Re: patch 2.08 is out
Arryn,
I like your new picture under your name, by the way...very creative. I don't actually assert that current game mechanics are inconsistent with your "always on" approach to magical items' effects. Merely that a possible rationale for my new proposed mechanic of death for the helpless paralyzed individual would be that the item has ceased to function. There are plenty of situations in which an item needs tobe weilded in order to function. I would argue that a paralyzed individual is incapable of weilding items which must be weilded to function.
NT Jedi,
I do not conclude that the unit is unconscious. Merely that he can become helpless if he has no defenders. Many types of paralyzing poisons do not render one unconscious unless they stop movement of the diaphragm, which will result in death. To the contrary, the paralyzed victim is aware of everything around him or her, can still feel, see, taste, etc. but can't move a muscle.
I don't understand the sort of immobile paralysis in Dom 2 to be "paralyzed by fear."
Really...paralysis should be whatever the devs have in mind for it. And I don't mean to say that I wouldn't defer to them by any of my discussions in this forum. Currently, paralyzed at the end of a battle means death for attackers. I find this to be the outcome I would desire. And it seems also to be the outcome the devs intend, but of course I won't know that unless they actually speak on the issue.
It's good that we both agree on Velk's proposal.
Graeme Dice,
The sphinx is immobile and, if the attacker, will die anyway at the end of turn 50 by the time out period. Also, sphinxes may no longer be able to become attackers post-patch, which I think removed teleporting sphinx abuse.
I take your point that the physical structure doesn't suddenly fall apart. But in the situation you describe the creature is unable to attack and can be attacked repeatedly for a period of a month without opportunity for reprisal. It's vulnerable in a different way because it is incapable of fighting back. When it can cast spells, you have to see what effect those spells will have on the other army. Once it can no longer cast, there is no longer any need to see what happens to the opposing army, just what happens to the sphinx.
Are you sure paralyze has a less than 5% success rate with a decent MR? That did not seem to be folks' experience pre-patch. I know the system is changed post the 2.08 patch, but are you certain of this number?
Moodgiesanta,
You are exactly right...if the game weren't so amazing, we wouldn't be having this paralysis discussion.
Kristoffer O,
Velk in his original example required that the units not be immobile for the retreat rather than a rout to occur. Not that you will necessarily agree with him, but he probably envisions, as I do, that an attacking sphinx, if that still happens after 2.08, would die rather than retreat after turn 50.
Zen,
I agree with you that limitation would be a better word. And it may in fact be what was meant but poorly articulated by those starting the paralysis discussion here.
Arryn,
Defenders would never have to auto-retreat. Because if the battle isn't resolved after turn 50, the defenders auto-win. Which I don't think should be changed. In your proposed solution (which I don't completely support), the only change would be allowing certain attackers to retreat rather than be auto-killed at the end of turn 50. Defenders would not need to retreat because they have "won." I still don't think the paralyzed ones should get to retreat, but that would be for the devs to decide.
Chris Byler,
What will prevent these horrors from attacking the defenders? Or will both sides be destroyed?
PDF,
The game still probably has to kill immobiles in order to stop stalemates when the immobile pretender is attacking. I'm still not so sure I like the paralyzed guys getting to retreat. But that may be my own bias that something has to be able to effectively kill supercombatants.
|
Threaded Mode