Is para abuse morally wrong?

[succat]

We've all heard the arguments, let's vote! ;D

[vermont]

I prefer:
"Yes, Para is broken and annoying. FIX it."

[ellipsis]

Paraholism is an addiction...I think we need to put paraholics through therapy.

Also, anti-spell is my anti-drug.

[awall]

I'm with Vermont. If Para really is the best spell in the game, then the "right" thing for a player to do is to abuse the heck out of it, and the right thing for the community to do is fix it so that it's no longer broken.

One of the reasons I came back was actually because I wanted to improve to the point where I could definitively tell (to my own satisfaction) whether para really was broken or not, and if so, how the game could be fixed. An exercise to my game design abilities, if you will. Of course, I also returned just because I happen to like this game a lot.

Also, para wrecks anti-spell. If I've got para ready by the time you have SP (i.e. FFF/--- vs. xSP/xxx), then there isn't a spellflow in the world that will let you guarantee your antispell.

[succat]

Interesting so far. A couple things...

Of course anyone has the right to their own opinion, that is the purpose of this poll.

Jul 24, 2009 19:39:36 GMT -5 vermont said:

I prefer:
"Yes, Para is broken and annoying. FIX it."

Vermont, many things are annoying, but is that reason enough to change something? It's annoying to me when players don't play fast, but what can I do, right? They're entitled to to take their time with their moves, and so I endure it. I don't seek changing that, I just accept it. I'm only saying that maybe something needs to be more than just annoying in order to be a candidate for change.

Jul 25, 2009 12:52:11 GMT -5 awall said:

Also, para wrecks anti-spell. If I've got para ready by the time you have SP (i.e. FFF/--- vs. xSP/xxx), then there isn't a spellflow in the world that will let you guarantee your antispell.

Awall, I feel like you're only scratching the surface of what you think about Para... I suppose I'll have to wait until you're ready to get all of your thoughts in order. Just don't go over my head too much, thanks! As for your comment that Para wrecks anti-spell, is that not true for other spells as well? I'm pretty certain I've derailed potential anti-spells with PSDF, DSF, and DPP before.

Again, I don't think Para is broken, I just think it's special. If used wrongly though, as it is so often, it can be rendered entirely useless. I have not found many warlocks out there abusing the heck out of Para that are getting to 2000 Elo. I just haven't seen that a whole lot. The top warlocks in the game, where I am the exception maybe, are warlocks who play with a cool hand and a sober mind for the most part.

But, this is a poll after all so vote any way you like!

[xade]

I just want to qualify my answer. - As a varient!

Let the community decide what kind of para they roll with!

[awall]

Jul 25, 2009 13:44:05 GMT -5 succat said:

Interesting so far. A couple things...

Of course anyone has the right to their own opinion, that is the purpose of this poll.

Jul 24, 2009 19:39:36 GMT -5 vermont said:

I prefer:
"Yes, Para is broken and annoying. FIX it."

VermontI'm only saying that maybe something needs to be more than just annoying in order to be a candidate for change.

If it were just annoying, then it wouldn't need to be fixed (unless it was universally agreed to be annoying, which I'm pretty sure it isn't). But the more relevant word he used was "broken," and I'm neither sure that it is nore entirely convinced that it isn't.

Jul 25, 2009 12:52:11 GMT -5 awall said:

Also, para wrecks anti-spell. If I've got para ready by the time you have SP (i.e. FFF/--- vs. xSP/xxx), then there isn't a spellflow in the world that will let you guarantee your antispell.

AwallAs for your comment that Para wrecks anti-spell, is that not true for other spells as well? I'm pretty certain I've derailed potential anti-spells with PSDF, DSF, and DPP before.

Just about anything under the sun wrecks antispell, actually. The spell looks great on paper, but it's laughably easy to counter. The comment about stuffing it with para was specifically in reference to ellipsis's comment about using antispell as a solution to para.

As far as whether or not it's broken, I'll make a post about that... um... later tonight? Hopefully?

[xade]

Allow my to jump in for ya:

Is Para broken?
(A theisis by awall).

Synopsys.
Yes.

[toyotami]

I think its being used too much, but that is probably because i play Succat constantly.

I was interested to see if his style of Para could be outplayed using conventional methods and as i poked holes in his game his game got tighter so that there ended up being no clear way to beat him. Now i alternate between standard play (S/P or S/S starts) and his own gmae (F/P, F/S starts).

I have to say, the main problem with para is how dull it makes the game. No matter which route i take games end up almost exclusively decided by the decision to target para either at self/opponent or nobody. In essence it becomes a psychological dare/predict scenario which can be fun sometimes but i do miss the days of pulling out every spell in the catalogue.

Antispell/Permanency is used less.

Spells like lightning bolt and fireball, which used to be the spud-kickers are severely weakened because to cast it against a para man means being stuck on a D and pummelled with monster/fod.

The game had a similar problem a while back with everybody opening D/P. Games were looking the same time and time again. In those cases, personally, i rather opened on a slightly weaker weave to increase the fun. Against para there is really no alternative ways to play. It is the para way or the highway. And without twists and turns, that highway can be a dull drive.

[ourjake]

This should all be prefaced by my 1516 ELO and the fact that i have been...imbibing.

i don't think it's broken, i just think it feels different when you play with it. bluffing comes up much more often than with other flows.

throwing a mindspell every turn is nice, but what about when you need to press the advantage? now you only have one hand to work with and you still have to fend off your opponents other hand, or give them a free turn to change para'd hands. with a free turn it's pretty easy to set up another free turn a couple of moves down the line; since you just have to throw a W (or an S if you are sitting on P (also, why did you sit in P?)).

it's better with monsters out; but P/W forces whichever hand is para'd into a constant shield. not always the best option but it takes off the brunt of the damage.

FM para from what i understand is almost useless. how can you keep a chain going without being able to bounce disruptions? and if you can't keep a chain going then what initiative is there to go for para? it's not like there are a lot of options for continuing spellflow afterward.

possibly changing the gestures would be a step in the right direction. but most possibilities end up making it overpowered or almost useless. FDF goes to bolt/cure, FSF i think would lead to a billion goblins, FPF would be interesting but probably would make spellflow on the other hand difficult, FWF would be an almost guaranteed cause light and would make blindness very interesting, FCF would be funny but niche. and everything that the new chain leads up to has a built-in disruption.

i think that it's good the way it is although that may be a slightly biased opinion:)

[ellipsis]

Jul 25, 2009 23:00:25 GMT -5 ourjake said:

i don't think it's broken, i just think it feels different when you play with it. bluffing comes up much more often than with other flows.

Yes, and a para-vs-para game can be fun - the issue is that if you want to do something else you're fighting an uphill battle vs a parachain, so it narrows strategic options, and since strategic depth is what makes this game so appealing to us all (I assume we're not here for the pretty visuals), that's a significant problem.

throwing a mindspell every turn is nice, but what about when you need to press the advantage?

Paralysis is actually a very aggressive spell - if you have an advantage paralysis allows you to hold onto it. Advantage means your opponent has to be ready to defend against what you're doing, but only has one hand available, so they can do nothing but defend. What's more, his defensive options are limited, because it's hard to disrupt your opponent's spellflow when they can cancel any mindspell.

So yeah, when I have the advantage, that's when I would be most tempted to para.

it's better with monsters out; but P/W forces whichever hand is para'd into a constant shield. not always the best option but it takes off the brunt of the damage.

The flip side, of course, is that you now can't gesture P on your other hand, so no cause, antispell, timestop, remove enchantment, invisibility, etc.

FM para from what i understand is almost useless. how can you keep a chain going without being able to bounce disruptions?

That's the impression I get, too.

FPF would be interesting but probably would make spellflow on the other hand difficult

It would also allow para out of antispell, and you could fake to summon troll.

Also, I find parafdf very amusing, actually. It's not quite balanced, but it does give you a reason to use blindness...at least, I cast blindness all the time in parafdf.

i think that it's good the way it is although that may be a slightly biased opinion:)

I think the main reason that it doesn't feel more broken right now is simply the fact that the warlocks player base is fairly small, and so when high level players don't abuse para too often, it can feel balanced. If this were an MMO with millions of players, I guarantee you that the majority of high-ranked players would be paramancers. The very best players might not be, but paraholism would have disproportionate representation.

[awall]

Jul 25, 2009 22:57:15 GMT -5 toyotami said:

I think its being used too much, but that is probably because i play Succat constantly.

I was interested to see if his style of Para could be outplayed using conventional methods and as i poked holes in his game his game got tighter so that there ended up being no clear way to beat him.

Against para there is really no alternative ways to play. It is the para way or the highway. And without twists and turns, that highway can be a dull drive.

ellipsis said:

Yes, and a para-vs-para game can be fun - the issue is that if you want to do something else you're fighting an uphill battle vs a parachain, so it narrows strategic options, and since strategic depth is what makes this game so appealing to us all (I assume we're not here for the pretty visuals), that's a significant problem.

I think the main reason that it doesn't feel more broken right now is simply the fact that the warlocks player base is fairly small, and so when high level players don't abuse para too often, it can feel balanced. If this were an MMO with millions of players, I guarantee you that the majority of high-ranked players would be paramancers. The very best players might not be, but paraholism would have disproportionate representation.

Toyo and ellipsis - thank you for putting brilliantly into words what I was trying to get at in my overly long post in the other thread. It's not that para can't be beaten; but the best way to beat it is, unfortunately, to use paralysis yourself. This severely reduces the game space, because spells that are weak against paralysis rarely get used. If you want to win by damage, you're pretty much forced to get a monster out, as other damage options tend to put you in a bad spot. Even fireball, which is supposed to be resistant to para, is not safe; I remember the day I snuck in FSS and guaranteed a fireball, only to die a few turns later to an FoD while I tried to get rid of the repeating D.

[biologin001]

My humble opinion:
Para abuse is not "morally wrong", as there is nothing wrong with using a powerfull strategy in a competitive environment. However, awall and other make very valid points about para being very/overly powerful, thus limiting the game instead of enchancing it. So, it has nothing to do with morale (imho), but that's an issue with the game balance (as is D/P opening, for example), which is discussed in awall's thread.

[vermont]

Jul 25, 2009 13:44:05 GMT -5 succat said:

Interesting so far. A couple things...

Of course anyone has the right to their own opinion, that is the purpose of this poll.

Jul 24, 2009 19:39:36 GMT -5 vermont said:

I prefer:
"Yes, Para is broken and annoying. FIX it."

Vermont, many things are annoying, but is that reason enough to change something? It's annoying to me when players don't play fast, but what can I do, right? They're entitled to to take their time with their moves, and so I endure it. I don't seek changing that, I just accept it. I'm only saying that maybe something needs to be more than just annoying in order to be a candidate for change.

Wouldn't that all depend on WHY I find it annoying, or just how annoying? The point was that your poll options left a whole lot of areas uncovered. (Which isn't atypical with an online poll hastily written.)

The closest option to how I felt was this one:
"Yes, Para is broken and dangerous. Eliminate it" but it wasn't quite right either, as I don't necessarily think it should go away completely, and Para obviously isn't "broken" in a bug sense since it gets used at some point in most games and functions as described in the rules. Perhaps you'd understand my post better if you looked at the differences between the poll option and my modified version (which at least one other person understood and agreed with.)

I concur that para effectively decreases the game space and I find that annoying and far less enjoyable, and is why I haven't posted a public game in a long, long time.

[succat]

Nice stuff.

I like Toyotami's saying, "It's the Para way or the highway". That was always part of my agenda I guess, to force people to have to use Para just to stay alive. Unfortunately, though, the top players in the game still seem to thrive without spamming para the way I do. But, there is always the chance that one day they will not be able to anymore. Of course, as a Paramancer, that is my hope and dream

And sure, I can see how all of this can be annoying to a non-paraholic player. I guess so much of this has to do with personal taste. There will always be that percentage of players who will like an ugly game filled with annoying F-lines and C's and what have you. To a Paramancer, that is a beautiful thing, but to many of you, it dulls up the game and prevents you from playing your kind of game. I can understand that... but that is why players have the freedom to play whoever they want to play.

And yes, as I remember the Para from Firetop Mountain, it was pretty darn weak. In those days, I wouldn't have dreamed of being a Paramancer. But, coming over to RB and getting slaughtered over and over particularly by Jes due to Para/FoD's, gave me the idea of basically using that same strategy, but perfecting it as much as possible and also mixing it up with monsters, particularly ogres. It's still a work in progress.

Long live the Para!