needs Paralyze added to it, and then you're looking at something useful! I mean, why give that Bane Lord a ton of MR gear, when a simple Slave Collar will render him into a calm, focused, minister of death? :o


Oh and for the record, I don't think my suggestion to change Paralyze was all THAT drastic. Only the Paralyze spell would be reduced to either 30+ or 40+, since most people agree that simply with the hardcoded battle length, 60+ is a bit gratuitious.

Size accounted for, a 15 turn Paralysis still gives you a lot of chance to lay down some hurt. If you can't kill it in that time, perhaps you need to bring something MORE to the table than just Paralyze?

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

I'd actually accept if the Feebleminded condition gave you the Mindless trait (though I'm not sure if Mindless helps vs. Paralyze).

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Okay first mistake you made was assuming these MR rolls which will remove turns will be using the same formula as the one which actually strikes the creature/being with paralysis.

As I wrote earlier there is no current formula, please don't make guesses.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Yeah, I don't think Slave Collar works that way, does it? I was always under the impression it was curse + feeblemind + 30 morale. And that was it.

Something like a forgeable (in the sense that Lifelong Protection is forgeable) Void-based brain parasite that made you immune to mind burns, soul slays and charms, but also horror-marked you, would be fun, and thematic, and horribly, mind-numbingly creepy (always a plus!).

Maybe it would have a very small chance per turn-like the lycanthropy amulet-of giving your unit the Mindless tag (by turning your unit into a Soulless-because the parasite living off your unit's brain is, well, full.)-but once you got it, if your unit gets killed, he/she turns into a Lesser Horror (as a secondform) and attacks the nearest unit.

[quote=K;634446][quote=NTJedi;634413]The turn limit on battles has already been discussed in the forums and based on several variables each battle is clearly one day at the most. Ideally this should be improved to be more realistic.

The paralyze spell is a mind targeting spell which is temporary, although long effect. Since it strikes the mind the creatures with more powerful and more developed minds shouldn't suffer the exact same duration as one with a weak mind.

Your last statement of "This is fantasy, so even bad reasons can be logical" is clear you don't care to hold or create a stronger realistic fantasy. Also your posts show you have a tunnel vision view on paralysis.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Considering that there are only two kinds of MR rolls in the game(MR and MR+), I assumed the one most favorable to you(MR).

So yes, you got me. I did not take into account the possibility that you'd ask the designers to redesign the whole game just to make a third kind of MR roll for that one spell so that your proposed model might be reasonable in any way. ;)

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

[quote=K;634460][quote=NTJedi;634455]Redesign the whole game ?? Just because a current formula doesn't exist doesn't mean the entire game needs to be redesigned to add one... that is unless you already know all the code the developers use and they will verify your statement.

You must be getting sleepy.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Realistic fantasy? Seriously?

This is an abstract fantasy game. Arguments like "and then the defending god completes the long ritual and summons the souls of the people and smites the invaders" to "and then the local barbarian tribes rally and kill the invaders before the battle spills into the village" are perfectly viable reasons for the turn limit.

I personally don't care too much because only the pro-SC crowd makes a fuss over the turn limit, and their arguments are never more complex than "I'd like stronger SCs because I use SCs a lot and it hurts my feelings when they aren't unbeatable."

And yes, I have tunnel vision on Paralysis. I have yet to see one logical reason based on strategy or even "good and fun play", so my evaluation remains unchanged.

Just one real argument would make me take it under consideration.

If you want to discuss changes to the spell for your games, I suggest you make a thread in the Modding section because as long as people are logically discussing the pros and cons of Paralyze and attempting to sway the devs, I will continue to point out flaws in other people's arguments as I wish to preserve the integrity of one of the best games I've ever played.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Jazzepi

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

...and then the opposition resorts to personal attacks because they can't attack the merits of the arguments or mount credible counter-arguments.

Thanks. I can now stop reading this thread. Feel free to continue in that vein because I won't be defending.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Obviously you've never heard the explanation... let me provide a quick summary. A realistic fantasy game means harmful fire spells would cause fire damage, a damage which typically burns the target. When the target takes damage the burns drop hitpoints indicating the target has been wounded since burning would also wound someone realistically.
Now an UnRealistic fantasy... one where you would be happy based on the "bad reasons can be logical". The UnRealistic fantasy would be a game where the developers program the game allowing stones to be a source of food for humans, trees die after dropping buckets of gold, and the most powerful weapon is a cardboard box. It's feasible to create such a game yet it's obviously unrealistic, but hey you're happy where bad reasons can be logical.



If a SC on a battlefield cannot be stopped by the defending pretender, his best ProvinceDefense, best mages and most powerful army... what makes you think its killing after a battlefield turn limit justifies his death? It's illogical and unjust.

I have no problems watching my best super SCs die from armies or spells or a magic weapon... but it's illogical for SCs, mages and units to be killed because of a battlefield turn limitation.

As I wrote long ago... I seriously doubt paralysis will change. I could understand your aggressive posts if the developers have actually shown an interest in perhaps adjusting some spells, but they are very busy with their new project and the bug thread has a much stronger importance. It's like you're holding a campaign to stop the human race from overpopulating the seas with underwater cities. Well it's never been endangered.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

K : I don't even care about the paralysis argument. I actually agree with you on principle, but the way you present yourself makes me want to wretch. For someone who constantly reminds us of how much they know about the art of arguing a point, you do so in a way that is so totally offensive I don't want to listen to the rest of what you have to say.

By the way, it's not a personal attack, it's a critique on the manner in which you address others. Specifically putting everyone who is not agreeing with you in a single "camp" and then calling them all "whiners". If you want to take personal offense at that, then it's your prerogative. Though, it's probably a lot easier to just put your fingers in your ears and ignore it, instead of learning how to present your points without coming off as a total douche.

Jazzepi

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

I don't see this limitation as a drawback : Paralyze paralyzes. It's not a Repell.

Now, why couldn't we have also a Repell spell ? Something like a Ritual of Returning, but that you could cast on the ennemy troops ? The spell could come in 2-3 flavours : targeting a single unit, targeting a small area (1), targeting a large area (2+), and could be more easily negated by MR when the area grows wide. The repelled units could be thrown back to the capitol, or a random friendly fort, or their home garrison.
Could be fun. Just ideas on the fly... :p

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Keep this thread civil or sooner or later people will start accumulating infractions. That's definitely not something you want to do, as several of them don't expire ever. Take a look at the forum FAQ if you are not familiar with what they are. And once you get enough of them, not even paralyze will help you against a SC Administrator wielding the Ban Hammer.

As of now, nobody's gotten them yet, but we're keeping tabs on the thread.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

If you're using a SC to single-handedly take down a large and well magic-supported army, arguably you deserve everything you get. You don't casually toss around hundreds-strong armies, you shouldn't casually toss around SCs either.

I sort of get the feeling that if you don't want to suffer defeats by your SC getting massively paralysed all the time, take him in with an army containing a few high-HP chaff, or just make sure your army is big enough to cope with the enemy's army even with your SC paralysed. I'd like to think if your opponent has a load of astral mages spamming paralyse to take down one SC, you should have an equal number of similar level mages spamming spells of their own to cripple your opponent's army. Never mind paralyse, I found getting an SC horror marked to oblivion pretty depressing, but on the other hand, at least I now know to take a lot more care when marching them into battle against astral nations. Swallow the pain and change your tactics for next time.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

I'd like to bring up an example in which the turn limit was my only effective measure against one early game supercombatant.

In aquarium, I had my first war against MA Arco, who was running an equipped SC titan. Said SC titan is still in the hall of fame some 40+ turns after its death, alongside some late-game SCs. It walked through at least two or three armies of double blessed eagle warriors, not to mention several secondary groups of mundane troops. I was having a tough battle as it was against the elephant/hypasist/mystic communions that were already going on, though I was winning, and the thing was unstoppable- even solo.

It finally ran into a province where I had some nature mages, and their sleep-spam was fruitless.

What did work was when, two turns later, it ran into an army with a moon mage carrying penetration equipment. The moon mage got two paralzyes through in the course of the battle, but even paralyzed, I couldn't scratch its armour, and its fear aura routed my army.

I think I finally ended its reign of terror a bit later with a number of phantasmal wolves combined with paralyze spam, which managed to kill it via the turn limit.

If it helps any, I thought of it as being locked into stasis by the illusions and mental magics of my mages, never again to terrorize my warriors.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

K is by no means the only one with a "unique" style of persuasion. It's basically a staple of the internet to make grandiose claims, stereotype arguments and people into classes. Everyone should be held accountable for their poor style, but at the same time no one should be singled out. So just for fun, here are some internet logical fallacies:

1) If A is B then A is not C
I call this the female transitive property (jokingly of course) because it's the essence of the "does this dress make me look fat?" joke.

Basically when a girl asks you if this dress makes you look fat, she has trapped you into losing an argument before you even answer. If you say yes, then you are an idiot and deserve what you get, but if you say no, the female transitive property states that while "this" dress does not make her look fat she incorrectly infers that a dress exists that does make her look fat, hence she is fat and you're a jerk.

Logically speaking, the relationship between A and B has nothing to do with the relationship between A and C, but oh so frequently this is a common tactic used to win arguments or at least provide a situation where there are only losers.

2) If A is not B, A is C
Sort of the inverse of #1, and uses the same logical fallacy. This is the "if paralyze is nerfed in any way it becomes useless." Not that I'm poking fun at K, because he has a valid point; he just uses an exceedingly poor argument to demonstrate it. It would be like if you were at a job interview and you wanted $124,000 a year, and your future employer countered with $68,000. "$68,000?!? That's the same as $0! You're a jerk!" Well no, you start high, they counter, you negotiate. Maybe paralyze would become suboptimal, but I think a formula could be derived that was less than a current number but still viable. So we start with paralyze lasting the whole battle, counter with open ended d6, and negotiate. But if you don't want to negotiate, this is a quick way to end the argument. If the argument lasted any longer I'm sure someone would have said, "anything more than oe d6 is overpowered" and used the same fallacious argument in the opposite direction. (Again, I don't mean to offend and honestly I think some people get way too much crap for their style of persuasion, especially from people who use their own fallacious tactics in return.)

3) If A is not B, recalculate until A is B
When logic is not on your side, why use logic? Instead, of reading the other person's post and addressing their argument, just reword your argument and post it again. This is a great tactic for forcing your adversary to lay all their cards out on the table. They counter the same argument with basically every unique counter argument they have, and you haven't tipped your hand in the slightest. Your original argument doesn't even have to be good, you just need some discipline and tenacity.

If A is not C and B is not C, A is B
This usually stems from a 3-way argument in which A makes a reasonable argument, but then B (who agrees with A) makes a less reasonable argument. A clever person will not address A specifically, but will say that A and B are both arguments against C and since B is wrong, everything that has been said so far is wrong. I have to be honest, this is the best fallacious reasoning ever and it works all the time. Try it! ;)

So the delicious irony is now you get to read this post and show how fallacious my examples are, thereby making me look oh so foolish. Have fun!

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

No way I'm reading all that posts, but:

Jazzepi:
I had Tartarian that got around 7-10 afflictions in one battle just from Decay. He did not die, but had to spend some time with Chalice to get back to fighting condition. He was feebleminded, crippled, lost an arm, lost his only eye etc... and yeah, he got like 200-300 years in one battle.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Presumably not more than 250 if Decay gives +5 years / combat round & if the limit is still at round 50. :smirk:

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

This is a strawman argument for those watching at home. My argument has been exaggerated because it is then becomes easier to refute.

My argument was: "Considering that any nerf on the duration of the spell would make it useless against regular armies, and it can be easily countered anyway, any change might as well be a straight deletion of the spell. Simply put, not having a spell on the casting list is better than having a useless spell." When taken into context with the proposed reductions that were extremely drastic, this argument's only flaw is that someone could counter argue that an average of three turns of Paralysis that people were proposing would NOT make it useless against regular armies OR that it might be a good thing for it to be useless against armies (though to be fair, NTJedi had an incomplete proposal that may not have been as drastic).

My argument has then been exaggerated into "if paralyze is nerfed in any way it becomes useless." This argument is completely unreasonable and very simple, and so it is easy to dismiss. It completely ignores my point that the proposed reductions would make the spell useless against armies and with the nominal effect it would have an SCs it might as well be removed.

-------------

There is a big difference between a generalization and a stereotype. A generalization allows for exceptions, while a stereotype does not. For example, the generalization that "the sun comes up every day" is a form of support for an argument that the sun will come up tomorrow, but it would not disprove an argument that tomorrow the sun will not come up.

The people advocating nerfing Paralyze have only used arguments that involved removing the spell's negative effects on SCs. Therefore, as a general rule and based on the available data, people who want to nerf Paralyze are also advocating strengthening the role of SCs. This does not mean that exceptions don't exist or that those exceptions would disprove the general rule.

Considering that the generalization was not part of my argument but was more an a rhetorical observation, calling attention to it is actually an attempt to distract from my actual argument.

My apologies if this has caused any offense. I'm learning that logic and formal argument has no place in the internet and that people will never forgive you for using logic and math to prove that their beliefs are transparent or just plain wrong.

From now on, I'll stick to info-dumps for newbies to the game.

Cheers. ;)

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

K don't sweat it. Often times people find a chance at comradeship through rallying together to kick a person while they perceive multiple other people do not share the same view point.

As far as the paralyze thing goes. This like past disagreements become such simply because neither side is right because your discussing a mechanic in a video game that is so complex that balance discussions eventually boil down to opinion. Often your opinion may not be the same as most people and that opens the door to ganging up and put downs, but those people can't take away your birthday so stick to what you think is right unless something more tangible than "your a cheater and a big fat doodoo head" sways your opinion.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

Define overpowered. Paralyze doesn't win you the game, in fact if you take a single mage spamming paralyze and pit him against a mere 10 militia I suspect the argument would be that paralyze is quite underpowered.

Someone posted a save not so long ago in which a paralyzed SC obliterated the attacking army. I watched my sphinx (not paralyzed, but immobile nonetheless) tear it's way through greater horrors last night through the simple expedient of casting fire shield. So even a paralyzed SC can be dangerous.

It's not a case of overpowered, simply bad luck. Boosting MR reduces the risk of paralyze and similar spells working, but it doesn't negate them completely. In this case, the fact paralyze worked is simply bad luck. It's no different from having Bogus & co turn up and kill your pretender while he's off killing indeps.

It's just the opposite side of the coin from the times when your single SC defeats and entire army because your opponent was expecting to be attacked by a horde. Only thing you can do is shrug and chalk it up to experience. Tactics and spells are like a toolbox, sometimes you get the right tool for the job, sometimes you find yourself holding a hammer when you really needed a wrench.

Oh, and if you want to complain about circular arguments when Doms 3 was released I remember these forums full of people complaining SC's were still too powerful in the new version, and we should have the game immediately patched with new ways to stop them ;)

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

The telling phrase for me is, "any change might as well be a straight deletion of the spell." To me that is a pretty cut and dry statement. Now you can say I have created a straw man argument by saying "any nerf makes it worthless", but only if we accept your quantifier "and it can be easily countered anyway." That is an extremely subjective interpretation and is in fact at the heart of the argument. So basically in order for anyone to agree with your conclusion, they need to first agree with your assumption, which is your conclusion. Confusing I know!

I absolutely do not accept your quantifier, so therefore it's not a straw man argument to me. I think paralyze is one of the best low level combat spells in the game and by far the best astral spell at level 4. I think the only spell that is clearly superior is Raise Dead, but that's me.

Now I totally know what you mean, and I am having a bit of fun at your expense (and I appreciate that you can take it and dish it right back) but at the same time the strict interpretation of your argument doesn't necessarily reflect exactly what you mean. So of course you get a whole variety of silly counter arguments that range from term papers to kindergarten insults.

KO's explanation that it's supposed to remove a unit from combat for the duration of said combat is pretty telling and I don't think it's worth wasting developer time to make changes to the spell. But I do think it's a good spell at level 4 where there are very few useful combat spells. It seems to me that since it's astral, it's meant to be used in a communion and is therefore very conducive to penetration bonuses and less than listed fatigue, making it potentially better than its default spell stats indicate.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

"The fact that it can be easily countered" is not a conclusion or an assumption. It's a fact.

High MR that is easily available on SCs and can lower the chance to less than %1 per casting (and if you expect Communions or Penetration items, you should add more MR). Also, high HP units will cause the casting AI to target them instead. Both counters are easily available to an SC builder.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

That is a generalization based on late game strategic abilities. In the early game is where Paralyze shines the brightest, when the only SC you might have is your actual pretender, and the rest are merely "thugs". At this stage in the game, due to not having been able to diversify your magic yet, and likely having just reached Cons 4, you do not have the necessary tools to "easily counter" most anything.

Every time you think something is fine as is, you describe it as "easily countered". You can play theory-minions all you want, but the fact is you use the term "easily", when you really mean "potentially", and it's intentionally misleading.


Now as I said before, I don't believe in nerfs, but I do believe that reducing the effect of the spell to 30+ rather than 60+ would balance it better, and perhaps give it AOE 1 so it can hit multiple normal troops in the same square. However, KO already said it's basically WAD, so I don't see the point in having such bilious argument over it.


Oh, and hi Foodstamp. :happy:

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

If it counters early game pretender SCs, then all the better. We actually need more counters like that.

Re: Paralysis is overpowered.
 

The attacker automatically starts trying to retreat at round 50. He has until round 75 to get off the battlefield alive.