Paralysis is overpowered.

[Ming]

Originally Posted by Jazzepi

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

Thank you for your comment. Point taken

[konming]

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.

[Jazzepi]

Originally Posted by konming

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.

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

[konming]

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

[AreaOfEffect]

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.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by K

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?"

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.

[K]

Originally Posted by sector24

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.

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.

[HoneyBadger]

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.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by K

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.

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.

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

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.

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.