|
Post by toyotami on Apr 24, 2008 6:45:02 GMT -5
In 1862, during the American Civil War the first iron clad ships to ever battle against oak steamed out of port. The iron vessel Virginia attacked and sunk the wounded wooden Cumberland killing 121 men on board.
Before this event, naval war was a gentleman's engagement. A casualty rate of 10 percent was usually enough for a ship to surrender and be granted quarter. The Cumberland suffered a 55 percent casualty rate and opened the door for 'no rules' warfare.
I recall a time i played the D/P line against a recently returned Yaron, who played S/P and went for clap lightning. I went the paraFoD line and took him (and a huge swag of ELO) after a single 50/50. I recall his comment as being something like 'oh, so we go for this now, do we?'
I will use Succat as the example only because he is the self proclaimed king. Embracing para rather than shying away from it is changing the game.
I have lost to him the last couple of bouts but particularly the second, was a 60 round, enjoyable game. The reason: i decided to play FFFF at every oportunity. (my goal was to teach him a lesson on how boring the game becomes). What resulted was an enjoyable game...i was winning throughout but got ...y after surviving a parafod and having on the ropes, let a giant in and then proceeded to fumble my way into certain defeat (and to his credit, alot of skill on Succat's behalf).
What really happens to the game when everyone playing it decides FFF is an acceptable, nay, neccesary and honorable way to play. Do you get a different dance? Is the dance as elegant, or does it become a barbarian footstomp? I'm interested in the hearing from any masters, as well as us plebs.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Apr 24, 2008 7:12:02 GMT -5
Oh my... I dunno about 'neccesary' and 'honorable' parts. I guess I expressed my point of view here: slarty.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=warlocks&action=display&thread=103I think para has certain degree of elegance. And it is not boring for me. And, say, DPP/PSD aren't boring for me either. Masters - Slartucker and Taliesin - disagreed with this point in above thread. Spacca's opinion is clearly the same, remembering how he started trashtalk in our match when I barely _faked_ paraFoD. For me para is one of tools of warlock, one of this game sides. And it is powerful, yet dangerous tool - you can easily misuse para and fell to it's lack of options. I'll agree to any para change (I feel allowing only each second para will be enough), because changes are fun. But it will require DPP (and maybe PSDx as well) change as well - para is not the worst thing in this game. I don't think being paraholic is something to be proud or honored of. No single spell is something to be proud of on itself, but good game is. But para is nothing to be ashamed either - as long as you play well... as Succat does.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Apr 24, 2008 7:49:57 GMT -5
I am well versed in the anti/pro para rhetoric...this thread is more to address 2 slightly different angles. 1) To address the fact that the game is taking a turn towards top (ish) tier players that embrace para and feel no qualms using it. 2) To query whether any of the top players have had long, interesting battles where the idea of a paraFOD style victory is considered a great victory...where both players head for it at the first possible instance (without completely sacrificing initiative) Eg. instead of going for 3/5 sure damage, a player goes for a 50/50, or even 75/25 ParaFOD win with both players aware and happy that this is a viable and honorable method of winning a game. I may be splitting hairs with this point but i think that the stygma of 'paraFOD is crap' is true only when one player uses it against a player who would not. If the above point is agreed upon, my follow up question is: does this really destroy the game? Have top tier players played enough games from this jointed philosopical standpoint to write it off as less elegant? My gut tells me that if enough players went for F chains at every opportunity, games would start looking and feeling the same...but perhaps only Succat could answer that one
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Apr 24, 2008 8:05:04 GMT -5
1) It is mainly due to true top tier like Slarty and Rycch and spacca gone ) So we 1800th suddenly became "tops".
2) I don't really understand what's the problem )) If a player constantly goes for 75/25 para, he wins only 25% of games )) If he goes for 50\50 para, he wins 50% of games. If he is fine with this, it is ok... If many players accept this style, they have 50% win ratio, and that's it ) Players who can't defend para, will suck, and players who know how to defend, will mostly prevail. The answer is: it won't destroy the game. It may barely scare few noobies away form the game, but given most of them sway away anyway, it is not the big issue.
As for paraFoD is crap, here is the little story. In our last game VS freesoul, he had an perfect opening for paraFoD, but elected to go PSD, which led to nothing... In this very match, later, I was in similar position, but I went for it (thinking like, hell, he'll break his spellflow to defence, I'll have my WPFD, and fine). He surrendered without a word. I felt like crap for a while =) I thought, hell, why didn't he warned me beforehand, blah-blah. No offense to Freesoul, of course, he is one of the most interesting players I ever played... and that's why I felt especially bad )
But I was alright again on the next day, humiliating awall with a paraFoD kill of his own design ))
|
|
|
Post by freesoul on Apr 24, 2008 8:05:58 GMT -5
I definitely prefer a non para match up. Of course, I use para whenever it would give me an advantage, but I always peel off when the advantage is simply a string of F's-- to force the opponent to break it. I don't find the "one hand F" game fun, at all. To me, it limits creativity and your arsenal of moves. Two things that I enjoy.
Toyotami is right, that there has been an "non-para" gentlemen's code of conduct (amongst the skilled old timers). And now, I’m too set in my ways and lazy to analyze and play the constant-para game... which puts me at a crossroads with this game.
Oh, and I'm getting pretty bored with the paraFOD. Which just tells me i probably need to take a break.
|
|
|
Post by freesoul on Apr 24, 2008 8:19:01 GMT -5
As for paraFoD is crap, here is the little story. In our last game VS freesoul, he had an perfect opening for paraFoD, but elected to go PSD, which led to nothing... In this very match, later, I was in similar position, but I went for it (thinking like, hell, he'll break his spellflow to defence, I'll have my WPFD, and fine). He surrendered without a word. I felt like crap for a while =) I thought, hell, why didn't he warned me beforehand, blah-blah. No offense to Freesoul, of course, he is one of the most interesting players I ever played... and that's why I felt especially bad ) But I was alright again on the next day, humiliating awall with a paraFoD kill of his own design )) I've challenged myself a while ago to avoid using the paraFOD... and try to win without it. Which puts me at a disadvantage... that is vexing me now because i don't even consider using the move. And now i'm frustrated because i keep getting hit by paraFOD's (or dummies which is just as bad) every time i see a P & F turn. So nothing personal Bio, just frustrated, where I opted to say nothing as opposed to venting the frustration on a fair move.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Apr 24, 2008 9:14:04 GMT -5
Bio: you are wrong about a player that uses paraFOD for a 25/75 percent chance of a 75 percent chance of losing the game. He has a 75 percent chance of losing the ParaFOD showdown. The game is still in the balance, if not if his favor.
This thread is about whether players like Freesoul want to see what the game is like with no holds barred. Play a game with an angry vitriol of..you wanna paraFod me?! me?! I'll show you ParaFoD and some tricks for change.
|
|
|
Post by Citanest on Apr 24, 2008 12:21:37 GMT -5
No no no. Para FoD ***is a flaw in the game***. I haven't used or threatened it since long before Bio or succat started playing - and yet I still have a good elo... which just demonstrates it is not, in the long term, a powerful play anyway (unless you are foolish enough to believe I would be a better player had I used it). Does anyone want me to start using tons of paralysis and pfods? Does anyone believe Warlocks will be a better place if I do so? I've challenged myself a while ago to avoid using the paraFOD... and try to win without it. Which puts me at a disadvantage... that is vexing me now because i don't even consider using the move. And now i'm frustrated because i keep getting hit by paraFOD's (or dummies which is just as bad) every time i see a P & F turn. Stick with it freesoul! You the man! When you get to top elo without having used a single pfod (but having lost to a few) it feels pretty darn good...
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Apr 24, 2008 12:38:15 GMT -5
Citanest I deeply respect you and I think you are one of the most skilled players around and so on... but I just can't agree to you on this point =)
Look, I can (and you can and every skilled player can) win virtually any amount of games (given enough time) without using any one disruption spell. Or without, say, summoning trolls. So what? It doesn't prove this particular spell is good... or bad. It just proves it is not vital (as, say, counterspell) for gameplay. Maybe it proves that one is skilled player. But nothing more.
And yes. I would like everybody to start playing using EVERY aspect of this wonderful game. If one can't win without para, he will fall... sooner or later. If one is skilled, he can win with or without para.
And if one day everybody start using paraFoD... I don't know if remedy to paraFoD exists at all, but the only chance we will find it is when everybody will use it.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Apr 24, 2008 14:57:27 GMT -5
ParaFoD does not hurt the game because it's imbalanced.
ParaFoD hurts the game because it allows bad players to equalize against good players.
But in any case, I've probably faced 50-100 potential FoD situations and I've only lost to it 2-3 times, so I don't think it's such a big deal. I use para whenever it would be good, which frankly, is not that often. It's an easy way to find something to do with one hand against a superior opponent to raise the variance. But if I overused it in that manner, it would make me much worse. Just like if succat knew the best lines, he wouldn't have to overuse FFF and he would be a better player for it. But he doesn't, and he isn't, so let the kids have their fun.
|
|
|
Post by Citanest on Apr 24, 2008 14:57:44 GMT -5
Citanest I deeply respect you and I think you are one of the most skilled players around and so on... but I just can't agree to you on this point =) The respect is mutual - I find you a tougher opponent than just about anybody else nowadays. It seems the disagreement is intractable, but I shall try to strengthen my case. Imagine if you, I, Toyo, xade, freesoul, Awall, ExDeath etc all began to use Succat levels of paralysis/pfod (essentially the outcome of what Toyotami is suggesting, I think). Do you think this game would be as good as it is now?
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Apr 24, 2008 15:01:28 GMT -5
Citanest I deeply respect you and I think you are one of the most skilled players around and so on... but I just can't agree to you on this point =) The respect is mutual - I find you a tougher opponent than just about anybody else nowadays. It seems the disagreement is intractable, but I shall try to strengthen my case. Imagine if you, I, Toyo, xade, freesoul, Awall, ExDeath etc all began to use Succat levels of paralysis/pfod (essentially the outcome of what Toyotami is suggesting, I think). Do you think this game would be as good as it is now? You act as if I refuse to use para or paraFoD on some sort of unspoken agreement. Trust me when I say, there is no such agreement in place. When I pass up an opportunity to start a para chain on you, it is because I've analyzed the end of that chain 8 moves deep and I realize it will cost me the initiative. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Apr 24, 2008 21:43:18 GMT -5
Whoa, lots of strong words flying around here.
I was never part of the thread that Bio referenced, and in fact, my feelings about para are quite distinct from Taliesin's. It's a subject that we argued about many times, though lately he has won me over as to its tactical implications.
I have always been neutral about para. I never deprecated it. I used it heavily when I first started playing, and it earned me hate from a couple of other players, notably Witch, who had a rant about me on her profile for some time. The opinion about para that I held for several years is detailed in my article on decision points: I felt it was strong, but balanced.
Indeed the drawbacks to using para that I mention are ignored by 95% of the warlocks who complain about paralysis. Taliesin argued that paralysis is overpowered even despite these drawbacks. For a long time I disagreed, largely because the kind of tactics popular with other players could often be answered more effectively with something other than FFF. But the past year, in light of the whole D/P situation and the kinds of extended openings being used, I've changed my mind, and I do think that paralysis is overpowered and the game would be well served by replacing it.
There isn't really a good way to just alter paralysis, not that deals with this problem without creating others.
But I DON'T think this is a dire necessity. I think this is really only a problem for the very best, who analyze everything into dust, and for the very worst, who are easily torn about by any intelligent play but latch onto paralysis as a problem because it is spammable. And for the very best it is one of several problems. Aesthetically it's not great, so I understand Citanest's hate of it, but I do feel that it's an issue of overpoweredness and not brokenness. It's a Lightning Bolt, not a Time Walk...
The problem is that paralysis *does* add things to the game's tactics, mainly in terms of the role of the gesture F in spellflow; this is something that affects the balance of every single spell. So if para is removed, it is vital that there is a delicately crafted replacement.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Apr 24, 2008 23:47:37 GMT -5
I would agree that the game will be better without paralysis, but I don't think that means keeping a para chain up 50% of the time is the best strategy.
|
|
taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on Apr 25, 2008 8:38:41 GMT -5
I would agree that the game will be better without paralysis, but I don't think that means keeping a para chain up 50% of the time is the best strategy. Entering a para chain foolishly at the wrong time will always get you punished against someone better. However, it is possible to enter a well-timed para chain and hold it for some turns to consolidate an advantage. Frequently, weaker players do not know when to break the chain and move on, and so lose it again. In a match between two very strong players (e.g. myself and Slarty), however, you may not infrequently see periods of even 8-10 turns of para, because it helps the first player to enter para jockey for position. It does however slow the pacing of the game down to a crawl, and, personally, leaves me impatient since I can often then predict too far ahead. This negative play experience is somewhat self-perpetuating, given para's chaining, and leads to my major dissatisfaction with the spell. (The PS spells are also very powerful, but lead to more varied spellflow and hence annoy me less.) People have often been quick to jump on para's "drawbacks". Many of these supposed drawbacks are underthought. Consider the objection one sometimes hears that F is a clumsy gesture to break out from, and that the para player is disadvantaged when he has to stop para. However, if the para player ceases his para at a point where he has successfully paralysed his opponent for a turn or two, e.g. ending his opponent's spellflow in PP or DD... FFFF? xxxxx
xxSDD xxxxx in actual fact, at the point I have marked with a ?, the para player is free to submit any gesture on his left hand; not so the paralysed player, who is constrained to submit just one choice. People self-restrict because they think they must break out of F with FS or FP and attempt a long spell, but in reality the ? is best treated as an utterly free gesture. The weakness of para arises when people hold it too long, let their opponent summon, and are then forced to break it.
|
|