|
Post by toyotami on Sept 23, 2007 9:12:13 GMT -5
I like the sentiment Slarty and i agree with it...but one derives an equal amount of feeling by making a regrettable mistake (perhaps in the wrong direction?). What happens in an ultimate game where two ultimately focussed warlocks do battle? Maybe this: games.ravenblack.net/warlocks?num=58248&full=1but take a couple of goof balls with a few mistakes and you get more "Epic" : games.ravenblack.net/warlocks?num=59842&full=1There is a certain level where the game is incredibly enjoyable...because it is a game.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 23, 2007 9:44:47 GMT -5
Maybe you derive an equal amount of feeling by playing sub-optimally; I don't. Making a mistake is, by definition, different from intentionally choosing a bad move. (And I love making mistakes. That's the only way to learn.)
Toyo, I don't think anyone here (least of all ExDeath and myself!) would disagree that the second game is more interesting and was more fun to play. But what I'm saying is that, were I playing it and did I make the moves you did, the poetry would have fallen apart for me and it wouldn't have been any more fun after all.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Sept 23, 2007 16:25:57 GMT -5
Warlocks isn't like highly paid professional tennis, maybe, but it's not a far cry from a local circuit of a competitive card game. Here's my problem, and this is a "problem" that I experience with all manner of games. I could care less whether I win, but it's no fun for me if I'm not TRYING to win. In the case of Warlocks or Chess, this doesn't mean I have to put my full energy into every move in games that I play for fun, but I can't knowingly make a sub-optimal move. It drains the fun out of it for me instantly; it's like nails on a chalkboard. Because the great thing about the game is watching two players strive to win: the representations of theory incarnated fleetingly into their moves, survived and fulfilled by the results of each turn, with interactions as mathematically elegant as those of a game of Life but much more complex and therefore beautiful. The game loses its poetry if we have to start making bad moves. Coward isn't too strong a word, it's the wrong word entirely. I'd suggest "epic hero." Well said, Slartucker. I tried to make a post last night to this effect, but I couldn't find the words for it; you've put it perfectly. For me, a game is about competition. It's about trying to outplay your opponent, finding the optimal move at every juncture, grabbing every shred of advantage you can and knowing that your opponent is trying to do the same. Nothing bugs me more than an opponent who lets me win, because such a win is an empty victory. What did I prove by defeating an opponent who wasn't trying? This does not mean that I will always play as hard as I can. When I am up against a newbie, or even an experienced player who I know I am better than, I will often make a weaker play that I find more interesting. This is partly for variety, but I will admit that it is partially to give my adversary a fighting chance, and to make the game more interesting. However, the critical factor is that I choose to do this against weaker opponents. I would never take a known sub-optimal play against an opponent who I'm not sure I can defeat, and I would be very disappointed if my opponent made such a move against me. Which is more exciting for the batter: Hitting a home run off of a fastball thrown right down the middle, or hitting one off of a breaking curveball to the lower outside corner of the strike zone? The problem with D/P is that, if two equal players both make the optimal play at every juncture, the game winds up being quite boring. One player essentially has to bite the bullet and allow his opponent to get ahead in order to break out of that loop. I would hate to have to do that against a player I wasn't sure I could beat, and I'd feel bad for defeating an opponent only because he made such a move himself. The choice to make a weak opening move should be something that I make because of who I'm playing against, not because the game requires me to do this to prevent it from being boring.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Sept 23, 2007 20:00:03 GMT -5
Warlocks isn't like highly paid professional tennis, maybe, but it's not a far cry from a local circuit of a competitive card game. Here's my problem, and this is a "problem" that I experience with all manner of games. I could care less whether I win, but it's no fun for me if I'm not TRYING to win. In the case of Warlocks or Chess, this doesn't mean I have to put my full energy into every move in games that I play for fun, but I can't knowingly make a sub-optimal move. It drains the fun out of it for me instantly; it's like nails on a chalkboard. Because the great thing about the game is watching two players strive to win: the representations of theory incarnated fleetingly into their moves, survived and fulfilled by the results of each turn, with interactions as mathematically elegant as those of a game of Life but much more complex and therefore beautiful. Yes, well said. When I play poker with my friends, I have this problem. They always ask why I don't gamble it up by making bad calls and dumb bluffs, and I say "Because I'm trying to win". Then they think I'm greedy for taking advantage of them and I say "I don't want your money, but I do want to win". If I play suboptimally, I feel cheated because I'm simply giving a victory to somebody who didn't earn it. Edit: Although, I should mention that if I end way up on the night, I usually try to give most of it back, because in my mind I've already won the game.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Sept 23, 2007 21:13:39 GMT -5
But what's a poker night without drinking? and what's drinking without it affecting your thoughts? and what's affected thoughts without going all in on a 2-7? Perhaps that's the league we need to start... if on any turn, you throw a D and P on the same turn, you gotta drink a shot...
|
|
|
Post by freesoul on Sept 23, 2007 21:15:36 GMT -5
I definitely see a relation between playing warlocks and poker.... I think that this game taught me a ton on playing position and bluffing. I think even my warlocks playing style flowed into my poker style.
Sorry for the off-topic.
|
|
morzas
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 30
|
Post by morzas on Sept 23, 2007 22:06:46 GMT -5
I don't know too much about Warlocks, but this D/P thing sounds similar to SF2 Akuma. You can read about it here.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 23, 2007 22:34:55 GMT -5
Great article -- thanks for the link, Morzas.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Sept 23, 2007 23:17:16 GMT -5
I definitely see a relation between playing warlocks and poker.... I think that this game taught me a ton on playing position and bluffing. I think even my warlocks playing style flowed into my poker style. Sorry for the off-topic. You live in Detroit, right? You should come to some of our home games, although usually I don't play, I live in a house with 2 other pros so there's usually a game going. BTW Xade, alcohol doesn't really affect the way I play games. Maybe that's just me though.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 23, 2007 23:35:22 GMT -5
I played drinking boggle once. You take a drink every time you win a game. I tend to win every miserable round of boggle I play with my friends, so my theory was that as I started to get drunk I would start losing games, and everybody would be happy. Unfortunately, as I started to get drunk, I kept winning. I went through most of a bottle of whiskey without having my play erode whatsoever.
As I recall, I did became pretty incoherent halfway through Settlers of Catan, though.
|
|
morzas
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 30
|
Post by morzas on Sept 23, 2007 23:37:28 GMT -5
|
|
taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on Sept 24, 2007 8:35:14 GMT -5
This article is interesting. Most top players hate Para-FoD, even though they will use it on occasion. I was one of the warlocks most notoriously disinclined to use it. Obviously, the top warlocks are not "scrubs", as your article puts it. What's going on? Paralysis itself is overpowered. Seriously overpowered. It's widely detested because it makes the game less beautiful. Some of the best warlocks will even insist that it's not as powerful as it really is, because they want to believe that it's not. However, people who discover it early and then go on to use it a lot come to rely on it as a crutch. They don't develop the needed skills elsewhere, and they are torn apart by the people who held themselves back from using it and finally, grudgingly, adopted it when necessary. So, in an ironic twist, the real "scrubs" are those who rail in favour of Para-FoD against the "haters": they're just not very good players. You don't find them near the top of the leaderboards. People who claim to hate it may be newbies, fazed by a tactic that seems to them unbeatable and unfair, or old hands who dislike its ugliness or the way it can occasionally give a player with little skill a slender chance of beating them based purely on luck; but those who profess the loudest to love it are almost without exception weak to middling and are likely to stay that way for a very long time.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 24, 2007 9:28:47 GMT -5
What makes Para/FOD different here is the element of chance it introduces, and this difference is magnified by the magnitude of the stakes. If someone complains that I cast too many charms or summon too many ogres, that's the equivalent of complaining about the throw in SF2. But there is no move in SF2 -- and indeed, there is no move in practically any tactically interesting game -- that, when successfully executed, gives you a 12.5% or 25% chance of winning no matter what happened in the entire rest of the game.
More chance means less skill. There's a certain amount of skill involved in planning for chance, obviously, but the more the outcome depends on chance the more the role of skill is correspondingly reduced.
This is the same reason you find "scrubs" promoting Confusion, while I've never seen anyone > 1800 promote it (with the queer exception of Xade).
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Sept 24, 2007 9:44:28 GMT -5
I always thought the main disadvantage with confusion was not the randomness (which is less preferable but interesting now and again) but the sheer boredom of the opening.
But, erm, the way maladroit's going...
|
|
|
Post by freesoul on Sept 24, 2007 10:26:34 GMT -5
I do remember my early days, when i typically threw the ParaFOD whenever i had the oppurtunity. I think I'd only use it now if i were behind and needed a hail mary. Or if it were a close game and a really needed the win...
|
|