|
Post by biologin001 on Aug 2, 2009 22:43:15 GMT -5
Paraman- you're coding an engine too hey? that make 4 of us! Reckon you'll be the one to make it to playable?? I swear, once I get some time, it's gunna be huge! That's five at least, mate =) Let's see who'll finish first )
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Aug 3, 2009 1:22:05 GMT -5
Sort of... though I hate the idea of limiting it like that. It's so... inelegant. I know, which is why I've hesitated to bring it up as a serious suggestion before, but the point is that from a balance perspective, limiting the number of times its cast may be the most direct way of un-breaking paralysis. If you can think of a more elegant way of getting the same result, of course, I'd be all for it. And you could think of as an enchantment that takes effect after 3 turns and forces you to gesture something other than F if it makes you feel better... Or you could say that FFFFF is a new spell that gets cast in addition to any other spell that turn, it's an enchantment that targets self and forbids gesturing F. To make it fun you could have it cancel with mindspells, so you can keep the parachain going as long as you always target self... Or FFFFFF is a new spell that always has precedence when gestured (you can't choose to cast para instead), and does nothing... Or FFFFFF is a spell that gets cast in addition to other spells that turn, and deals one damage to the caster. So you can parachain, but it costs you.
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Aug 3, 2009 12:24:43 GMT -5
Ok, sorry to spam the thread, but I came up with a more "elegant" version of the three turn limit that actually sounds fun to me...here's how it works:
Instead of FFF, paralysis can be cast by any of these three sets of gestures:
PFF FFP FPD
What this means is that a warlock can cast paralysis 3 times consecutively (by gesturing PFFPD), or can have a chain of double para with an off third turn continuously (PFFPFFP). While preventing para from being spammable, it also introduces a couple new ways to bluff into para.
These are new interactions I've noticed:
-Cause heavy, fod, and anti-spell can all be cancelled into PFF -It's one gesture faster to switch from para to summon troll -A final para (FPD) can lead into remove enchantment -It's still possible to cancel out of lightning bolt into para (DFFP), but it's not an optimal para opening (you can go for a double, OR take an off turn and then get another double para) -To maintain the disease-para relationship, the gestures of disease can become DSFFPc
And that's it. It's a little strange to have multiple gestures for the same spell, but blindness and counterspell already set a precedent for it. It's possible I'm not noticing some problem with the set up, but I think it sounds fun enough to try out.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Aug 3, 2009 15:19:12 GMT -5
It's an interesting suggestion, but a little confusing perhaps. Maybe it's good to add something that you really need to pay attention to, but I know I get screwed up just playing ParaFDF.
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Aug 3, 2009 21:27:36 GMT -5
It's an interesting suggestion, but a little confusing perhaps. Maybe it's good to add something that you really need to pay attention to, but I know I get screwed up just playing ParaFDF. Yeah, for me it's usually when I'm playing parafc and parafdf games at the same time. I also get messed up playing confusion these days. It's largely a matter of being accustomed to a particular setup, I think (though three gesture sets is, indeed, more complicated than one). Another thing I forgot to mention - this solution isn't meant to be paired up with parafc - it theoretically could be, but it's kind of unnecessary since para and amnesia can interrupt para on any turn in which it's being cast.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Aug 3, 2009 21:51:47 GMT -5
That's crazy enough to actually work!
|
|
|
Post by vermont on Aug 3, 2009 22:06:02 GMT -5
One thing that throws me off is the PFF. Right now P is a rather slow gesture and if you use it you know that you can't have a mind spell ready in two turns (for either offense or defense.)
My guess is that people will go P more frequently since now they can more quickly react to multiple options from their opponent.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Aug 3, 2009 22:40:07 GMT -5
One thing that throws me off is the PFF. Right now P is a rather slow gesture and if you use it you know that you can't have a mind spell ready in two turns (for either offense or defense.) My guess is that people will go P more frequently since now they can more quickly react to multiple options from their opponent. Thoughts? This is true. On the other hand, gesturing P limits your options on the other hand a bit. It would be hard, for instance to land para on the same turn as antispell. But yeah, generally speaking P becomes more versatile - it gives people a reason to follow it with something other than S. If it resulted in P always being the safest gesture to make, that might not be ideal for game balance, but it's a little hard to gauge, I think.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Aug 3, 2009 23:46:32 GMT -5
I am strongly against adding any 3 gesture spells out of P, especially not mindspells. One of the key features of the game is, in my opinion, that it is possible to force opponents into situations where they have no ability to cast anything disruptive, and this often means causing them to whiff a counterspell or the like. Adding a 3 gesture spell to P would drastically alter the game far more than any other suggestion mentioned in the search for a para replacement. Heck, I'd favor removing para altogether (which I don't) before I'd be okay adding a spell in at PFF.
However, if we want to restrict para by changing the gesture set, the "cleanest" way to do it (although a bit inelegant) is to make para castable with any of the following sequences:
DFFF DFFFF DFFFFF SFFF SFFFF SFFFFF PFFF PFFFF PFFFFF WFFF WFFFF WFFFFF
If people insist, we could also add cFFF, etc., but I'd be opposed to any of CFFF, -FFF, or >FFF, as I believe C, -, and > should never be part of any spells. Alternatively, I believe not much would be lost by removing the P and W versions and just leaving in SFFF... (for use out of maladroit and dummied summons) and DFFF... (for use out of lightning bolt).
I'd personally still be in favor of ParaFC with this change, but it's something that I could be convinced otherwise on with a bit of testing.
That said, I still prefer the solution where para is SFFF only. Leaving it chainable at all keeps DSFFF(F...)/PWPFS as a counter to S/W, meaning that the reign of D/P will continue. My ideal solution would be to develop an FFS spell that contributes to an opening that is strong against D/P, but vulnerable to something else to add a decision point to the first turn of the game. Panic almost does the trick (FFS/SFF) but it still relies on having to make a risky play, and that's not acceptable as a general purpose counter to D/P in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Aug 4, 2009 0:07:27 GMT -5
Fair point, but I still think that making it harder to cast para (one time), or removing the ability to spam it all (much less both!) isn't the right approach. Again, cast one time it's generally less powerful than other mindspells, which it makes up for by being spammable. In order to maintain its basic role in the game, it has to be able to be cast more than once consecutively, and shouldn't be that hard to cast, which is why I recommend a way to limit the number of casts.
If PFF is a deal breaker, we can look at other gestures (though I'm not sure I'm yet convinced that PFF is unacceptable).
The weave could be:
SFFSP
Meaning SFF, FFS, and FSP all cast paralysis. In this case, triple para leads into antispell, and is always threatened alongside summons. It's also a gesture faster to switch into fireball.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Aug 4, 2009 0:54:34 GMT -5
Hmm... if you want a triple like that, how does this look?
SFFF FFS FSD
gives DSFFFSD
Mala on 3, para on 5, 6, and 7. Mala again on 9 and it repeats.
I'm not entirely fond of this, but I like it better than SFFSP.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Aug 4, 2009 10:21:50 GMT -5
maybe this idea was discussed in the days of deciding on FDF but it seems para should start and end with F. This gives a relatively weak spell (affecting only one hand and having hardly a bad effect against W and S and in WPP/DPP cases the P is pretty safe too.) a chance to survive. Without spamming para is a crap spell. It takes a whole hand to partially disable an oponents hand and it leads into nothing. with paraf FC is stops an oponent gesturing F.
F?F gives it a semi spam (one in every two turns), it also fits in with disease.
FDF has the prbelm of lightning bolt rods and somehow managing to give para more power than it had before. obviously FSF would cause goblin epidemics,
FPF has the antispell interaction problems...
FWF...not too bad, gives a para/cause light burst but WFP is a little comma initiative wise. But what about blindness...the most unused spell in warlocks: might make a comback. Again, blindness is a defensive spell and usually surrenders initiavtive, so no danger of a game wrecker. Perfect. Except... a warlock that summons a monster instantly gets a mindspell. That is way too much juice.
Against risking complication i think FWF would be possible for para provided none of the gestures are involved in a summon spell. It makes para quite weak, semi spammable and would take alot of thought to work it into a decent weave.
When designing a new spell i think it should be a consideration to create a combination that is difficult to use, almost useless, like blindness, and let the artists of warlocks unlock the secrets if they exist. Para could be a subtle tool, a little edge.
FWF (not after a summon) - decent in combination with WFP and blindness but also possibly defensive and an option after faking out of SFW(no summon), SPFWF.
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Aug 4, 2009 12:58:04 GMT -5
Of course, that's not how parafdf actually works - FDFDFDFDF is a parachain just like FFFFFFFFF is. I think every-other turn might also be too weak. As it is I could do something like SWDSFFF if I want an enchantment every other turn - I can't keep it up indefinitely (unless I start parachaining), but it's still a better use of my time than every-other-turn para.
If you like the idea of encouraging blindness, though, we could combine our ideas in an unholy pact:
FWFFP
Could be the triple-para weave if FWF, WFF, and FFP all cast para. This would mean that both versions of blindness would come with a free para, and cause light would get a boost, otherwise having most of the same behavior of the triple weave above.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Aug 4, 2009 13:11:39 GMT -5
A mindspell coming out of W feels wrong for the same reason that a 3-gesture spell coming out of P does. W is a very defensive gesture; its strengths are counterspell and protection, and its weakness is that it can't do anything disruptive to the opponent. I'd again be very opposed to any alteration to the rules that changed this.
|
|
|
Post by vermont on Aug 4, 2009 13:36:36 GMT -5
A mindspell coming out of W feels wrong for the same reason that a 3-gesture spell coming out of P does. W is a very defensive gesture; its strengths are counterspell and protection, and its weakness is that it can't do anything disruptive to the opponent. I'd again be very opposed to any alteration to the rules that changed this. I agree with this entire post.
|
|