Paralysis is overpowered.

[Psycho]

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

[Foodstamp]

Originally Posted by K

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]

Originally Posted by Ming

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.

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]

Originally Posted by konming

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.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Psycho

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]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[Ming]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

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]

Originally Posted by Ming

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