taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on Dec 21, 2007 9:56:04 GMT -5
Going to attempt greater brevity today.
Regarding Disease: Feeblemind would probably not be a good fit, and the "other" F spell might be a better option.
Have been considering the spellstring FFP for some relatively mild disruption - it has the advantage that: DPPPS PSDDP
FFFFP DPPPS would result in D/P being disrupted on turn 6. I've yet to come up with a good fit for the disruption, but it seems like a deadlock breaker.
Slarty and I did discuss a 3-gesture spell called "Forbid", which let you select a gesture from a drop-down box that the other person would not be allowed to perform next turn. I can't remember exactly what we said about it. It may have been judged too weak for the opening faceoff. It is quite strong used as a disruption negater on yourself of course.
Re: FoD largely useless without Para - very strongly disagree! I was and am a relatively rare user of ParaFoD, but I claim many FoD victories. This is because there exist FoD weaves that are in some respects superior such as: PWPFSSSD xxxPDWPP
PWPFSSSD xxDPPWPP and the much rarer (but oh-so-cool) PWPFSSSD xxSPPFD
What these have in common is that at this point PWPF xxxP it is possible to gauge the success of the FoD to a nicety - if they do not have a possible disruption inbound in the next two turns, they're in serious trouble. This is better for the advanced player as it requires much less gambling on your part to come to a victorious position. In practice this usually arises from W/P heavy play on their part, and PWP unsupported by para does not usually alarm people to the same extent. True, you cannot begin mid-game with PW/FF and have a chance of winning if you guess the next few 50-50s right, but this is IMO a good thing - it reduces the "newbie luck" factor, and gets rid of one of the least attractive aspects to new players, to wit the relative difficulty of defending ParaFoD compared to the ease of attacking with it. FoD requiring thought, care and skill to pull off would hopefully remove it from newbie-vs-newbie openings.
It's worth mentioning also that FSD gives FoD a new exit possibility should it belatedly be necessary to cut it short. You would have PWPP, PWPFD, PWPFSD as all being valid.
Oh, and finally, I'm very much in favour with doing away with FFF as a spell string entirely. Chained spells of this nature will always try to self-perpetuate, and you will either end up with another similarly painful balance issue, or weaken it until you have a spell that is of so little use that being stuck with a stray F is very much a fate to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Dec 21, 2007 11:36:11 GMT -5
Going to attempt greater brevity today. Regarding Disease: Feeblemind would probably not be a good fit, and the "other" F spell might be a better option. Have been considering the spellstring FFP for some relatively mild disruption - it has the advantage that: DPPPS PSDDP
FFFFP DPPPSwould result in D/P being disrupted on turn 6. I've yet to come up with a good fit for the disruption, but it seems like a deadlock breaker. I think I like FFP. One of the other things I was worried about was F losing its robustness against Amnesia, and this fixes the issue nicely. It also gives Lightning Bolt its dummying potential back (DFFP). One thing is that the effects of this Disruption should not be able to prevent your opponent from having W the next turn, or else it would lead to a lot of free Trolls. Agreed. I'm of the opinion that (at least for three gesture disruptions) you shouldn't be able to get away scott-free with targeting them at yourself. Okay, maybe I exaggerated when I called it "useless." I agree that any of the xxxP FoD weaves are viable and so, so much more aesthetically pleasing than para FoD (I'm actually starting to despise paraFoD in a huge way myself, and the only reason I still use it is because it's so blanking effective). However, I've tried for alternative forms of FoD many times myself, yet never managed to get an opening for them. The weakness of all of these weaves is that up until turn 4, you have absolutely no form of protection at all. Perhaps FFP would help, as it would allow PWPF/xFFP; in this case, we'll need to take into consideration when figuring out the effects of this disruption whether we want it to break FoD when self targetted or not. Either way, with a continuous disruption removed, landing FoD would be quite a feat; maybe that's the way it should be, but I'm worried that this might make it too difficult to break through the defenses of somebody who just sits there gesturing P's and W's. Right. At first I was afraid that FSD would make FoD too difficult to disrupt with para, and then I realized that para wasn't an issue anymore :-p Hmm... I like the idea of a repeatable disruption. The problem with paralysis is that it's a very strong, very annoying, very frustrating repeatable disruption. However, the game's lack of strong exit options from F suggests that the advantages of repeated F's were designed into the game. You *can* go for a prolonged FFF chain, it will just give you a disadvantage on your way out. I've been trying to come up with a way that FFF will be viable, but won't totally cripple your opponent's spellflow (at least not without crippling your own as well). EDIT: I haven't thought through this at all, but one of the spells that appeals to me a lot off of zugzwang's alternatives for DSF list is: Fury: DSF Enchantment - Mindspell If the target is a Warlock, on his next turn, he must stab with one of his hands (his choice). If the target is a monster, there is no effect unless the monster's target was nobody, in which case it attacks its owner (really, when will this ever happen?) This might be a bit powerful for a three gesture disruption. What if it were changed to: Beserk: FFP Enchantment - Mindspell If the target is a Warlock, on his next turn, he must stab with one of his hands (his choice). However, his stab does two damage instead of one. If the target is a Monster, it attacks for one more damage than usual. However, its target is selected at random (including possibly Nobody or itself). EDIT 2: Actually, not a fan of the randomness the above introduces. However, I don't want to make this strictly a positive thing for targeting at one's own monsters. Perhaps targeting it at a monster should have it attack everybody for a single turn? Potentially including itself (which would kill itself unless shielded, which you can't do because you used your P to cast FFP).
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Dec 21, 2007 11:56:44 GMT -5
Rycchus: I feel that we sort of need a 3 gesture mindspell. If we went with a four gesture Palsy, this would make F as slow a gesture as P, but have far fewer useful spells. Plus, Disease would suck mightily. We definitely need a three-gesture F spell. However, depending on what the spells are, it may be an idea to add more than one. I was just saying that rather than writing Palsy off completely, it should just be put in a different box for now. As I suggested last night, I think an FF start is good as it weakens Amnesia - and when you get down to it FFP and FFW are the only viable options for a spellflow of that route. And FFW's not particularly friendly - although might be a consideration if the disruption itself is strong. FXX instead of FFX might also be worth thinking about - although I don't particularly care for FWW or FPP, and FSS is out for obvious reasons. That leaves us with FDD...? Is it a given that whatever FXY we choose will replace in Disease as DSFXYc? People have been assuming so far that we will do, and I don't see any reason why not... How about a disruption which pairs gestures like para does (not necessarily the same pairs) but doesn't allow you to submit a pair together? e.g. you can't submit D and P together, you can't submit W and S together, etc., and if you do then one of them gets set to null or something. S and P or D and P seem the best pairs to set to avoid the D/P cycle, although it would seem more logical to only pair S/D/F/W as P can't be paired with itself anyway. This is basically a weaker version of maladroit, so I'm not sure it's any good, but thought I'd suggest it in case someone can tinker with it and make it usable.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Dec 21, 2007 12:04:36 GMT -5
Okay, maybe I exaggerated when I called it "useless." I agree that any of the xxxP FoD weaves are viable and so, so much more aesthetically pleasing than para FoD (I'm actually starting to despise paraFoD in a huge way myself, and the only reason I still use it is because it's so blanking effective). However, I've tried for alternative forms of FoD many times myself, yet never managed to get an opening for them. The weakness of all of these weaves is that up until turn 4, you have absolutely no form of protection at all. Perhaps FFP would help, as it would allow PWPF/xFFP; in this case, we'll need to take into consideration when figuring out the effects of this disruption whether we want it to break FoD when self targetted or not. Either way, with a continuous disruption removed, landing FoD would be quite a feat; maybe that's the way it should be, but I'm worried that this might make it too difficult to break through the defenses of somebody who just sits there gesturing P's and W's. There's still PWPFS SWDPXwith a choice of amnesia or PDWPP which gives you protection of counter on turn 1, fear a turn earlier on 3, etc. Beserk: FFP Enchantment - Mindspell If the target is a Warlock, on his next turn, he must stab with one of his hands (his choice). However, his stab does two damage instead of one. If the target is a Monster, it attacks for one more damage than usual. However, its target is selected at random (including possibly Nobody or itself). The monster bit is exactly the same as Confusion, plus one extra damage. I don't think that's going to be liked very much. (Edit: realised it was +1 damage, not x2 damage.)
|
|
|
Post by xade on Dec 21, 2007 19:57:00 GMT -5
nah, no need for confusion or double damage... just 3 gestures, which adds a single damage to a monster for a single turn...
|
|
|
Post by awall on Dec 21, 2007 20:24:13 GMT -5
nah, no need for confusion or double damage... just 3 gestures, which adds a single damage to a monster for a single turn... But that's strictly a good thing. One of the beautiful things about disruptions is that they do bad things when you hit monsters with them. Just as targeting yourself with a disruption to block PSDF is risky if the dummy the charm, so is targeting your Ogre to block PSDD. In any case, I realized earlier: if we're going to get rid of FFF, why not keep Para around as FFP instead? It's not inherently a degenerate disruption, it's only that when it gets cast continuously.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Dec 22, 2007 23:42:36 GMT -5
nah, no need for confusion or double damage... just 3 gestures, which adds a single damage to a monster for a single turn... But that's strictly a good thing. One of the beautiful things about disruptions is that they do bad things when you hit monsters with them. Just as targeting yourself with a disruption to block PSDF is risky if the dummy the charm, so is targeting your Ogre to block PSDD. There is a difference between bad = doesn't attack and bad = attacks you/suicides itself. The second bad is worse, plus it can't be predicted for. In any case, I realized earlier: if we're going to get rid of FFF, why not keep Para around as FFP instead? It's not inherently a degenerate disruption, it's only that when it gets cast continuously. I thought about this earlier (this was where I got onto the other pairing-of-gestures spell above - I was thinking about how Para really is quite a unique disruption). And then I thought about it some more, and I figured that it would make Para terribly weak. Its only real strength would be when your opponent was casting an F, which you could paralyse to C. FFP isn't too bad for gestures for Para - if it were FSD it would never be cast - but I'm still not sure it's enough to compensate. DDDDDDDDD is terrible, but SD isn't. PPPPPP is annoying, but WP is often what you'd be casting anyway. I think if Para were to be left in as a non-chaining disruption, you'd have to change the gesture pairs to be more disruptive, e.g. P to F and D to W, or something...
|
|
|
Post by awall on Dec 23, 2007 2:46:49 GMT -5
Well, I'm under the impression that the gesture pairs for Para were all chosen because they all (usually) give you something to free yourself... W gives you WPP, S sometimes gives you PSDD, F gives you FFF (this was before parafc came along). However, if we don't have to worry about para being chained, then maybe we can be a bit more creative. What if we made it so...
W->P P->F F->C C->S S->D D->W
Target yourself with it and you either have to disrupt your other hand or you wind up with FFPF, which is arguably the worst thing you could have coming off a P (other than C). However, I wouldn't want P->C, as that would make using this disruption with a monster quite good. Besides, this mapping has the advantage that W, S, and F all function the same way people are used to seeing para function.
Again, I haven't thought this through all the way, so feel free to point out the large gaping balance holes in it.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Dec 23, 2007 9:43:03 GMT -5
I like the cyclical idea. I hadn't thought of doing that. P->F might strengthen SPFP and WPFD - a double para would give you WPF already. P to D might be better? That might weaken Disease though. That's about the only potential problem I see with that set.
Taking this opening against D/P: DPPPS PSDD FFFFP DPPPS and D/P is forced to go DW with his other hand.
This certainly breaks the D/P loop. I hope it doesn't make F/D too strong - perhaps it works out more weakly against other openings.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Dec 23, 2007 13:42:04 GMT -5
I like the cyclical idea. I hadn't thought of doing that. P->F might strengthen SPFP and WPFD - a double para would give you WPF already. P to D might be better? That might weaken Disease though. That's about the only potential problem I see with that set. The problem is that P->D gives us D->F and S->W (strenthening Charm, Bolt, and Fear). Yes, P->F makes Antispell a bit easier to get off, but since every other disruption except Maladroit ruins Antispell if it hits on the SP, I don't think it's a huge deal. Sure double para gets you WPF, but is that strictly a bad thing? When I've got the lead, I'd rather para you into WPF than WPP. Besides, now that para doesn't chain, how often are we going to see double para? Let's find out: DSWWS PSDWP FFPSD DPSFI believe this is what would happen, although I may have overlooked something. DS doesn't complete Maladroit, as that would get him paralyzed into C. He doesn't complete Fear, as that would give the second player an Ogre. His other hand has to go WP to prevent the Charm (or second Ogre). The top player winds up one life ahead, but on the defensive in a big way. I'm trying to work out what happens against S/W, but I think this is one of those openings that's very much up in the air. I came out with some possibilities that give D/F a delayed antispell, some that give S/W a lot of initiative, and some that I'm not sure what happens.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Dec 23, 2007 14:11:00 GMT -5
Wow you guys are wordy... Personally, I think replacing FFF with FFP is the easy to implement, and therefore more likely to be added to the current spellbook options, solution to the current paralysis crutch. This offers the option to FFP or FFFP if you want to fake out your opponent, and DSFFPc is more graceful than DSFDFc.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Dec 23, 2007 14:18:09 GMT -5
Hmm... dummying into DSFFPS would guarantee you a Troll if your opponent went with one of the standard Disease defenses... if we wind up with circular para (maybe para wouldn't be such a good name for this anymore), then you could defend Disease with D/D the turn before the clap; submit F/F, you'll get F/W and have either DFPW or WPP, whichever is called for.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Dec 23, 2007 17:46:45 GMT -5
I like the cyclical idea. I hadn't thought of doing that. P->F might strengthen SPFP and WPFD - a double para would give you WPF already. P to D might be better? That might weaken Disease though. That's about the only potential problem I see with that set. The problem is that P->D gives us D->F and S->W (strenthening Charm, Bolt, and Fear). Yes, P->F makes Antispell a bit easier to get off, but since every other disruption except Maladroit ruins Antispell if it hits on the SP, I don't think it's a huge deal. Sure double para gets you WPF, but is that strictly a bad thing? When I've got the lead, I'd rather para you into WPF than WPP. Besides, now that para doesn't chain, how often are we going to see double para? It could come out of double charm if you dummy out of bolts. But yeah, PF is better than PD in that case - I didn't pay much attention to the rest of the cycle before. Still not sure about the Antispell thing - it could work. Let's find out: DSWWS PSDWP FFPSD DPSFI believe this is what would happen, although I may have overlooked something. DS doesn't complete Maladroit, as that would get him paralyzed into C. He doesn't complete Fear, as that would give the second player an Ogre. His other hand has to go WP to prevent the Charm (or second Ogre). The top player winds up one life ahead, but on the defensive in a big way. DS Maladroits himself: DSFF PSDF FFFP DPSDand F/D's only option of stopping the Charm is to self-para on turn 4.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Dec 23, 2007 18:18:12 GMT -5
DS Maladroits himself: DSFF PSDF FFFP DPSDand F/D's only option of stopping the Charm is to self-para on turn 4. Or else to para his opponent. DSFFPS PSDFC FFFPDW DPSD-
This still favors the top player. However, it means that the top player can't just dummy the charm willy-nilly and hope that the bottom player paralyzes himself, because it's not *that* bad if the disruptions cross. EDIT: On the other hand, if the top player targets himself with all three disruptions, it doesn't look too bad for him: DSFFPC or DSFFPD PSDFFC PSDFFD
depending on whether the bottom player is set up to defend Disease or Bolt. Admittedly, I think it's possible to defend both with something like: DSFFP PSDFF FFFPDW PSDFWP
Which serves as an adequate defense even if the turn 5 para is targeted at the bottom player, and works out pretty well if not. Yet another edit: Waitasec, I just realized that FFP prevents counter unless the defender has WW/WW. DFFD xFFP
With just a single counter prepared, I para it into WWP or WPF; if you have WW/WP, I paralyze your LH, forcing WWP/WPS. Is this something we're willing to accept?
|
|
|
Post by xade on Dec 23, 2007 19:58:46 GMT -5
ohhh... that makes nasty... although, it is a 3 turn disruption that doesn't seem to do much in the realms of shaking up the oppositions spellflow...
perhaps weaken it a little more (C-> UNAFFECTED, F->S), and have it's counter stopping abilities being it's major draw card...
|
|