Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Hey all.

I'm a newbie gamer and new to the forum, maybe some of you have seen me around, I posted something in the Loldominions thread (that was funny, pity it's dead http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif) and in the recent thread where people complain or defend the price of the game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/Injured.gif

I am a real n00b, as I said, and I play only SP games now, so the problem I'm bringing your attention to, is not even a problem for me now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif possibly it will become when I try my first MP games?

Ok, let's make things short. I've seen around in the forum many people complaining about using Battlefield enchantments together with Mist of Deception and vortex of returning. Even using a mage for casting spells affecting the whole battlefield, and then retreating him from the battle, can bring to unpleasant situations, and is unlegit in many of the last MP games started, as I saw in the "Rules" section of the threads. Those two were at the top in the "Are these things an exploit?" thread too.

So. Does someone else think that if a mage leaves the battle in any way after casting such enchantments, these should end in the moment he goes? It seems logic to me, too.

I'd like to know the gurus opinion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif maybe this can be modded or changed in a future patch. I didn't want to discuss this in the bug thread as IMHO it is not a bug, it works exactly like intended but maybe if nobody likes the way it works, it should be changed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Please let this not be a flamebait thread.

It is?? Praised be the Lord!
Ok, actually your stuff wasn't really Lolspeak and some things were kinda neat. As for others... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

It would make it hard to protect fragile mages throughout the battle which you need to cast the spells initially with. Then your mages have to be equally powerful or actually even better than the Thugs that you're facing. If somebody blesses your troops, then you don't expect that effect to vanish when the priest leaves or even is killed, too. But I could actually live with the decision that as soon as a mage leaves the battlefield, his spells vanish.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

"Battlefield enchantments not ending when caster leaves the battlefield" is on the bug shortlist thread here ; if you search for "#581510" that'll take you to the post.

So yes, it's considered a bug http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

It's considered a bug by one of the moderators of this board who created and maintains the board buglist. The fact that four or five patches have dropped since it got onto the board's buglist is evidence that the game designers don't consider it a bug that needs to be addressed.

Though they can pipe up and set me straight. They read the forums.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I'd prefer, though it is a little harder to justify, that spells that produce an immediate change on units (bless, luck, Protection, etc including the battlefield wide ones) leave the effects in place when the mage dies or leaves, while spells that have an ongoing effect (MoD, Storm, Wrathful skies, etc) stop with the mages death or retreat.

Which is, I believe, how it currently works when a mage is killed. That it doesn't happen when he retreats is the bug.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I think he was speaking about battle enchantments only, not all spells.

And for battle enchantments it's a known bug.

Now, out of extreme exploits like combos with MoD, it may be considered in the same category as a reverse communion, a non expected feature everyone can use and not bad for the game (note that communion slaves able to cast is also something listed in the short list).

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Re: K's post

Most of the bugs in the bug thread haven't been addressed since Edi put up the list, so that doesn't tell much about this spesific bug...

While it might not be a bug per se, it can be an exploit, and that means there should be some way of ending the spells even after the mage retreats.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Hey all, 5 fast answers ^^

(Tnx 4 the compliment Ich, but the images stopped being in Lolspeak long before I even registered... ^_^)

Yeah I don't absolutely want this to become a flame war, I've read enough clones of the old "No Monkey Nation Will Ever Win A Game Because Of The Bad PD" thread XD

But as it was a problem that was being discussed around in the forum for a while, I just wanted to point it out in a specific thread and in a peaceful manner to see if the gurus and possibly devs think the problem should be resolved by mod or patch.
Of course I was talking only about battlefield spells and not all spells. It seems logic to me that a mage shouldn't be able to set i.e. Darkness during a battle on an entire battlefield and then run away to another province, making the spell un-dispellable.

It is not a bug as far as I know. Even tha manual says just "battlefield enchantments are dispelled if the caster dies" and not if he retreats, so it works as intended. But it seems strange and can be easily exploited.

Peace ^_^

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

The thread is working it seems ^_^ since we already have 3 clear opinions, with thejeff and Endoperez being able to express everything I think better than myself http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif and Twan against.

IMHO Twan, if a battlefield enchantment (B.E. from now ok?) ends when the caster retreats or VoRs, this not only resolves the extreme exploits you talked about, but even makes perfect sense to me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

But i take your point http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

You don't understand - THEY CAN NEVAR WIN!!1

Don't you get that?

Yeesh.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

now THAT was expected, but not so early ^_^

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

The question for me is battlefield wide *instants* are actually more powerful when BE like Wrathfull Skies, Fire Storm etc... (and the concerned paths) are already subpar in endgame, mages allowed to flee or not.

I mean all these long-to-work enchants may end or not when the mage leave, Rain of Stones, and Master Enslave/other Mastery and Bone Grinding are the true game breakers for me, the spells making offensive armies worthless.

The bug of slow BEs not ending when the mage leaves is finally not really bad for balance as concerned paths (fire, air and nature I think) are the ones without the crazy good instants.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Mmmh. Now this seems to me finally a good point. Possibly, because I'm not so expert to find counter-arguments to your one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif But as the *instants* you talk about are legit to me, being the game supposed to have high-end late game spells rendering big armies useless (a very nice feature of this game IMO) the problem of the BEs could in fact be a balancing issue - even because the paths you mentioned are surely less popular for late game than the astral, blood and death ones we always hear about.

Someone more expert than me can find a good answer? ^_^

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

The only one widely considered to be a serious problem is Mists of Deception. The others can all be beaten, but once Mists of Deception is cast and the caster escapes, his side wins the battle.

"I win" spells are bad.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

So maybe shall we drop the entire BEs+retreating combo and just say that the problem is only, if Mists of Deception is cast, the phantasms need the caster to stay on the field, or they stop appearing? For me it's ok, and it should possibly be very easy to resolve ^_^

P.S. It seems to me there aren't so many "I win" spells. As far as I remember, Tartarians have been one of the main things people used to complain about, now they have the shattered soul trait and you must micromanage them a lot or after the insane turn they continue pillaging or heretic preaching or so. Master Enlave only works with large armies of low-MR enemies, MR can be boosted by Antimagic or so, and a SC can make short work of the casters of the Enslave... what else? I hope we don't get to the point that everything must be *perfectly* balanced in this game, or it will lose a lot of personality IMO http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Hear hear.

I find the whole thing kind of funny.

Those that play tartarians/wish spamming complaining because MOD beats em.

PERSONALLY, I wish there was a high level Battlefield dispell, that first dispelled all extant spells and then protected the battlefield. Any succeeding spell would have to penetrate MR in order to be cast. Each succeeding cast would lower the protective value a small amount.

AND I wish there was a spell that allowed the supression of magic items for a time.

In combination, these would allow regular armies to be effective again.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

It's not an "I win" spell by any stretch of the imagination. It can be beaten by killing the caster before he retreats on round two. Battlefield spells like Earthquake, large area spells like Shimmering Fields, or just sending squads of flyers on Attack Rear are all perfectly viable counters.

Considering that you have two turns to kill the caster, it's actually less powerful than other battle-winning instant spells like Master Enslave.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Seems to me the issue is that the super-duper-powerful spells are so easy and cheap to cast, compared both to other options, and to what damage they can do to other strategies. These are currently balanced by research level, but that's a one-way barrier which costs nothing to maintain, which once passed, offers no barrier.

In other words, I'd increase the path requirements and gem costs of the spells that are superdeadly and obsolete other things. But that's just me - I prefer endless war to a rush to super-magic. And yes, another mod in that direction (in addition to my Price of Power mod linked below) is brewing in my arcane laboratory.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I wouldn't like a Dispeller. IMHO it don't fit the mood of this particular game - huge national armies<<<<<spells and summons. A way to bring armies back from being obsolete, is not something I would.

This thread is starting to go pretty nowhere ^^ BEs, and Mist of Deception in particular, are not allowed with retreating in the last MP games I checked.
Here in this thread, many are saying that they are legit and a balancing issue with some other late game strong (and overused) strategies. So should they be allowed in MP games too? Talk, people http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I've never seen them be a problem in MP. I've never heard of them being a problem in MP.

So raise you hands: how many games has anyone played where someone won the game because they could cast Mists of Deception or some other battlefield spell and then retreat?

I expect the answer is none. People tend to flip out over the theoretical rather than consider the practical.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I'm sure you're right, K. I'm not flipping out about any of it. Just saying I enjoy the option of modding different game balance, because I'm one of those players who enjoys the army combat and doesn't mind a "slow end game" especially because I like savoring long thematic single-player role-playing style games.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

None because using MoD + retreat is forbidden in 90% of games and players restrain themselves in the 10% others, knowing using this spell is a sure way to see a flame war and get a bad reputation on the forums.

It's why the only cases reported are accidental (or pretended accidental) uses in newbie games.


Usual rules are :
- offensive BEs and retreating *immediatly* isn't allowed.
- BEs and retreating after 5 rounds (as last order of the script) is.
- BEs + MoD combo never.
- MoD alone is not absolutely forbidden, but using it and winning the battle has 90% to horror mark the player and summon an horror thread here.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I think that's just the hype talking. The actual effect on games is completely minimal, but enough people are crazy adamant about the issue that other people capitulate because they want to find a game to play.

A year ago there were no games that had rules against battlefield spells or MoD, and giant games like the first Big Game with all nations ran perfectly fine without those rules.

Casting the big spells is hard, especially if you try to cast a spell like MoD with its Air6 requirement. Even the best armies with ideal nation choices won't be able to cast these magics in any meaningful way. It only works well in:
-isolated battles...
-against armies without mages...
-who are run by players unwilling to spend gems on offensive rituals or battlefield magic or summons suited to your enemy's tactics.

Basically, these magics are for thug and SC killing, and since thugs and SCs are a sacred cow of a select group of veteran DomIII players, all the hate is focused on them. Considering the crazy things that happen in the endgame when people get 6-9s in paths, I don't even know why people bother nerfing these effects because they are far less game-altering than most globals or high-end summons.

Seriously. People don't win games with this tactic, so nerfing it is just changing the game balance to favor SCs and thugs AND removing tactical diversity and complexity.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

K, i can't follow your argumentation.

First, the exploit was detected a year or some more ago. So why should someone have rules againist it before this time? Nobody knew that MoD+retreat leads to an endless(turn limit) fight where you only can lose.

Second you argue its not a game breaking tactic. So how do you know this? All/most of the serious players consider it as exploit and would never use it. So its nearly impossible to say how much it can be abused and how game breaking it is.

Third the spell is really frustrating for every new player. Just see most of his army killed by... well nothing real. Sure there may be other frustrating fights. But at least there is a chance of doing something. The real army killing options are expensive in gems and equipment and this option is rather cheap, deadly and combined with one of the best spells cloud trapeze very flexible useable.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Well it doesn't seem very good to me that from a combination of all legit and working-as-intended things (MoD+offensive BE+retreat) comes a totally unlegit and in the most cases unbeatable tactic. Or this tactic is legit, period, or one of the components needs to be nerfed down a bit to make this tactic not unusable, but so less effective to be accepted in game possibly - one of the tactics useful in niche situations.

I appreciate the work of the devs constantly patching the game to be always playable, and as i.e. the power of Tartarians has been nerfed down a little with the Shattered Soul trait, this problem seems even more needing a little attention.

Peace everybody http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

P.S. wouldn't it be easy and balancing to make the MoD spell require at least a mage on the battlefield to continue working? Or even just, it works 2 or 3 more rounds without a mage and then stops, instead of providing endless phantasms? ^_^

P.P.S. K, i think it's normal in the world of Dom3 that spells affecting an entire battlefield or the whole world, high-end summons and powerful Gods and fighters are "altering" to the game. Isn't it how mid and expecially late game works? Doesn't the tactic we're talking about seem just... wrong? ^_^

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I think more important than whether the spell wins games or not is just the fact that it's really annoying, and has a feeling of unfairness about it.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

If you accept that it is not the intent from the devs that 1 mage, unsupported, can cast 2 spells and defeat an enormous force worth thousands of gold and hundreds of gems-

-then you must accept the fact that the SINGLE potential tactic that in fact gives this result, that is counterintuitive to the way the REST of the game works, is in fact exploiting an unfair glitch in the code.

Glitch = Bug.

Therefore, using a "Glitch" to defeat your enemies, is in fact Exploiting a Bug - or for short, "using an Exploit".

Hope that clears it up for you K. Don't know if you're just playing Devil's Advocate, I'm just shocked someone could be here for a year and a half and not grasp this yet.....

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I absolutely disagree. I was aware of the implications of using MoD the first time I cracked the manual. It wasn't perceived as a problem until significant numbers of people started using it as a counter to the prevailing wisdom of SC's.

I don't usually raise a fuss about limiting MoD, because I know I'll be outnumbered. MoD is no more breaking the game than SC's are. For a reasonable outfitting cost, a well crafted can prevail again and again: Mod + DoT have a per instance gem cost.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I don't accept that. Have you ever heard of Master Enslave, Undead Mastery, or Arcane Domination which allows exactly just what you are trying to tell me the devs didn't want? How about Shark Attack? Unravelling? Solar Brilliance? Ever see what two turns of Shimmering Fields or Shadow Blast can do when cast by an extremely powerful mage? Have you ever seen an SC cast a battlefield spell and just sit around until the opposing army is dead? How about an SC with a damaging aura who doesn't even cast any spells or make attacks, but just sits there while a thousand unit army kills itself on the aura?

Yes, when someone is unprepared, the tactic pisses them off. But, by the same logic, we should outlaw SCs and thugs, all spells past level 4, summons, and rituals. Each feels unfair when you die to it, as anyone who's lost an expensive army to high level magic, SCs/thugs, summons, or rituals can attest.

When you consider that any decent end-game army can be destroyed in the first two turns of spells cast by mages, having someone take advantage of this tactic just means that the other player wasn't a good enough player to realize that he should strike hard in the first two turns, or he didn't have the resources to do so, and so doesn't deserve to win. He should have had a strong offense on the first two turns, something that not only would stop this tactic but actually causes him to win his battles with less losses. Letting people cast all their spells and then fighting it out like God intended is actually a terrible end-game tactic.

As for personal experience, I can actually trace the exact point when this topic came up for discussion: it was during the first big game when one of my opponents that I was warring with went to the boards and started a campaign against ALL of the tactics I was using by calling them unfair. He asked the devs to nerf them, mostly because I think he didn't like the fact that his SCs weren't taking a province a turn like he was used to. Before that, the tactic was known and no one cared because it was available to everyone, easy to counter, and it only harmed people who couldn't field the mages to stop it (and thus would have lost anyway).

As far as I'm concerned, it's just a way to clear chaff players who have all but lost anyway and are trying to play the "gold and resources" beginning game and midgame when the real players have moved onto the "mages and gems" endgame.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I think the discussion is senseless. The majority understand the difference, some people not.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I'd argue that a small and very vocal minority has dominated the discussion simply because the majority would rather make a few compromises and have lots of players in their games.

The polls that have been done are self-selecting, so only the people who are trying to make a point participate. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if you tracked SC use and beliefs on this issue, players would be sharply divided between people who focus on SCs and think it's "cheating", and those who use a wide range of tactics and consider it fair game.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

yeah, sorry but the difference is clear even to me, who surely I'm not here from an year and a half ^^

That's not the problem about one (cheap) tactic destroying an (expensive) one, or a lot of strategies would be unlegit.

This one just has this "feeling of unfairness" and "annoying" nature llamabeast talked about. A mage which comes, casts 2 spells, then goes away - and the spells continues to go on, undispellable, damaging every kind of army. No possibility of a lucky shot, and quite difficult ways to prevent.
I mean, I don't even know why am I arguing about this, it's so clear that all the current MP games decided this is unlegit. So why to defend this, you can't use it anyway, so wouldn't it be better if it gets nerfed down a bit in a way that even makes logic sense? This tactic would become possibly USABLE, why not, with a niche usefulness, adding one more to the many various strategies which make this game rich! Everybody happy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif as it is now, nobody can use it anyway

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Haven't the devs said that the MoD+retreat thing exploits a bug?

Shouldn't that end the argument?

Or has this become a discussion of literary theory?

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I count the spell "fair but annoying." I would personally prefer to play with the MoD mod, but I don't think it's unfair--merely jarring to suspension of disbelief.

-Max

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Each of these tactics has many counters. The only counter that has been listed to MoD is to kill every enemy mage within one or two rounds of combat. (which I 'm pretty sure is the universal counter).

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Or sending in flyers to cut off their Retreat so that you can kill them later in the battle, or even just engage the mage in melee so he won't cast the spell.

Or moving your armies with magic or flight so that they don't know where know where to send the one or two mages who can cast the spell.

Or using small, elite armies that will Retreat after a few losses combined with cutting behind provinces so that you don't lose much to an MoD attack and their retreating mage dies as he has no province to retreat to.

Or casting MoD first.

Or casting spells that are always successful like Petrify or Claws of Coctyus so that they can't cast the spell.

Of putting up Astral Corruption so that any Cloud Trapeze chicanery starts eating their mages.

...and that doesn't even count the dozens of way of killing the mage in those first two turns.

------------
Pffttt. At the end of the day anyone focusing on MoD ambushes will lose so many mages and expensive Air items that whatever war they are fighting is going to be going badly for them very soon.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

It's that "or two" which makes the difference. MoD gives you twice as long to kill the caster if you're the defender, and infinitely more time to kill the caster if you're the attacker. You *can't* do MoD exploit on the first turn of battle, unlike Rain of Stones or Master Enslave.

-Max

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

This thread is epic lulz.

Can't we just link to the old one where like two people tried to defend to the death how everything, no matter what, if possible using the game interface should be allowed? I think it was Foodstamp and K.

Jazzepi,
IN UR GAME,
FLOODIN UR INVENTORY WIF SLAVE COLLARS

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/fear.gif Damn, I raelly don't understand why people didn't defend to the death the MoD+retreat tactic when it was made unlegit in all MP games, saying it can be countered so easily etc. etc. etc., but defend it NOW that, and at least it was my hope when I opened the thread, we could hopefully find a reasonable solution to make it less unbalanced and with its usefulness, by a mod or a rebalance in a future patch (I know devs patch what they want, obviously, but maybe driving enough attention around the problem http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ...)

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

In the 37 games I checked on the first page of the Multiplayer forum, I count 7 who banned "battlefield spell + Retreat in less than 5 turns" or MoD or "tricky stuff." Now, I only read the first set-up post in each thread which is where you put any rules or mods you are using, but the idea that "it's in all MP games" is clearly not supported by the available evidence.

The silent majority speaks volumes.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Someone already made a nice mod to make make it useful by replacing it with a less retarded spell. I think you can thank Twan. It basically just creates some clouds on the battlefield which do no damage, but spawn phantasmal warriors every round.

Jazzepi

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Oh, now THAT is good news http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif I hope if finds wide application around

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

It might not be stated that it is banned, however when someone actually tried to use it in Capuchin then it effectively immediately ended the game as everyone left.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

While one game is anecdotal, that's not real evidence.

I would adjust my numbers to 8 out of 37, but Capuchin wasn't in the 37 I counted.

Also, what was the game like? Since you were obviously in the endgame, what was everyone's position and how strong were they? Were there a lot of SC players?

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Search for Capuchin and you'll find the game thread.

You seem to have missed the point of the post. The silent majority will complain a lot if this is actually used and certainly all of Llamabeasts games have an unwritten rule that you should not use it. Probably other hosts have similar unwritten rules.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Well, the llamabeast game I'm playing in explicitly doesn't have those rules, so I think you are projecting your beliefs on others.

Also, unwritten rules against a certain player that pop up when he's winning don't get a lot of credit in my book.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

K, with respect...

are you sure you aren't playing the devil's advocate?
I dunno, it seems to me that you are defending the use of this tactic /against/ the vast majority of the scientific community http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif who posted in this thread, which I remember you is a specific thread about this.

I mean, the only time I saw something like this, it was on some Astronomy forum where flat-earth supporters started to claim the "evidence" of what they were saying (yeah, 4 reelz) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Take it as a wisecrack as it is plz http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image.../beerglass.gif

Anyway, as I came to know about the existence of this mod, the argument for me ends. I will play with it and /hope/ that MoD will be nerfed a bit in the basegame - with the mod implemented or something like this.

Bye byeeez http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I had intended to explicitly write a list of exploits - including the MoD one - which would be banned in my games (whether it's a fair spell or not K, you can't deny it upsets people, which is more important really). However I don't think I ever got around to writing it. Still, I think it is far preferable to win in a way which all other players also find reasonable and fun. A victory against a bunch of disgruntled people is a rather hollow one, I would have thought.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Hey, I just counted the games on the front page of the Multiplayer forum where people have rules against MoD or battlefield spells. That was 7 out of 37, which is around 19% of the games being played. The actual number of people in the community may be even lower considering that DomIII players are often willing to make concessions in order to get a game going.

If you want to start citing "unwritten rules" and anecdotal evidence as valid evidence, then you've abandoned the rules of logic, rules of evidence, and the scientific method and I can only say: good luck with that!

My point: there is a very outspoken minority that does not represent the community despite their belief that they do. This is not elementary school, so the loudest person is not the most correct.

Considering the number of people who seem exhausted by this argument, I assume that most people would rather play their own way rather than argue. Considering the number of games that don't address the issue in any way, the "pro-MoD/battlefield spells" majority are simply ignoring this debate and playing their games as they please.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Well K maybe you should count the games where this rule is in effect as a unwritten law!