The End of the Gentleman's War

[Citanest]

Apr 24, 2008 15:01:28 GMT -5 ExDeath said:

Para DOES slow down the game and increase the variance/risk of death involved, but that doesn't make it the best way to play.

So you are saying para slows the game down, increases unwanted variance and isn't the best way to play...

I agree.

[ExDeath]

I'd say I break out of para with a D most often, or if it's an S I go for SFW/SWD. But weak para chaining goes beyond simple newbie mistakes like what you just described. If your other hand isn't forcing enough (and it really can't be for 10 turns), you're playing a more dangerous version of the game with a lot more 50/50's, and often that's not a good scenario for the one who started the chain. I would say that scenario favors the weaker player most often. Yes, there are SOME cases where you might be able to totally predict every turn (Like if you're threatening a summon), but it's usually not so simple since your opponent's counterplay with their own mind spells can break your chain.

Also, it's worth mentioning, the initial casting of para in itself is not always best. You can usually only cast it from DSF or PSDF if you expect to gain any advantage, otherwise a different spell is just better most of the time. Sometimes starting a para chain will give you an advantage, but casting a different spell will give you a bigger advantage. For the weak who go to it on instinct, it's a good enough replacement for the best choice, and they can fall back on it instead of making a totally bad choice, but still not best. Not often enough to be overpowered.

[BioLogIn]

I started writing a long post trying to reply to each poster, but I suddenly felt that I've completely lost the line of discussion =)

Slartucker
sorry, somehow I was sure you did posted in that thread. It appears I was wrong, sorry.

[awall]

Everybody has their own philosophy on paraFoD. My personal one - which is, I believe, shared by a fair number of other people - is that I'll use it when it really is the best play, but I try to avoid spamming it when there's something as good or better that I could do instead. I don't particularly care what my opponents' philosophies are; if they want to go for it at every opportunity, then I may think them uncreative, but I don't feel that it's unfair or unsportsmanlike.

For those people who disapprove of their opponents using paraFoD against them, I can respect your position, but I think that it's your responsibility to confirm with your opponent before accepting a challenge that playing a non-paraFoD match is okay. If you don't say anything ahead of time and then whine when you get hit by it, you're the one at fault.

That said, I'll personally probably agree to any non-paraFoD matches so long as they're non-league VF's. It's a better variant than paraFDF. :-P

[xade]

Toyo, I too did what you write here... take up a challenge against Succat where my tactic was to hit up a para every possible chance... and I completely agree.

It was one of the most unique, fun, stratigic and tense battles I've had.

As I've read in this thread, para make weak players stronger than they should be... but when put in the hands of two strong players (in the FC varient of course), then it adds a wonderful element to the game.

Simply because it's not just a matter of F's. There's a swag of choices on every turn, for both sides... especially when you are both throwing them...

[BioLogIn]

xade
toyo
welcome to our paraholics club. first drink is free for all ))
seriously, now you guys believe me about existence of elegance in para?

citanest
and this is answer to your question. if players start playing using one spell heavily, they will
1) be happy to develop some new game aspects\new tactics in a short run
2) probably get bored in a long run
but - notice - both 1 and 2 is true about every spell in the game, not only para. your question is para-specific, but my answer applies to each spell.

[freesoul]

Sounds like consta-para should be play-tested in league--

Rule idea:

one hand must be a F or an C for each turn, under the penalty of surrender.

not exactly a true paraholic match, but would be an interesting way to force consta-para

maybe this will rush people to para-boredom

[awall]

Freesoul: Even paraholics don't paralyze EVERY single turn! If we were going to do a rule like that (which I'm not suggesting) I'd do it something like "You must gesture at least 5 F's or C's every 10 turns" or some such.

[ExDeath]

I think awall has karma h4x. You don't even get that much karma taking a bullet for the pope.

[awall]

It's been mentioned before. Somebody randomly smited me several times in a row, so Slarty responded by changing karma on these boards to be unsigned.

[Slartucker]

It was more than several times and it wasn't random. I felt like some poetic overflow.

[Derfel]

So look for the person who has the equal negative amount? I usually just randomly smite and exalt. Sort of how I look at "karma" in real life.

[ExDeath]

Smiting doesn't decrease your own karma. I just tried it out.

[Slartucker]

The system logs a plethora of stuff and makes a long list the admin account can view, including smites and exalts. It's tedious to go through though so I don't normally.

[Derfel]

Hah - I mention that I smite and exalt randomly, and I get smited twice. Pffft.

What's the point of smiting and exalting anyways?