|
Post by xade on Apr 28, 2008 22:07:56 GMT -5
apparently, people with high karma are in tune with themselves, and what's around them. and are kinda a little girly... People with low karma are awesome.
|
|
|
Post by succat on Apr 28, 2008 23:02:11 GMT -5
Wow.. all of this talk about Para.. somehow I felt summoned to the board. Excellent analogy, Toyotami, and interesting query(s)... I'd have to say 'yes' to 'more toppish players drinking parahol, or whatever' and as for the other question of 'ancient battles between Master Warlocks using paraFod, etc..', I haven't even looked at their battles. After reading this board, I keep getting the idea that there's a 'better' way to play the game, and yet, I'm just not seeing it in this Era. And I'm still waiting on ExDeath to stop cowering behind the throne and come forward and take a few shots of Para like a Warlock.....since you keep talking about my lack of skill and your surplus of it... well then, enough with the talk, let's play a real Game! I'm prepared to face the music, are you? The only Warlock that really scares me at this point in time is the Russian Nightmare(Bio), and of course I'm always unsure about the outcome of a game between the Champ(xade) and myself, or the Brawler(Toyo). Other than that, I'm waiting for other skilled warlocks to step up and beat the crap out of my unschooled, lazy, un-analyzing, paraholic ways.. Like I've said before, (and Toyo's the one that first used the term), I know I still succat warlocks, but I try to win as much as possible instead of looking for pretty weaving patterns (nothing against weavers, of course). When I joined warlocks about 7 months ago or so, I never would have thought I'd be going against the grain with this thing called Para. I was just a product of my paraholic environment, and so I took my own personal krypto and tried to turn the tables by becoming your own personal Kryptos (thanxs xade for your literary genius :>). And I didn't just get para'd and Fod'd repeatedly either, I got bolted, and charmed, charmed and bolted, and everything else under the sun... I liked para, personally, because I think it's powerful, and when it started to click for me, the para-haters began stepping from the shadows (some, whose styles I do respect, btw). Rather than cowering down, and trying to change my style to please warlocks who complained, it pushed me to develop Para even further, and punish those who would punish me.. In regards to changing Para, why all this nonsense about changing Para to something else, or getting rid of it completely...? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the different variations of warlocks, but I'm still tryin' to get my feet wet here, and now some of you guys are ready to tear down my bread and butter and exchange it for ..who..knows... what.. ? Every variation is just gonna add it's own new slew of 'problems', as some of you might call them. As for me, I welcome the promlematic, the ugly, the paramattic, and whatever else, so if you must change the game, then I'd recommend getting a few pointers from ravenBlack on how to go about designing your own Version of Warlocks, and then I'll go over there and look for a 'problem' to exploit
|
|
|
Post by xade on Apr 28, 2008 23:09:39 GMT -5
heh, I used to charm and bolt you so much when you were a whippersnapper... Now the only guy I get to do that to is Derfel...
|
|
|
Post by awall on Apr 29, 2008 1:37:17 GMT -5
succat: I don't think you need to worry about para going away. A rule change will likely be implemented as a variant, not as a forced change. Just because rules exist for parafc, maladroit, and parafdf doesn't mean that every single game on RB must play by those rules. If you really prefer para, you can keep playing with it. I'd imagine that even some of the para-haters here might occasionally get nostalgic.
As to why we're removing para, see the myriad of other threads on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Apr 29, 2008 2:02:17 GMT -5
awall "A rule change will unlikely be implemented at all" fixed for you =))
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Apr 29, 2008 2:38:33 GMT -5
Re: succat
You are gravely misinformed on several points. Firstly, para is not a "problem" that is being "exploited". It's just something that makes the game slower and less tactical, which most players would prefer to avoid. It's no less of an "exploit" than opening with D/P every game. If everybody does it, it gets quite boring. Even if only one player does it, it's pretty boring.
Secondly, RB did not design Warlocks.
Thirdly, I disagree with anyone who claims there are 'styles' in warlocks. There is only one truth, there is always a best move, and there is always a best guess even in a pure 50/50 situation. If you claim to have a style, then you are admitting your own weakness by lacking the means to win when the position does not call for your 'style' of play. I don't have a style, I just play the best moves and win with them. If it turns out that your method of abusing para is better than my method of not abusing it, then I'll start using your method, and I will be better than you at it. Because I am better than you. That's all.
As for not playing you, I don't jump into rated games unless I know what's going to happen before it happens. Preparation is the reason why I win 90% of my games. I made some mistakes in the VF games I just played, and I want to correct those. And I'm not spending all day analyzing Warlocks anymore, so it may be awhile before I've finished looking over your games too.
Edit: If this post comes off as arrogant, that's because it is.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Apr 29, 2008 2:53:52 GMT -5
Well, the only sensible point left in this thread that I'd like to comment is that I'm eagerly waiting for ExDeath to return in full power. That would be the time I'll be thrilled to play full-power myself, a thing I totally lack for last 6 weeks or so. And, even while losing in full power games, I will learn. Because - talking back about things that need to be (re)implemented - current ladder system makes very little sense to me, limiting players on the top of ladder instead of helping them. And I just don't feel playing properly now facing 2-3 same guys, which results in making stupidest errors in numbers (like my last game vs succat), or trying weird things (like my current game with awall).
To sum it up and throw some more challenge and hype here, should ExDeath announce he is back, I'll play VS him, learn from him, and eventually beat him down from the top. Because I can be at least as good.
Edit: not trying being arrogant or something, just speaking the way that I feel will make some hype and raise chances of ExDeath actual comeback )
|
|
|
Post by Citanest on Apr 29, 2008 3:34:44 GMT -5
Edit: If this post comes off as arrogant, that's because it is. Lol, this thread is awesome. ExDeath, I agree with a lot of what you said, but I disagree with the 'styles' point. There is always a best move in poker, but to suggest that people who play stylistically are inferior is surely wrong... I'm no chess player, but I believe that chess players too have styles of playing. Having said that, significant paralysis usage doesn't constitute a style. The spell is the handbrake of Warlocks. And succat, I think you aren't allowed to use the "I'm a newcomer" line anymore... you've played more games than me. The only Warlock that really scares me at this point in time is the Russian Nightmare(Bio), and of course I'm always unsure about the outcome of a game between the Champ(xade) and myself, or the Brawler(Toyo). Other than that, I'm waiting for other skilled warlocks to step up and beat the crap out of my unschooled, lazy, un-analyzing, paraholic ways.. No one (at this point) is going to come and beat the crap out of you because you are a good player. Unless ExDeath/Tali/Yaron return at full power - then you'll get murdalized. But I don't want to spend the precious little time I can dedicate to Warlocks games tediously working through 8 turns of entirely predictable paralysis outcomes - nor should you expect me to. I lay down the following challenge to you (I did this myself ages ago); spend 2 months playing as many games as you are now, and never cast more than 3 F's in a row. NEVER. I am certain your elo will improve because you will actually start exercising your clearly skilled mind and get better. If it doesn't, go back to paralysis and call me a fool. EDIT: Anyone like Dragonball Z? It's like Piccolo training with weighted clothes. If you aren't prepared to do that type of training succat, you'll forever be the Yamcha of Warlocks.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Apr 29, 2008 9:06:04 GMT -5
A couple points. First, RB *did* design Warlocks. He did *not* design the game Warlocks is an implementation of; Richard Bartle did that under the name "Waving Hands" (and at one point, "Spellbinder"). There are styles in Warlocks to a limited degree, but only because of what ExDeath said: most warlocks unconsciously restrict their options. Initially this is because they don't see or explore all of their options (as is natural) and later it's because sometimes they'll get invested in a particular idea, because it seems like a good idea, and this will cause them to make a move that isn't optimal; and the particular direction they get taken for a walk in may be called 'style'. I like to say that the first thing necessary to becoming a great player is to stop listening to your ego (although it does seem ExDeath has proven me wrong in one sense of that phrase . 'Style' could also refer to a different attitude towards risk or some other element of the game. In this case one of the other of the 'styles' is probably superior, either in general or in that particular situation, but the level of understanding of the game may not be sufficiently developed to see this. For example, Prioli came in with a very gutsy, risky style that tore the ladder apart at the time (2004). Elements of his play were superior to the way the masters had been playing, but others were vulnerable, so his play and the play of Taliesin or Yaron at the time could be said to constitute different styles. Eventually, when strategic play picked up again, it was necessary to synthesize elements of these two styles. So people who play 'stylistically' are not _necessarily_ wrong; sometimes it may be the only option, or there may be something superior about it; but the whole meaning of the word 'stylistic' implies that you are making a choice for aesthetic or descriptive reasons and not for the ones most likely to make you win. Eventually style will always fall to analysis. But there may be situations where analysis has not yet conquered the realm of possibility. Third. In contrast, playing games (hopefully VFs) with ANY kind of self-imposed restriction is a good exercise, particularly if it restricts you from doing something you normally do all the time; it is exactly the kind of thing that will help you break free from your ego. Fourth, Dragonball Z sucks. It's the worst-plotted, most inexplicably-designed anime I have ever seen.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Apr 29, 2008 14:21:43 GMT -5
There is always a best move in poker... Really? I don't agree with that at all. Poker is much more psychological, one player will play the same hand differently than another, and in fact the same player will often play the same hand in two different ways, so it's imposible to say what the "best" decision is every time. Sometimes it turns out you should've bluffed even though only 1% of all players would fold in that spot. Anyway, different argument, let's not derail the thread. but to suggest that people who play stylistically are inferior is surely wrong... I'm no chess player, but I believe that chess players too have styles of playing. Because chess hasn't been solved yet, or even close, and because there are often a hundred or more possible moves each turn, there are often multiple moves which are considered good in a position. And some aggressive moves will force your opponent to think for a long time, because your opponent is human. So different styles can work in chess. But still, given complete analysis, one move is always best. Warlocks is much closer to being solved than chess is; I usually feel that I arrive at the best moves on every turn of most games, and most of the players are so good now that they get the best moves 90% of the time. But if you play with a plan in mind ("I'm going to paralyze him as much as I can!" "I'm going to win with FoD!") you're just limiting yourself from always making those moves. Yes, he will get better because he's learning the game, but his Elo won't necessarily improve. Para closes the gap so much that it's impossible to tell how good he actually is. What he's doing may actually be the best way for him to play, especially against those who are superior to him. --- Slartucker wrote: First, RB *did* design Warlocks. He did *not* design the game Warlocks is an implementation of; Richard Bartle did that under the name "Waving Hands" (and at one point, "Spellbinder"). Yes, you're right of course. What I meant was, if I were looking for "tips" on game design, I'd probably go to the source..although I'm pretty sure at this point, all of us know a lot more about the game than Richard Bartle does. I like to say that the first thing necessary to becoming a great player is to stop listening to your ego (although it does seem ExDeath has proven me wrong in one sense of that phrase . lol.
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Apr 29, 2008 18:22:09 GMT -5
Now the only guy I get to do that to is Derfel... Uh, great. Now I'm only good as the butt of jokes. Fabtabulous. If I was such a lousy player, I might be offended.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Apr 29, 2008 18:36:51 GMT -5
When Taliesin and I were both new to the game (I think I was newer than he was), he did PSDFFDD to me and I was like "Wow, that's a pretty good combo" and he said something to the effect of "Yeah, I win a lot of my games with that one." It's kind of funny how much more sophisticated everyone has become since then.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Apr 29, 2008 18:40:03 GMT -5
Now the only guy I get to do that to is Derfel... Uh, great. Now I'm only good as the butt of jokes. Fabtabulous. If I was such a lousy player, I might be offended. Nah, you're good for more than being a joke butt I'm just muckin' around.
|
|
|
Post by succat on Apr 29, 2008 18:55:46 GMT -5
Slartucker, I liked your point about "styles". And good overall arguments.. exdeath, I agree with only one thing you've said -- you are indeed arrogant. Also, if I might add, I'm getting tired of hearing the term "full power", and I know you're not the only one who has used it, but let's face it... If I'm as bad a warlock as you think I am (and I may indeed be a 1400 elo warlock without my Para :>), why must you analyze my games, prepare to play me, and/or be at full power to beat a lowly mage such as myself? Why all the excuses?? You've already said that you're better than me, yet you delay the inevitable. I don't doubt that I will get beat, but unlike you, I'm no coward. I will take a good beating every now and then, and try to learn from it. "Full power" is something we all aspire to achieve, each in our own way. But let's be real, it's a fleeting state. All of your other points pretty much only serve to back up the one main point that is apparent to me: You're a jerk. Does anyone disagree with that? Citanest, I wasn't claiming to still be a new player I just wanted to make it clear for the record that I am not an experienced player that has played for years and spends lots of time dissecting games. I'm pretty much just a clueless warlock who thinks that if I bring my succy style to the table against any so called skilled Warlock, I oughta get punished nearly every time, because surely a skilled warlock can predict my every move by being able to see the outcome of my para 10 turns ahead of time... But you're right, I have played a lot of games now, I guess because I tend to learn by playing. I don't analyze games (perhaps I should, though), I just play and see what happens and let the paras fall where they may. As for your suggestion to play for a period of time while not abusing para, I admit that it is an interesting idea.. I will give you that. However, I'm the sort of player that once I find something that seems to work for me, I stick with it until it doesn't work anymore. So while I find your advice interesting, I'm a stubborn brute of a mage and I intend to ride the Era of Para either until the Tower crumbles or the black rose withers ... btw, i don't knock you for the way you play, committing yourself to not abusing para. That is an honorable path as well... I'm only saddened that you may never want to play me As for elo, I'm not that concerned about it. I issue challenges all the time and get my krypto handed to me all the time by 1500 elo warlocks, and I'm OK with that. I'm still learning, as I've said, and am no genius warlock. I just like to win, have ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffun, and if I can upset the balance of power in the process and feed exdeath to the wolves, or pass him up completely (if Bio will let me), then I'm doing exactly what I want to do. One last thing I find interesting is the fact that exdeath would consider using my "method" of abusing para if it works better than his "method" of not abusing para. I think I've just made my final point then. Exdeath, I give you permission to use my "style", or should I say "method" of para-abusing any time you see fit. However, I regret to inform you that the Tower must reject any and all future applications of admission.. Reason? We simply can't have a Black Rose Paraholic! ~prophecy must be fulfilled.....the tower looms.....the black rose falls.....upon the grave where.....death is laid.....
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Apr 29, 2008 19:10:43 GMT -5
How on earth could you agree with Slartucker's point about styles and disagree with mine when we said essentially the exact same thing?
As for me, I am concerned about Elo, and I'm even more concerned about just losing in general, so I'm not willing to enter a situation where I feel I have a chance of losing. Right now, committing very little time to the game and knowing very little about my prospective opponent's games, I can't claim any special advantage beyond pure skill differences, and that doesn't make me comfortable enough to engage in a challenge. I think I would win about 75% of the time, and that's just not good enough for me. Whether you understand or agree with this makes little difference to me, I've explained it multiple times.
|
|