Eye Shield

Twan · #1 December 8th, 2007, 03:52 PM

I think there is probably a bug with it as it seems all attackers get the eyeloss effect (not only attackers who were parried by the shield, nor attackers who fail an mr check) when description just says "may lose an eye". As well the #eyeloss mod command seem to be 100% efficient when description says "might lose an eye" (WAD or a bug ?).

If the shield is WAD I agree it is too cheap for its power. But more probably it's not WAD and will be fixed.

edit : not sure about no MR check, but sure about affect attackers even if parry is impossible, already seen a fight ending in round 50 due to a paralyzed SC with eyeshield surrounded by blind troops.

cleveland · #2 December 8th, 2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Twan said:not sure about no MR check

Just tested. High MR unit (24) did NOT lose an eye after attacking unit with eyeshield.

I agree that it's underpriced, though.

DrPraetorious · #3 December 8th, 2007, 05:27 PM

That depends on how effective you think thugs should be.

I agree that it's better, for most applications, than most of the other introductory shields, which are inferior to a second weapon.

However, I think thugs are generally inferior to invoker mages, so that isn't saying much. The Weightless shields, in particular, have a strong role as investment-protection for gem-carrying spellcasters, and they're a lot better for-that-purpose than the eye shield.

But that's not enough, in and of itself, to say that it is unbalancing - it's also in a different path from most of the other intro shields, and unlike air magic, nature magic doesn't make winged shoes.

jimkehn · #4 December 8th, 2007, 05:54 PM

Oh...respectfully, DrPraetorious......I disagree. I don't see an even close comparison to the weightless shields. Yes, I agree the weightless shields have their specific place, as you have articulated. But, the eye shield seems to emasculate ALL attackers (military, anyway). I am not postulating that the eye shield should be eliminated. It is a powerful item, and is great for SC's and Thugs. I just think at 10 gems, it is very, very powerful in negating any attacks against it.

Jazzepi · #5 December 8th, 2007, 06:42 PM

I think 10 nature gems is a fine price for something like eye shield. Charcoal shield, which is much more powerful since it simply kills your attackers instead of emasculating them, costs 15 gems in two different fields.

I'd rather kill my enemy any day than just blind them. I managed to kill an unrisen oracle in Armadillo with a bunch of blind knights because he got swarmed, had said shield, and couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag. Even though all the knights around him couldn't do any damage, eventually he routed do the turn limit, and then was killed when we got to the hard limit. If he had a charcoal shield instead he would have killed all my knights instead.

Jazzepi

K · #6 December 8th, 2007, 08:55 PM

I don't really see how the eye shield is actually that good. You still get hit by attackers, and they have to attack you twice before they get blinded(at least). With the number of hits you can end up taking and the rate that a good SC or thug should be killing guys, the blinded guys end up being killed in battle.

Like items that Curse or Horror Mark, its just something that cheeses off SC and Thug makers. Against real troops, its just an annoyance.

Shovah32 · #7 December 8th, 2007, 09:00 PM

Does the eye shield allow a save? And would 2 instantly blind a 2-eyed creature?
If so, I've found my new SC crippler.

Sir_Dr_D · #8 December 9th, 2007, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Jazzepi said:
I managed to kill an unrisen oracle in Armadillo with a bunch of blind knights because he got swarmed, had said shield, and couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag. Even though all the knights around him couldn't do any damage, eventually he routed do the turn limit, and then was killed when we got to the hard limit. If he had a charcoal shield instead he would have killed all my knights instead.
Jazzepi

I was the Agartha player in that game. I had done my best to make the risen oracle into an SC with only level 2 construction. That meant boots of the behemoth, plate armor and 2 shields. I was lucky enough to be able to trade to get the eye shield. But a charcoal shield would certainly have been preferable in that case. Except if I could have made a charcoal shield, I would have also been able to make a fire brand. I don't know if it would have been necessary to have both a fire brand and a charcoal shield. blinding the enemies with the eye shield would have made it easier to kill them with a sword.

NTJedi · #9 December 9th, 2007, 01:58 AM

The eye shield has uses against thugs or buffed calvary types, yet usually I use a lucky shield or charcoal shield for general enemy armies.

Jazzepi · #10 December 9th, 2007, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Sir_Dr_D said:

Quote:

Jazzepi said:
I managed to kill an unrisen oracle in Armadillo with a bunch of blind knights because he got swarmed, had said shield, and couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag. Even though all the knights around him couldn't do any damage, eventually he routed do the turn limit, and then was killed when we got to the hard limit. If he had a charcoal shield instead he would have killed all my knights instead.
Jazzepi

I was the Agartha player in that game. I had done my best to make the risen oracle into an SC with only level 2 construction. That meant boots of the behemoth, plate armor and 2 shields. I was lucky enough to be able to trade to get the eye shield. But a charcoal shield would certainly have been preferable in that case. Except if I could have made a charcoal shield, I would have also been able to make a fire brand. I don't know if it would have been necessary to have both a fire brand and a charcoal shield. blinding the enemies with the eye shield would have made it easier to kill them with a sword.

That was a very... strange fight. A bunch of blind knights stumbling around trying to kill a giant... pillow sack of an undead king. Felt like a Montey Python skit.

Jazzepi