|
Post by ellipsis on Aug 4, 2009 14:02:17 GMT -5
Yes, in retrospect you're right... alright, how about this? If we don't want W to open an enchantment, want to weaken para just slightly more, and keep things a bit simpler, we could have:
FFW FFWF
Be the two gesture sets for paralysis. This means that you can do a 2/3 para-spam (FFWFFWF), but not a triple para, still threaten para when opening for a lightning bolt (DFFW), and can cancel out into cause light. What's more, this avoids getting para out of all summons without having to add another explicit rule for it, and disease can become DSFFWc. Para still begins only on F and ends on F if you chain it.
Doesn't actually improve blindness (unless you want to change blindness to be gestured with DFFWd, but that opens a whole 'nother can of worms), but getting a W mixed in with your chain helps to give para a couple possibilities to counteract the nerf.
*edit* This also has the advantage of being relatively intuitive to new users that see it (at least compared to the triple para suggestions)
|
|
|
Post by awall on Aug 4, 2009 15:41:10 GMT -5
I can't offhand (i.e. in 30 seconds or less) come up with any objections to that. It strengthens WFP a bit, which isn't a terrible problem. It also makes self targeting para safe, at least on the FFW version, but again, that seems fine. Playtesting Enrage showed that FFW is a fairly weak spellflow, but it works, and given that para is a bit stronger (defensively) than Enrage, it might prevent it from losing too much initiative.
I still would prefer to concoct a new spell entirely, but I like FFW/FFWF better than any of the other gesture swaps for para we've covered so far.
|
|
|
Post by salvor on Aug 5, 2009 5:53:59 GMT -5
I also think that FFW/FFWF is the best para-replacement.
Generally before replacing para we should understand why para is important in this game,and changed para must have at least the same use.
As I understand if we won`t to add new spell we mustn`t change the main rules of the game, I can write several of them 1)W is defensive gesture,so It don`t provide any offencives(mainly disruptions) and there are no powerfull offensive spells ending in W, because if there are any they will be a bit overpowered-they keep opponent in defence AND protect you (except permanency,but as a FoD permanency is game-ending thing, and if you succesfully land it you don`t worry about later defence)
2)P is slow gesture.
3)You could have active defence against any known combos and spells, other words "Each decision has a counter-decision".(If in position you have to decide whether or not cas lightning bolt there are opponent answers which are better if you cast it and several which are better if you don`t cast it)
4)If you are on defensive(most times) you could survive if you will react properly even if attacker will submit optimal gestures tooo.However there must be a mechanism of defence-punishing. (It is mainly the most strange and important thing) 5)Clapping is disastrous if it isn`t succesfull ,but if it is succesfull it equalize an initiative
So,Why we need para According to 3rd reason we need to have counter to amnesia, so(as nowadays usually the best amnesia counter is para) we need para which starts with two equal gestures. 4th reason also involves para,as para-FoD is the mechanism of defence-punishing. I mean in most times offencer can exchangehis initiative on 2 50/50 FoD(as in FF/PW vs PP/WW) 5th reason also involves para,usually the best anticlapping measure is 1-1.5 50/50`s FoD(As in SWDDC/PSDDC vs DPPW/PSDW).
FFW/FFWF para supports all reasons except the first one,and this type of para isnt bad for me
But generally, FFW para is as powerful as FFF para(paraFC of course) now.Firstly because FFW-turn isstable for self-paralysing.Secondly beacause you may fake to counterspell on FFW-turn,so FFWFFWFFW-chain is more versatile.
P.S.We should analyse F/P \/ F/S vs D/P position with FFW-variant, it must be at least equal to use this variant.
p.p.s.Sorry for my English(generally I don`t think that we need any para-replacement,but FFW looks at leat very much better than FDF to use it,and it isn`t hard to implement it)
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on Aug 5, 2009 9:56:00 GMT -5
so basically this allows chains of para for 2 turns with one turn in-between. Don't forget about the cause light wounds lead in. Yes, it's only 2 pts, but can be worth it since it follows directly from a 2 turn para chain. Not sure if this makes it too powerful or not.
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Aug 5, 2009 10:12:09 GMT -5
I have in the past suggested that FFW, FFS and FFP all map to paralysis in order to give a paralyzer more exit option.
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Aug 5, 2009 12:32:17 GMT -5
I have in the past suggested that FFW, FFS and FFP all map to paralysis in order to give a paralyzer more exit option. You mean at the same time? That might be a bit much, but yeah individually they're more interesting than FFF. *edit* I apparently don't understand how the quote tags are supposed to work. Is there any easy way to add who you're quoting without going the whole nine yards?
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Aug 6, 2009 13:16:32 GMT -5
I actually disagree completely with FFW being mapped to para. Paralyzing yourself would be virtually risk-free, and it creates too many risk-reward imbalances the same way the current para does. That's why people spam para now, and I don't think FFW para would make the spell any less popular or make games any more exciting.
Of course, that being said, any suggestion is worth testing, and the testing will prove more useful than my speculation.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Aug 6, 2009 13:32:31 GMT -5
ExDeath, I agree that FFW is a relatively safe spell to self-target with, and this concerned me a bit at first. However, two things I realized about it: 1) Since para is weakened by this change, making it a safe self-target on the first turn might keep its power level relatively constant. 2) What you probably want off of para is FFWF, not FFWP. The latter gives you a counterspell (or, late game, WPFD), but it slows you down.
But yes, as you said, we'll have to test it to know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Aug 9, 2009 15:12:45 GMT -5
Yeah, awall seems to be pretty aligned with my thinking about it. If you target FFW at self and end up with FFWP, sure, you're still in a fairly safe position, but that one, single turn of avoiding an enemy enchantment was the extent of your parachain.
I think it's ok for a single cast of para to be slightly more versatile than it is now, if it comes with the end of parachains (since the chaining is what makes it broken right now).
|
|
|
Post by succat on Aug 10, 2009 11:28:26 GMT -5
Without changing the game too much... what about a compromise between the para of FM and the para of RB? For instance, para cancels out with regular 3-gesture mind spells like SWD, DPP, DSF, and FFF. However, para does not cancel out with 4-gesture spells like Charm Person and Charm Monster. This would make every para chain breakable, but it would still be possible for a paraman to pull off an FoD if done in such a fashion that the victim is slow in catching it. As for para-monster parties, not being able to cancel out with Charm Person and Charm Monster will force the paraman to abandon his F-Chain much sooner if he can't get his other hand ready in time to pull off a counter or mind spell to save his monster - which would probably happen pretty frequently.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Aug 10, 2009 14:21:03 GMT -5
That would fix para, but make charm even more used than it is today (which is A LOT). I'd like to see an environment where all of the mind spells are used more often.
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Aug 10, 2009 16:24:41 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree with ExDeath, here, though it's not a bad idea (and I know I would feel very relieved if I had this as a method to break out of para).
Moreover, I worry about a para fix that's just a patch for the most egregious situations - that's what parafc was to begin with. The fact that it's something that the community keeps coming back to suggests that there's something fundamentally problematic about paralysis (and it's pretty clear what it is - nothing else can in the game can be spammed like it can).
So if we're going to try out some fixes, I think we should go all-in and try something that significantly changes paralysis (hopefully for the better).
|
|
|
Post by ourjake on Aug 12, 2009 15:42:44 GMT -5
how about making it last for two turns when you are hit by it, but not let it be chained (alternate gestures or with a trigger in the coding). that would keep it from being too weak, and give a bump in initiative, while still being difficult to weave off of after casting.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Aug 14, 2009 12:47:03 GMT -5
I think I like jake's suggestion, even though a 2-turn mind spell seems kind of powerful, FFF isn't exactly the most useful spellflow, so you're essentially costing yourself an extra turn too. I think it might even make para too weak, but testing could be done to see if that is the case.
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Aug 15, 2009 3:58:06 GMT -5
Well two issues here: first, if you're not changing the gestures, but limiting the castability of paralysis, you have to implement the same kind of mechanic that would be needed for an explicit three-cast limit.
Second, I actually agree with ExDeath that this would be too weak - if you can't cast even two consecutive paras, then you're effectively eliminating its role in the game right now. At the same time, two consecutive turns of a mindspell can be very powerful...but in strange ways. Consider for example casting para on yourself - if you have a hand that you don't mind being paralyzed twice (for instance, you gestured FSS or just W), you just bought yourself two turns of immunity to other mindspells with three gestures.
In short, the change might produce some funky, and possibly fun interactions, but it completely changes the way para would be used, which I gather isn't quite what people are looking for.
|
|