Paralysis is overpowered.

[Adept]

Hello everybody,

I've been playing Dominions with my gaming group since the original. Our latest game drove home how overpowered the paralysis spell is. I don't think it's functioning quite like it's meant to.
(Christoffer asked me to make a thread about this to see what others think).

[first some background]
Our latest 4 way game on a large (120 province) map run close to 130 turns, before we declared it a three way tie. I've never seen this much high level battlefield magic, summons and artefacts in play. What I saw, is that paralysis, cast by humble Astral 2 mages was the bane of supercombatants. Even when we were equipping our pretenders and other SC's with enough gear to get MR 24+, they get paralysed, and then it's all over.

I don't have a problem with them getting paralysed as such, but even on a high MR Size 6 creature, the paralysis practically always lasts 20+ turns. That, is the problem. In effect, Paralysis has the same effect as Soul Slay, unless you win the fight.

I'd be fine with Paralysis if it would last a more sane number of rounds. Maybe d6 + the extra power the caster has, maybe even an open ended d6.

What do the rest of you think?

[Herode]

I'm not MP-experienced enough to have a very
extensive insight on the problem. But I've recently seen Paralyze used/spammed (via Paralyze or via Mind Blast) in 2 occasions : once against an opponent, once against me. In both cases, I've been surprised but the number of turns (>20 !!!) a big unit with high MR (namely : a god) can be crippled... and promised to a pityful death.

OTOH, it may just be a question of (un)luck. But the fact is that I will massively try to use S2 mages ASAP in the future :D

I think that
I'd be fine with Paralysis if it would last a more sane number of rounds. Maybe d6 + the extra power the caster has, maybe even an open ended d6.
could be a good patch.

[Baalz]

I've always felt paralyze is a bit overpowered. A single S2 mage is enough to really bring down any thugs/SCs not boosted with MR gear, and with light of the northern star even S1 mages can spam it. I think your suggestion on the effect length is a good one.

[konming]

Isn't soul slay more powerful? If you can do light of northen star, a simple reverse communion by enirely S1 mages can spam soul slay as well. Against heavy astral nations, I felt MR27 should be standard. :)

[Jazzepi]

I think, also, part of the problem may lie in the fact that MA/LA R'yleh has access to cheap paralyzers.

Jazzepi

[K]

There are plenty of cheap ways to kills SCs with less research and/or paths, and paralysis isn't even one the best ways so "no, I don't think it's overpowered."

In general, I think most people always declare anything that hurts SCs as "overpowered." Since I don't want SCs to become the only end-game tactic, I'm in the other camp. I think SCs should have a place in the game, but not the dominant position that people who invest heavily in them would like.

[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]

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!

[Executor]

I hate paralyze and blindness too for that matter, lost a very big number of SC to a single mage in a province with big PD that managed to pull out a lucky paralyze, and often in first shot!
It should be either a little easier to resist or less turn paralyzed.

[K]

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.

[sector24]

I think the duration can be ridiculously long sometimes. Once I was paralyzed for 52 turns which is basically longer than the entire battle anyway. Open ended d6 sounds like a great idea, possibly with multiple applications of paralyze being additive, so if you really wanted to permanently paralyze someone you could but it would take several mages.

[Adept]

[QUOTE=Baalz;633992]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.

[Tifone]

It seems to me that the power of this spell fits the overall "unbalanced" way the counters of this game works - intending for "unbalanced" not the negative meaning of the term, but the simple statement that very often the countermove is MUCH stronger than the move. I must say I see it as a feature - which kind of compensates the difficulty you get sometimes getting to counter the move your opponent threw at you if your nation has not the good path / research level for going with the best counter in time.

But I'm a n00bie so just feel free to kill my point badly ;)

[Zeldor]

K:

Decay works on undead.

[Jazzepi]

K:

Decay works on undead.

Have you ever looked at an undead unit's lifespan? Decay may effect them, but they live so long it's irrelevant.

Jazzepi

[K]

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.

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.

[K]

K:

Decay works on undead.

I thought that Decay didn't have a chance to kill old undead like it does with living units who are -- or have been taken by the Decay effect-- into old age.

Am I wrong about that?

[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.

Just another DOM_4 improvement. :)

[konming]

I do not really know about that. Soul slay is just one level up there and it is generally much better against SCs. Paralyzed SCs still may have cold/heat aura, fire/astral shield, blood vengence, awe+fear and more. Why should we nerf a spell that's specifically against thugs/SCs so it would not work on thugs/SCs? Paralyze already has 0.7% chance of working casted by a base caster against 25MR. Who would ever use paralyze against anything if each turn it can shrug off 2-10 turns?

[Baalz]

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]

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.


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.


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.


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.

[chrispedersen]

Bows of Botox. Visions Foes.
Communion + just about anything.


Sure tho bows dont actually kil em. But does render them useless.

Also, to enter a comment in - for S3 mages etc, paralysis is deprecated in favor of soul slay, at least often.

1. I think SC's are too strong.
2. I think paralyze is stronger than other schools spells, but I would rather boost other schools than penalize paralyze overly much.
3. Ryalla is a big part of the problem.

If you had to fix it - why not make it instead of turns of paralysis - a cumulutive action point drain?

That way, quicken, haste, would counter act it somewhat - and faster units would resist paraylsis somewhat better than slow ones.

[JimMorrison]

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. :p

[zzcat]

S2 & S3 make a big difference. Because of the extreme duration, paralyze is almost as powerful as soul slay and disintegrate. We know disintegrate need Alt 8, and there is no way to empower death path other than item & communion. But with a mere astral gem(light of the northern star), all S1 mage in the battlefield can spam paralyze like crazy. I think it's overpowered for a Thau 4 spell. Either increasing the prerequisite to S3 or increasing the research level to 6(same as frozen heart) or 7 looks fine to me. Or give it a reasobable duration like 3-5 rounds.

[Micah]

Paralyze damage is (damage-size)/2 so on short duration things like mind blasts and a failed petrification size has a major effect, but paralyze does 60+ damage, so knocking off 6 isn't gonna make much of a dent. Seems like it actually works like it's supposed to as well. =)

[IndyPendant]

Finally, a debate that I have something to add to! ; )

Once you look at all the factors (100 Prec, long-ish range, low research, easy paths, low fatigue, paralysis duration, etc etc), it is very hard to consider Paralyze balanced in comparison to other SC killers. In that respect, Paralyze is overpowered.

However, it is also hard to consider SCs and thugs *themselves* as balanced, compared to regular armies. It is a common (although perhaps not universal) belief--one that I happen to share--that Dom3 late game in particular is all about the gems. Once the SCs and battlefield spells arrive, armies of 'regular' units become so much disposable chaff. In that respect, SCs are far more overpowered than Paralyze.

Anything that weakens SCs and thugs--balanced or not!--is a *very very good thing* in my book! ; )

--IndyPendant.

[konming]

S2 & S3 make a big difference. Because of the extreme duration, paralyze is almost as powerful as soul slay and disintegrate. We know disintegrate need Alt 8, and there is no way to empower death path other than item & communion. But with a mere astral gem(light of the northern star), all S1 mage in the battlefield can spam paralyze like crazy. I think it's overpowered for a Thau 4 spell. Either increasing the prerequisite to S3 or increasing the research level to 6(same as frozen heart) or 7 looks fine to me. Or give it a reasobable duration like 3-5 rounds.

A simple reverse communion and power of the sphere plus that banner of the northern star is all you need for S3. If you can go S2, you have all the research done for S3. And all that are required are just a bunch of S1 mages.

[zzcat]

A simple reverse communion and power of the sphere plus that banner of the northern star is all you need for S3. If you can go S2, you have all the research done for S3. And all that are required are just a bunch of S1 mages.

LoNS is virtually free for boosting 10+ mages in one round, but reverse communion is dangerous, I think it should be acceptable if one can take the risk.:p

[Foodstamp]

The only thing annoying about paralyze is when your playing a nation where mages have more HP than your units. Since paralyze targets the units with the highest hp your units are virtually ignored while your mages are paralyzed. Can be a pita.

[ano]

LoNS is virtually free for boosting 10+ mages in one round, but reverse communion is dangerous, I think it should be acceptable if one can take the risk.
It is dangerous in no way. Just set your master to retreat or fire once he buffs the slaves with PoS and possibly Earthpower.

[Ming]

Interesting discussion.

I have a slightly different perspective. I believe the real issue is not so much whether paralysis is too powerful, but whether astral is too powerful as a magic path - especially since Tartarians have now been nerfed. What are other players' views?

(Disclosure: I believe paralysis is not overpowered as SC's are not weak even with paralysis as it currently stands - not every nation can access astral anyway. Unstoppable SC's was the bane of Master of Magic and I am glad that Dominions have counters like paralysis and others)

[Kristoffer O]

I think the paralysis spell was designed with CoE in mind. In CoE a paralyzed unit was removed from battle and if you won you got it back. If you lost the paralyzed unit was also lost. Paralysis is supposed to remove a unit from the battle for the remainder of the battle. A poor-mans soul slay so to speak.

Being of lower paths than soul slay it can become quite powerful/accessible, but primarily as a SC-counter. I'm quite fond of SC-counters :)

On the other hand I'm fond of scaled effects. I'm not entirely fond of MR-or-die effects (at least in RPG's). That's JK's cup of tea. Since people tend to get emotionally attached to their SC's you might call dom3 a SC-RPG and I understand that people get frustrated when puny mages paralyze their Great God.

[Ironhawk]

I wouldnt mind seeing the duration scaled back, but not so far as a single d6. In keeping with the original intent for paralyze that KO states above, I think the duration should be something like 10 or 15 base + d6. So in most cases, your SC will be knocked out of the battle, but not killed. But if you are lucky, they may break loose and fight again towards the end.

[ano]

15 base +d6 is quite fine. If you can kill the SC you'll have enough time for it.

[Adept]

I do not really know about that. Soul slay is just one level up there and it is generally much better against SCs. Paralyzed SCs still may have cold/heat aura, fire/astral shield, blood vengence, awe+fear and more. Why should we nerf a spell that's specifically against thugs/SCs so it would not work on thugs/SCs? Paralyze already has 0.7% chance of working casted by a base caster against 25MR. Who would ever use paralyze against anything if each turn it can shrug off 2-10 turns?

What happens is the AI casts paralyse first. If you have a lot of casters, they spam paralysis spells. After the most threatening / high value targets have been paralysed the slay soul spells start.

This is how it seems to go in the current version.

I'll clarify this a bit more. I don't have an issue with paralysis being efficient and useful. It's the rediculously long duration that I hate. The battles don't last long enough that the 20 - 40 round duration would have time to pass, so at the moment it's practically "paralysed until the end of the fight". That's the silly bit.

[konming]

"paralysed until the end of the fight" is still way better than "killed in a single hit". Comparing paralyze to soul slay, which is one level higher and just as easily spammed, I do not see how paralyze can be overpowered. Unless you also mean soul slay is overpowered. Then isn't SC even more overpowered?

[Herode]

"paralysed until the end of the fight" is still way better than "killed in a single hit".
Not that much, since you'll loose your unit if you loose the battle.

Anyway, I agree on the fact that as an anti-SC weapon, paralyze & some other spells can be interesting. But I'm unable to clearly state how much interesting or spoiling it is. Still reading the discussion with attention, though :)

[Herode]

I think the paralysis spell was designed with CoE in mind.
What is CoE ? Company of Eroes ? :confused::D

[krpeters]

I like the idea of shortening the duration too. Given the way the AI spams paralyze, any unit seriously susceptible to it will just get re-paralyzed anyway. But this way a high-MR SC can still be useful by tying down several mages casting. As it stands, it seems too easy for the mages to go after everyone else instead.

[krpeters]

I think the paralysis spell was designed with CoE in mind.
What is CoE ? Company of Eroes ? :confused::D

Conquest of Elysium, the RPG predecessor to Dominions. I never played it, but if that is the explanation of how it worked in that game, then it makes sense how it is implemented in Dominions.

[konming]

A paralyzed charcoal shielded N9E9 nief jarl is still pretty sacry, to normal troops anyway. A soul slayed one, OTOH, is nothing. You see, SCs can still be somewhat effective even when paralyzed, but no way they can be when soul slayed. And if you bring several SCs, one paralyzed generally does not get killed if you win in the end. One soul slayed, well, you get the drill. Paralyze is mostly a problem when you send your SC soloing. I do not see having an effective counter for that is a problem.

[Adept]

[QUOTE=Baalz;634105]

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...

[konming]

As I have stated above, base S2 mages casting paralyze has 0.7% of success agaisnt MR 25 SC. So it is less than 1-2%. You can do the math yourself to verify.

[Adept]

A change in the formula so that the size divides the damage instead of just giving a tiny minus would fix the spell. I'd still prefer just open ended d6 + extra caster power. The 15+ d6 is no fix, since it would result in the same durations anyway *eyeroll*

[HoneyBadger]

I don't see any problem with scaling the duration back, for Paralysis, and then maybe having a higher level, longer duration version. It'd be funny to have a version that paralysed your enemy and then 'blinked' him/her around the battlefield to some random location, before release.

[Psycho]

Paralyze is not that scary. It will always target the highest hit point unit, so you just need to bring along another SC to be the target and give him lead shield, rainbow armor, astral cap and AMA for 31 MR.

What is more, the paralyze spammers will continue to cast paralyze on the already paralyzed unit if there are no more targets of his size. Bring one elephant with your army and you'll see that he continues to be targeted even when already paralyzed.

[K]

As I have stated above, base S2 mages casting paralyze has 0.7% of success against MR 25 SC. So it is less than 1-2%. You can do the math yourself to verify.

And that is the winning argument.

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.

[Herode]

But are 25+ MR for SCs a common feature ?
I'm not a SC specialist, so I won't answer. I can just say that the few SCs I saw & the few SCs I built were often < 25MR, thus leading to a considerably more important exposure.

[Kristoffer O]

If your opponent is an astral heavy nation you are likely to adopt and focus more on MR than on other traits. Thus MR 25 + I suspect. MR is also the only trait that counters automatic death. Other effects are HP dependent in one way or another. Resistances and protection and stuff reduces dmg, but MR removes death. That is often more important to the sentiments of the SC owner :)

[Psycho]

Yes it is quite common. With just an AMA and one self buff such as iron will you have 26MR.

[Foodstamp]

As I have stated above, base S2 mages casting paralyze has 0.7% of success against MR 25 SC. So it is less than 1-2%. You can do the math yourself to verify.

And that is the winning argument.

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.


I have to agree with these two. After reading this thread I started a game with EA R'lyeh to do some paralysis testing. Against an MR 19 enemy, I had great difficulty getting the spell to land with over half a dozen mages (no boosters, the smaller aboleths) spamming it.

[JimMorrison]

I have a slightly different perspective. I believe the real issue is not so much whether paralysis is too powerful, but whether astral is too powerful as a magic path - especially since Tartarians have now been nerfed. What are other players' views?


After finally messing with post-Shattered-Soul Tarts, I'd have to disagree that they were "nerfed". Yes, they have been rendered less ridiculously cost effective, for the few nations who can easily summon them en mass, AND heal them, AND GoR them. Pre-patch, every single Tart I ever summoned was just riddled with afflictions. Now, I can summon them as a Death nation that lacks Nature, and while they will all be Feebleminded, that's about all that's wrong with them (besides the Shattered Soul, of course).


Anyway, that's neither here nor there. I think that Paralyze could definitely use a reduction in duration. Halving the average hit, would make it a little more in line. Though, the CoE mechanic is interesting - though I can see how it might still upset people who are using their SCs as solo raiders, since once Paralyzed, and removed from battle - the battle would be over, and the unit completely lost. :o

z

[sector24]

Well if paralyze is intended to take you out of the fight for the duration of the battle, it does a good job of it and I guess it should stay as is.

[NTJedi]

Paralyze already has 0.7% chance of working casted by a base caster against 25MR. Who would ever use paralyze against anything if each turn it can shrug off 2-10 turns?

You don't even know the possible formulas which can be used for shrugging off 2-10 turns and you think it's a bad idea?

Give it more thought. :rolleyes:

[NTJedi]

Yes it is quite common. With just an AMA and one self buff such as iron will you have 26MR.


Unfortunately Iron Will and some other self buffing spells will remove the blessings effect on commanders/SCs/mages wearing shroud of the battle saint. It's one of the listed bugs in the bug thread.

[K]

Paralyze already has 0.7% chance of working casted by a base caster against 25MR. Who would ever use paralyze against anything if each turn it can shrug off 2-10 turns?

You don't even know the possible formulas which can be used for shrugging off 2-10 turns and you think it's a bad idea?


Considering that the pro-SC crowd won't accept more than a few turns of paralysis for a fully buffed and kitted out SC, then there really doesn't have to be a discussion.

Buffed and kitted SCs can't be killed in a few turns. Heck, they can't even be killed in twenty turns if they regenerate and have something as common as a Fire Shield (and considering how lucky you need to be to get a Paralyze to land, I don't even know why we are having this discussion).

Basically, asking to reduce the duration is the same as asking to have the spell removed from the game. Considering that a reduced duration of any kind makes it less useful for killing Blessed troops and other powerful units, the only question is "how many strategies are the pro-SC crowd willing to ruin?"

[sector24]

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.

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. :re:

[Ming]

After finally messing with post-Shattered-Soul Tarts, I'd have to disagree that they were "nerfed". Yes, they have been rendered less ridiculously cost effective, for the few nations who can easily summon them en mass, AND heal them, AND GoR them. Pre-patch, every single Tart I ever summoned was just riddled with afflictions. Now, I can summon them as a Death nation that lacks Nature, and while they will all be Feebleminded, that's about all that's wrong with them (besides the Shattered Soul, of course).

z

Thank you for your input.

I have not had the time to play around with Tarts post shattered soul. Do they not need GoR anymore? On the surface shattered soul is worse than multiple afflictions as there is no way of getting rid of it.

[Jazzepi]

After finally messing with post-Shattered-Soul Tarts, I'd have to disagree that they were "nerfed". Yes, they have been rendered less ridiculously cost effective, for the few nations who can easily summon them en mass, AND heal them, AND GoR them. Pre-patch, every single Tart I ever summoned was just riddled with afflictions. Now, I can summon them as a Death nation that lacks Nature, and while they will all be Feebleminded, that's about all that's wrong with them (besides the Shattered Soul, of course).

z

Thank you for your input.

I have not had the time to play around with Tarts post shattered soul. Do they not need GoR anymore? On the surface shattered soul is worse than multiple afflictions as there is no way of getting rid of it.

My understanding is that SS isn't really all that much worse than being insane, and LA Ry'leh is considered one of the top nations.

Jazzepi

[Ming]

My understanding is that SS isn't really all that much worse than being insane, and LA Ry'leh is considered one of the top nations.

Jazzepi

Thank you for your comment. Point taken

[konming]

Insanity for LA R'lyeh do not really do anything harmful. They may stare at the sky for a while, but will not PILLAGE, nor destroy temple. They can even become 2nd, 3rd... prophets. Besides, LA R'lyeh's star spawn mages are seldom insane, and you generally care less if a free spawn leader is insane or not. It is that invading army who have to consider more about the effect of insanity, since they have a different sets of insane actions.

[Jazzepi]

Insanity for LA R'lyeh do not really do anything harmful. They may stare at the sky for a while, but will not PILLAGE, nor destroy temple. They can even become 2nd, 3rd... prophets. Besides, LA R'lyeh's star spawn mages are seldom insane, and you generally care less if a free spawn leader is insane or not. It is that invading army who have to consider more about the effect of insanity, since they have a different sets of insane actions.

Who really cares about pillaging in the end game? You stick your tartarians in a single low pop province and they can pillage all they want. The temple destruction is irrelevant 99% of the time, because you shouldn't be storing them in a province with a temple, and when you're on offense with them you won't have any temples around anyways.

Now if they blew up /labs/ that would be something to write home about, but all in all, I think the two different commands that they issue "pillaging, and temple destruction" just equate to "doing nothing this turn" rather than anything terribly harmful.

So again, I say that SS is no worse than insanity.

Jazzepi

[konming]

Well, if you are sieging enemy capital or just take over it, pillaging is painful. Beside, now they cannot be used as blood hunters. :)

[AreaOfEffect]

Getting back on topic, I have read the entire thread to this point and have come to several conclusions. I know that the intention of the spell is to simulate the effect of a unit removed from combat. However, the spell only approximates this effect and doesn't actually do it. This can lead to a number of unintended circumstances.

If you would like an example then I refer you to a post I made weeks ago (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=40233) where paralyze (cast by my own mages) caused me to lose a battle I had technically won. I also can supply additional instances where paralyze has caused a great deal of wackyness because the unit is "removed" but still present. The intention of the spell should not override adjustments to that spell as fairness and balance is much more important.

That said I don't particularly find the spell overpowered. It is only overpowering if you equate paralysis with death, which the original poster has done. Paralysis is not death in the same way that paralysis is not actually removal from combat.

I must admit that I was attracted to NTJedi's idea that some factor should allow you to shrug off some of the effect. Though MR is the most logical choice, it also gives high MR units double the protection by raising only one stat.

Personally, I might be more in favor of a few magical items (existing or new) that can shave the time off paralysis for the super combatant. In my mind, this allows for more rock-paper-scissor action as you can now make a SC nearly immune to paralysis spam and yet less effective against other attacks. I'm in favor of SCs becoming more specialized so that they aren't all the same cookie cutter thugs. This I think appeals to the SC crowd and yet keeps the mage and army crowds happy because they still have options against such beastly beings.

[NTJedi]

Basically, asking to reduce the duration is the same as asking to have the spell removed from the game. Considering that a reduced duration of any kind makes it less useful for killing Blessed troops and other powerful units, the only question is "how many strategies are the pro-SC crowd willing to ruin?"

Well first let me say I've been here a long long time and I seriously doubt the developers will make any changes to the current paralyze spell in DOM_3... so you can sleep safely.

Second the reduced duration I mentioned is for addressing two issues, none which have been discussed. The first is because current battle turns have an auto-retreat and an auto-kill too early which conflicts with the duration of battles in history. The auto-kill and auto-retreat were done to prevent a game turn from taking too long, unfortunately despite computers advancing and becoming more powerful the gamers currently have no options for increasing these auto-kill and auto-retreat settings. The paralyze spell basically makes a unit, mage or SC completely worthless for the usually the rest of the battle and if the target is struck with paralyze twice then the unit, mage or SC can be killed not by units but because of a game mechanic due to the auto-kill game turn limit... illogical. The second reason for the suggested reduced duration is because the game links magic resistance and the minds mental strength... hence spells like iron will. The second reason is because it seems only logical a creature of a strong mind(magic_resistance) should be able to break free much more quickly from a mind spell like paralysis compared to say an average militia unit. It's actually baffling to me why size even plays any part for reducing paralysis considering the huge size and seriously low intellect of most dinosaurs.


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]

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.

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. :re:

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. ;)

[HoneyBadger]

Maybe a resistance to paralysis, in the same way a unit might be resistant to fire, ice, poison, shock?

Alternatively-but along a similar vein-maybe a more broad resistance to psychic attack/mind damage, that also functions as the current fire etc. resistances. The latter would allow more anti-R'lyeh strategies, which would then probably make Late Era games more fun. LA Ermor already has a broad "blast 'em with holy magic!" emergency plan, so something like this seems fitting.

[NTJedi]

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.

[Endoperez]

Maybe a resistance to paralysis, in the same way a unit might be resistant to fire, ice, poison, shock?

Alternatively-but along a similar vein-maybe a more broad resistance to psychic attack/mind damage, that also functions as the current fire etc. resistances. The latter would allow more anti-R'lyeh strategies, which would then probably make Late Era games more fun. LA Ermor already has a broad "blast 'em with holy magic!" emergency plan, so something like this seems fitting.

That's actually somewhat viable. I don't think we'll get it, but a cursed item that made you immune to mind burns, soul slays and charms would be quite useful. Something like a soul manifested as a physical flame.

[HoneyBadger]

And some creatures-void critters, R'lyeh starspawn, Aboleths, etc. might have a natural resistance against such effects-not immunity, but maybe as much as 50%

Along that line of thought, Heroically Stupid heroes might get an increasing resistance, just for being thick-headed and unimaginative. :)

[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.

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

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.

[K]

Basically, asking to reduce the duration is the same as asking to have the spell removed from the game. Considering that a reduced duration of any kind makes it less useful for killing Blessed troops and other powerful units, the only question is "how many strategies are the pro-SC crowd willing to ruin?"

Well first let me say I've been here a long long time and I seriously doubt the developers will make any changes to the current paralyze spell in DOM_3... so you can sleep safely.

Second the reduced duration I mentioned is for addressing two issues, none which have been discussed. The first is because current battle turns have an auto-retreat and an auto-kill too early which conflicts with the duration of battles in history. The auto-kill and auto-retreat were done to prevent a game turn from taking too long, unfortunately despite computers advancing and becoming more powerful the gamers currently have no options for increasing these auto-kill and auto-retreat settings. The paralyze spell basically makes a unit, mage or SC completely worthless for the usually the rest of the battle and if the target is struck with paralyze twice then the unit, mage or SC can be killed not by units but because of a game mechanic due to the auto-kill game turn limit... illogical. The second reason for the suggested reduced duration is because the game links magic resistance and the minds mental strength... hence spells like iron will. The second reason is because it seems only logical a creature of a strong mind(magic_resistance) should be able to break free much more quickly from a mind spell like paralysis compared to say an average militia unit. It's actually baffling to me why size even plays any part for reducing paralysis considering the huge size and seriously low intellect of most dinosaurs.


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.

[JimMorrison]

That's actually somewhat viable. I don't think we'll get it, but a cursed item that made you immune to mind burns, soul slays and charms would be quite useful.


Sweet! We could call it a Slave Collar..... ;)

Well, I guess it needs Paralyze added to it, and then you're looking at something useful! I mean, why give that Bane Lord a ton of MR gear, when a simple Slave Collar will render him into a calm, focused, minister of death? :o


Oh and for the record, I don't think my suggestion to change Paralyze was all THAT drastic. Only the Paralyze spell would be reduced to either 30+ or 40+, since most people agree that simply with the hardcoded battle length, 60+ is a bit gratuitious.

Size accounted for, a 15 turn Paralysis still gives you a lot of chance to lay down some hurt. If you can't kill it in that time, perhaps you need to bring something MORE to the table than just Paralyze?

[K]

That's actually somewhat viable. I don't think we'll get it, but a cursed item that made you immune to mind burns, soul slays and charms would be quite useful.


Sweet! We could call it a Slave Collar..... ;)

Well, I guess it needs Paralyze added to it, and then you're looking at something useful! I mean, why give that Bane Lord a ton of MR gear, when a simple Slave Collar will render him into a calm, focused, minister of death? :o

I'd actually accept if the Feebleminded condition gave you the Mindless trait (though I'm not sure if Mindless helps vs. Paralyze).

[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.

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.

[HoneyBadger]

Yeah, I don't think Slave Collar works that way, does it? I was always under the impression it was curse + feeblemind + 30 morale. And that was it.

Something like a forgeable (in the sense that Lifelong Protection is forgeable) Void-based brain parasite that made you immune to mind burns, soul slays and charms, but also horror-marked you, would be fun, and thematic, and horribly, mind-numbingly creepy (always a plus!).

Maybe it would have a very small chance per turn-like the lycanthropy amulet-of giving your unit the Mindless tag (by turning your unit into a Soulless-because the parasite living off your unit's brain is, well, full.)-but once you got it, if your unit gets killed, he/she turns into a Lesser Horror (as a secondform) and attacks the nearest unit.

[NTJedi]

[QUOTE=NTJedi;634413][QUOTE=K;634346]

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]

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.

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=NTJedi;634455][QUOTE=K;634444]

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.

[K]

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]

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

Jazzepi

[K]

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

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]

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?

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.



[
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.


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.


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.

[Jazzepi]

K : I don't even care about the paralysis argument. I actually agree with you on principle, but the way you present yourself makes me want to wretch. For someone who constantly reminds us of how much they know about the art of arguing a point, you do so in a way that is so totally offensive I don't want to listen to the rest of what you have to say.

By the way, it's not a personal attack, it's a critique on the manner in which you address others. Specifically putting everyone who is not agreeing with you in a single "camp" and then calling them all "whiners". If you want to take personal offense at that, then it's your prerogative. Though, it's probably a lot easier to just put your fingers in your ears and ignore it, instead of learning how to present your points without coming off as a total douche.

Jazzepi

[Herode]

Getting back on topic, I have read the entire thread to this point and have come to several conclusions. I know that the intention of the spell is to simulate the effect of a unit removed from combat. However, the spell only approximates this effect and doesn't actually do it.
I don't see this limitation as a drawback : Paralyze paralyzes. It's not a Repell.

Now, why couldn't we have also a Repell spell ? Something like a Ritual of Returning, but that you could cast on the ennemy troops ? The spell could come in 2-3 flavours : targeting a single unit, targeting a small area (1), targeting a large area (2+), and could be more easily negated by MR when the area grows wide. The repelled units could be thrown back to the capitol, or a random friendly fort, or their home garrison.
Could be fun. Just ideas on the fly... :p

[Edi]

Keep this thread civil or sooner or later people will start accumulating infractions. That's definitely not something you want to do, as several of them don't expire ever. Take a look at the forum FAQ if you are not familiar with what they are. And once you get enough of them, not even paralyze will help you against a SC Administrator wielding the Ban Hammer.

As of now, nobody's gotten them yet, but we're keeping tabs on the thread.

[Agema]

If you're using a SC to single-handedly take down a large and well magic-supported army, arguably you deserve everything you get. You don't casually toss around hundreds-strong armies, you shouldn't casually toss around SCs either.

I sort of get the feeling that if you don't want to suffer defeats by your SC getting massively paralysed all the time, take him in with an army containing a few high-HP chaff, or just make sure your army is big enough to cope with the enemy's army even with your SC paralysed. I'd like to think if your opponent has a load of astral mages spamming paralyse to take down one SC, you should have an equal number of similar level mages spamming spells of their own to cripple your opponent's army. Never mind paralyse, I found getting an SC horror marked to oblivion pretty depressing, but on the other hand, at least I now know to take a lot more care when marching them into battle against astral nations. Swallow the pain and change your tactics for next time.

[sum1lost]

I'd like to bring up an example in which the turn limit was my only effective measure against one early game supercombatant.

In aquarium, I had my first war against MA Arco, who was running an equipped SC titan. Said SC titan is still in the hall of fame some 40+ turns after its death, alongside some late-game SCs. It walked through at least two or three armies of double blessed eagle warriors, not to mention several secondary groups of mundane troops. I was having a tough battle as it was against the elephant/hypasist/mystic communions that were already going on, though I was winning, and the thing was unstoppable- even solo.

It finally ran into a province where I had some nature mages, and their sleep-spam was fruitless.

What did work was when, two turns later, it ran into an army with a moon mage carrying penetration equipment. The moon mage got two paralzyes through in the course of the battle, but even paralyzed, I couldn't scratch its armour, and its fear aura routed my army.

I think I finally ended its reign of terror a bit later with a number of phantasmal wolves combined with paralyze spam, which managed to kill it via the turn limit.

If it helps any, I thought of it as being locked into stasis by the illusions and mental magics of my mages, never again to terrorize my warriors.

[sector24]

K is by no means the only one with a "unique" style of persuasion. It's basically a staple of the internet to make grandiose claims, stereotype arguments and people into classes. Everyone should be held accountable for their poor style, but at the same time no one should be singled out. So just for fun, here are some internet logical fallacies:

1) If A is B then A is not C
I call this the female transitive property (jokingly of course) because it's the essence of the "does this dress make me look fat?" joke.

Basically when a girl asks you if this dress makes you look fat, she has trapped you into losing an argument before you even answer. If you say yes, then you are an idiot and deserve what you get, but if you say no, the female transitive property states that while "this" dress does not make her look fat she incorrectly infers that a dress exists that does make her look fat, hence she is fat and you're a jerk.

Logically speaking, the relationship between A and B has nothing to do with the relationship between A and C, but oh so frequently this is a common tactic used to win arguments or at least provide a situation where there are only losers.

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. It would be like if you were at a job interview and you wanted $124,000 a year, and your future employer countered with $68,000. "$68,000?!? That's the same as $0! You're a jerk!" Well no, you start high, they counter, you negotiate. Maybe paralyze would become suboptimal, but I think a formula could be derived that was less than a current number but still viable. So we start with paralyze lasting the whole battle, counter with open ended d6, and negotiate. But if you don't want to negotiate, this is a quick way to end the argument. If the argument lasted any longer I'm sure someone would have said, "anything more than oe d6 is overpowered" and used the same fallacious argument in the opposite direction. (Again, I don't mean to offend and honestly I think some people get way too much crap for their style of persuasion, especially from people who use their own fallacious tactics in return.)

3) If A is not B, recalculate until A is B
When logic is not on your side, why use logic? Instead, of reading the other person's post and addressing their argument, just reword your argument and post it again. This is a great tactic for forcing your adversary to lay all their cards out on the table. They counter the same argument with basically every unique counter argument they have, and you haven't tipped your hand in the slightest. Your original argument doesn't even have to be good, you just need some discipline and tenacity.

If A is not C and B is not C, A is B
This usually stems from a 3-way argument in which A makes a reasonable argument, but then B (who agrees with A) makes a less reasonable argument. A clever person will not address A specifically, but will say that A and B are both arguments against C and since B is wrong, everything that has been said so far is wrong. I have to be honest, this is the best fallacious reasoning ever and it works all the time. Try it! ;)

So the delicious irony is now you get to read this post and show how fallacious my examples are, thereby making me look oh so foolish. Have fun!

[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. :smirk:

[K]

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]

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]

"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. :happy:

[konming]

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

[capnq]

Presumably not more than 250 if Decay gives +5 years / combat round & if the limit is still at round 50. :smirk:The attacker automatically starts trying to retreat at round 50. He has until round 75 to get off the battlefield alive.

[Kristoffer O]

Decaying targets decay for a while after battle as well.

[Amhazair]

My problem with paralysis isn't anything about the spell itself (I think it's fine, though I wouldn't object strongly agains a slight duration reduction.) What does bother me is that the AI, once scripting runs out insist on spamming it over and over in preference over soul slay, even with high level astral mages.

While I could possibly understand S3 caster to default to paralyze for fatigue reasons, in my opinion anything S4 or higher should always go for soul slay, to prevent the all too common 50-turn-desperate-but-doomed-attempts-to-kill-the-opposing-SC-followed-by-the-inevitable-turn-limit-rout. This should go double for any mages in a communion, who shouldn't care too much about fatigue. (As opposed to the player setting up the communion, who should defintely worry about setting it up so the masters don't have to worry. ;))

[Meglobob]

Got to agree with Amhazair here. I just cast about 200 x paralysis at a SC attacking my castle. It had 28 MR, not one effected the SC. I hate the constant casting of any 1 spell after scripting has run. If I had cast a few frozen hearts which my mages were capable of, then that would be 1 dead SC and a lot sooner than 50 rounds. The battle ended very unsatisfactory for everyone concerned with the attacker auto-routing, then my forces auto-routing. The SC had only 3 AP so took a age leaving the battlefield.

My mages also spammed rage, which was obviously useless against a single attacker! I would have prefered, frozen heart, water strike and/or geyser.

[Foodstamp]

Got to agree with Amhazair here. I just cast about 200 x paralysis at a SC attacking my castle. It had 28 MR, not one effected the SC. I hate the constant casting of any 1 spell after scripting has run. If I had cast a few frozen hearts which my mages were capable of, then that would be 1 dead SC and a lot sooner than 50 rounds. The battle ended very unsatisfactory for everyone concerned with the attacker auto-routing, then my forces auto-routing. The SC had only 3 AP so took a age leaving the battlefield.

My mages also spammed rage, which was obviously useless against a single attacker! I would have prefered, frozen heart, water strike and/or geyser.

My tests came to pretty much the same conclusion about the success rate, so why are all these other people getting so unlucky on their resistance rolls and losing their high MR SCs?

[Agema]

It's chance, and the errors in human perception relating to chance.

What happens is that people very keenly remember when their expensive super-SC fails that one time, especially when the fail is catastrophic and results in autodeath, and more so if it happens early in a battle.

People forget that that same SC might have already been subject to many MR rolls over time and passed them all; or they forget they have many SCs over the course of playing Dom3 who have passed hundreds of such rolls between them and it's only that one that has failed catastrophically. They may forget the times that SCs fail a MR check but it was for something trivial like taking damage from an astral geyser, and so lose perspective of how easy it can be to fail an MR roll.

Alternatively, you can view it this way. If you've got a community of hundreds, each of whom is running a few games, each game with a few SCs, if all those SCs have a 1/1000 chance of failing an MR roll, it's actually very likely at least one SC walks into a battle and fails an MR roll with a disasterous result, because you've got over 1000 SCs facing MR rolls.

[Adept]

[QUOTE=NTJedi;634337][QUOTE=konming;634077]

Considering that the pro-SC crowd won't accept more than a few turns of paralysis for a fully buffed and kitted out SC

Burn strawman burn. Nobody has said that. Who is this mysterious lobby anyway? :re:

[Adept]

[QUOTE=sector24;634691]The telling phrase for me
"The fact that it can be easily countered" is not a conclusion or an assumption. It's a fact.


This is not a fact. MR 15 is high, MR 18 is pretender level. MR 23 is not enough to make commander stay non paralysed if the other side has several astral mages capable of casting paralyse.

There are other things needed on a fighting pretender or other SC than just MR boosting items. Led Shield, as a prime example is not an easy choise for a non-cavalry SC as the fatigue cost is just too high.

What is it with K and this spell anyway? Does he just love to argue, or is it his special precious baby? Reducing the duration doesn't change things that much, but it would make it a better and more balanced spell... much less frustrating too.

[konming]

[QUOTE=sector24;634691]The telling phrase for me
"The fact that it can be easily countered" is not a conclusion or an assumption. It's a fact.


This is not a fact. MR 15 is high, MR 18 is pretender level. MR 23 is not enough to make commander stay non paralysed if the other side has several astral mages capable of casting paralyse.

There are other things needed on a fighting pretender or other SC than just MR boosting items. Led Shield, as a prime example is not an easy choise for a non-cavalry SC as the fatigue cost is just too high.

What is it with K and this spell anyway? Does he just love to argue, or is it his special precious baby? Reducing the duration doesn't change things that much, but it would make it a better and more balanced spell... much less frustrating too.

This is getting amusing. How many SCs you see have a high base MR of 15? I cannot think of one, maybe you can remind me?

SCs need to get their MR up because, hey, there is a small spell called soul slay in case you forgot. And did I say mind hunt? How about enslavement? Charm? Bone melter? Blindness? You got to be crazy to send SCs out without decent MR gears unless it is first year pretender SC.

[WraithLord]

I know I'm jumping late into this and no, I haven't read the entire thread, just scanned it at random and read the end, so I apologize if I repeat or something.

Regarding paralyze and SCs I've got to agree with Agema. Yes, its nice to role play with SCs, but no, they shouldn't be impregnable. As strong as they are some thing some time, when they are out of luck maybe, should be able to hit and/or kill them.

Got to agree with Amhazair here. I just cast about 200 x paralysis at a SC attacking my castle. It had 28 MR, not one effected the SC. I hate the constant casting of any 1 spell after scripting has run. If I had cast a few frozen hearts which my mages were capable of, then that would be 1 dead SC and a lot sooner than 50 rounds. The battle ended very unsatisfactory for everyone concerned with the attacker auto-routing, then my forces auto-routing. The SC had only 3 AP so took a age leaving the battlefield.

My mages also spammed rage, which was obviously useless against a single attacker! I would have prefered, frozen heart, water strike and/or geyser.
Yes, I agree with both. From bitter past experience there is little I hate as much as the AI spamming useless spells (and paralyze is a great example) while it could have cast much better spells (like soul slay, frozen heart, dust to dust etc).

This relates to a suggestion on a different current thread (forgot name) to allow scripting categories. Meaning order your mage to concentrate on evocation only (so S2W2 mage will spam frozen heart and not paralyze).
Another option is to change the weights the AI gives to spells. Lower paralyze some, increase soul slay and frozen heart some.
A third, unlikely option is to allow players to actually set the spell weights per game. So players will usually stick with defaults but on occasions make changes as they see fit.

I like the first option most since its simple and it gives a measure of control to the player.

[konming]

[QUOTE=sector24;634691]The telling phrase for me
"The fact that it can be easily countered" is not a conclusion or an assumption. It's a fact.


This is not a fact. MR 15 is high, MR 18 is pretender level. MR 23 is not enough to make commander stay non paralysed if the other side has several astral mages capable of casting paralyse.

There are other things needed on a fighting pretender or other SC than just MR boosting items. Led Shield, as a prime example is not an easy choise for a non-cavalry SC as the fatigue cost is just too high.

What is it with K and this spell anyway? Does he just love to argue, or is it his special precious baby? Reducing the duration doesn't change things that much, but it would make it a better and more balanced spell... much less frustrating too.

And if the other party has several astral mages, you should not expect your MR 23 SC to stay alive. Several astral mage and a decent army or strong PD is enough of an investment to defeat a (wrongly geared) SC. You should come and see MP more often.

[AreaOfEffect]

I've said this before, but since we're taking about perception I'll say it again.

The real problem with people's perception in this regard is that many have concluded that paralysis equals death. This is not true in the same way that paralysis equals removed from battle. Though the spell is intended to remove the unit, it still has a presence on the field and can be attacked. If paralyzed the unit is also not dead and can even be more harmful to the enemy by being unable to retreat.

If paralysis is as bad as you claim then, by all means, counter it with combatants that don't care. Use fire shields, poison clouds, or items that auto-cast spells. Then stack on protection and now it matters less that you can't move, attack, or defend yourself. If your really sick of your SCs dying all together then learn to always play with death magic and use immortal units with a strong dominion strategy.

[Adept]

Funnily enough this thread wasn't about super combatants, but about the paralysis spell in general.

I listed those MR's to remind people of the scale of the game. MR 15 is quite decent for a thug (like a sleeper).

[Adept]

[QUOTE=Adept;635830][QUOTE=K;634697]

And if the other party has several astral mages, you should not expect your MR 23 SC to stay alive. Several astral mage and a decent army or strong PD is enough of an investment to defeat a (wrongly geared) SC. You should come and see MP more often.

MP? If you are talkign about multiplay, as in playign against other humans, I've been doing that since early days of the original dominions.

[konming]

Funnily enough this thread wasn't about super combatants, but about the paralysis spell in general.

I listed those MR's to remind people of the scale of the game. MR 15 is quite decent for a thug (like a sleeper).

How many decent players spam paralyze on sleeper grade thugs? Even in your sleeper example, you can bring a single elephant and laugh at all the puny paralyzing efforts. Now tell me, if this spell is not about SCs, then what is it about in the many MP games you played?;) At least I hear no complains about "my elephants are paralyzed for too long" argument. Care to read your original post again?

[Jazzepi]

Funnily enough this thread wasn't about super combatants, but about the paralysis spell in general.

I listed those MR's to remind people of the scale of the game. MR 15 is quite decent for a thug (like a sleeper).

MR 15 is pretty bad, actually. I would consider 20 a bare minimum against astral heavy nations.

Jazzepi

[konming]

If it is a SC, I would get him 25+ MR. Rainbow armor+AMA shall do the trick. If facing heavy astral, I would also do iron will/resist magic if possible and against R'lyeh, you better go 27+. :)

[Adept]

[QUOTE=Adept;635841]

How many decent players spam paralyze on sleeper grade thugs? Even in your sleeper example, you can bring a single elephant and laugh at all the puny paralyzing efforts. Now tell me, if this spell is not about SCs, then what is it about in the many MP games you played?;) At least I hear no complains about "my elephants are paralyzed for too long" argument. Care to read your original post again?

Huh?

You are probably insinuating something, but being too cute about it. I can't make you out.

Why should I care about elephants getting paralysed? I don't much like trampling units, as I think they are handled badly (it's the automatic 1 point of damage regardless of defense, and the fact that one can trample the same unit several times in a round).

I'm a painfully honest person, and do not brag about things that aren't true. I can try to find out when I wrote to Kristoffer originally to get a copy of Dominions. Money in an envelope type of thing :p

Anyway, if you have something to say be an adult and say it without playing coy. Our play styles may differ, but I have been playing this game passionately for a long time. I don't solo play, because we practically always have a MP going.

[Adept]

If it is a SC, I would get him 25+ MR. Rainbow armor+AMA shall do the trick. If facing heavy astral, I would also do iron will/resist magic if possible and against R'lyeh, you better go 27+. :)

The game was late era. I was playing Ulm and the opponent in question was playing Bogarus.

Bogarus is not an "astral heavy nation" in my book.

It's not just about pretenders getting stopped in their tracks. It's an easily accessible low level spell, which is very, very effective at stopping tartarian gate monsters and the like.

I like it being effective, but not the extremely long durations. As to what the duration should be, it seems very hard to have a civilised conversation about it.

Maybe the open ended d6 + power is too little. Possibly the formula should take MR into account. All I can say is that I find the current ones to be too long and the penetration to be too good & easy to ramp up.

[HoneyBadger]

Might not be bad if Paralysis also took into account a unit's speed, since a faster unit (faster can generally be assumed to mean a higher metabolic rate) would logically (logically enough for Dom3 anyway) recover more quickly.

[chrispedersen]

Paralyze is not that scary. It will always target the highest hit point unit, so you just need to bring along another SC to be the target and give him lead shield, rainbow armor, astral cap and AMA for 31 MR.

What is more, the paralyze spammers will continue to cast paralyze on the already paralyzed unit if there are no more targets of his size. Bring one elephant with your army and you'll see that he continues to be targeted even when already paralyzed.

This is confirmed as NOT TRUE.

I had a Size 3 prophet with ~150ish hp and 3 size 6 heros with 72hp.

Only the first paralyze went to the prophet. When it made its save, subsequent paralyzes went to various heroes.

But this is pretty obvious in fact; were it true you would never have more than one unit paralyzed in a fight.

The selection algorythmn has to be based on other factors. I suggest that hp, size, and closeness are all relevent, as is whether the unit is already paralyzed.

[Rytek]

Bogarus can recruit an Astral 2 with 1 in 4 has level 3 astral out of any fort. That is pretty damn repectable Astral magic.

[Psycho]

Paralyze is not that scary. It will always target the highest hit point unit, so you just need to bring along another SC to be the target and give him lead shield, rainbow armor, astral cap and AMA for 31 MR.

What is more, the paralyze spammers will continue to cast paralyze on the already paralyzed unit if there are no more targets of his size. Bring one elephant with your army and you'll see that he continues to be targeted even when already paralyzed.

This is confirmed as NOT TRUE.

I had a Size 3 prophet with ~150ish hp and 3 size 6 heros with 72hp.

Only the first paralyze went to the prophet. When it made its save, subsequent paralyzes went to various heroes.

But this is pretty obvious in fact; were it true you would never have more than one unit paralyzed in a fight.

The selection algorythmn has to be based on other factors. I suggest that hp, size, and closeness are all relevent, as is whether the unit is already paralyzed.


Then it's a combination of size and hit points. Nevertheless it is quite easy to find one unit to bring along that you will be sure is going to get targeted. Just make sure he is big and meaty.

[Foodstamp]

Paralyze is not that scary. It will always target the highest hit point unit, so you just need to bring along another SC to be the target and give him lead shield, rainbow armor, astral cap and AMA for 31 MR.

What is more, the paralyze spammers will continue to cast paralyze on the already paralyzed unit if there are no more targets of his size. Bring one elephant with your army and you'll see that he continues to be targeted even when already paralyzed.

This is confirmed as NOT TRUE.

I had a Size 3 prophet with ~150ish hp and 3 size 6 heros with 72hp.

Only the first paralyze went to the prophet. When it made its save, subsequent paralyzes went to various heroes.

But this is pretty obvious in fact; were it true you would never have more than one unit paralyzed in a fight.

The selection algorythmn has to be based on other factors. I suggest that hp, size, and closeness are all relevent, as is whether the unit is already paralyzed.


Then it's a combination of size and hit points. Nevertheless it is quite easy to find one unit to bring along that you will be sure is going to get targeted. Just make sure he is big and meaty.

Psycho is speaking from experience. We were both in an MP game and he was playing Kailasa. His strategy centered around spamming paralyze and it was pretty effective until I (Caelum) started bringing enough mammoths to protect my high HP mages.

When it was just my mages (~14ish HP / size 3) and my regular troops (~10ish HP / size 3) the mages were the only ones targeted.

[Psycho]

I've seen this several times. If you bring even a single elephant with a regular army he is the only one to get targeted by paralyze until he is killed.

Paralyze usually isn't a big deal against regular armies because it will most often target troops rather then commanders. Of course there are exceptions - with EA Agartha you will get your mages targeted first for example.

Paralyze is not the only spell that choses its targets in this ways. Many other do as well. Here's an example from one MP game of mine. I am attacking an Abysian army that has three vampire lords scripted to cast life for life. I have a seraph and an AQ in my army. In order to protect them I throw in a Tartarian Cyclops as well. I know he is the one that will be targeted because he's the biggest (he is size 5, but has most hp). I stack a lot of regen. on him and script 5xMistform. The cyclops survives, vampire lords use up their blood slaves and the seraph and AQ were free to do their thing.

If he had warlocks spamming paralyze the target would be the same and I could put some extra MR just on that Tartarian cyclops to have a better chance to resist them. I also remember a battle where after paralyzing an enemy tartarian titan, my mages continued spamming paralyze, soul slay and enslave mind on him and payed no attention to his bane lords tearing through my army.