|
Post by Dubber on Jul 12, 2008 22:12:22 GMT -5
Geez, you name it & there's sure to be people who dis/agree with you.
I'm tired of a few things:
The inane "S/P Wipe the Floor" thread silliness (which I still don't 'get')
The "FFF = the one true path" vs. the "FFF != the one true path" vs. the "FFF = 666" childishness
The pointless trash talking "FFF Pwns u" type crap (especially the 'subject creep' trash)
The whiny complainingness of this post
Oh and the biggie for me is, I'm tired of not getting to watch and play rated games between the Masters *sniff*
and now off to pass out from exhaustion...
|
|
|
Post by succat on Jul 13, 2008 14:11:39 GMT -5
Forget about the masters. It's all about the new generation ;D. New masters will rise up and you will again get to watch the rated games that you so long to see Who knows, you may even become a new master yourself.. all hope is not lost! I'm wondering if there is something magical about 2000 Elo status .. does that number imply Masterhood?
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Jul 13, 2008 15:36:27 GMT -5
Forget about the masters. It's all about the new generation ;D. New masters will rise up and you will again get to watch the rated games that you so long to see Who knows, you may even become a new master yourself.. all hope is not lost! I'm wondering if there is something magical about 2000 Elo status .. does that number imply Masterhood? The definition of being a master is that you dominate everyone else at the top for a long period of time. Nobody's really coming close to doing that right now. Sometimes 2 people can dominate and be masters at the same time, but again, really no evidence to suggest that anybody is at that level right now.
|
|
|
Post by succat on Jul 14, 2008 23:51:41 GMT -5
I just want to know one thing: was Pig ever a Master? ;D Well, one more thing... If the definition of a Master is what you said, then: 1) how long is a 'long time'? and... 2) i think that new masters will emerge (eventually, i hope), but does it seem as if things have come to a plateau in Warlocks? Since I started playing last year, I have not noticed a lot of growth in players... a bit here and there perhaps, but not by much, and many players have seemed to have actually gotten worse! (I hope I have not de-railed your thread, Dubber )
|
|
|
Post by xade on Jul 15, 2008 0:18:10 GMT -5
I know in the past 6 months, I've stepped up to the plate as a low 1900 player instead of a high 1800 player. Looking at the ladder now, there are 7 players. Then day light. Then the rest. Were those 7 players, 2 players, and the daylight was there for what, 6 months, then I reckon you could tick the boxes.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jul 15, 2008 2:04:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by succat on Jul 15, 2008 7:20:58 GMT -5
What, ME bully?!?!?! Haha, stop protecting your favorite Master so much, Bio, really, it's getting quite played... I think xade got it about right. Could a Master dominate everybody now? Or would a Master get evened out by the Apprentice Masters and thus become an Apprentice Master himself? I'm not suggesting that more players 'sucked' back in the old Eras, I'm just wondering if a lot of the players now who have been playing 'forever' have essentially all balanced each other out and leveled the playing field more, thus making it harder for 1 or 2 Masters to soar above the rest. Purely hypothetical...
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jul 15, 2008 7:46:19 GMT -5
Mate, what are you talking about? )) I'm not protecting anyone in person, not do I have a 'favorite master' (in any meaning). I'm barely protecting this forums from yet another fruitless flamewar, that's my habit, I guess XD
There is possibility that nowadays old Master will not be dominating as they did back then. Slartucker, in posts I referred above, states this himself. But 1) we don't have any reasonable way of real comparison of their strength back then to our strength now - they aren't playing anymore, to they've obviously lost at least some of their skill. even if you lure any of them into a ladder match and even if you win it, it won't prove anything at all. And it is inevitable - sooner or later any of us could lose interest for this game. 2) even IF somehow you do the comparison, and IF it will be in favor of 'new blood', please consider that the very fact we were able to 'level-up' this high is the existence of Master, who analyzed this game deeper then anyone. It is due to their researches average game level drastically increased. I myself gained tremendous advantage over 1700+ players by studying Refuge. 3) Your own game history is the very proof for the fact that we desperately need to change the game system. The fact that one can compete on the top of the current level using ONLY para in LH means that para is better (or, rather, no worse) then ANY other spellflow. And that is most certainly not the right thing. I have no qualms against you personally at all (you just exploited this game imbalance way better then anybody before), it is still imbalance, and - again - your games are the very proof of this )) So please consider trying to play w\o para sometimes, because sooner or later this will be fixed in some way.
|
|
|
Post by freesoul on Jul 15, 2008 7:52:04 GMT -5
Could a Master dominate everybody now? Or would a Master get evened out by the Apprentice Masters and thus become an Apprentice Master himself? I would put my money on that many of the masters would take out many of the current top players. I don't have a doubt that at least three of the masters would claim the top three spots, but perhaps with some competition. It might be fair to say that some of the "masters" might lose out to the current field, but that doesn't take away from their previous domination of the game. Which goes back to the idea, that a warlock, or pair, could dominate the elo/ladder for a period and thereby gain "master" consideration.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jul 15, 2008 8:14:55 GMT -5
I would put my money on that many of the masters would take out many of the current top players. I don't have a doubt that at least three of the masters would claim the top three spots, but perhaps with some competition. Should they somehow start playing this game competitively, this is very likely. However, there is no better training the playing with better players. So, Masters ' comeback would give us possibility to improve... and you can be dead sure that at least I will use it :grin: It might be fair to say that some of the "masters" might lose out to the current field, but that doesn't take away from their previous domination of the game. Which goes back to the idea, that a warlock, or pair, could dominate the elo/ladder for a period and thereby gain "master" consideration. True again. Master title is something that can be acquired. Should a player win, say, football World Cup, it would mean he (and his team) is very top class. But after 20 years, none of them would be playing in competitive football... but they still may be respected football specialists or coaches due to their understanding of the game. The same is true for warlocks, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jul 15, 2008 8:29:48 GMT -5
Another point is I'd like to mention is the teamwork. We don't have any nowadays. No stable teams. No Clans. No Covens. No in-depth discussion of the game (save some rare questions in this forums). No new strategies save MAYBE rare situational analyzes from awall (like one in S/P thread) and\or some mad para-openings from me (like F/S thread) of dubious use (because I'm to busy\lazy to complete the analysis chart).
So even if we somehow surpassed old school in game skill, we still did nothing to improve\evolve it (save, maybe, succat who IMHO _proved_ that FFF is broken XD). And thus we don't have anything to be especially proud of...
|
|
|
Post by Citanest on Jul 15, 2008 18:46:57 GMT -5
WOAH!!!!!! Bio - you now think that FFF is a broken spell? If only someone had been saying that before succat bluntly demonstrated it... they would have been some kind of genius.... When did your change of feeling toward paralysis occur? Perhaps it's been a while, I haven't been around lately I guess.
|
|
|
Post by succat on Jul 15, 2008 20:06:34 GMT -5
Bio, what makes you think I'm gonna start a 'war' anyway, my friend?!? I'm just havin' a little fun on here, and I was yanking your chain earlier! But seriously, I do understand your point about a Champion not needing to come back and prove anything to anyone. That is true. I'm just saying, "what if?", that's all. The Masters don't have to come back if they don't want to - they're all grown and able to decide what's 'best' for them But Cita has a point: when did you change your mind on para??? That's news to me, too. One thing, though, in regards to masters... You said: {{please consider that the very fact we were able to 'level-up' this high is the existence of Master, who analyzed this game deeper then anyone}} Well, they must have not analyzed para very much since you also say that: {{you just exploited this game imbalance way better then anybody before), it is still imbalance, and - again - your games are the very proof of this}}Well, it sounds to me then like the game _wasn't_ completely analyzed if a no-name warlock like myself could do that simply by experimenting with para and not studying any charts at Warlock Refuge... Anyway, I don't think it's 'broke', I just think most people are terrible at defending against it. Now, Toyotami is "Excellent" at defending it. He can often beat me several times in a row, and he's able to do it without a lot of para, and in the game below you can see he barely touches para: games.ravenblack.net/warlocks?num=65506&full=1 Para is powerful, yes, and as you say, I may indeed be the first to exploit that (I don't know if a previous Master has already done that because I'm not familiar with the old eras), but a True Master knows how to defend against it and if there was ever a Warlock that could provide the perfect defense against a paraman, I'd put my money on Toyotami as he's done it more than once. In the "End of the Gentleman's War, even ExDeath said: {{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.}} Anyway, if RB decides someday that para is indeed a broken spell, then I guess I got to be the guy that broke it. That works for me! And then maybe I'll break another spell!
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Jul 16, 2008 1:06:03 GMT -5
Okay, guys, I'd like to make myself clear here.
Citanest I always thought\knew that para is powerful. I picked it as a anti-D/P solution after all. And I always thought that there is no point in beatching about it's power (and I never did).
But the point is 'how much' power does para have. I though and I knew it has power to take down 1700+ players. And that is OK to me. But succat demonstrated that para has power to take down even 1850-1900 players. It is a completely different matter to me. Taking down 1700 guy with para means countering his threats with endless para, waiting for his mistake, pulling an ogre and going for ogre+para or even para+FoD. I thought that better players will be able to defend this properly. But now I see that even if one makes no mistakes in his spellflow, he still may fell to para due to a single mis-guess (not mistake!) on targeting. Which is a matter of either luck or psychology, whichever you like more.
succat yeah, I got you point about theory and Masters. You're right in a way. What I meant was: we didn't add any theory to the game. No future players will be able to learn from it. While they may know that 'F/P is cool', they will never get a proof on 'why'. While we introduced some 'new' ideas (like _possibly_ your para-surpemacy or _maybe_ even 'my' F/S), we did little to no analysis. It is entirely possible that all our ideas can be compromised by some exotic weave our opponents overlooked so far (mind the S/P story - after a few years of gaming S/P was suddenly proved to have dead ends versus D/P).
Toyo was able to take you down a few times in a row... as sometimes does xade and myself and maybe someone else. But it is not due to finding a new weave pattern, but thanks to how 'lucky' or 'unlucky' we went with guesses in directing mind-enchantments. When we are 'unlucky', we lose. When we are 'lucky', we win. And this is not the type of game I expect from Warlocks.
Regarding ExDeath quote. It is a matter of terms. You may call para 'problem'. Or 'balance issue'. Or 'something that makes game slower and less tactical'. The point remains - it was proved (by you, my friend XD) that a player is able to play on 1900 level using 95% of LH:F. Is this is not a sign of a in-game problem, I don't know what is. And yes, D/P opening is another 'problem' IMHO. But we're talking about para here =)
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Jul 16, 2008 3:56:24 GMT -5
It is kind of ironic that in a post titled So is anyone else tired of...we have been rehashing a whole bunch of arguments. Let me continue:
I think if Biologin analysed ALOT of skilled (+1900) games he would find that many were decided by the fluke of the echantment roulette. ExDeath and others will argue that there is not a true 50/50% in most cases, that ther eare underlying advantages/disadvantages of each choice and counter measures that can be taken. Same argument flies with my para games against Succat. Playing them, yes there are many "50/50"'s targeting, but if you play the odds, you get more chances to beat them.
The painful thing about playing many para games is the lack of flair. I never get to use the fun crafty gambly spells against Succat and from a playing for fun standpoint, that is a shame, however, i can get that from some other sources.
I think Succat's FFF play has changed the game...players like Xade and Biologin use para more. The weakness of Succat's game is its predictability. If he only threw the odd curveball he might stand to win more games?
|
|