Paralysis is overpowered.

[Zeldor]

No way I'm reading all that posts, but:

Jazzepi:
I had Tartarian that got around 7-10 afflictions in one battle just from Decay. He did not die, but had to spend some time with Chalice to get back to fighting condition. He was feebleminded, crippled, lost an arm, lost his only eye etc... and yeah, he got like 200-300 years in one battle.

[Herode]

Presumably not more than 250 if Decay gives +5 years / combat round & if the limit is still at round 50.

[K]

Originally Posted by sector24

2) If A is not B, A is C
Sort of the inverse of #1, and uses the same logical fallacy. This is the "if paralyze is nerfed in any way it becomes useless." Not that I'm poking fun at K, because he has a valid point; he just uses an exceedingly poor argument to demonstrate it.

This is a strawman argument for those watching at home. My argument has been exaggerated because it is then becomes easier to refute.

My argument was: "Considering that any nerf on the duration of the spell would make it useless against regular armies, and it can be easily countered anyway, any change might as well be a straight deletion of the spell. Simply put, not having a spell on the casting list is better than having a useless spell." When taken into context with the proposed reductions that were extremely drastic, this argument's only flaw is that someone could counter argue that an average of three turns of Paralysis that people were proposing would NOT make it useless against regular armies OR that it might be a good thing for it to be useless against armies (though to be fair, NTJedi had an incomplete proposal that may not have been as drastic).

My argument has then been exaggerated into "if paralyze is nerfed in any way it becomes useless." This argument is completely unreasonable and very simple, and so it is easy to dismiss. It completely ignores my point that the proposed reductions would make the spell useless against armies and with the nominal effect it would have an SCs it might as well be removed.

-------------

There is a big difference between a generalization and a stereotype. A generalization allows for exceptions, while a stereotype does not. For example, the generalization that "the sun comes up every day" is a form of support for an argument that the sun will come up tomorrow, but it would not disprove an argument that tomorrow the sun will not come up.

The people advocating nerfing Paralyze have only used arguments that involved removing the spell's negative effects on SCs. Therefore, as a general rule and based on the available data, people who want to nerf Paralyze are also advocating strengthening the role of SCs. This does not mean that exceptions don't exist or that those exceptions would disprove the general rule.

Considering that the generalization was not part of my argument but was more an a rhetorical observation, calling attention to it is actually an attempt to distract from my actual argument.

My apologies if this has caused any offense. I'm learning that logic and formal argument has no place in the internet and that people will never forgive you for using logic and math to prove that their beliefs are transparent or just plain wrong.

From now on, I'll stick to info-dumps for newbies to the game.

Cheers.

[Foodstamp]

K don't sweat it. Often times people find a chance at comradeship through rallying together to kick a person while they perceive multiple other people do not share the same view point.

As far as the paralyze thing goes. This like past disagreements become such simply because neither side is right because your discussing a mechanic in a video game that is so complex that balance discussions eventually boil down to opinion. Often your opinion may not be the same as most people and that opens the door to ganging up and put downs, but those people can't take away your birthday so stick to what you think is right unless something more tangible than "your a cheater and a big fat doodoo head" sways your opinion.

[Archonsod]

Define overpowered. Paralyze doesn't win you the game, in fact if you take a single mage spamming paralyze and pit him against a mere 10 militia I suspect the argument would be that paralyze is quite underpowered.

Someone posted a save not so long ago in which a paralyzed SC obliterated the attacking army. I watched my sphinx (not paralyzed, but immobile nonetheless) tear it's way through greater horrors last night through the simple expedient of casting fire shield. So even a paralyzed SC can be dangerous.

It's not a case of overpowered, simply bad luck. Boosting MR reduces the risk of paralyze and similar spells working, but it doesn't negate them completely. In this case, the fact paralyze worked is simply bad luck. It's no different from having Bogus & co turn up and kill your pretender while he's off killing indeps.

It's just the opposite side of the coin from the times when your single SC defeats and entire army because your opponent was expecting to be attacked by a horde. Only thing you can do is shrug and chalk it up to experience. Tactics and spells are like a toolbox, sometimes you get the right tool for the job, sometimes you find yourself holding a hammer when you really needed a wrench.

Oh, and if you want to complain about circular arguments when Doms 3 was released I remember these forums full of people complaining SC's were still too powerful in the new version, and we should have the game immediately patched with new ways to stop them

[sector24]

The telling phrase for me is, "any change might as well be a straight deletion of the spell." To me that is a pretty cut and dry statement. Now you can say I have created a straw man argument by saying "any nerf makes it worthless", but only if we accept your quantifier "and it can be easily countered anyway." That is an extremely subjective interpretation and is in fact at the heart of the argument. So basically in order for anyone to agree with your conclusion, they need to first agree with your assumption, which is your conclusion. Confusing I know!

I absolutely do not accept your quantifier, so therefore it's not a straw man argument to me. I think paralyze is one of the best low level combat spells in the game and by far the best astral spell at level 4. I think the only spell that is clearly superior is Raise Dead, but that's me.

Now I totally know what you mean, and I am having a bit of fun at your expense (and I appreciate that you can take it and dish it right back) but at the same time the strict interpretation of your argument doesn't necessarily reflect exactly what you mean. So of course you get a whole variety of silly counter arguments that range from term papers to kindergarten insults.

KO's explanation that it's supposed to remove a unit from combat for the duration of said combat is pretty telling and I don't think it's worth wasting developer time to make changes to the spell. But I do think it's a good spell at level 4 where there are very few useful combat spells. It seems to me that since it's astral, it's meant to be used in a communion and is therefore very conducive to penetration bonuses and less than listed fatigue, making it potentially better than its default spell stats indicate.

[K]

Originally Posted by sector24

The telling phrase for me is, "any change might as well be a straight deletion of the spell." To me that is a pretty cut and dry statement. Now you can say I have created a straw man argument by saying "any nerf makes it worthless", but only if we accept your quantifier "and it can be easily countered anyway." That is an extremely subjective interpretation and is in fact at the heart of the argument. So basically in order for anyone to agree with your conclusion, they need to first agree with your assumption, which is your conclusion. Confusing I know!

"The fact that it can be easily countered" is not a conclusion or an assumption. It's a fact.

High MR that is easily available on SCs and can lower the chance to less than %1 per casting (and if you expect Communions or Penetration items, you should add more MR). Also, high HP units will cause the casting AI to target them instead. Both counters are easily available to an SC builder.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by K

"The fact that it can be easily countered" is not a conclusion or an assumption. It's a fact.

That is a generalization based on late game strategic abilities. In the early game is where Paralyze shines the brightest, when the only SC you might have is your actual pretender, and the rest are merely "thugs". At this stage in the game, due to not having been able to diversify your magic yet, and likely having just reached Cons 4, you do not have the necessary tools to "easily counter" most anything.

Every time you think something is fine as is, you describe it as "easily countered". You can play theory-minions all you want, but the fact is you use the term "easily", when you really mean "potentially", and it's intentionally misleading.


Now as I said before, I don't believe in nerfs, but I do believe that reducing the effect of the spell to 30+ rather than 60+ would balance it better, and perhaps give it AOE 1 so it can hit multiple normal troops in the same square. However, KO already said it's basically WAD, so I don't see the point in having such bilious argument over it.


Oh, and hi Foodstamp.

[konming]

If it counters early game pretender SCs, then all the better. We actually need more counters like that.

[capnq]

Originally Posted by Herode

Presumably not more than 250 if Decay gives +5 years / combat round & if the limit is still at round 50.

The attacker automatically starts trying to retreat at round 50. He has until round 75 to get off the battlefield alive.