EPTAlso we got S!AH2.6, good times. lol infinite stacking Kamui powerups in training mode = 50% damage 5A.
The Official Fighting Games Topic - Page 134
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
MCMcEmcee
United States1609 Posts
Also we got S!AH2.6, good times. lol infinite stacking Kamui powerups in training mode = 50% damage 5A. | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14912 Posts
| ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
7:30 (Roll Ken) vs TitanD (Karas Ryu) Winners bracket finals, bo5, game 4. Match point 7:30. You can also check out the 3s grand finals, with my friend Yang (who kicks my ass in 3s) versus a guy from Toronto. Chun Li vs Dudley. Yang (Chun Li) is coming from winners. + Show Spoiler [3s grand finals] + Part 1: Part 2: | ||
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
He might want to look into Palm -> burst kick as an AA option, though it's much more demanding on the player. Also he might want to look for spots where cr.lp -> SA could be useful, I think there were some spots where it could have been used. Also, cant chun not reversal SA after guarding Dud's SA? He's obviously much better than I am but those are the holes I saw in his game. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On March 06 2009 08:55 thedeadhaji wrote: I watched pt1 of the 3s, and it seems like your friend uses HK as his AA option like 90+% of the time with or without a preceding parry, which I think is exploitable / unideal in certain spots. Also overall he didn't seem too confident in his palm -> SA, judging from his reluctance to use it in a few spots + his 2 misses. He might want to look into Palm -> burst kick as an AA option, though it's much more demanding on the player. Also he might want to look for spots where cr.lp -> SA could be useful, I think there were some spots where it could have been used. Also, cant chun not reversal SA after guarding Dud's SA? He's obviously much better than I am but those are the holes I saw in his game. I'm sorry Haji, but imo you deserve this quote from You can Lead a Scrub to Water, but you can't make 'em Think: Tournaments, even for seasoned pros, are tense environments. As such, you’ll often see MORE mistakes, not less, in actual tournament footage. It can also tend to be slightly conservative, because people don’t always trust themselves to go for the flashy stuff. Another thing outside observers will miss in watching is that these matches MATTER. For anyone who’s never been to a real tournament (and no, getting your 10 friends together at the mall and xeroxing a flyer doesn’t mean you’ve been to a real tournament, please sit down), this is extremely difficult to grasp. They’re thinking "Wtf- it’s the same game I play all the time, isn’t it?" Yes, but mostly no. Tournament play is extremely different from casual play. At my first big tournament, I went on an over-an-hour-long, pre-tourney win-streak, against all the best players. I was a machine. Then when the tournament rolled around, I sweat my way into the final 16 (this was a 256 man tournament, IIRC), and got wiped out by someone I had beaten easily before (and beat easily again later). When you actually get to your first real tournament, then you’ll know what I’m talking about. The worst you’ve ever faced before was that smart-mouthed kid who worked at Cinnabon, and if he managed to beat you, the only thing that stood between you and revenge was a trip to the bill changer. Not now. If you blow it, you’re out. And *these* smart-mouthed kids live 2 thousand miles away- there won’t be any chances for revenge. And you’re not just playing to stay on the machine- there’s actual stuff involved here, not to mention bragging rights. You can tell yourself it doesn’t really matter, but (if you’re good enough to have a shot at winning in the first place) your guts won’t believe you. As such, you want to conserve all your mental energy, and focus as much as you can. You don’t want flash unless it’s required. Ask anyone about their first tournament. It’s different than you think. You don’t know. Shut up. I don't think I've ever seen Yang use back fierce xx lightning legs as anti-air, but I don't know if he even had any opportunities to use it in those matches, since you'd only see it if his back fierce got parried and he didn't do something else instead (e.g. cancel into flip kick). The rest of your criticisms are... scrubby, to be frank. The worst was suggesting he attempt cr.lp xx SA in a tournament grand finals. Sorry Haji, but you've obviously never had to play under that kind of pressure before.  (Yang openly admits he's really bad when it comes to playing under pressure. But even so, the criticism for that would be, "Your friend seems to play badly under pressure," not, "Your friend seems to miss obvious punishes.") | ||
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
 edit: but honestly, I don't like the idea of playing differently just because it's the finals - that seems to be indicating that you don't trust what you usually do and what has taken you this far. If you think about this concept in a variety of disciplines - mental games like chess or poker, finesse sports like billiards or golf, active sports like basketball, soccer, and video games - in none of these situations should you play suboptimally just because of your circumstance. If you're compelled to do so, that's because you are (a) inexperienced, or (b) a choker. Whether or not he plays poorly under pressure, I have no way of knowing b/c I've never seen him play till this video. edit2: btw I brought up palm -> SA not because of his 2 misses, but because of several points prior to that where he didn't use it period. Missing an execution is perfectly fine, but missing an opportunity is completely different imo. And there are spots where cr.lp -> SA is easier in terms of timing openings than Palm -> SA even if the execution is more demanding. Not incorporating it into one's repertoire is suboptimal no matter how you look at it - whether it be because of pressure, or because of one's lack of practice. | ||
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
I'm arguing "omg he's not playing perfect!" (which is technically true but completely idiotic and myopic at the same time), while you're taking the stance that "you obv can't play perfect given situation XYZ" (which is true, but also if you think about it, it shouldn't be used as an excuse NOT to consider the shortcomings) edit: While I recognize that the things I pointed out may not apply when looking at the matches within the scope of "a tournament", I firmly believe that they still stand tall when looking at from the perspective of long term player development and plugging holes. Wouldn't you agree that the goal of anyone involved in a competitive endeavor is to strive for perfection and / or to become as good as one can be? | ||
|
MCMcEmcee
United States1609 Posts
Going for something like Chun c.jab XX super is in itself sub-optimal (lot of risk if you mess up, and for what gain if you don't?). You get to punish, what, like 1 more important thing that you can confirm in the heat of the moment? There are far more important things to get down than one vaguely useful tech that has no place in a pressure situation anyways. It's better to "miss an opportunity" than it is to "miss execution," because you don't get punished for missed opportunities, and if pressure is going to make you miss things anyways, might as well not give them a free combo for it. There's a reason why players like Daigo, Nuki, Tokido, Valle, Choi, Ricky Ortiz, Justin Wong, etc. have a long list of titles and accomplishments, and players like RX, KO, OTK, Hase, Koichi, Kusoru, SooMighty, FINALSHOWDOWN (lulz), any number of MSP players, etc. don't. Consistency under pressure =/= consistency in casuals, and more optimal =/= more technical. I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't like the idea of playing differently/more conservatively just because it's the finals, you haven't played in the grand finals. If new pro-Starcraft players can be thrown off their sick amateur skills in a soundproof booth by themselves in some random Proleague or early qualifying rounds, imagine trying to play a fighting game with no barrier between you and a loud, raucous crowd of dudes, many of which could stand to take a shower or stop drinking alcohol by the time the finals comes around; many of whom are cheering very vocally against you. haji, I know you've expressed some distaste with the fighting game community in the past, and that's fair... but by the same token, if you aren't connected with that scene and aren't playing in those situations, you don't have the experience to speak to that context, which is what Bill is pointing out. "Long term development" is more about finding the stable, consistent stuff that you WILL not and CAN not mess up when push comes to shove. | ||
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
I mean what if someone told you that you should play more conservatively that what you normally play in a GrandSlam finals in Tennis? Does that really make sense? You of course don't get more aggressive, but you certainly wouldn't become more conservative either? While I never particularly pursued competitive gaming, I was rather involved in competitve golf, and straying from "your game" is not something a professional nor a competent amateur would do, because that's how you start to make mistakes and open yourself up to be exploited. Are there spots where being conservative is the right move? Yes, when you have a 90 to 10 health lead, when you have a 3 shot lead entering the 72nd hole with water on the left, when you have a triple match point to win, etc. But to alter your overall approach to the game without having such extreme circumstances just does not seem right. | ||
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
The only reasonable approach seems to be to separate fighting games from what I compare them to and rule out the analogy as being legitimate. What criteria could I use to justify such a distinction? Because it is a "finesse" activity - so is golf / bowling / billiards, etc. Because it is head to head and your actions directly influence the actions of the opponent - tennis / ping pong / any teamsport. Combine the two and argue that it is because it is a finesse activity where your actions are influenced directly by the opponent? Just doesnt seem logical either... | ||
|
SayaSP
Laos5494 Posts
| ||
|
MCMcEmcee
United States1609 Posts
On March 06 2009 16:46 thedeadhaji wrote: See, I understand that in principle, and actually wholly agreed with it at first. But the more I think about it, the more I refuse to think that fighting games are somehow inherently different than say, Tennis. I mean what if someone told you that you should play more conservatively that what you normally play in a GrandSlam finals in Tennis? Does that really make sense? You of course don't get more aggressive, but you certainly wouldn't become more conservative either? While I never particularly pursued competitive gaming, I was rather involved in competitve golf, and straying from "your game" is not something a professional nor a competent amateur would do... Are there spots where being conservative is the right move? Yes, when you have a 90 to 10 health lead, when you have a 3 shot lead entering the 72nd hole with water on the left, when you have a triple match point to win, etc. But to alter your overall approach to the game without having such extreme circumstances just does not seem right. Here's the thing; people who don't know their limits and play in a manner that is somewhat "pressure-proof" don't actually make it very far on a consistent basis. Federer didn't get to and win so many Grand Slam finals by constantly going for shots that are theoretically "the best shot" but in practice are not very feasible; Tiger Woods doesn't succeed by going for hole-in-ones every hole (or ever), despite having the range to at least make it a slight possibility sometimes; LeBron James is a skill-less embarrassment to the sport of basketball, which he proves every time he tries to shoot a jumper or do anything but travel and shoulder ram anybody who gets in his way, but he happens to do that like 90% of the time because he has discovered that it is the safest, highest percentage move he can make. Playing "safe" or "conservative" does not mean giving up some key part of your SOUL when you get to the finals.... it just means playing standard as your baseline and not relying entirely on some timing attack (fancy/technical combo/punish) or cheese (guess DPs/wakeup supers/etc.). There is a time for cheese or risk taking or whatever active decision to leave your chances of winning the point/game up to one move, but the people who are making it to tournament finals are not the kinds of people who are making a habit of doing that terribly often. More specifically to fighting games, there is no time for you to watch for every little thing. You HAVE to reduce a lot of things to muscle memory/reaction, and there are only so many things you can train yourself to do that for (so it's best to have a few blanket punishes that are as simple as possible); the reason for this is because you have to actively keep tabs on your opponent and anticipating/planning for things while you're trying to execute your own plans. So the less you have to think about something or even have to entertain the slightest doubt that you might mess something up, the better, because every random hit you take is going to mess with your concentration just a bit, every stupid thing that happens is going to build up some frustration, and there is very little time for you to recompose yourself. | ||
|
Ginseng
United States268 Posts
lol randommmmm | ||
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On March 06 2009 16:30 MCMcEmcee wrote: Even Japanese players don't just bust out Chun c.jab XX SA2 on a whim in casuals, much less tournaments. It's pretty much not a huge deal if you can or can't do it. Going for something like Chun c.jab XX super is in itself sub-optimal (lot of risk if you mess up, and for what gain if you don't?). You get to punish, what, like 1 more important thing that you can confirm in the heat of the moment? There are far more important things to get down than one vaguely useful tech that has no place in a pressure situation anyways. Agreed There's a reason why players like Daigo, Nuki, Tokido, Valle, Choi, Ricky Ortiz, Justin Wong, etc. have a long list of titles and accomplishments, and players like RX, KO, OTK, Hase, Koichi, Kusoru, SooMighty, FINALSHOWDOWN (lulz), any number of MSP players, etc. don't. Overall agreed, but you know Ume is most known for his DP after seeing ch.lk and shit like that, which is the polar opposite of safe/conservative decision making. That's the epitome of pushing a very thin, technical edge. Consistency under pressure =/= consistency in casuals This, while true, is at the same time bullshit. Why do you ever practice in the first place if not FOR the time when you're under pressure. You practice not so you can execute in some ha-ha game, you practice so you can nail your jumper @ the buzzer when it counts. You can't just separate "consistency" into two separate categories arbitrarily like this, and honestly I imagine you agree with this and just worded this poorly. and more optimal =/= more technical. This is what I think is the crux of the argument. What is the most optimal differs from player to player, and how much he has practiced, and what his confidence is. Player A has not practiced much and can only hit confirm Chun's SA from cr.mk. For him, the "optimal" move is to go for this option every time. Player B on the other hand, can do palm -> Sa, HK -> SA, cr.mk -> SA, etc. He is confident in executing any of these strings "under pressure". When you have a player who can confidently execute an array of options, the more technical does become the more optimal. The only reason why the more technical is not the more optimal for a given player X, is because of his shortcomings as a player, either mentally (pressure), or physically (practice, execution). There is a "perfect option" that is theoretically possible in every situation. The requirements begin to go down as the player's level goes down. But is it not the player's obligation to expand his range as far as possible? If he makes the decision not to, fine, that's his choice. But don't tell me that his definition of "optimal" is the true "optimal" choice, because it definitely is not. Can you always go for the theoretically optimal choice? No, of course not. In fact you can probably never do it. As you mentioned with golf, going for the hole from 200 yards out is basically never optimal given the limitations of players A-C. Similarly, going for tackle x4 with Urien against a Dougi char is basically impossible with human hands even though it is theoretically the best option. Yes, there is always a compromise. But it's the player's job to push this limit as far as possible, THEN choose the option that he has perfect confidence in. Not doing so is like only using cr.mk -> SAII no matter what the situation, and both you and I can agree that this is suboptimal for a variety of reasons, even though it IS the optimal choice for Player A - for the time being. I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't like the idea of playing differently/more conservatively just because it's the finals, you haven't played in the grand finals. Refer to Tennis / Golf / etc analogies above. If new pro-Starcraft players can be thrown off their sick amateur skills in a soundproof booth by themselves in some random Proleague or early qualifying rounds, imagine trying to play a fighting game with no barrier between you and a loud, raucous crowd of dudes, many of which could stand to take a shower or stop drinking alcohol by the time the finals comes around; many of whom are cheering very vocally against you. A player's performance suffering from pressure may lead him to say "ok, I'm not going to use the techical combos X, Y and Z." But is that "optimal"? No, it's his JOB to train himself to be better under pressure so that he can become a superior player given a certain set of situations. A SC pro choker (Canata, Jangbi 2007) and golf "chokers" (Garcia, Mickelson) obvoiusly become better at dealing with this, and as a result their comfort level expands. Noise volume is a matter of being used to it. If SC matches were always played w/o soundproof headphones / booths, then they'd be fine with it. If golf tournaments allowed constant cheering, they'd be fine, just as football players and basketball players can perform at their best despite the constant booing, jeering, yelling, etc. It's only when they're taken outside of their comfort zone that their performance suffers. Again, this is the player's responsibility to improve himself so that he performs better in these circumstances. These issues are no different from vanilla "practice" in terms of being the responsibility of the player, and if we are arguing over what decisions / physical moves are optimal, then the issue of "pressure" or "noise / distractions" becomes irrelevant. They are important, yes - but they are factors that should be treated separately 'after' assessing the situation in a vacuum. but by the same token, if you aren't connected with that scene and aren't playing in those situations, you don't have the experience to speak to that context, which is what Bill is pointing out. "Long term development" is more about finding the stable, consistent stuff that you WILL not and CAN not mess up when push comes to shove. Again I don't think fighting games are particularly differnt from golf/tennis etc. And "what is consistent" for a player can be improved on with phsyical practice, improving performance under pressure (ex: Psychologists - like golfers working with Dr. Bob Rotella). I think my argument boils down to this. Given player's physical capabilities X and pressure comfort level Y, his "consistent stuff" will be the set {M, N, O, P}. However, the theoretical "best" options are set {Q, R, S, T}. While the player should in this situation certainly use set {M, N, O, P}, as a professional (if you will), his responsibility is to improve himself in both physical and mental aspects so that his set {M, N, O, P} approach {Q, R, S, T} as much as possible. Now, his consistent stuff in pressure and non-pressure situations may be disparate no matter how hard he trains in both realms, and his "under pressure" optimal moveset may never be that of his casual set. But it is surely reasonable to think that with training it WILL MOVE UP. And leaving out pressure issues for a moment, this would lead to a player practicing what is currently outside his "consistent stuff" so that it becomes part of his consistent stuff in the future. It's better to "miss an opportunity" than it is to "miss execution," because you don't get punished for missed opportunities, and if pressure is going to make you miss things anyways, might as well not give them a free combo for it. This is the main thing I cannot agree with. I have never, ever encountered a situation where a mental error is preferred over a physical one. A physical error is just what it is - a mistake. It happens. But a mental error, a lapse in judgement and decision making, is a fundamental flaw in your makeup as a player, no matter what your discipline. haji, I know you've expressed some distaste with the fighting game community in the past, and that's fair... I actually have no reason to have distaste for the western fighting game community, because I have zero association with it. What I have stated in the past, is that (a) I don't like the way games are commentated in FFA videos, and (b) I have no reason to watch or read from western sources because for the games that I would have an interest in, I can find superior material in Japanese (which may sound like a diss, but it just follows from the fact that I can get superior material to read in Japanese and higher quality matches to watch + I understand what they're saying + I don't like how games in the states are casted, and hence there's just no reason for me to read or watch from SRK or FFA) | ||
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On March 06 2009 17:06 MCMcEmcee wrote: Here's the thing; people who don't know their limits and play in a manner that is somewhat "pressure-proof" don't actually make it very far on a consistent basis. Federer didn't get to and win so many Grand Slam finals by constantly going for shots that are theoretically "the best shot" but in practice are not very feasible; Tiger Woods doesn't succeed by going for hole-in-ones every hole (or ever), despite having the range to at least make it a slight possibility sometimes; LeBron James is a skill-less embarrassment to the sport of basketball, which he proves every time he tries to shoot a jumper or do anything but travel and shoulder ram anybody who gets in his way, but he happens to do that like 90% of the time because he has discovered that it is the safest, highest percentage move he can make. Playing "safe" or "conservative" does not mean giving up some key part of your SOUL when you get to the finals.... it just means playing standard as your baseline and not relying entirely on some timing attack (fancy/technical combo/punish) or cheese (guess DPs/wakeup supers/etc.). There is a time for cheese or risk taking or whatever active decision to leave your chances of winning the point/game up to one move, but the people who are making it to tournament finals are not the kinds of people who are making a habit of doing that terribly often. More specifically to fighting games, there is no time for you to watch for every little thing. You HAVE to reduce a lot of things to muscle memory/reaction, and there are only so many things you can train yourself to do that for (so it's best to have a few blanket punishes that are as simple as possible); the reason for this is because you have to actively keep tabs on your opponent and anticipating/planning for things while you're trying to execute your own plans. So the less you have to think about something or even have to entertain the slightest doubt that you might mess something up, the better, because every random hit you take is going to mess with your concentration just a bit, every stupid thing that happens is going to build up some frustration, and there is very little time for you to recompose yourself. I think if you compare what you wrote here to the post I wrote directly above, we are essentially arguing for the same point, and that this whole thing is over a fundamental miscommunication. (the only disagreement might be our treatment and attitude towards "pressure", but there's if we can agree that one can improve their performance under pressure through (a) drugs, (b) psych, (c) experience, (d) other, then I think we can agree that pressure becomes "irrelevant" when talking about physical considerations of decision making. First consider the physical, then filter it and reduce the expectations with the under-pressure performance) While a certain set of shots/moves/routines are optimal given player A's physical and mental makeup, both these categories can be improved on to upgrade his usable "safe stuff" repertoire in a pressure situation. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
Speaking about it "in theory" is useless. You have to actually experience playing under serious pressure first-hand to understand it. There is a whole laundry list of things that can start going wrong when you're playing in a match that actually matters: - you drop the combos you've done flawlessly 20+ times in a row - you mess up execution of moves - you miss opportunities - you punish sub-optimally - you fall back on old habits from several months ago - you forget half of everything you've learned recently - you forget most of your mixups - you stop trying to hit-confirm into supers - you make stupid decisions - you act before thinking - you stop adapting - you play against everyone as if they're your practice partners - you stop anticipating your opponent These are all faults I've personally experienced at some time or another, and I am not exaggerating any of them. In the end, you just have to try your best to stay calm and not think about what's on the line. You have to learn not to be afraid of losing, no matter what is at stake, because that emotion of fear will screw everything up. You have to just focus on the game. Eventually, as you learn to overcome the pressure of the situation, you can start to approach the level of play you're capable of in casuals, but you will never truly attain it. | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4653 Posts
Anyways, I prefer this thread to stick being about match videos instead of theory fighters. | ||
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
I simply wanted to point out parts that I thought could have been improved on for constructive purposes / discussion. Of course you make mistakes. But that doesn't mean pointing them out / improving on them is fruitless? In addition to 3MC's posts, Haji, once you actually compete in a tournament, let alone in the finals, you will never criticise anyone for their tournament performance ever again. "never criticize"? What? How do you expect to improve upon your current state without criticism whether it be from yourself or someone else? Did you think I was just outright bashing your friend for his mistakes or something, going "lol look @ him noob he sucks!"? Why would I ever do that, when he's obviously 10x better than me, and he's a friend of a friend(Bill,you). Stating areas where I thought he can improve upon is wrong... how? | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
| ||
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
Even then, criticisms are made for the purpose of analysis and improvement. Seriously, mistakes are mistakes no matter what the context, and the context can make the mistakes even more important to address. How does the fact that they (or I) underperformed given a set of circumstances free them from scrutiny, or make it somehow impossible to pick out things to work on? If anything this is the moment you need to be picked apart to oblivion so that you can work on not fucking up the next time. You seem to be arguing that a player who underperformed due to pressure should be exempt from criticism on his play on ways to improve, and that just makes ZERO sense to me. edit: sorry for the harsh tone, but recalling my pathetic performance like 10 years ago is making me depressed / angry. | ||
| ||
