|
Post by succat on Apr 29, 2008 20:23:44 GMT -5
ex, you said you disagree with anyone who claims that there are styles... but you admit right after that to changing your 'method' if need be....(and trust me, you will need to unless you plan to get swept out of this Era of Para What Slartucker said didn't sound like the exact same thing you had said. He admitted that there are styles in warlocks to a limited degree, and then he went on to explain his reasoning, whereas you initially dismissed the concept of styles, and then backtracked by saying that you would change your 'method' if need be. Styles, methods, truth... we all have our own version of what that is. If you wanna split hairs, let's split 'em. Gimme a sec to find my axe As for your being concerned that you might lose, I still name you coward. You, from the start, have only boasted about your greatness and my lack thereof. Fine, but at least have the courage to back it up IN THIS ERA, otherwise shut up and go back to the era from whence you came.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Apr 29, 2008 23:30:07 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. Yeah, seriously. I always laugh when I see Taliesin's comment that Pig won many of his games by clapping disease, because nobody could defend against it... sheesh!
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Apr 29, 2008 23:49:14 GMT -5
Succat kind of has a point that if you boast and aren't willing to back it up, you can't expect people to take you at your word. But I'm not sure how many people here care, because when ExDeath was last active he did back it up very well, and he continues to back it up indirectly with intelligent comments here. This "full power" debate has come up again and again here. The thing is that, once you get to a certain level of analysis of the game, it really DOES take massive amounts of time to play anywhere near your best. This time goes down the more you play; when I was last fully active (in 06) I played quickly and painlessly. But it also goes up, the less you play. So right now I haven't played a game in three months, and I would want to spend an hour or two reviewing my notes before even starting a new battle, and it would go slowly. Anyway, who wants to play way below their best? I don't, and so I don't play much, same as ExDeath. Besides which, even opening oneself up to games doesn't guarantee a lot of play. Last fall, I was kind of around, but I accepted all ladder challenges anyway. I only got two! (I killed Spacca/Tchichi and then ExDeath and I had that horrible D/P mirrormatch that went nowhere slowly.) *shrug* If you boast and don't back it up, you need to accept that people will whine. And if you whine, you need to accept that your whining doesn't change the fact that the boasting may well be accurate
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Apr 30, 2008 0:45:48 GMT -5
ex, you said you disagree with anyone who claims that there are styles... but you admit right after that to changing your 'method' if need be....(and trust me, you will need to unless you plan to get swept out of this Era of Para What Slartucker said didn't sound like the exact same thing you had said. He admitted that there are styles in warlocks to a limited degree, and then he went on to explain his reasoning, whereas you initially dismissed the concept of styles, and then backtracked by saying that you would change your 'method' if need be. Styles, methods, truth... we all have our own version of what that is. If you wanna split hairs, let's split 'em. Gimme a sec to find my axe No, I don't disagree that there are styles. All I'm saying is that a style is a weakness, a limiter on the best thing you can do each turn. I disagree with the people who have styles, meaning I don't think they know the best way to play. If it turns out that I am wrong, and spamming Para is the best way for me to play, then I'll start playing it, because it's not a matter of pride to me whether I spam para or not--I simply don't think it's the best thing to do in most situations. If one person's style is to overuse a certain spell, and another person's 'style' is to analyze and make sure they play the best move at all times, which style sounds superior to you? For someone with poor analyzing skills, of course, the first one is probably superior, because they'll never arrive at the best moves no matter how long they look at something. That is why by playing this 'style' you MAKE YOURSELF LOOK BAD, whether you are or not, who knows? You haven't shown anyone anything, there are 10 players in this era whose Elos are basically dead even. You are the only one among them who has not proven the ability to analyze a position instead of defaulting to an easy second best. So, naturally, you do look quite bad here. The fact is, the era I came out of had at least 5 master-level warlocks who are all much stronger than anyone who plays today, save Toyotami when he is actually focused, and maybe BioLogIn someday soon. And I proved myself in that era, and other eras, quite well. There's a title next to my name for a reason. All of the players whose Elos are equal to yours, I have beaten them tens and hundreds of times. If they had to place $1,000 on the winner of our match, I'm not sure a single one of them would take your side. I don't need to prove anything to anyone, I've already backed it up, and you are the lone player I have never faced. Get over it. Unless you eventually prove that you're much stronger than the rest of the field, there is no reason for me to assume you are any better than me. It's already displayed vicariously that I am much stronger than you, because I'm much stronger than the rest of the field which you currently occupy. One day BioLogIn's Elo is going to hit 2000, and at that point I will have somebody to take seriously. Until then, nobody has seperated themselves and given me any reason to commit myself to an all-out comeback. I might do it anyway, but I certainly won't be persuaded by some random person who points his finger and calls me a coward.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Apr 30, 2008 7:05:53 GMT -5
Well if the end of the Gentlemen's game hadn't occured before this thread, it certainly has after.
Succat: basically you can't force, bully or taunt people into a match...but you can surpass them on the ladder or in ELO. Modest goals to begin with. I've got within range of ExDeath's slap a few times and have been well-swatted. I've certainly had more wins against Taliesin and Slartucker than Exdeath.
This thread was about a style of leaning heavily of FFF especially going for FOD. I still think a player that heads that way does play with a style.
Take for instance a player who has charmed their opponent and can follow through with a lightning bolt OR launch a paraFoD attack with a 50 or 25% chance of success - keeping in mind that player should still be able to retain some initiative/equal initiative if the Fod doesn't come off.
The trade off between damage and ParaFod victory is certainly stylistic - nobody can say for sure that the 5 damage is game winning - many greats have lost from being 5 HP up. I'm almost positive ExDeath would go for the damage and Succat for the FoD. If (and right now it is a huge IF) Succat and Exdeath were of the same calibre strategically, but differed on this stylistic question who would win more games?
I guess ExDeath's argument would be: whichever won more games would be the only way to play ergo not a style but the one truth.
Maybe that's right...but i guess the only way to find the one truth is by deviating from the known truth to find a whole new one. Maybe we can substitute the semantic: "style" with "the search for a new truth".
As in: did you see my wicked search for a new truth out there on that dancefloor. Man i am one search for a new truthish mofo.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Apr 30, 2008 8:12:18 GMT -5
"Well if the end of the Gentlemen's game hadn't occurred before this thread, it certainly has after." The trouble is that some people think this 'Gentlemen's era' has never, in fact, occurred. Because ExDeath, f.e., has never accepted 'Gentlemen's style of play' ))
I think it is the same as with poems about chivalry, which praised medieval knights as noble and merciful warriors, while in fact most knights were merely brawling butchers )
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Apr 30, 2008 11:04:52 GMT -5
I've certainly had more wins against Taliesin and Slartucker than Exdeath. Yes, and also more deaths -- because you played us more. And you played me frequently when I was a new player. Sheesh Toyo. Toyo, this is absolute hogwash. 5 health is an advantage, PERIOD. A chance at FOD is an advantage, PERIOD. You're arguing that since neither one guarantees a victory, there can be no meaningful strategic difference between them; the difference must be "stylistic." In the abstract, you can't say for sure that one is better; it's situational. In an actual game situation, with spellflow to analyze, with more information fleshing things out, you frequently can. When you are IN a situation, a situational advantage is a real advantage, it is not a question of style. That would obviously depend on the situation. However, you can bet a lot of money ExDeath would choose different options based on the situation, and Succat might as well (I've never played Succat). Not the only way to play; the most effective way to play. Obviously the tactic that wins most is the most effective way to play! This is definitional. The only thing ExDeath is really asserting is: Why would you want to play in a way that you know is not the most effective? That's very romantic. I mean, yes, of course searching for a new truth requires experimenting with alternate routes besides what is accepted as being the best. But the fact is, and the history of the ladder bears this out, experimenting willy-nilly, or just playing the thing that has the most "stylistic" appeal to you, does not locate new truths. It is not a coincidence that the warlocks who are most hyper-analytical are the same warlocks who have created or popularized effective new openings and weaves.
|
|
|
Post by vilhazarog on Apr 30, 2008 14:11:11 GMT -5
I'd just like to jump in here to answer this question: Because it's fun. Sometimes I'm surprised at how many of you take losing so seriously. I will never be a 'master' at this game because I will never spend an hour looking at a particular move. That's not fun for me, and I simply don't have that kind of time to devote to a game like this. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy playing the game!
Seriously, if you don't have time to practice basketball every day for a couple of hours, do you really say, "well, don't have time to practice, so I'll never play again?" I know I'll never be a Michael Jordan, or even as good as an amateur player, well, let's be honest, I totally suck, and will always suck, but that doesn't mean I don't like to pick up a ball and play. Come on, man, it's just a game, so what if you lose, playing the game should be fun, win or lose! Do you really approach every game you ever play with this kind of attitude? "I must win, I must play the absolute best way possible to play, anything less and I am wasting my time!"
Ok, if you're really a perfectionist, I guess I respect that, far be it for me to tell you how to have fun... just don't assume that everyone is like yourself. Anyway, I'm glad we have to league, where some of you can lighten up a bit.
(I'm not directing this specifically at you, Slartucker, or you, Exdeath, just a general, "hey man, this is a game, have fun" to everyone.)
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Apr 30, 2008 14:52:10 GMT -5
Heh, it's a much *more* fun game when one is *winning* (a lot)... Though were I one of the old-dog masters, I'd've retired my master account and started a new account specifically to see how many I could still win by regularly using sub-optimal strategies, like, say, consta-para or consta-parafc. (just sayin') Actually, the fun (for me) would be to use the second-best moves for as long as possible -- without losing
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Apr 30, 2008 14:56:19 GMT -5
Dubber and which was your original account?
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Apr 30, 2008 15:17:21 GMT -5
You know, every one of the 'masters' that has been active in the past two years has done just that. At one point there were four of us playing on alt accounts and no one as his original warlock. The problem is Elo, as it's rather unfair to play rated games with an Elo that is 500 points below what would be accurate. So alt accounts are really only good for VFs, and you can play those without thinking on a main account. Those masters who did play ladder games with their alts got embroiled in some pretty nasty conflicts as a result.
|
|
|
Post by succat on Apr 30, 2008 18:43:21 GMT -5
For the record, I never intended to bully or call out anyone. What I did intend to do was to climb to the top, and that hasn't changed. Any animosity between myself and exdeath stems from an earlier exchange of words we had off of the forums. I felt he came across as arrogant and disrespectful, and I don't see that about to change any time soon. I was trying to have some good natured sporting fun, but got insulted instead. So be it. That's his choice, and no one on here has yet to disagree with my earlier point I made about him on this thread. Let it be clear that I do not question his past success and analysis of the game - I would be a fool to question that. What I do question, however, is his heart and his ability to fare "now", not in the "past". Times are changing, and getting back to the roots of this thread, whatever opinions we all hold regarding styles and methods and truth -- is besides the point. Even the so-called "analysis", I feel, is starting to sound a bit over rated. When the game is becoming increasingly dominated by para and FoD attempts, how much can you possibly analyze... there is so much guess work involved, even without para/FoD, that you'd almost have to be a mind reader. Sure, there are some moves that are safer than others, or that at least guarantee your survival through the next couple of turns. So analyze that. As for my own style or truth, or whatever, it has evolved, and is evolving -- I doubt I will ever "arrive" though, if there is such a thing. I have made changes along the way with my openings and how I react to certain situations, and obviously my increasing fondness for para:) -- which I do believe is ushering in a new era of strategy. I base this in light of my own success, although I am still making many blunders along the way, but I also am noticing a switch in strategy from some of the "tops", as they seem to be adapting to what I like to call the Era of Para, or as Toyotami says: the End of the Gentleman's War . To sum up, I agree with Vilhazarog. I play for fun, and don't take losing all that seriously. But of course, I'd also like to win as much as possible -- I think we all do:). But yes, if it takes "analyzing" for me to continue to improve, then I'm sure I will move in that direction eventually. So far, I think I'm doing OK without getting out spell charts, graphs, calculators, and whatever else you Masters use. On paper, I will agree that exdeath would "seem" to be the superior warlock (on paper). I have no problem with that, although things are not always what they "seem" to be. I'm no whiner either, but I will continue to question the "heart" of him that would insult me by telling me that I have no skill, and then waste time making excuses as to why he doesn't need to play me to prove anything. In your eyes then, I will remain an ignoramus who's climb to the top has been sheer luck. But we all know deep down the reason why you won't play me.....
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Apr 30, 2008 22:55:48 GMT -5
Because I don't have the time to actually create an intelligent response, I do want to note that I (reluctantly) agree with succat - the question isn't who is best "ever", it's who is best now. It'd be a different argument if the top 5 inactives came back and started playing again, because the game has evolved in the past 365 days, period. Who's to say that they could easily beat the newer, better players now? Taliesin versus ...? Who knows.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on May 1, 2008 5:45:49 GMT -5
Hah! Bio and dubber..those comments up there actually made me laugh out loud. Dubber...the old wizened bodhisattva master of all master warlocks, in disguise, constantly selecting the second best move.
Anyway, By Derfel's def i crown myself king of Warlocks. I've been mixing it up without a break for as long as I've played the game. Always 3-5 games going...never or almost never had to be away for longer than 3 days (yes i am a writer and a teacher...all you guys with real jobs tut tut tut). I've shared the top 3 active ELO slot with a ton of different folk...i can't even list them here over the last year at least. I've changed with the times and i gotta say every Master would wipe the floor with me over 5 or 10 matches. Like Slucker/Vilharazog summed up: the analysists have it down almost as good as its gonna get...but that doesn't stop the brawlers having a good time.
So if you need anything to aim at all you up'n'comers...forget the masters. Just come for the top brawlers (Me, Xade, Citanest)...think of us as the bulky arnold swarzneggar like mini-bosses in Double Dragon 2.
EDIT: Oh, and we're still Gentlemen.
|
|
|
Post by xade on May 1, 2008 6:40:26 GMT -5
Go the brawlers! no more than 30 seconds for the majority of moves... it's the only way I can keep 20 games going for most of the time. Though if I've having a bad/good stretch, it gets amplified... (Which is why my elo jumps around so much. ) but that's all good, this game is great fun! Oh, and if this was paper mario, I would way prefer to be the mimi mini-boss, instead of the Chunks mini-boss...
|
|