Gesture Evaluator

[toyotami]

I am currently getting my arse handed to me by Derfel and while my own pride could be my hubris, i like to think he has played an excellent game (though mine has been fraught with errors).

In his profile he mentions a gesture evaluator, which Dummiesday also uses (the only person to beat me in 30 games). It occured to me that a gesture evaluator is very close to how i play warlocks. Evaluating things in the very short term with few thoughts on the future. This is a very strong tactic, but one that can be exploited by high planners, and apparently, a similar style. Going over Derfels last 10 games or so, i see he has consistently lost to Freesoul and consistently beaten Vermont...just luck or a reflection on their styles of play?

Far from decrying the help of this software, i applaud it...so long as an individual warlock can develop a style all their own, it is an excellent tool that appears to be able to improve up and coming warlocks see things that more experienced players take for granted.

What do others think of this Artificial Artificial Intelligence?

[xade]

psssssst, isn't that Rasper...

[Derfel]

Yeah - as much as I enjoy the artificial boost to my ego, I don't think I'm winning ANY games currently...

[awall]

I'm a fan of Rasper's tool. I initially used it to help myself learn the casting sequence for spells, and while I'm well past the point where I need it, I still find it helpful to keep on the page just as a sanity check. I don't see it as a crutch, as Warlocks isn't about memorizing gestures at all; it's about finding the right place to use them, and no evaluator can help with that.

(Of course, even with a tool like this, I still occasionally miss things, so it's not an absolute solution.)

[Rasper]

My problem is that I have a short attention span, but am a little bit obsessive compulsive. So without a gesture evaluator I'd find myself constantly second guessing whether I'd actually seen all the possibilities. Then I'd get frustrated with how long it takes me to play the game.

With the evaluator I'm left with over-analyzing what I think the other person might do, but at least I can do it in a relatively short period of time.

I also take the philosophy that I when I win I want it to because I beat the other person, not because of a quirk with the game (when charming a monster you better change it's target, or don't summon one at your opponent) or unfamiliarity with the rules (Ok, I want to cause damage and protect myself so...WFP/WWP...well, that's no good...).

So in the end I see them as a helper for new people to avoid silly mistakes, but experience will still win out.

[freesoul]

Yeah, the tool is definately an advantage for newer players... it shortens the experiance gap. Makes me work a lot harder for a win. I would have to think that use of such tools would be phased out as a person learns the game fundamentals.

[taliesin]

toyotami said:

What do others think of this Artificial Artificial Intelligence?

I don't think it's making much of a difference in your battle, Toyo.

I'd guess that almost every warlock of 1800 and above, and most of those below, will pretty much always see all the possibilities open to them in the next turn, and probably all the gestures in the next two turns that complete spells. These are the nice obvious weaves. However, a lot of the skill of the game lies in the spells you don't cast, the strings of dummies or the sharp break in flow to set up something essential but awkward to integrate smoothly.

I don't really see the Gesture Evaluator as a problem; it's training wheels.

Your big problem in the game vs Rasper is that you let him have a giant, and he defended it adequately. If, back on turn 8, you'd thought "Hmm, what does my casting DSF at him actually make him do?" and gone onto DSW, you'd probably have been fine. Similarly, against Dummiesday, you lost to your monster play being sucky. If we're looking for a common thread, I think your monster defence would be the first port of call.

[Slartucker]

My own 'gesture evaluator' was a printed out list of all spell gestures that I referred to nearly every turn my first 50 games or so. Have some kind of resource like this definitely helps new players shed their newbie status immediately rather than waiting to learn the gestures. However, I think you do need to memorize them if you're going to do any kind of serious analysis. When you are considering multiple future pathways in your head, you need to see oncoming possibilities on your own. Part of the reason for this is speed but part of it is integration with the other things you have to take into account when looking at spellflow, positional considerations of gesture flow rather than just completable spells.

Edit: Also,

toyotami said:

Evaluating things in the very short term with few thoughts on the future. This is a very strong tactic...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "very short term," but this doesn't sound like a strong tactic at all. What do you mean, Toyo?

[Rycchus]

I never used a gesture evaluator. I tried one once but found it easier to just go through the Spells Quick Reference myself (it's alphabetical, after all). I did this for long after I needed to for the same reasons as you, Rasper - express paranoia that I'd missed something somewhere.

Eventually I just kind of stopped using it. These days I use the QuickRef for some of the less common interactions (as well as unnecessary paranoia (some things never change) that I'm doing Time Stop and Haste right). Eventually I probably won't need to do that, either. I'd consider it weird for an experienced Warlock to be using a gesture evaluator - he should know what spells come next.

[freesoul]

I think knew how to use haste much better when i first started, than I do now. Probably because i'm too lazy to look up the details nowadays.

[toyotami]

I agree with Taliesin, that my blatant disregard for monsters has cost me - in fact on turn 11 i had a chance to destroy the giant with a loss of 6 hits points and initiative, but elected not to...
...one thing i will say though, i agree that training wheels are great, however as Taliesin wrote "I'd guess that almost every warlock of 1800 and above..." a small begrudgement i have with training wheels is that it turns a 1600 ELO player into a 1800 ELO player for a couple of dozen wins before the ELO gap is closed. Which makes it painful to lose to them (not only myself, but any player with 1800 ELO), i know this is not a major problem as the inbalance is shortlived.

As for Slartucker's question "Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "very short term," but this doesn't sound like a strong tactic at all"

What i mean is on my profile page. I tend not to look far into the weave. I look at the next turn and the one and two after that (especially focusing on counterspell). I see the key to victory in Warlocks as being fundamentally in understanding the mind of your opponent. many i make moves which cut off attacks and take an opportunity when it is right in front of me. Defending until you have an opening to attack, short-sghted aggression, works against almost any player with ELO below 2000.

Even when i play Exdeath or Slartucker, i do not read too much into the weave. In our few recent clashes, Exdeath beat me by the narrowest of margins while Slartucker and i have ended 2/1 in my favor (?)...there is merit in choosing to move after 34 seconds of analysis into the short term future of your avatar.

[Slartucker]

These conversations frustrate me. I don't claim to be the best and I don't mind anyone trumpeting their wins over me; however, it seems like the games I lose are always invoked in the service of some kind of absurd cause: saying that Confusion is good, opening with WFP is good, or in this case, that analysis is not important. I dislike that because it forces me to act like an egocentric jerk: I have to point out that the games in question were VFs played purely for enjoyment, which did not receive much of my attention.

As regards your "key to victory," I will revert to quoting Taliesin:

"It's all trade-offs, and anyone with a working knowledge of the game and the nerve for wild gambles can defeat someone much better than them by that gambling - not always, but at least sometimes."
-- Taliesin

[morzas]

What would be interesting is a tool that logs your opponent's actions and compares them to games that you've played against them in the past, so you can easily predict what they're doing. It'd probably break the game if it got too widespread, though.

[Rycchus]

^ That wouldn't be as helpful as it sounds. It might give you a sniff one way or the other (no good player plays the same spells all the time, especially if they know you're doing that ) but is the fact that they're a hundred times more likely to continue to DPP after a single D than Poison really news?

[taliesin]

toyotami said:

What i mean is on my profile page. I tend not to look far into the weave. I look at the next turn and the one and two after that (especially focusing on counterspell).

How far ahead do you imagine people are looking, man? The possibilities explode the further you go. It's only in a few rare cases that you can look five turns ahead (e.g. the Time-Stopped FoD is made or broken on the PWPF turn). Three turns is for many unconstrained situations quite ample, and I would very much doubt that Slarty and ExDeath were looking much further ahead against you than you were against them.

toyotami said:

I see the key to victory in Warlocks as being fundamentally in understanding the mind of your opponent.

You don't, however, not really. You relatively seldom bet on your opponent doing one thing over another in a way that would lead to you being destroyed if you got it wrong, and you're not helpless when playing someone you've never played before. Like all good warlocks, you take precautions.

toyotami said:

many i make moves which cut off attacks and take an opportunity when it is right in front of me. Defending until you have an opening to attack, short-sghted aggression, works against almost any player with ELO below 2000.

And I, equally, have missed many the opportunity to finish a game early because I expected my opponent to defend themselves from obvious doom. It is not until you're playing an equal who's taking the time to think through your moves thoroughly that you can really be punished for being obvious.

toyotami said:

Even when i play Exdeath or Slartucker, i do not read too much into the weave. In our few recent clashes, Exdeath beat me by the narrowest of margins while Slartucker and i have ended 2/1 in my favor (?)...there is merit in choosing to move after 34 seconds of analysis into the short term future of your avatar.

You come to the wrong conclusions. There is no greater merit in moving after 34 seconds than there is in moving after thinking about it for five minutes and exploring various avenues - it's just that in many situations in a game and against many opponents there's no need to contemplate the possibilities in any depth. I don't generally analyse much when I'm clearly ahead unless I see the chance of a quick and brutal finish; I don't generally analyse much when I'm even unless the stalemate is lasting and I respect my opponent's capability to look beyond the obvious; I do, however, analyse when I'm down, and the high percentage of of games I've played where I've got into a poor position early through not analysing and turned it round to win would suggest that Taliesin with analysis is much stronger than Taliesin without analysis.

Analysis of set-pieces however is very useful - knowing how to attack or defend from Disease or SPFP/xDFW will win you games you would otherwise have lost. Of course, once you know the lines, you need not analyse them again unless someone does something in that position that you never accounted for.