|
F/S
Nov 25, 2013 13:12:24 GMT -5
Post by salvor on Nov 25, 2013 13:12:24 GMT -5
I will necromance this thread once more.
I have a question for al theoreticians and F/S-users (Bio). What opening provides an advantage vs F/S? Nawglan's archive shows that FF/SP has good winrate vs all openings (FF/PP is the only exception, but obviously it's a red herring).
For some time, I played SFW/DSF as a countermeasure to F/S, but I am unsure if it works.
F/S is the new D/P or what? Seems like it does not have bad matchups at all (and it has positive mathcup vs D/P, btw)
|
|
|
F/S
Nov 25, 2013 15:57:10 GMT -5
Post by BioLogIn on Nov 25, 2013 15:57:10 GMT -5
Eh, I'm not sure about F/S being _that_ powerful. It definitely doesn't have a big edge over D/P, and even the fact that it has any advantage over D/P can be challenged. Even basic DSFx/PSDx leaves D/P in an okay position, with much guesswork depending on a player.
(Succat's) F/W fares ok vs F/S, although there are multiple decision points for both players, as F/W player can go both for FF/WW and for FF/SF; and F/S player can go for FF/SF as well.
SW/Sx might be fairly ok VS F/S, although I never really checked that out, so take that with a fistful of salt.
(Slartucker's) D/W into DP/WW might worth something, but from a brief inspection decision point on t3 favours F/S, as FFF(self)/SPS still is safe as houses.
==
Also, when accessing statistics, you really should keep in mind that F/S was played by relatively few players after 2008, and some of players were above average (myself, succat, xade, etc.). So compared to D/P that had been played by everybody 1600+ for quite a few more years, F/S ought to have better stats, but that alone doesn't prove much...
|
|
|
F/S
Nov 25, 2013 17:02:11 GMT -5
Post by salvor on Nov 25, 2013 17:02:11 GMT -5
Eh, I'm not sure about F/S being _that_ powerful. It definitely doesn't have a big edge over D/P, and even the fact that it has any advantage over D/P can be challenged. Even basic DSFx/PSDx leaves D/P in an okay position, with much guesswork depending on a player. Also, when accessing statistics, you really should keep in mind that F/S was played by relatively few players after 2008, and some of players were above average (myself, succat, xade, etc.). So compared to D/P that had been played by everybody 1600+ for quite a few more years, F/S ought to have better stats, but that alone doesn't prove much... Seems like you may be right here, after further investigation I noted that your winrates in this conjuction (FF/SP vs DS/PS) are quite close to each other, and the most contrubution in F/S percentage goes from players who don't play D/P often while having strong F/S stat (succat and myself). (Succat's) I do not know much about F/S vs F/W matchup (you had bigger experience vs succat in it, I prefer S/P vs F/W), but isn't the F/S-player one who dictate the early game? FF/SF pretty much forces F/W to counter and then F/S player either has a favourable decision point on the 3rd turn, or even can fake goblin into FFFF/SFPS vs FFFF/WWSD. (Slartucker's) D/W does not work ok. F/S does not suffer much even in worse outcomes of FFF/SPS and can even be cheesy with FFF/SPW (having a shot on a 25%+ FoD). S/S is one who may actually work, but FFF/SFW forces a goblin out (parachain is quite good in early goblin war vs SW/SF). I also do not know the correct way of playing with S/P vs F/S. SW/PS does not look good. SF/PS is "trading all the initiative in the world for 3-4hp". I am not sure about that (I think that in worst case we will be doublecharmed returning that 5 points of damage back, and I like being defensive). SW/PP is awful vs FF/SF and has some problems with paraFoD FFF(self)/SPW.
|
|
|
F/S
Nov 25, 2013 17:39:55 GMT -5
Post by mikeEB on Nov 25, 2013 17:39:55 GMT -5
SF/SF looks like it beats FF/SF pretty soundly and makes FF/SP pay dearly for its initiative.
Recosidering: SFW/SFW comes out slightly behind to FFP/SFW.
Other lines to check out: SW/PD SF/PD DW/PS DW/PW SP/DW SP/SW
|
|
|
F/S
Nov 25, 2013 17:53:55 GMT -5
Post by salvor on Nov 25, 2013 17:53:55 GMT -5
SF/SF looks like it beats FF/SF pretty soundly and makes FF/SP pay dearly for its initiative. SFW> SFW>
FFPSD SPFPS
is quite devastating (4hp damage in exchange for immediate double charm). SF/PS is better exchange_hp_on_initiative variant, imo SF/SF Other lines to check out: SW/PD SF/PD DW/PS DW/PW SP/DW SW/PD is worth considering (one of the variants I initially look into), but seems like FFF(self)/SPW is too strong. I can't find a legitimate FoD defense there. SF/PD is inferior to SF/PS DW/PW is inferior to SW/PW, is bad vs FFF(s)/SPW DW/PS leads nowhere (FFF(op)/SPS) SP/WW is not worth it (FFF/SPF) and also is bad vs SFW. DP/WW and DP/PW are bad vs mix of FFF/SPS and FFF/SPW (ou can't get anything better than 2 50/50s from DP/WW)
|
|
|
F/S
Nov 25, 2013 18:15:16 GMT -5
Post by mikeEB on Nov 25, 2013 18:15:16 GMT -5
SW/PD is worth considering (one of the variants I initially look into), but seems like FFF(self)/SPW is too strong. I can't find a legitimate FoD defense there. SWF/PDW? Oh right, SPFP piercing PDWP is a problem. But don't forget PDP as an option.
|
|
|
F/S
Nov 25, 2013 18:28:25 GMT -5
Post by salvor on Nov 25, 2013 18:28:25 GMT -5
SW/PD is worth considering (one of the variants I initially look into), but seems like FFF(self)/SPW is too strong. I can't find a legitimate FoD defense there. SWF/PDW? SWF/PDW is waaay too risky. FFF(op) causes an immediate SPSPS-loop (FFF(o)/SPS) or 50% FoD (FFF(o)/SPW). Of course, because of this possibility F/S-player is forced to cast para sometimes at his opponent, but whole decision point does not seem to favour S/P. If F/S guess right (para himself vs SWD, para opp vs SWD/PDW) he enters a 50/50 FoD, if not spellflow is almost equalised via FFFF/SPWPP vs SWFF/PDWPP or FFFP/SPSWD vs SWDD/PDW. Note that SFW/PDP still eats an anti+para without chance of firing an amnesia (LH is paralysed)
|
|