Irresistible magic

[Jolly Joker]

It's like giving Knights an ability that makes all resurrections only half as effective, never mind the fact that it's what their top level creature has as a speciality...

The analogy is completely wrong.

Your statement is completely irrelevant without any further arguying.

As irrelevant as your statement above, maybe?

My argument is that if you have a MR creature, you should be using this as a basis for some of your strategies and tactics, just as you make use of the battle dive of Griffins or Lizard bite of your raiders.

You can.

[Naskoni]

The analogy is completely wrong.

Your statement is completely irrelevant without any further arguying.

As irrelevant as your statement above, maybe?

My argument is that if you have a MR creature, you should be using this as a basis for some of your strategies and tactics, just as you make use of the battle dive of Griffins or Lizard bite of your raiders.

You can.

Gaidal Cain's example was pretty decent. Hmm, seems you have run out of arguments, again, and have started to rely on a single-sentence-brain-farts, eh? It is so easy to see when you have nothing to say, isn't it?

Speaking of relevance - your request for a totally unrelated mod in this very thread when you, yet again, had nothing to say was the perfect example of how hypocritical you are indeed. You can be so ridiculous I actually find you funny.

By the way - repeating ad infinitum that his argument was irrelevant without pointing out why is not going to prove anything other than your brain-lock, but be my guest and keep trying

[okrane]

I don't know why we keep arguing with this guy... I say that if he has nothing logical to say, just ignore him...
he could post 3 page answers until he gets bored... if no one will answer he will start thinking twice before annoying us with his ideas...

By the way... JJ... how old are you?

[Jolly Joker]

Naskoni, I don't see any point in your last post related to this thread. Once again you cannot hold your water and getting personal. Worse, there isn't anything in there you hadn't posted a couple dozen times before. Moderation?
Okrane, since you are asking me a question, I assume it isn't me you suggest to ignore, so yes, I agree, it might be a good idea to ignore Naskoni, but then, since he don't really have any ideas he cannot annoy me with them. So call me out of that "us" you are using.
For the question of how old I am, we haven't been introduced, so that question is a bit indiscreet.

[Gaidal Cain]

As irrelevant as your statement above, maybe?

As irrelevant as what I'm replying to. Once again, if you don't wish to argue, why do you post here.

I'm still waiting on you to explain where the big difference that makes the analogy between the knight ability in my example and Irresistible Magic so flawed.

And no, you can't. If your pre-battle idea is to use area effect spells that kills your Black Dragons, you're dumb. That doesn't mean you shouldn't ever do it, just that your original tactic has failed.

[Jolly Joker]

The analogy is more correct this way:
Basically you would rob everyone at least something like 50% of their ability to Resurrect at all (certain other creatures with the ability and of course heroes), while you yourself had an option to Resurrect 50% more of everyone for double the mana cost, however if you'd cast AREA Resurrect your Angel would Resurrect only 50%.
Now, you said this here:
"f your pre-battle idea is to use area effect spells that kills your Black Dragons, you're dumb."
Yes, I couldn't agree more - up to a point at least. If you do 300 damage to your Dragons, but 2400 all in all to the 4 stacks that surrounds your dragon it might be a good deal. It might be, though.
By the way, I have written this more than once now, and it doesn't look there will be something new here.
Edit: Oh, and no moderation. Why am I not surprised?

[okrane]

Mod note: Argue in case, not in person. That goes for several other people as well.

[Gaidal Cain]

The analogy is more correct this way:
Basically you would rob everyone at least something like 50% of their ability to Resurrect at all (certain other creatures with the ability and of course heroes), while you yourself had an option to Resurrect 50% more of everyone for double the mana cost, however if you'd cast AREA Resurrect your Angel would Resurrect only 50%.

That's not an analogy, that's just substituting destruction spells with resurrection and black dragons with Archangels. I still see no reason what made the previous one so flawed when it comes to pointing out what the trouble with IM is.

Yes, I couldn't agree more - up to a point at least. If you do 300 damage to your Dragons, but 2400 all in all to the 4 stacks that surrounds your dragon it might be a good deal. It might be, though.

If there are four stacks surronding your dragon which are capable of soaking ~2400 damage, you probably have used a bad tactic anyway.

[Shauku]

If there are four stacks surronding your dragon which are capable of soaking ~2400 damage, you probably have used a bad tactic anyway.

Actually that has been a very efficent tactic, if you have managed to lure those stacks near each other.

You may have had to have fought other players before that to end up with a lesser army, you know.

[Jolly Joker]

GC, if you still insist on your "point" I certainly don't make you think otherwise. I cannot help it if you "don't see no reason".

[okrane]

OK ... i see that we've all gotten warmed up discussing this subject.... but my question is... what is the point to all this polemic? I hardly imagine that someone from Nival will ever read this forum... and as we can't make a mod that would change this "feature"... I see that all this arguing is kind of pointless....

Anyway... IMO the most important here in this thread are the poll results... which are quite clear. Fans would like iresistible magic not to affect your creatures.

But I guess this is the problem with Heroes 5... and the cause of all these polemics... the fact that Nival and Ubi didn't care much about fan input...

i don't know why ppl said that Heroes 4 was a disapointment... I liked the game very much... but I can clearly state that HOMM5 is a big disapointment... for me anyway...
Why am I still here... well... because I'm a fan... but sadly... I have the feeling that all we do here...is just giving our opinion without somebody asking for it...

[ThunderTitan]

GC, if you still insist on your "point" I certainly don't make you think otherwise. I cannot help it if you "don't see no reason".

Great reason not to give him any counter arguments.

I hardly imagine that someone from Nival will ever read this forum..

Well JJ is here, and he does work for Ubi.

[Gaidal Cain]

GC, if you still insist on your "point" I certainly don't make you think otherwise. I cannot help it if you "don't see no reason".

And since you constantly refuse to offer any arguments whatsoever against it, I claim that it's a perfectly valid analogy.

Shauku: No. If you have enouugh dragons to have them survive a beating of four stacks of 600 hp and still survivng, you'd be better off hanging back and blasting them with Meteor shower even if you can only hit 3 of them, or use some other spell. Using your dragons as bait for such a powerful stack is wasteful.

Mod Note: I also deleted a post by Okram and one from JJ that I will assume was in reply to that.

[Mytical]

This thread has seemed to follow a lot of other threads into personal attacks, name calling, and endless quoting. Usually I would ask for a ceasefire, to get back on track, and things would go along just like before I posted, not this time however.

IM does need worked on. It is the only racial that can come back to bite you in the rear. Which is a bad thing. None of the other racials can actually hamper you the way IM can. It needs either there spells weakened and it not to effect there creatures, or to allow them to buff there creatures if they possess it. After all..it is IRRESISTABLE right?? Means should allow ALL magic to work on creatures (though I believe Immunity stops this altogether).

Anyhow, should IM be changed yes. Will it be changed, probably not. As I said before, when the expansion comes out, let it sit on the shelves for a bit, and then find a way of contacting the company. Write them, email them, ect telling them WHY the copies are sitting on the shelf. $ talks. They will listen if they loose enough of it. Only way that they will bother changing anything is a petition or mass mail. I for one don't know there email or snail mail address or I would have already sent tons of mail about the subject.

[Jolly Joker]

The analogy is more correct this way:
Basically you would rob everyone at least something like 50% of their ability to Resurrect at all (certain other creatures with the ability and of course heroes), while you yourself had an option to Resurrect 50% more of everyone for double the mana cost, however if you'd cast AREA Resurrect your Angel would Resurrect only 50%.

That's not an analogy, that's just substituting destruction spells with resurrection and black dragons with Archangels. I still see no reason what made the previous one so flawed when it comes to pointing out what the trouble with IM is.

Yes, I couldn't agree more - up to a point at least. If you do 300 damage to your Dragons, but 2400 all in all to the 4 stacks that surrounds your dragon it might be a good deal. It might be, though.

If there are four stacks surronding your dragon which are capable of soaking ~2400 damage, you probably have used a bad tactic anyway.

This says it all, doesn't it? You don't want a "correct" analogy where everything is in the right perspective, you want a warped one. One that makes wrong assumptions like the hero would rob 50% resurrection which is not generally true, but only in special cases, I tried to correct.
You are so biassed and keen on "proving" something that you don't even see that you have no point. Not one.
You just claim something wild decree an answer as invalid by right of the gods, and then claim, hey, look here, no one has a valid point.
The poll is a question of liking: Should.... and so on. It's not asking whether it makes sense or is balanced. If you would make a poll about Devils and no-retaliation it would be the same, probably.
Of course the Dungeon would be stronger if the Dragons were not affcted by IM. It would be easiert to handle as well: close your eyes and boom!
But I think this is viewing things from the wrong perspective.
The main thing is the hero, the town and racial, not the creatures. You would maybe like to base something around certain strategies, but it's the other way round: you have the main theme of the towns and the heroes and you try to combine it with the creatures.
You can construct something for the other racials as well. Some of the following points are more valid than others, but the main thing to see is, that all those more or less valid points are completely inconsequential:

Academy: the racial special is forcing you (in the same sense as Dungeon is forced to cast area spells on Dragons) to block veluable resources you'd need for building dwellings: a clear disadvantage.
Sylvan: The racial is forcing you to always go back into town when you make new use of it. A clear disadvantage. Moreover you have no control over it
Haven: The racial is forcing you to let your own troops get hit to enjoy the racial.
Necro: the racial is forcing you to fight everything for maximum effect which is in itself boring and repetitive.
Inferno: that special is forcing you to a lot of micro-management in battle. Moreover the good speed of level 3 and 5 often doesn't allow making use of the racial because those creatures have to speed immediately to the front to attack and block creatures, another big disadvantage.

Now what will happen if I make the poll:
Should the Rangers be forced to go back to any home town when they want to change the favored enemy of their hero?
And you could discuss this, yes, would be better, but would be more powerful as well, so this had to be nerfed somehow...
How about changing one of the Avenger abilities into "Change Favored Enemy" which would allow a hero to change the favored enemy on the way (you'd still need the building) and because that would be so much more convenient favored enemy damage might drop a bit in percentage.

You could all do that, but it is not possible to prove that it should be so, there is no law against a racial being harmful in certain situations (completely under the owners control. mind you).

Lastly, here's another of your analogies. How about this one: Let's say Haven's Racial would be called Irresistable Retaliation. This would give all units the ability to retaliate with a certain percentage in a no-retaliation situation, especially when attacked by no-retal units like Cerberi, but also to counter skills like defense and so on, giving the Counterstrike racial in addition (with the basic efect that a unit could retaliate against no retal with 20/40/50% and that all hero-based skills and abilities guarding against retaliation damage would be negated or weakened). However, since this would affect the units that had the no-retaliation attack, the Imperial Griffins' Battle Dive would be affected and they would suffer up to 50% retaliation depending on the skill.
So what?

[Mytical]

Ok but JJ name one other Racial..any at all, that can actually cause you harm beyond what otherwise would be normal. Yes I agree academies special needs work because it is too resource intensive, but it doesn't hurt your units at all. All it does is cause you to be unable to build things for awhile. I don't care if the 'darker' races are the only ones who don't have to go back to town to use (gating, IM, and Necromancy) that is fine. But I just don't see why only 1 racial actually can harm you. Only 1!!! Just makes no sense whatsoever. Might as well make Academy's Magic Mirror reflect all benificial spells, and Advenger do damage to your own troops if they also happen to be your 'favored' enemy.

And I guess Elemental Visions could be bad if your opponit also had it, oh wait..that is dungeon too...nm

[Jolly Joker]

It can harm you, but the harm is completely under the owners control! A seemingly small, but a decisive difference. If the opponent could do anything against it, use it against you, force you to hurt yourself, I would agree. But as it is, it is completely up to you how you handle it. You still have complete immunity in terms of your opponents. You will never see your Dragons Blinded, Berserked or Puppet-mastered, nor Wizard-marked or targeted by a nasty spells. The unit is armageddon-proof, if cast by another Hero type, for example a Wizard or - later in the addon, a Rune Lord.
However, you cannot blindly cast destructive area spells anymore - even though potential losses would be less than suffered by the opposition.
That isn't exactly harmful.
I find the Haven special a lot more harmful because it will come into use only if you are attacked in a way that leaves enough of the attacked stack to make it count - but if that's the case you probably don't need the special.
In practise the "harmfulness" only shows when the best use of a Destructive spell would be a) an area spell and b) Dragons would be "in the way". This is most pronounced with the Armageddon spell. However, with Armageddon doing double damage in the 4 middle squares of the battlefield and Dragons only suffering half the normal damage, the casting of the Armageddon may be highly advantageous, even though it would inflict losses on the Dragons as well.
For normal area spells there are different shapes and effects, you can cast them empowered or not and it's not all about getting the most damage with the most brutal spell and just banging around with the spells, it's a bit more thinking involved, about what spell to use in what situation with the vulnerability of the Dragons against one's own Destructive spells being a factor to consider as well.
I repeat: it's completely under the control of the owning hero, so it's harmful only if you want it. You could say, the hearth is so hot you can burn yourself, if you are not careful. But you can burn yourself, for example with the fire breath of the Dragons as well, if you are not careful. By the way, this point still stands: if you are not being careful with your units and Dragons, the opponent may move and attack a small stack so that the retaliation of your Dragons will hurt your own troops. This is potentially harmful as well, and you can reread on page 20 again, how GC tried to explain that this could be used against you, if you were not careful, sure, but that it was so stupid that you could not fly your Dragons into the thick of battle and follow up with a Meteor Shower - which is basically the only point that is there: we cannot fly our Dragons into the thick of the enemy and follow up with a Meteor shower (unharmed).
But the same is exactly true for two-square attack as well: you cannot just fly somewehere and attack with the Dragons and move and attack with the rest of your units as you would like to because you have to take into account that an opposing unit might move and attack your Dragons with the retaliation then being harmful. So have to take consideration and this might lead to an inability to move and attack the way it would be best - but for the Dragons's Breath attack.
The same is true for the racial.
So?

[Jolly Joker]

Since this is an interesting point, I'm going to put it here separately again:
The two-square breath attack. It's an advantage (higher damage potential). But there is a danger. Not so much the danger of hurting your own units when you attack with your Dragons. The bigger danger is that the opponent can move a stack, attack the Dragons and catch one of your units in the retaliation blast. You have to be very careful with unit placement to avoid this, and as a rule of thumb you either have to place your own units immediately adjacent to the Dragons or at least two squares away from them in any direction.
Occasionally this leads to an inability to do what would be most advantageous immediately because you simply cannot place either the Dragons or another unit where you would like to.
Question: How is that different from the IM situation? Occasionally it leads to an inability to cast the most advantageous spell onto the most advantageous location because the price may be too high.

[okrane]

Anyhow, should IM be changed yes. Will it be changed, probably not. As I said before, when the expansion comes out, let it sit on the shelves for a bit, and then find a way of contacting the company. Write them, email them, ect telling them WHY the copies are sitting on the shelf. $ talks. They will listen if they loose enough of it. Only way that they will bother changing anything is a petition or mass mail. I for one don't know there email or snail mail address or I would have already sent tons of mail about the subject.

+1

@JJ
Interesting analogy... but it is not truly compatible with our case... Need I remind you that the downside is because the warlock's skill...
Dragon's breath attack it's the same for everybody, friend or foe, warlock or not. The problem here is: it is better to leave IM at basic level, get Empowered Spells and then overpower your oponent with dracogeddon since BD will take only 20% of the damage.
I am sure that BD are the strongest unit that get's fully affected by this perk...
So we basically have a skill that it is not worth investing in because it will do you more potential harm than good...
you will fight maybe 1 or 2 stacks of magic immune creatures... but in the majority of your battles you will have your black dragons to depend on...

[Naskoni]

Since this is an interesting point, I'm going to put it here separately again:
The two-square breath attack. It's an advantage (higher damage potential). But there is a danger. Not so much the danger of hurting your own units when you attack with your Dragons. The bigger danger is that the opponent can move a stack, attack the Dragons and catch one of your units in the retaliation blast. You have to be very careful with unit placement to avoid this, and as a rule of thumb you either have to place your own units immediately adjacent to the Dragons or at least two squares away from them in any direction.
Occasionally this leads to an inability to do what would be most advantageous immediately because you simply cannot place either the Dragons or another unit where you would like to.
Question: How is that different from the IM situation? Occasionally it leads to an inability to cast the most advantageous spell onto the most advantageous location because the price may be too high.

Difference - do you have to spend several hero levels to improve your racial so that the breath gets more damaging and hits more squares but for whatever reason it is your units that will suffer the most because of doing so? Or maybe that is irrelevant as well, eh?

Another difference - the breath is balanced - it gives you advantages and disadvantages that balance out, which would have been the case with IM and dragon's immunity as well if IM worked both way, but it works only in the negative way for you. The skill requires hero levels to be spent in order to improve it and it just so happens that you have to pay a lot to get the single creature that is most affected by improving your racial when in reality there are very few other units that will get affected by the same thing when it comes to your enemies. There are whole factions that make IM a completely or almost completey useless skill as they do not field resistant units at all, not vs damage spells at least.
Mod note: No personal attacks. GC

By the way - this sort of shows where arguing with you ends anyway, so don't be surprised if I don't get you too seriously:

I really have to laugh now.
You people abolsutely have no points, ro reasons, no arguments, no facts.
Nothing.
Just silly polemics.

A lot of people so far made my point by stating one way or another that "fixing" IM is simply asking for more power for Dungeon - what does that mean - it simply goes to say that Dungeon is better off without their racial, that the racial is not beneficial and it damn sure should be. The polls seems to indicate in this direction as well and the most ironic thing is I actually hate Dungeon - they even come with just a few numbers so they don't even provided enough skeletons for all the trouble killing them

Bottom line - IM works a lot more against the very faction that is supposed to benefit from improving that skill and at the end of the day this is simply idiotic. As for concerns about abuses that fixing this skill might introduce - these are problems associated with the issues pointed out, not IM as there were plenty of suggestions on how to fix everything IM can be abused with so that the abuses are cut off in root. The rest is just "you want Dungeon stronger and thus suck, Dungeon is strong enough" sort of lines, which I find rather, ahem, shallow-minded...