I'm inventing a new word

[ExDeath]

Unloop.

I've been playing a lot of games recently that loop around with the whole DPPPSDD/PSDDPPP nonsense. This is because everyone has figured out that summoning an ogre is better than taking the double invis. Usually on turn 6 (while casting the 2nd amnesia) I ask "Do you want to go invis so we can break the loop?". Now I'm just going to say "Unloop?"

If you agree to unloop, you don't have to take double invis, but you are honor-bound not to do an S on either hand. Sound good?

[Dubber]

exdeath said:

...DPPPSDD/PSDDPPP nonsense. This is because everyone has figured out that summoning an ogre is better than taking the double invis....

Thanks for saying this, ExD.
I've been meaning to ask, Why does everyone seem to agree that "DPPPSDD/PSDDPPP" repeating is such a good (or bad) thing?

Personally, the "DPPPSDD/PSDDPPP" loop makes no sense to me. Each player takes -1 for 9-10 turns and then tries for WPPc/WDDc to end it.

Who ends up with better initiative, the player who continues the pattern or the pattern breaker and why? My thought, for a while, was that PSFFFws/DPPPPws would be a good response.
It disrupts the Delay but semi-begs and then avoids an SPFPSDW/SDWFFDx attempt.

[Slartucker]

The D/P situation has gotten pretty bad. ExDeath and I have had a game going for nearly two months that's still stalled out in it. This didn't happen much before because (1) people falsely assumed that delay beat the ogre, and (2) S/W was considered a viable alternative before ExDeath popularized DSF/FOD. This has become an NPE - Negative Play Experience. This is the point when, were this a CCG, a card would get banned.

D/W is a decent meta choice but not a robust alternative, really. We just need to do away with D/P. It's not as if everyone and their mother hasn't opened D/P more than enough to give it a rest.

So I can tell you right now that "you may not open D/P" will be the first league rule, and I'm going to open up discussion on making it a permanent league rule.

[calicojack]

I've been trying, and trying, and trying, and trying to somehow make Delay work against the ogre but so far it's 4-0 in favour of the ogre.

I'm not sure raven is aware of the situation, as he hasn't played much or at all recently, and this is a recent development, but I'm thinking: If some of the top players simply tell him that this has become a major NPE, he might implement another alternative that disallows D/P and P/D on the opening hand somehow. Probably by seeing D/P P/D on turn 1 as equivalent to surrender, to keep implementation simple.

[Slartucker]

Delay will *not* work against the ogre if the ogre is played correctly. I've done out all the options, believe me.

I'd rather try unofficial D/P disallowances first, like in the league, to make sure that's a good solution. Recoding the game should not be done lightly, particularly changing something that's been dominant for seven years (and maybe even longer than that at Firetop).

[Rycchus]

calicojack said:

and this is a recent development

Er, what?

[Slartucker]

It is a recent development -- see my points 1 and 2 above. 1 explains why 99% of D/P vs D/P games did not go this way, and 2 explains why D/P vs D/P games were uncommon among the few who saw the potential for the chain.

[awall]

Banning opening D/P would certainly allow for more viable openings, but it seems a bit inelegant. I'm not downright opposed to it, but are there any other possible solutions? I haven't thought through any of these, but I'll toss a few ideas out for consideration:

1) Each player's opening must include a null. This would totally change the game's opening strategy, so it might be interesting to have both this variant and the "no opening D/P" one.

2) Each player starts out the game maladroit. Effectively disallows opening P. Unfortunately, this reduces it to only 5 possible openings, so I dislike this one.

3) Instead of opening by bowing, each player opens with a Clap. No idea what this would do, although I'm worried it might not be a great idea.

As I said, I haven't really thought these out. I'm 2 and 3 don't seem like particularly good solutions, as they'd be liable to lead into equally degenerate openings, but I'm sort of curious as to 1. If there's interest, we could try it as the second league variant (after "No opening D/P").

[Dubber]

admin said:

We just need to do away with D/P.

I'm not sure I see the logic behind saying that D/P needs to be banned. D/P vs. D/P has been around a looong time.

D/P, on its own, has become the commonly accepted "best" opening for the upper-lower through upper-middle level players -- though I think I'm seeing sentiment change about this.

So, now that we know DPPPSDD/PSDDPPP is sub-optimal, an effective response needs to be found which will not depend on trusting the other player to not slide into it. I posit my DPPP/PSFFF as an ugly but effective response. How well does it fare under analysis? I have no idea.

[Slartucker]

The problem, Dubber, is that there is no effective response at any point in the chain. DPPP/PSFF predates me, at least, and has been plenty analyzed; it isn't an answer. I will be overjoyed if you prove me (and Taliesin and ExDeath) wrong. Overjoyed, and extremely surprised.

The reason I think disallowing D/P would be interesting is that it would open up a wide variety of openings. D/P is the only opening that can really use amnesia effectively. Without it around, S/P, S/W, S/D, and S/S all get better. cDPW openings become viable (though probably not great). D/W and D/D become more interesting options, at least.

Awall -- your option #1 reduces things to five possible openings as well, no?

[taliesin]

admin said:

The problem, Dubber, is that there is no effective response at any point in the chain. DPPP/PSFF predates me, at least, and has been plenty analyzed; it isn't an answer. I will be overjoyed if you prove me (and Taliesin and ExDeath) wrong. Overjoyed, and extremely surprised.

I don't recall saying anything against DPPP/PSFF. You're effectively opening F/P vs D/P but getting your para in on the second turn rather than the third. I think it's a lot more playable than you suggest, Slarty.

On another note, you tend to frequently underestimate paralysis. You deprecate it as "barely better" than being the opponent stuck on one gesture all the time. This is not the case at all; the paralysing player can:
a) switch his para at a moment's notice to block an inbound disruption on himself or a monster
b) change hands by switching para away and back (many a Dispel defence to FoD has come a cropper this way)
c) stop the para chain at a point of his choice, next turn making any gesture he chooses on the para hand while his opponent is stuck with the gesture from the turn before

I actually think there are a number of possibilities involving paralysis at some stage that are competitive with the DPP/PSD chain. Unfortunately, paralysis tends to lead to ugly games. Admittedly, these games are less ugly than thirty moves of DPP/PSD, but they still suck a lot of the joy out of Warlocks.

Maybe it's time we all went back to Confusion...

[Dubber]

taliesin said:

Maybe it's time we all went back to Confusion...

You read it here, first, folks! Taliesin accepts the value of Confusion

The problem with confusion is "there really is only one playable opening, DSF/PSD" (I'm quoting Taliesin, I think, here - correct me if I'm wrong). so maybe we're kind of back to the same conundrum.

[Slartucker]

I guess you do lose touch with the game after 18 months of inactivity

[xade]

taliesin said:

admin said:

Maybe it's time we all went back to Confusion...

That's the ticket... or perhaps some crazy rule where your first cast of DSF casts confusion, each subsequent spell casts maladroit...

[Rycchus]

admin said:

It is a recent development -- see my points 1 and 2 above. 1 explains why 99% of D/P vs D/P games did not go this way, and 2 explains why D/P vs D/P games were uncommon among the few who saw the potential for the chain.

It's not recent at all! The top players have been doing it for ages and so have I. It just wasn't well known about before it started being publicised on here.

Admittedly you're right about the S/W sneakout option. I kept that as a comeback for people who whinged about the D/P loop for ages: "Well, open S/W, then! " but yeah...