Paralysis is overpowered.

[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.

[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.

[K]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

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.

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

Originally Posted by NTJedi

I think paralysis should allow those paralyzed to have another MR roll each turn, if they succeed the MR roll then an extra 2 to 10 turns of paralysis are removed. Those with strong MR should overcome the paralysis more quickly since battle turns are so limited.

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.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by K

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.

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.

[K]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

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.

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.

[NTJedi]

[quote=K;634460][quote=NTJedi;634455]

Originally Posted by K

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.

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.