|
Post by awall on Dec 24, 2008 18:43:17 GMT -5
I just finished a game vs. Toyo where I opened P/F to his S/S and got stomped for it.
Toyotami Turn:0123456789012345678901234 --LH:BSWPPSFWFPSDFFDD>WFPSFWFP --RH:BSPSFFFFFFSFWWWSD>SWDSFWF
Awall Turn:0123456789012345678901234 --LH:BPSDCDSFWPWPPSDFFDDFPWFFP --RH:BFFFCDPPSDDWWPSDFPWPWWSFP
In this case, a bad guess on turn 3 gave him a likely Ogre. In an effort to prevent that, I clapped on turn 4 - which worked as intended - but then went for an FoD defense on turn 5, giving him the Ogre anyway (turn 5 D/W would have prevented the Ogre, but left me vulnerable to paraFoD).
After that, I think I played pretty solidly, not making very many mistakes, nor getting punished too badly even when I guessed wrong. Toward the end, my low life total forced me to abandon initiative in favor of healing, which really just hastened my inevitable defeat. Being below 5 health when your opponent is substantially above it is pretty much a death sentence against a competent adversary. I suppose to that end, my choice to trade Lightning Bolts on turn 14 could be viewed as a mistake, but I didn't want to get stuck in a perpetual series of P's and W's, as that never turns out well.
It really feels to me like the game was lost as early as turn 3, a decision point that strongly favored Toyotami. Is S/S really that brutal against P/F? I'm curious to see how other warlocks would have played this opening.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Dec 24, 2008 20:51:15 GMT -5
Making a paraline play against itself is a hobby of mine...
Usually the first symptoms of low health syndrome kick in around 7 or 8, where you become reulctant to trade 3 damage for 5 if it doesnt bring your opponent into range. I have found in some games it is always worth playing on even facing 5 vs 9 hp with even board control...alot of warlocks are impatient. playing defensively and healing can often get you back in it. Hint to the in control warlock...don't go for sure kills like WDDc, fake out alot and wear down your opponent...when i play against an opponent with low health i often play as if they were on fifteen...let them jump at the shadow their low health casts, i'll concentrate on the high percentage moves.
|
|
|
Post by saypin on Dec 24, 2008 23:21:12 GMT -5
Don't you think that not following charm with a bolt at turn 15 and getting DFW +1 health and a blind threat would be better?
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Dec 25, 2008 12:36:48 GMT -5
Yesssss S/S making a comeback!
I don't know how to properly answer your question, since I stopped looking at S/S a long time ago, but it seems to me that the turn 1 RH S was superfluous; it could have easy been a D or W with the same results. I only took a brief look at the line, maybe I'm wrong. I assume you para'd yourself? I don't know, perhaps the threat of antispell makes the decision a little more complicated, but from turn 3 on it just looks like a S/W game and not an S/S game.
|
|
taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on Dec 26, 2008 19:08:21 GMT -5
Don't you think that not following charm with a bolt at turn 15 and getting DFW +1 health and a blind threat would be better? No, DFW is usually the wrong move in that situation, and a Blindness threat is no threat at all. (Being slightly harsh, but most of the time Blindness is more of a danger to your spellflow than a problem for them. It's much weaker than Invis. Use it with care; it's useful against FoD and in Perm setups, but of relatively little good elsewhere.) The loss of initiative caused by the W is not easily compensated for. I'm in some agreement with ExDeath, that the same position could be reached from S/W, though there's an important novelty there in that it's SW/WP, which is not a common line against other openings. I think it's possibly okay against a vanilla ParaFoD opening as well. After PWPPW FFFFF
SWPPS SPSFW
S/S is faced with a 1/4 chance of succumbing to the FoD, though the ogre's damage gives good chances if he survives. SWPPDW SPSDFW
allows the classic double Blindness escape from FoD (PDWP, DFWFd or PDWFFd, DFWPP depending on paralysis) which is absolutely certain, but at the cost of being weaker against PWPPSFW.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Dec 26, 2008 22:07:44 GMT -5
Tali, i believe your parafod defense figures to be off in the case of summoning ogre. Lets look:
at turns 4 and 5 we have
Paraman LH: PW RH: FF
Toyo (paralysed) LH:PS RH:FW
The ogre in play will be ignored as this is pure parafod defence:
TOYO:
LH:PSDDSF RH:FWSWDP
To succeed in FOD, paraman MUST:
Paralyse self at SWD (turn 8), paralyse self at DSF (turn 9) and then be confronted with DPP or clap, a true 50/50 on turn 10.
If Paraman paralyses Toyo in turn 9 (accepting the maladroit), he will be Amnesiad next turn.
Now, the other thing the Paraman can do is paralyze Toyo's RH on turn 6.
Toyo responds with this (again, this line is from turn 4 + 5) this time it IS important that Toyo has one ogre.
Paraman LH: PW RH: FF
Toyo (paralysed) LH:PSFWWP RH:FWPPW>
Lets talk this out:
On turn 7 Toyo calls second ogre on ogre and counterspells himself. Paraman takes 2-4 damage (depending on if he paralyzes an ogre or fails to paralyze Toyo), health down to 9-11. On turn 8 paraman MUST paralyze Toyo or Toyo will go invisible on 9. Paraman health 5-7 On turn 9 Paraman MUST paralyze Toyo or Toyo can clap on turn 10. If paraman was hit for 4 on turn 7 then a stab will kill him. If he was not, then on turn 9, instead of stabbing, Toyo can gesture D with his free hand to WDDc, which will result in a double death.
If Toyo submits the gestures F/S on turn 6, no matter which hand is paralyzed, he has a less than one in four chance of losing to FoD.
Please check my math.
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Dec 26, 2008 23:27:29 GMT -5
T The ogre in play will be ignored as this is pure parafod defence: TOYO: LH:PSDDSF RH:FWSWDP To succeed in FOD, paraman MUST: Paralyse self at SWD (turn 8), paralyse self at DSF (turn 9) and then be confronted with DPP or clap, a true 50/50 on turn 10. This isn't quite 3 50-50s. If you target SWD at nobody and paraman catches you at it, he can paralyze you into DSDD, depriving you of both later 50-50s. This looks to be an 80% defense, which is better than two 50-50s but not by much.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Dec 27, 2008 1:20:08 GMT -5
MikeEB...why would you target the SWD at nobody? Always throw it at the paraman.
Having relooked at my double ogre attack, i see that the paraman can choose to paralyze my new ogre and take 2 damage on turn 7. In that way he might exit the F chain on turn 9 to WPP. In the case of not paralysing the ogre he will be just as dead whether he goes for F or W on turn 9.
In the case of paralysing the ogre i believe
Toyo LH:PSFW>> RH:FWPPSD
Paraman LH: PWPFSSSD RH: F F FFFWPP
is a play that will either kill your opponent or prevent him from producing a W on turn 9 (as he will be dead). The problem with this is that is not fool proof, it relies on opponent paralysing you on turn 8...which essentially makes it 50/50, though granted the stakes are up to 50/50 death/escape on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Dec 27, 2008 1:41:21 GMT -5
Going over my scrambled drunken ramblings it is clear (to me at least) that there is no 1 in 4 chance of anything happening. i think taliesin will agree that in warlocks there is rarely such starkly presentable odds.
In my first defense up there with the Fear > Maladroit > Amnesia/clap each subsequent chance relies on the completion of the one before. It is NOT 3 50/50's no matter which option i take in the first 2..., i must progress through 2 "loaded" 50/50's to get to the final, true 50/50. Here, like many other places, psychology is the key...are you counting on your oppoenent being aware of what you are aware of? If so, do you want to do something "out of character".
Being a Warlocks theoretician is like being a sports commentator. You can talk about the rules and the best thing somebody should have done but in the real world, games depend on knowledge of an opponent and this changes in every game you play, built up with the history of all your battles with that opponent and what he might have learned elsewhere.
The true test of a warlock's skill then becomes how well he can read/manipulate his opponent with the tools in his belt. Sounds alot like poker, right ExDeath?
Recently i have had it over Succat. This is not neccesarily because his game is fundamentally flawed. Mostly i've become good at guessing what he will do. There is a bit of theory but mostly it is baiting and switching.
Personally i like both sides (theoretical and in practice). I can understand theory and, as the tangled mess above shows, some mental exercises give me drunken pleasure but generally i prefer just to get dirty and plot this stuff out while im in the middle of it. I think the current squad of warlocks are feel much the same - hence the lack of D/P openings.
MikeEB seems to be a flourishing theorist, as Awall is, of course. I'm personally scared to find out what is inside a complete theoretical understanding: i think the hell-plane starts dropping off in lines of random ASCI, matrix style and you are sucked away to whereever the Great Ones have gone.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Dec 27, 2008 8:34:47 GMT -5
Being a Warlocks theoretician is like being a sports commentator. You can talk about the rules and the best thing somebody should have done but in the real world, games depend on knowledge of an opponent and this changes in every game you play, built up with the history of all your battles with that opponent and what he might have learned elsewhere. The true test of a warlock's skill then becomes how well he can read/manipulate his opponent with the tools in his belt. Sounds alot like poker, right ExDeath? The second paragraph is more or less true, but the first is not. The best players minimize their personal foibles and strive to simply choose the moves that are best. Obviously there is need for a certain amount of fluctuation and unpredictability, but true 50-50s are unusual; and as Zugzwang was so fond of pointing out, if you analyze risks and rewards properly and plug in the odds to a RNG it will be impossible to exploit you in the long run. I am starting to realize that this much be why I experienced such a dramatic shift playing you. When I first started Warlocks, Toyo, I think I had more trouble against you than against anyone else, Tchichi included. (I'm not sure I *ever* took a game off of that jerk Larry fellow ) But that shifted completely once I really started analyzing seriously and subjugated my ego to the game. Zugzwang, Rycchus and Awall all gave me some real runs for my money at one time or another, but that never quite happened with you, despite your obvious high capability, and I wonder if this isn't why.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Dec 27, 2008 8:46:05 GMT -5
If you always make the move with the best risk:reward ratio, of course that is exploitable...
The key is to make that move most of the time (rock), and occasionally throw in a different move (scissors). A player's history and the current gameflow are both very important factors in making that decision. In the long run, low-risk high-reward decisions are best, but opponents who know you always make them will exploit you by making high-risk low-reward decisions to counter them, which is the main reason why I have a worse score vs Dubber than any other player. He'll make ridiculous moves that risk certain death at the reward of getting in 1 damage or a half-gesture of tempo on me, and if he does it 8 times during a game, I lose.
Of course, I know that he likes to do that, and he knows that I know, and I know that, too. I'm more with Toyo on this one. Proper assessment is the most important thing, but it's naive to go with the numbers unconcerned with your opponent's thought process.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Dec 27, 2008 8:51:18 GMT -5
Right, which is why Zuzgwang liked his RNG. Of course it's naive to ignore your opponent entirely! But in the end I would assert that subtle understanding of spellflow matters a lot more than a psychological edge, and I suspect you would agree.
|
|
|
Post by boomfrog on Dec 27, 2008 9:49:44 GMT -5
But if you know someone always will use a RNG then you should make the predictable but best move, most other warlocks would catch on and exploit you but he won't if he sticks to the RNG.
RNG is exploitable too. Unless you use only statistics from your games vs that particular opponent for your evaluations of the chances. (a small sample set for most situations.)
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Dec 27, 2008 10:13:46 GMT -5
Against people who really do use a RNG, all you have to do is make the move with the best risk:reward, and if your analysis is better than theirs you'll come out ahead in the long run. Maybe it's true that if I used a RNG I'd be unexploitable, because nobody can assess the risks better than I can, but the reverse is also true. I can't exploit them and take advantage of my psychological edge. A purely analytical player like zugzwang might benefit from it however.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Dec 27, 2008 10:38:05 GMT -5
*nod nod*
|
|