|
|
Post by Rycchus on May 8, 2008 18:22:12 GMT -5
Actually, I think I would prefer to change para's gestures to DSFFF. Strange, I know, but it preserves Disease in its current form. Interesting idea, I don't think anyone's suggested that in any of our para discussions before. It stops the loop, reduces para use whilst not having to worry about the changes the new disruption makes to Disease. I like it. I think whatever Fxx spell we go for we should do this. |
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on May 8, 2008 20:43:10 GMT -5
I think having it SFFF preserves Disease, but doesn't make it obvious that's what you're heading for. I also think making Para a 5-gesture spell pretty much means you might as well eliminate it entirely...
|
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on May 9, 2008 19:10:17 GMT -5
Well we were talking about eliminating it entirely, weren't we? I was saying that perhaps instead of eliminating it we should let it stick around like ExDeath said in the Disease step only.
|
|
|
|
Post by vermont on May 23, 2008 15:53:17 GMT -5
I would really like to continue this discussion. I'm starting to get burned out on too much para of late, and actually avoiding certain matches because of it, which doesn't seem right.
Another reason I like [weakening/modifying/removing] para is because it takes at least one of the numerous followups available to PSDF away. Charm (and dual charm) have really become prevalent, for better or worse; having one fewer options out of it may help balance that a bit.
Thoughts? SFFF seems a reasonable place to begin. It keeps disease effectively the way it is, still allows for someone with PSF to dummy out with PSFFF, but seems like it could eliminate the matches that have F as 40-55% of the gestures.
Thoughts? Ideas?
|
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on May 23, 2008 23:22:32 GMT -5
If para is replaced, a new three-gesture F__ disruption (one which is more situational than DPP) needs to replace it. Otherwise it messes with spellflow extensively, given how common F is as a mid-spell gesture. Additionally, if F has no three-gesture disruption the possibilities for making opening theory less stale, become that much narrower.
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on May 24, 2008 10:25:04 GMT -5
May we need to look at how para operates, more than just changing the gestures?
|
|
|
|
Post by freesoul on Jul 20, 2008 17:54:42 GMT -5
OK, to revive the para topic, in the right thread... I'll toss out an idea.
If you para yourself, your opponent gets to pick the para'd hand. This way, the para-(ab)user won't be able to protect themselves by casting para at themselves, and work the para into their spellflow.
This could tip the balance a bit against the para-control side.
|
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jul 21, 2008 14:30:01 GMT -5
Not a huge fan of this suggestion. First of all, it wrecks opening F as an answer to D/P. Also, it doesn't really fit with the way that mindspells (specifically Charm) tend to work, where it's the caster that gets to choose what to do with the spell.
If we're going to alter the game at all, I'd prefer to do it by replacing para entirely. If anybody wants to try out exdeath's FFW suggestion, I'd be happy to give it a shot. Toss me a VF.
|
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jul 31, 2008 6:34:05 GMT -5
I_still_think_FFF_once_per_two_turns_is_a_good_fix_for_para_unless_proved_otherwise.
|
|
