patch 2.08 is out

[Arryn]

Zen, as usual you raise valid points. This time in regards to immobile pretenders. Personally, I feel it's silly to just assume that an immobile defender is killed after 50 rounds when the pretender and the intrinsic castle defenses (ie: ballistae, etc) are still alive.

EDIT: The problem comes in that if mobile pretenders auto-retreat, and immobile ones don't (perhaps auto-winning), then game balance goes right out the arrow slit.

[ February 19, 2004, 01:23: Message edited by: Arryn ]

[Zapmeister]

Zen is spot on. The devs get to choose between the status quo, or opening a can of worms that will not leave the critics satisfied until every alleged "unrealistic" scenario is addressed.

If I were a developer in this position, I know which I'd choose. There are way more important issues to worry about.

[Gateway103]

(humour)

Or you can just think that the Gods to whom the Wish spell is directed to are watching every battle as well as the development in whatever lands as "entertainment".

And they simply got bored after the 40-turn time limit and decided to will the combatants out of existence so as to relieve themselves of the boredom (additional "entertainment"). And to be impartial, they willed all sides into nothingness, so as not to favor anybody.

(/humour)

-Gateway103

[navrunner]

Was the "Automeele: molesting the dead" error fixed in this patch?
I guess there is actually two parts to this question:
1) Was the situation that caused this error fixed so that it will not occur with new, 2.08, games?
2) Or was the error fixed so that old, 2.06, games that got the error will no longer generate the error?
3) Yes, I cannot count , the occurance of this error is low and is toward the bottom of the list?

[Chris Byler]

Another nicely evil possibility for preventing stalemates without the forced, artificial feel of the current system: any battle over a certain length has an increasing chance of attracting the attention of Lammashtas, Horrors or other nasties, who will be glad to clean up the paralyzed or unconscious remnants. Both have armor piercing or negating attacks, IIRC, and can hit hard enough to overcome regeneration even on Gods (if the God is defenseless). The longer the battle drags on, the more unpleasant surprises are attracted to the battlefield... I don't think there's anything that could survive being surrounded by Doom Horrors while unconscious.

This would still usually have the same *practical* result as the current system (all the paralyzed/unconscious units are eliminated), but would be less likely to offend certain players - at least there's some rationale for the deaths. And it would look cool.

Edit: You might still want a hardcoded time limit to make *sure* the game doesn't hang in the hosting - but move it back another 20 or so turns after the horror attacks start, so that it will be almost impossible for the time limit to actually be triggered. The theoretical possibility won't bother players nearly as much as having it actually happen.

[ February 19, 2004, 12:21: Message edited by: Chris Byler ]

[PDF]

Why so many complicated solutions for the -simple- stalemate problem ?
I don't even see why the game has to kill anyone in order to stop stalemates..
Already battles are stopped on turn 50, the only needed change would be to consider that as a "retreat" for both sides (night falls, everyone tired...), with all spells effect "fastforwarded" to their end (so poison would kill, but paralyze would end)
This would give technically a defender victory, as the attacker wasn't able to beat him. That the 50 turns consisted entirely of arrow shooting or ineffective spell casting is not an issue ...

[ February 19, 2004, 13:20: Message edited by: PDF ]

[SurvivalistMerc]

Arryn,

I like your new picture under your name, by the way...very creative. I don't actually assert that current game mechanics are inconsistent with your "always on" approach to magical items' effects. Merely that a possible rationale for my new proposed mechanic of death for the helpless paralyzed individual would be that the item has ceased to function. There are plenty of situations in which an item needs tobe weilded in order to function. I would argue that a paralyzed individual is incapable of weilding items which must be weilded to function.

NT Jedi,

I do not conclude that the unit is unconscious. Merely that he can become helpless if he has no defenders. Many types of paralyzing poisons do not render one unconscious unless they stop movement of the diaphragm, which will result in death. To the contrary, the paralyzed victim is aware of everything around him or her, can still feel, see, taste, etc. but can't move a muscle.

I don't understand the sort of immobile paralysis in Dom 2 to be "paralyzed by fear."

Really...paralysis should be whatever the devs have in mind for it. And I don't mean to say that I wouldn't defer to them by any of my discussions in this forum. Currently, paralyzed at the end of a battle means death for attackers. I find this to be the outcome I would desire. And it seems also to be the outcome the devs intend, but of course I won't know that unless they actually speak on the issue.

It's good that we both agree on Velk's proposal.

Graeme Dice,

The sphinx is immobile and, if the attacker, will die anyway at the end of turn 50 by the time out period. Also, sphinxes may no longer be able to become attackers post-patch, which I think removed teleporting sphinx abuse.

I take your point that the physical structure doesn't suddenly fall apart. But in the situation you describe the creature is unable to attack and can be attacked repeatedly for a period of a month without opportunity for reprisal. It's vulnerable in a different way because it is incapable of fighting back. When it can cast spells, you have to see what effect those spells will have on the other army. Once it can no longer cast, there is no longer any need to see what happens to the opposing army, just what happens to the sphinx.

Are you sure paralyze has a less than 5% success rate with a decent MR? That did not seem to be folks' experience pre-patch. I know the system is changed post the 2.08 patch, but are you certain of this number?

Moodgiesanta,

You are exactly right...if the game weren't so amazing, we wouldn't be having this paralysis discussion.

Kristoffer O,
Velk in his original example required that the units not be immobile for the retreat rather than a rout to occur. Not that you will necessarily agree with him, but he probably envisions, as I do, that an attacking sphinx, if that still happens after 2.08, would die rather than retreat after turn 50.

Zen,

I agree with you that limitation would be a better word. And it may in fact be what was meant but poorly articulated by those starting the paralysis discussion here.

Arryn,

Defenders would never have to auto-retreat. Because if the battle isn't resolved after turn 50, the defenders auto-win. Which I don't think should be changed. In your proposed solution (which I don't completely support), the only change would be allowing certain attackers to retreat rather than be auto-killed at the end of turn 50. Defenders would not need to retreat because they have "won." I still don't think the paralyzed ones should get to retreat, but that would be for the devs to decide.

Chris Byler,

What will prevent these horrors from attacking the defenders? Or will both sides be destroyed?

PDF,
The game still probably has to kill immobiles in order to stop stalemates when the immobile pretender is attacking. I'm still not so sure I like the paralyzed guys getting to retreat. But that may be my own bias that something has to be able to effectively kill supercombatants.