|
|
Post by succat on Apr 7, 2010 21:45:26 GMT -5
Hey folks, I was away for a little while dealing with real life, but since I've been back now I've noticed something interesting. Seems like people are opening with S/P more. It could just be a fluke I suppose. I started noticing in my last bunch of games that there were a lot of S/P openings. Then I looked at my last 16 games I had at the moment (10 finished, 8 in progress) and 9 out of the 16 had people opening with S/P. Just thought that was kind of interesting, but don't know that it really signals much of a change in the norm. Yeah, guess that's it... that's all I got  |
|
|
|
Post by xade on Apr 7, 2010 21:51:37 GMT -5
S/P, cook me blintzes
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Apr 8, 2010 7:03:49 GMT -5
Old news, Dude. S/P has been seeing a Renaissance since at least early Fall 2009... if not since right after the Slarty/ExDeath "perfect game" a.k.a. DPPP/PSDD circus. FFF/PWP hasn't seen much action lately, though  |
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Apr 8, 2010 8:33:45 GMT -5
Succat Don't tell me that you've missed this =) |
|
scwizard
Ronin Warlock
Lone Wol
Posts: 55
|
Post by scwizard on Apr 8, 2010 12:09:24 GMT -5
Old news, Dude. S/P has been seeing a Renaissance since at least early Fall 2009... if not since right after the Slarty/ExDeath "perfect game" a.k.a. DPPP/PSDD circus. FFF/PWP hasn't seen much action lately, though Could you link to the "perfect game" in question I want to see it. |
|
|
|
Post by salvor on Apr 8, 2010 12:40:10 GMT -5
lurch.homelinux.org/war_view.pl?game=58248It isn't quite interesting, though it may be called "perfect" Actually this game shows that best worst case in D/P vs D/P is just a DPPP/PSDD insane. This fact, as everybody believed that S/P can't handle D/P without falling disastrously defensive, and as ExDeath suggested playing DS/PW vs SW/WW(and SW/WW,S/P,F/P was the only popular opens that time) showed that typical ideal game in warlocks is quite boring. Happily after some time bio tried his F/P/ succat and xade started playing it , then F/S was invented and so on, hence we are lucky that our variety of oppenings is much wider than "DPPP/PSDD till t36 and then trying killing your opponent by wounds". And also now we have some ideas for unloop practise, not bad , IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Apr 8, 2010 16:19:44 GMT -5
That battle is pretty hilarious.
|
|
|
|
Post by xade on Apr 9, 2010 1:41:15 GMT -5
D/P had it's dominance removed by F/P, which was countered by S/F
It's sad that that happened after the "masters" left
|
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Apr 9, 2010 4:47:40 GMT -5
On a quick note, after turn 28 both players are at 6, and if one switches to WDDc, then the other dies (or folds to a counterspell and falls behind to die a bit later). So I guess 6hp is a point of loop breach. One day I was curious if there is a way to "guarantee" a loop break before that (on 7HP), but I never finished that study.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Apr 12, 2010 5:59:39 GMT -5
D/P had it's dominance removed by F/P, which was countered by S/F It's sad that that happened after the "masters" left That timing isn't sad, it was directly linked. Whether the link is that we were incorrect in our analyses of which openings beat which openings, or because y'all are incorrect, that I'll leave up for debate |
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Apr 12, 2010 7:26:42 GMT -5
I'm mute about F/P, but as far as F/S go... we were incorrect in our analyses of which openings beat which openings If there ever was an analysis regarding D/P vs F/S matchup, please tell. As far as I recall, the only thing related to analyzing this opening were your and Tali's posts in this thread... are they really suggest that D/P (or F/P) beats F/S (which you kinda imply by reacting to xade's arguments)? Let me re-phrase xade's point like this: The fact that F/S is on par with D/P: a) is proven by trial (in environment w/o Masters though) b) doesn't contradict with any known analysis Also, the fact that S/P is on par with D/P: a) is not largely proven by trial yet b) is supported by analysis done a while ago by Salvor (and Tali and myself (and partially Slarty's headache =))) Do we have an accord on this? |
|
|
|
Post by salvor on Apr 12, 2010 11:15:52 GMT -5
On a quick note, after turn 28 both players are at 6, and if one switches to WDDc, then the other dies (or folds to a counterspell and falls behind to die a bit later). So I guess 6hp is a point of loop breach. One day I was curious if there is a way to "guarantee" a loop break before that (on 7HP), but I never finished that study. Yeah, I actually meant this(I've miscounted turns) playing till 6hp then PW/DW. Actually there are some possibilities of invis-storm-dispell for example, and of course claps and wounds. |
|
|
|
Post by xade on Apr 12, 2010 18:11:12 GMT -5
D/P had it's dominance removed by F/P, which was countered by S/F It's sad that that happened after the "masters" left That timing isn't sad, it was directly linked. Whether the link is that we were incorrect in our analyses of which openings beat which openings, or because y'all are incorrect, that I'll leave up for debate Ha, love your arrogance Slarty, always have. The link Bio posted is when the para opening really grew a beard. By that time, you and ExDeath hadn't played a game in 6 months. |
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Apr 12, 2010 20:18:36 GMT -5
Xade -- yes, that was my point. And I'll admit to having developed some rather unbecoming and undeserved arrogance around this game. A lot of it is really just my stubborn insistence on rigorous analysis expressed in thoughtless ways. There will be some more of that in this post :-D The fact that F/S is on par with D/P: a) is proven by trial (in environment w/o Masters though) b) doesn't contradict with any known analysis Also, the fact that S/P is on par with D/P: a) is not largely proven by trial yet b) is supported by analysis done a while ago by Salvor (and Tali and myself (and partially Slarty's headache =))) Do we have an accord on this? I am too out of practice to make sense out of the S/P analysis anymore, but I do have blind faith in Taliesin. Is that actually what you all concluded, though? I thought it was an unfinished analysis. I agree with 1b though. I do have a problem with 1a (and 2a to some degree). There is no "proven by trial" unless accompanied by rigorous analysis. By that logic, it was "proven by trial" for a great many years that no opening could beat D/P; then for a few years it was "proven by trial" that S/W beat D/P, even though in the current analysis it doesn't; it was likewise proven for a great many years that the best chain to use in mirrormatch invis delay involved antispell, which it has been rigorously proven it does not, etc etc. You can prove that IN THIS ENVIRONMENT F/S is on par with D/P, but that doesn't mean much -- not because of a lack of "masters" but because there is only one top tier player who analyzes. Picking moves one by one is unlikely to uncover a heretofore unknown serious exploitability in an opening, but thoughtful analysis can do that, sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Apr 13, 2010 2:20:33 GMT -5
@slartucker
With all my respect, I cannot agree with your approach of totally dismantling "trial" in favour of analysis (or, rather, you seem to overestimate the power of 'pure' analysis?). You correctly said that this is a matter of environment. But it is very important to stress that every analysis is applied to a current metagame - that's it, a meta of current game knowledge and current players level. You weren't analysing "D/P vs the world" for the sake of pure theory in vacuum - you were analysing to break the stalled metagame of known openings and known players, and you succeeded for that moment.
F/S did exactly that much - provided the tools that were sufficient to break the metagame for that moment. This itself already proves F/S worth for that moment. It was designed to compete with D/P, and it just did. That's what I call 'proven by a trial'. Theoretically, if there were other opponents with other analysis skills and styles, it could possibly fail... but again, this is true for every theory and every opening, D/P included.
Again, Tali is one of the greatest (and you can omit 'one of' part here) minds in warlocks theory; I think what he did can be compared to what Einstein did to physics back in the beginning on 20st century. He largely ordered things that existed before him, and offered new approaches. Many and many scientists after him use his work as a basis. Everyone would agree that Tali did pretty much the same to Warlocks; also, recently, when discussing aforementioned S/P analysis I had a chance to witness his analytic skills (possibly a mere shade of his skills a few years ago), and there were something to look up to... something I do not possess.
However, would you just believe to someone who'll say that some theory\statement isn't true just because it was not proven by Einstein 80 years ago? Even the fact that there weren't any scientists of his greatness since then doesn't automatically dismantle experiments of smaller scientists.
My apologies for another weird text. As usual, when I'm trying to fit many thoughts into a singe post in English, words escape me and sentences come out awkward =(
|
|
