Paralysis is overpowered.

[NTJedi]

[quote=K;634446][quote=NTJedi;634413]

Originally Posted by K

Logic vs. magic or abstraction means that magic/abstraction always wins. I could seriously come up with ten different reasons why the turn limit for battles exists based or why Paralyze works the way it does based on real-world examples OR magical reasons based on Dominion's system of magic, so any argument based on "but it doesn't make sense to me" doesn't survive.

This is fantasy, so even bad reasons can be logical.

The turn limit on battles has already been discussed in the forums and based on several variables each battle is clearly one day at the most. Ideally this should be improved to be more realistic.

The paralyze spell is a mind targeting spell which is temporary, although long effect. Since it strikes the mind the creatures with more powerful and more developed minds shouldn't suffer the exact same duration as one with a weak mind.

Your last statement of "This is fantasy, so even bad reasons can be logical" is clear you don't care to hold or create a stronger realistic fantasy. Also your posts show you have a tunnel vision view on paralysis.

[K]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

Your last statement of "This is fantasy, so even bad reasons can be logical" is clear you don't care to hold or create a stronger realistic fantasy. Also your posts show you have a tunnel vision view on paralysis.

Realistic fantasy? Seriously?

This is an abstract fantasy game. Arguments like "and then the defending god completes the long ritual and summons the souls of the people and smites the invaders" to "and then the local barbarian tribes rally and kill the invaders before the battle spills into the village" are perfectly viable reasons for the turn limit.

I personally don't care too much because only the pro-SC crowd makes a fuss over the turn limit, and their arguments are never more complex than "I'd like stronger SCs because I use SCs a lot and it hurts my feelings when they aren't unbeatable."

And yes, I have tunnel vision on Paralysis. I have yet to see one logical reason based on strategy or even "good and fun play", so my evaluation remains unchanged.

Just one real argument would make me take it under consideration.

If you want to discuss changes to the spell for your games, I suggest you make a thread in the Modding section because as long as people are logically discussing the pros and cons of Paralyze and attempting to sway the devs, I will continue to point out flaws in other people's arguments as I wish to preserve the integrity of one of the best games I've ever played.

[Jazzepi]

Originally Posted by K

Blah-blah-blah, sweeping statement that makes me sound like an ignorant jerk, blah-blah-blah.

Jazzepi

[K]

Originally Posted by Jazzepi

Jazzepi

...and then the opposition resorts to personal attacks because they can't attack the merits of the arguments or mount credible counter-arguments.

Thanks. I can now stop reading this thread. Feel free to continue in that vein because I won't be defending.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by K

Realistic fantasy? Seriously?

Obviously you've never heard the explanation... let me provide a quick summary. A realistic fantasy game means harmful fire spells would cause fire damage, a damage which typically burns the target. When the target takes damage the burns drop hitpoints indicating the target has been wounded since burning would also wound someone realistically.
Now an UnRealistic fantasy... one where you would be happy based on the "bad reasons can be logical". The UnRealistic fantasy would be a game where the developers program the game allowing stones to be a source of food for humans, trees die after dropping buckets of gold, and the most powerful weapon is a cardboard box. It's feasible to create such a game yet it's obviously unrealistic, but hey you're happy where bad reasons can be logical.

Originally Posted by K

[
This is an abstract fantasy game. Arguments like "and then the defending god completes the long ritual and summons the souls of the people and smites the invaders" to "and then the local barbarian tribes rally and kill the invaders before the battle spills into the village" are perfectly viable reasons for the turn limit.

If a SC on a battlefield cannot be stopped by the defending pretender, his best ProvinceDefense, best mages and most powerful army... what makes you think its killing after a battlefield turn limit justifies his death? It's illogical and unjust.

Originally Posted by K

I personally don't care too much because only the pro-SC crowd makes a fuss over the turn limit, and their arguments are never more complex than "I'd like stronger SCs because I use SCs a lot and it hurts my feelings when they aren't unbeatable."

I have no problems watching my best super SCs die from armies or spells or a magic weapon... but it's illogical for SCs, mages and units to be killed because of a battlefield turn limitation.

Originally Posted by K

And yes, I have tunnel vision on Paralysis. I have yet to see one logical reason based on strategy or even "good and fun play", so my evaluation remains unchanged.

Just one real argument would make me take it under consideration.

If you want to discuss changes to the spell for your games, I suggest you make a thread in the Modding section because as long as people are logically discussing the pros and cons of Paralyze and attempting to sway the devs, I will continue to point out flaws in other people's arguments as I wish to preserve the integrity of one of the best games I've ever played.

As I wrote long ago... I seriously doubt paralysis will change. I could understand your aggressive posts if the developers have actually shown an interest in perhaps adjusting some spells, but they are very busy with their new project and the bug thread has a much stronger importance. It's like you're holding a campaign to stop the human race from overpopulating the seas with underwater cities. Well it's never been endangered.