Paralysis is overpowered.

[Baalz]

My feeling isn't so much that there aren't lots of other ways to kill SCs, it's that paralyze shouldn't basically be a kill. Not at 2S and that low a research level. I'm gonna go ahead and throw down that gauntlet K, what is a better way to kill a SC with less research and or paths. Without using gems go ahead and show me how a mage with 2 magic in whatever paths you want can stop a SC with less research than paralyze using a PD screen. Heck, even using gems there's not much short of high research that can't be fairly easily countered by the right immunity.

From a thematic point of view it seems much better to me to think "We paralyzed the cyclops! Lets quickly try to kill it before he recovers" rather than "We paralyzed the cyclops! Whew, lets get a drink and then set up a rotation chipping away at him. I'll take the first shift."

[Foodstamp]

Originally Posted by Baalz

My feeling isn't so much that there aren't lots of other ways to kill SCs, it's that paralyze shouldn't basically be a kill. Not at 2S and that low a research level. I'm gonna go ahead and throw down that gauntlet K, what is a better way to kill a SC with less research and or paths. Without using gems go ahead and show me how a mage with 2 magic in whatever paths you want can stop a SC with less research than paralyze using a PD screen. Heck, even using gems there's not much short of high research that can't be fairly easily countered by the right immunity.

From a thematic point of view it seems much better to me to think "We paralyzed the cyclops! Lets quickly try to kill it before he recovers" rather than "We paralyzed the cyclops! Whew, lets get a drink and then set up a rotation chipping away at him. I'll take the first shift."

The challenge was thrown down for K but I accept it. SPAM HORROR MARK!

[K]

Originally Posted by Baalz

My feeling isn't so much that there aren't lots of other ways to kill SCs, it's that paralyze shouldn't that basically be a kill. Not at 2S and that low a research level. I'm gonna go ahead and throw down that gauntlet K, what is a better way to kill a SC with less research and or paths. Without using gems go ahead and show me how a mage with 2 magic in whatever paths you want can stop a SC with less research than paralyze using a PD screen. Heck, even using gems there's not much short of high research that can't be fairly easily countered by the right immunity.

From a thematic point of view it seems much better to me to think "We paralyzed the cyclops! Lets quickly try to kill it before he recovers" rather than "We paralyzed the cyclops! Whew, lets get a drink and then set up a rotation chipping away at him. I'll take the first shift."

Ok-dokey. Here are a few examples of comparable MR resist spells that are good when you've mages spamming them:

I've killed an enemy SC god using Rage in an MP game. He turned and killed most of his own army before they killed him. F2 at Thaum 3. I didn't even script Rage.

Sleep is mighty effective if you have a few guys spamming it. N2 at Thaum2.

Decay, while hard to actually hit anyone with, can do the job as well if the battle is long and he's not undead or lifeless.

If you don't like the MR-saves spells, we can go back to Astral for Starfires. It's armor negatingm kills with real damage and comes in at S1 at Evo1.

If you are lucky and your enemy SC is Astral, you can can do Magic Duel at S1 at Evo3. Sure, you may lose a few S1 mages before the rolls favor you, but it can be worth it to kill an SC (I've killed fully-kitted golems in MP with S1s before).

And, if none of those are right for you, Vengeance of the Dead comes in at S3D1 and Thaum4. It's a little more expensive than Paralyse in terms of mage paths and gems but it's the same research cost and it kills things dead pretty well.

I'm not saying that any of these are perfect, or even as good as in as many situations as Soul Slay or Paralyze, but they are comparable and the counters to them are all the same: don't overuse SCs or thugs. Considering that Astral is very weak early on against most enemies, it compensates by being good against SCs and thugs.

The one thing that really gets me is that every time someone whines "oh no, it's unbalanced because it kills SCs" then people seem to ignore that the fact that the same tactic is almost useless against a regular army.

[Adept]

[quote=K;634015]

Originally Posted by Baalz

My feeling isn't so much that
The one thing that really gets me is that every time someone whines "oh no, it's unbalanced because it kills SCs" then people seem to ignore that the fact that the same tactic is almost useless against a regular army.

Stop insulting people please. Nobody is whining. You are putting words in people's mouths and burning straw men.

Other than that, interesting replies.

[K]

Originally Posted by Adept

Stop insulting people please. Nobody is whining. You are putting words in people's mouths and burning straw men.

Other than that, interesting replies.

Here is what a strawman argument is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man. Please read it completely before charging someone with that particular offense.

And back to the issue....

My point is that "balanced" in the context of Dominions is "good vs some enemies and bad vs others." Anti-SC tactics are usually very good against SCs and very bad against decently-sized armies (which can very effectively use high HP or other kinds of units to draw away anti-SC spells).

While not all the pro-SC crowd are whiners, there are enough to color them as a group. It seems that every week I see a "this spell is broken because it killed my SC" argument, but I rarely see a "this spell is broken because it killed my army" argument. I apologize if that seems like an insult, because I see it as a valid observation about complaints that stem from emotional rather than logical reasons.

I understand that people get attached to their SCs. I don't understand why they ask others to play differently or change the game itself in order to respect that emotional attachment.

[Baalz]

Originally Posted by K

Ok-dokey. Here are a few examples of comparable MR resist spells that are good when you've mages spamming them:

I've killed an enemy SC god using Rage in an MP game. He turned and killed most of his own army before they killed him. F2 at Thaum 3. I didn't even script Rage.

Sleep is mighty effective if you have a few guys spamming it. N2 at Thaum2.

Decay, while hard to actually hit anyone with, can do the job as well if the battle is long and he's not undead or lifeless.

If you don't like the MR-saves spells, we can go back to Astral for Starfires. It's armor negatingm kills with real damage and comes in at S1 at Evo1.

If you are lucky and your enemy SC is Astral, you can can do Magic Duel at S1 at Evo3. Sure, you may lose a few S1 mages before the rolls favor you, but it can be worth it to kill an SC (I've killed fully-kitted golems in MP with S1s before).

And, if none of those are right for you, Vengeance of the Dead comes in at S3D1 and Thaum4. It's a little more expensive than Paralyse in terms of mage paths and gems but it's the same research cost and it kills things dead pretty well.

I'm not saying that any of these are perfect, or even as good as in as many situations as Soul Slay or Paralyze, but they are comparable and the counters to them are all the same: don't overuse SCs or thugs. Considering that Astral is very weak early on against most enemies, it compensates by being good against SCs and thugs.

The one thing that really gets me is that every time someone whines "oh no, it's unbalanced because it kills SCs" then people seem to ignore that the fact that the same tactic is almost useless against a regular army.

Not to sound contentious, but most of your suggestions all have the same *big* disadvantage to paralyze, a precision weeeeell south of 100 and also a much shorter range. Paralyze hits every time, from the first round of combat until you run out of fatigue. Those other spells are going to miss a single target the vast majority of the time unless he's close enough to poke you with his sword. This translates into drastically less MR checks and thus a drastically lower effectiveness. Sleep has to overcome the MR on the one or two hits you manage to land after the SC has run through his buff cycle and closed to kill your troops. Not really what I'd describe as the same ballpark as effective as paralyze.

Re: Rage - are you sure you didn't use charm? (tongue in cheek in case that didn't come through). Rage I've had cast many, many times by the unscripted spellcasting AI and the best result I've every gotten was getting a Neifel Jarl whacking a Neifel giant a couple times and giving him an affliction before they both turned back around and stomped my troops. Without arguing the point I'll just say I've had quite different results with Rage that what you describe.

Magic duel is a very special case and not really reasonable as a comparison.

Vengeance of the dead is kinda out there for comparison. It requires a much more powerful, specialized multipath mage and pearls to burn spamming it. It's also a ritual, and that's rather an apples to oranges comparison.

[K]

Originally Posted by Baalz

Not to sound contentious, but most of your suggestions all have the same *big* disadvantage to paralyze, a precision weeeeell south of 100 and also a much shorter range. Paralyze hits every time, from the first round of combat until you run out of fatigue. Those other spells are going to miss a single target the vast majority of the time unless he's close enough to poke you with his sword. This translates into drastically less MR checks and thus a drastically lower effectiveness. Sleep has to overcome the MR on the one or two hits you manage to land after the SC has run through his buff cycle and closed to kill your troops. Not really what I'd describe as the same ballpark as effective as paralyze.

Sure, and I admitted they they aren't as good. The point is that they can be used and only need a hit and a failed save to be effective. Some effects have to be better than others at the same level, and Paralyze sucks at killing units but is great at SCs.

Originally Posted by Baalz

Re: Rage - are you sure you didn't use charm? (tongue in cheek in case that didn't come through). Rage I've had cast many, many times by the unscripted spellcasting AI and the best result I've every gotten was getting a Neifel Jarl whacking a Neifel giant a couple times and giving him an affliction before they both turned back around and stomped my troops. Without arguing the point I'll just say I've had quite different results with Rage that what you describe.

It was Rage. Pretenders are immune to charm.

I think the Raging unit attacks the closest units to it. My mages were at extreme range and the Pretender ran back to his army which was not advancing because they were archers (and my troops were not advancing because I didn't have any). I think he killed himself on their Fire Shields.

Originally Posted by Baalz

Magic duel is a very special case and not really reasonable as a comparison.

Really? Aside from a gem cost, weird mechanic, and requirement of Astral, it has a lot in common with Paralyze. It's Astral, low research, and always hits. It's even better in that kills, can kills things with stupid-high MR, it costs less in research, and it can be cast by a weaker mage without doing anything crazy like communions or having powerful mages cast battlefield spells.

Originally Posted by Baalz

Vengeance of the dead is kinda out there for comparison. It requires a much more powerful, specialized multipath mage and pearls to burn spamming it. It's also a ritual, and that's rather an apples to oranges comparison.

It's a save or die that you don't have to leave home to do, so if it requires a slightly more powerful mage then who cares? The fact that at level 4 you can be killing SCs with a save or die proves my point that there are comparable SC-killers.

I mean, I only highlighted the sexier single casting options. There are plenty of SC killing tactics at low levels. For example, ten Storm Demons on Fire Large Monster vs an SC not immune to lightning can be instant death.... Swarms or summoned undead can be instant death on turn 75....a single caster E1/S1 with Gifts from Heaven can just be a dedicated SC killer with a few common items.....

My point is that nerfing a type of magic that is already weak at low levels is not the answer. It's not going to solve the problem of people killing your SCs and it weakens all existing Astral nations.

Considering that with a high MR it still takes an act of God to even work.... well, that just confuses me. I mean, why nerf something that only has a 1-2% chance of working anyway? Is the pro-SC lobby that insecure? Don't they want their opponents to have any chance?

[Endoperez]

Could someone post the actual paralyze mechanics from the manual?

I'm at school and don't have the manual with me, but IIRC paralyze damage is transformed into rounds paralyzed through some pretty weird formula that takes size into account, so that big units spend less time paralyzed. Analyzing the damage caused by Paralyze and the formula, and then looking at how different values would compare, seems like a much better idea than comparing Paralyze to other low-level spells.

IMO, 20 or more turns of paralyzation for a size 2 unit is fine (almost as good as Soul Slay, at small units), and even size 6 units should be paralyzed for several turns (because big units are targeted first, and it wouldn't be fun if your mages spammed Paralyze at an Elephant that only gets 1 turn of actual paralyzation, recovering just in time to be targeted again). I don't know what would be a good average amount of paralyzation for big units, but I expect that the average isn't 20 turns even with the current values.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Endoperez

IMO, 20 or more turns of paralyzation for a size 2 unit is fine (almost as good as Soul Slay, at small units), and even size 6 units should be paralyzed for several turns (because big units are targeted first, and it wouldn't be fun if your mages spammed Paralyze at an Elephant that only gets 1 turn of actual paralyzation, recovering just in time to be targeted again). I don't know what would be a good average amount of paralyzation for big units, but I expect that the average isn't 20 turns even with the current values.

In my experience with Paralyze, no matter what size, the vast majority of your successful casts result in either around (3) turns Paralyzation, or (20)+ with some individual casts going past 30 turns.

Regardless of what the manual says it does, or did 2 years ago, that's what it actually does in game.

[Adept]

[quote=K;634116]

Originally Posted by Baalz

My point is that nerfing a type of magic that is already weak at low levels is not the answer. It's not going to solve the problem of people killing your SCs and it weakens all existing Astral nations.

Considering that with a high MR it still takes an act of God to even work.... well, that just confuses me. I mean, why nerf something that only has a 1-2% chance of working anyway? Is the pro-SC lobby that insecure? Don't they want their opponents to have any chance?

You are pushing so many buttons there again, I'm having trouble remaining civil in answering this. *deep breath*

Stick to the topic. Don't try to be psychic and claim to know what others think and why they are doing things.

I don't belong to your imaginary pro-SC lobby. You are also using nasty rethorical devices and exaggerating things terribly. It's not 1-2% chanse of working. 4 - 5 astral mages, and it's been a practically a sure thing even against very high magic resistance.

Maybe this will help clarify things for you. It was mostly my astral mages, stopping things I don't feel I should have been able to stop so easily. And even that is not the core point. The core point is the overlong duration.

If you honestly are trying to say that scaling down the duration of paralysis will do horrible damage to the viability of astral heavy nations... then I probably just found your pet spell in the whole game and you are willing to say anything to invalidate any criticism of it. Shees...