|
Post by BioLogIn on Feb 27, 2008 6:03:00 GMT -5
Hi ppl.
Some of you might know that I tend to open with F/P. And I do use para and\or paraFoD in midgame quite often (although I complete it relatively rarely). The issue is that I've been accursed of it quite a lot lately. "FFF...FFF is killing the fun of the game", "paraFOD is lame" and so on. I'm going to rant a little here about how stupid, I think, these "opinions"are.
"FFF is straightforward and brutal\stupid" I may agree that it may be applied to cases when you FFF one hand until interrupted, then FFF again ande so on. But I never played like that (and I can prove this is completely wrong way to use para)! There is little to none situations in this game when you should NOT target para out\yourself each 2nd or 3rd turn. I see nothing brutal nor anything simple here. If you play FFF brutally paraing one hand again and again, that's your problems, mates )
"FFF is cheap" Yes, FFF is powerful disruption. Especially for those who play around it. But it limites your spellflow severely (and that's why it is important to try and disrupt both hands of opponent - see prev. paragraph) and makes you lose initiative quite fast. It is nowhere near cheap and\or gamewinning alone and ever with ogre out... we will talk about paraFoD later.
"FFF...FFF is taking fun out of this game" Like if D/P vs D/P slugfests do not =) But whatever, if your goal in this game is to have fun, then make it clear for your opponent, dammit. Write it down in your profile. Mention it in every of your precious challenges. When you start pregnant doging in the end of game like "oh man, FFF is cheap", I can't help you at all. No one can.
"paraFoD is cheap" IMO there are two situations when one should use paraFoD: - in a game with an opponent of equal skills, trying to steal the game out - in a game with weaker opponent to finish him off quick In first situation going paraFoD is usually a high-risk with high possible payoff. If you navigate all 50-50 right, you win. If you don't, you've most likely lost due to wasted initiative. The thing I must agree here is that navigating through 50-50 with coin flips requires little skill, but... you still can try "psychological approach", analyzing your opponent's previous games and trying to guess his style... AND this 50-50 dilemma isn't FFF-exclusive, it occurs with every two mind-affecting spell that clash)
In second situation you already have initiative and\or advantage. In the game that "inspired" me to this rant my opponent allowed me to pull an ogre, then wasted spellflow in both hands killing the ogre (let me para one hand into C and ahd WWPFD in the other). I could have done literally anything, from double charm into double bolt, to another summon. I decided to have one 50-50 FoD as the fastest way to end the game, but opponent screwed again and made it 100% FoD for me. THEN I HEAR THAT "FFF SUCKS". Come on, man. If you've made three consecutive mistakes, what has FFF to do with it?? I'm little enraged now, because that's one of the things I won't be able to understand at all.
If you are 16xx-17xx think FFF and\or FFF/FoD is cheap, go kill a 19xx player with this "cheap" tactics. Most likely you'll get your ass handled to you sooner then you'll move to FoD ) If you're 19xx yourself and still think paraFoD is "cheap"... you're Spacca, I guess )
We have the game with rules set and clear and even for everyone. If you are playing this game - abide the rules, learn how to play and don't pregnant dog. If you don't want to play by these rules - create alternative version of rules\of game, write about it in your profile, create a topic on forum, advertise it, make everybody believe it is better and be happy playing the game you like. But if you don't - die to the FoD or learn THIS game.
And that's all, thank you for your attention.
P.S. and yes, pregnant dogs For The Win, powered by cussing filter.
|
|
taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on Feb 27, 2008 9:53:40 GMT -5
I've got to say I disagree with most of your points.
FFF is relatively straightforward to play compared to having to weave with both hands. Fighting para requires a lot more thought than keeping it up. That's just the way it is. Sorry.
And yes, it's a highly overpowered disruption, as we noted when Vermont tried to put together a version of the game where you "buy" spells. Para had to be much more expensive than every other spell. It does slow the game down dreadfully for both players, but it's still harder on the other person than you. It's not so overpowered that it's impossible to fight, but the balance between the ease of using it and the ease of fighting it is tilted firmly in its favour.
I will agree that the D/P situation is also killing the fun of the game. The only real way around it is to use para. But both of these situations make games into joyless slogs.
I strongly disagree that you should be using ParaFoD against weaker opponents, unless you're going for cheap kills on newbies. ParaFoD kills, or loses you the advantage entirely, which is psychologically very disheartening. A good player should be able to maintain that advantage and turn it into a victory the vast majority of the time.
ParaFoD's real strength is against stronger players. Going for a ParaFoD with two 50-50s may win you just one game in four, but against a player who you'd win only one game in ten with without it, it's eminently sensible. Good for the game? No, but a very sensible tactic. (This has, incidentally, been pointed out before by Slarty, so if you're keeping count we have a 1900+ player, a 2000+ player, and a 2100+ player all calling it "cheap".)
(I am talking here of mid-game ParaFoD, incidentally; opening ParaFoD is not quite so strong, though I've seen even good players fall to it on occasion. The opening ParaFoD is however very much the epitome of play that requires very little skill on the side of the attacker and a great deal more on the side of the defender; the main consolation is that the attacker learns very little about the game through using such tactics.)
I've killed a great many people with a minimal use of Para, avoiding it mainly for aesthetic reasons. This was largely possible because I analysed the game in greater depth than they did. As analysis has progressed, it's become sadly apparent that while para can be readily defeated in the hands of a relatively unskilled player, it is much more difficult to handle in the hands of a skilled one who knows when to abandon it and take the advantage, and will be extremely careful not to allow his opponent to summon.
Between this and the D/P fiasco, a lot of the fun of playing at the top flight has been drained from the game. At some point we will most certainly need a number of modifications made to resolve these problems; Slarty and I were debating for a while simply replacing Para with another couple of spells, but I'm wondering now if Amnesia doesn't need a tweak as well.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Feb 27, 2008 9:55:55 GMT -5
Coming from this loss games.ravenblack.net/warlocks?num=63653which cost me 14 ladder spots and a bag of ELO, let me throw in my two cents (though this topic has been discussed numerous times. Overall i think that parafod is fine. It is in the rules and anyone that doesn't defend against it deserves to lose. I take nothing away from Succat for his victory...it was well earned and i did enjoy playing the game. Is there any difference between the 50/50's of a parafod and the game winning 50/50's of charm giant vs charm person or any of the other arbitrary 50/50's that the game presents? On the other hand, i wouls also like to weigh in in favor of Spacca a bit. I saw the ParaFod coming that killed me on the first P. On the first P. I had perhaps 4 opportunities to stop it from then, none of them sure bets (though i haven't gone over it thoroughly, at each juncture i believe there was risk in either way, depending on where his para landed). So 3 or 4 unlucky 50 50's cost me the game. Generally i can take that...like i said before, the game of warlocks is often decided by these 50/50 encounters. Now where i see Spacca's point lay in pure maths (can somebody figure this out for me, i could be very wrong): If i (ELO was 1957) play warlocks of ELO 1700ish (which i enjoy doing and will continue to do) and they launch for Parafod EVERY time, what will happen? Perhaps they stand a 1 in 8 (3 50/50's??) chance of winning or even a 1 in 16 (4 50/50's) chance of winning. Slim, right? Not really. Those odds also have to be significantly shortened because in the first two choices naturally i will lean towards the one that gives me more chances to survive (more 50/50's), making only the last choice truly 50/50. Now: IF it takes me 8 wins to gain the same ELO as my opponent stands to gain by one win (not even counting the ladder points that tend to stand at risk in these encounters) the reason Spacca and other high ELO players dislikes parafod is because it is surefire way to lose ELO over time against weaker ELO opponents. If a 200 or so lower player went for Parafod every time at the first opportunity, PLAYED for it they would increase their ELO and naturally, the higher player would stand to lose alot. But does the math figure out. NEED TO KNOW: what ELO difference is required to make a 8 to 1 difference? ALSO: Is it possible for a player to go for parafod every game and reach at least a 1 in 16 chance of it coming off? ALSO: If it were possible, what is the average figure of chance could be affixed to the certainty of victory (eg. i have used 1 in 8...some might say these odds were slimmer or wider) In my game, I think Succat played very tightly and managed to press his advantage home to a win. Yes, it took luck but every game of warlocks does.
|
|
taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on Feb 27, 2008 10:02:34 GMT -5
Oh, I missed this gem: "AND this 50-50 dilemma isn't FFF-exclusive, it occurs with every two mind-affecting spell that clash."
Only it really doesn't. Given, for instance, an opponent about to cast Charm Person when you've got a Maladroit ready, you'd lose a lot of games by flipping coins to decide its target. In most non-FFF cases the payoffs are not equal, and actually require a good working knowledge of spellflow to make good decisions. This is even true to some extent of both parties using paralysis in a non-ParaFoD situation - there are points where self-paralysis will always be better given the spellflow of your other hand than having the paralysis swap over. The problem with FoD is that you cannot under any circumstances allow them to complete their spellflow.
|
|
taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on Feb 27, 2008 10:13:45 GMT -5
Is there any difference between the 50/50's of a parafod and the game winning 50/50's of charm giant vs charm person or any of the other arbitrary 50/50's that the game presents? Toyo, you know better than that. Charm giant vs charm person is very rarely a 50-50. The person with the giant will defend it 90% of the time or more because frequently they will still be winning even if they are charmed, but will not if the giant is charmed. But does the math figure out. NEED TO KNOW: what ELO difference is required to make a 8 to 1 difference? Win percentage of 8 in 1 is 12.5%, which is going to be between a win percentage of 15% (296 ELO) and 10% (366 ELO), nearer to 296 ELO because of the nature of the bell curve. In actuality however this ELO gap will be lower because you will not kill all your opponents, and a successful ParaFoD is a certain kill. Depending on your own kill percentage, probably about 250-320 ELO is the point where the crossover happens - assuming you can get 3 50-50s every time. Two 50-50s would drop it into a well under 200 ELO difference. Edited to add: the second ParaFoD of succat's had only 2 50-50s, the DSF and the DPP/clap at the end. Fear was not a 50-50 as succat's self-paralysis did not affect his spellflow. I think 4 50-50s is very high, and a sensibly cast mid-game FoD tends to allow just 2 or 3.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Feb 27, 2008 10:35:58 GMT -5
2Taliesin
Thanks for the comments.
I'll try to put it this way. I mostly use para as a F/P continuation, which I use as countermeasure against D/P. IMHO D/P is at least as straightforward as para/something. It is as "straightforward" as any known and strong weave is - with know strengths and weaknesses, with known weave choices, etc. One hand limited to one gesture means less options, true, but that also means more importand decisions on targets, when to abandon FFF, etc.
I meant one could\should use FoD on opponents that (he thinks) will be uncapable of punishing him for losing initiative. The example of this situation would be someone who just fell from the top of the ladder and is eager to climb back fast, harvesting 15xx-16xx for ladder scores.
And I'm talking about midgame too.
I think I _understand_ what do you mean by 'aesthetic'. But I simply don't _feel_ this way now. Maybe it will come after 100th or 1000th FoD I meet\play. Dunno.
I'm all for such modifications. And I agree that para could be toned down. My points were: - in some\most cases people should blame their mistakes\low skill, rather then FFF\FoD - you should either accept game rules, or reject them. playing by the rules then "pregnant doggin" (c) about them is stupid, and that was the initial reason for my post.
All in all, I'm inclined to agree with everything you wrote about the case of attacking stronger player with FoD. To my defence I should say that as far as I remember all my games with masters (like 8 total VS ExDeath\Slartucker\Spacca), I tried FoD once (at Spacca; he escaped) and was attacked with FoD once (by Slartucker; I escaped). Pretty fair, I guess. And I have 2 wins and a double death off these 8 games, nothing to be ashamed of )
2Toyo I see your point. And and I agree that 3 or 4 unlucky 50-50 MUST cost you a game. The trouble with FoD is that it FORCES one into 50-50, when in usual game one has a choice of trying to avoid 50-50 at all (f.e. faking into PSDP when facing monster and 1 counter).
I agree, person who uses FoD to farm ELO off strong players is "unaesthetic". Person with 1650 will lose like 0 ELO to 1950, and will gain like 25 on win. But still that person would lose again and again, since he learns nothing from 16 consecutive FODs... and that's completely different situation from what I was talking about ))
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Feb 27, 2008 10:44:09 GMT -5
Agreed, not with _every_ mind-affecting pair. I should have said that there _are_ situations when mind-affecting pair raise pure 50-50. And I've seen quite a lot of them during my short warlocks career.
|
|
taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on Feb 27, 2008 11:18:48 GMT -5
Thanks for your very reasonable reply. I was a little vehement in my response, and was worried it might be perceived as flaming. I'll try to put it this way. I mostly use para as a F/P continuation, which I use as countermeasure against D/P. IMHO D/P is at least as straightforward as para/something. Yes, and no. I suspect there are not ten players on the ladder who know the weave which really punishes going for the Delay Invis. There are plenty of players who think that going for the ogre and going Invis second is much stronger than taking the Delay Invis, and this is not the case. However, those few who know why the top players are stalemating are afraid to go for Delay Invis even against an opponent they suspect can't deal with it correctly, just in case it turns out that they can. Actually playing D/P is anything but straightforward; bluffing that you can is easy. I'm all for such modifications. And I agree that para could be toned down. My points were: - in some\most cases people should blame their mistakes\low skill, rather then FFF\FoD - you should either accept game rules, or reject them. playing by the rules then "pregnant doggin" (c) about them is stupid, and that was the initial reason for my post. Whining about Para is useless, though it's always worth pointing out its problems here if such are questioned. Doing something about it would be preferable. Not having a chaining spell at all would I think actually be of significantly more benefit to the game, though a certain rebalancing would be required. It's also worth mentioning that while it is often possible to defeat ParaFoD with sufficient skill, this is not always the case and as the skill required is much more than that needed by the person inflicting it, it is justifiable to blame ParaFoD for unbalancing a game otherwise even in skill.
|
|
|
Post by vermont on Feb 27, 2008 12:29:07 GMT -5
I read one suggestion somewhere for altering para - that it couldn't be cast at yourself. Is that reasonable?
Or perhaps, if you cast it at yourself, whether or not you bounce another enchantment, you can no longer cast another para? (a sort of funky feedback mechanism) That way, you _can_ still use it to protect yourself if you like, but only once.
|
|
|
Post by Citanest on Feb 27, 2008 13:55:29 GMT -5
I hate Para more than anyone else as far as I can see. I went for a long time without ever stringing together more than 3 F's, and I haven't used or threatened ParaFoD in longer than I can remember. I improved a huge amount when I banned myself from using para strings, and I think my recent stats show that you simply don't need PFod to play a strong, competitive and fun game. If anything, it stunts your development. If Para had never been included in Waving Hands, can you imagine the response if someone suggested it on an "Ideas for New Spells" thread? They'd be ridiculed, and rightly so. The spell seems to be quite patently a mistake in game design that wasn't playtested enough. And who, in their right mind, actually enjoys sitting down and working through para outcomes whenever P/F is seen? If you are on the recieving end of PFod it is never fun, I don't care what anybody tries to say. Moster para is different; I think to myself "You shouldn't have let him get the monster!". I never think "You shouldn't have let him make the gestures P and F!"I don't think Paralysis is cheap. It is, as people keep saying, part of the game. It's just an absurd part of the game. NB - Sorry if the above is too aggressive, but this thread seemed like a good place to let rip a bit
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on Feb 27, 2008 15:06:13 GMT -5
So. This is where FDF comes in....
*grin*
|
|
|
Post by vilhazarog on Feb 27, 2008 15:22:53 GMT -5
Would the game suffer much if you just took para out and replaced it with nothing? Maybe Disease would need a bump, but other than that?
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Feb 27, 2008 15:38:52 GMT -5
When I first read the rules, I thought "FFF" meant FFF=Paralysis & whenever the F-count was divisible by 3 would be paralysis but not "4F" or "5F" -- lack of stringing would be a benefit, imho.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Feb 27, 2008 15:42:14 GMT -5
Huh, or maybe anytime an F string count was divisible by 2 *and the opponent's hand opposite the hand used for the FF would be the hand paralyzed*
This would be equivalent to my left hand pointing at your right side
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Feb 27, 2008 15:56:23 GMT -5
Taliesin
Well, actually that was I one who wrote first post with some "flame" inside. Your dissected it very well, as usual, so a little additional flame didn't hurt at all )
I accept your corrections about D/P being not as straightforward as I thought. I haven't dedicated much time to D/P mirror, I must admit, so my opinion doesn't worth much. I'll probably dedicate some time to D/P soon.
|
|