Operational Definitions for Gameplay Terms: The Project

[Digital Watches]

Mynus brought up a good point about that article I just put up, which is that we should have an actual thread to foster some actual debate about what operational definitions we should use to talk about Guilty Gear, airdash fighters, and fighting games in general.

I think Dustloop is as good a place as any to curate a glossary of terms that are well-defined, consistent, and useful. This will help us to communicate clearly about gameplay concepts, allowing the forum to be an even better source of information and discussion on the games we discuss here than it already is.

Operational definitions are a matter of community consensus. We can eventually use the wiki to keep a record of terms we can agree on. But for now, let's have a thread about it. I'm going to post some terms I think are useful in a separate post, since what I'm not trying to do here is try to force people to use terms I personally like. But I am going to outline some guidelines for what to consider when agreeing on the definition of a term.

• An operational definition needs to be at least somewhat measurable. The very best kind uses math, but where that's not possible, it should at least have a built-in metric of some kind so that if people disagree, they can argue with facts and data, and we can reasonably expect there to be a correct answer in theory, even if in practice an agreement isn't ever reached. You should define terms with a test that defines how they can be measured.
  
• An operational definition needs to be consistent. Terms that we have operationally defined need to mean the same thing every time. Obviously what the overall implication of something is can be context-sensitive, but the terms themselves need a 1-to-1 correspondence to other uses of the term.
  
• An operational definition ought to be useful. The existence of the term should make discussion clearer and should refer to something that comes up enough that we actually need a definite word for it.
  
• Operational definitions of more complex concepts can and should be built, where possible, from other terms we've operationally defined. This allows us to have usefulness, consistency, and measurability all the way down.
  

As such, I'm going to start our Glossary of Terms with an operational definition that we all already (hopefully) use consistently:

Static Difference: The number of frames of stun an attack causes, minus the number of frames the move takes to recover. In its normal use, static difference refers to this statistic in the specific situation of the attack connecting on its first active frame and being blocked by a normal standing guard. (Other cases of static difference, such as after the attack is instant blocked, should be specifically stated.)

Frame Advantage/Disadvantage/Neutral: The three possible states a player can be in in terms of strict static difference. The accepted notation is to say that someone is "+/- x" and sometimes E.G. "on block", or "on hit" etc., where x is the difference in number of frames before each player can act. Thus, a player at +2 can act 2 frames before her opponent can.

Situational Advantage/Disadvantage/Neutral: The statistical likelihood at a given frame that, given a random choice of the available actions, one player will win an exchange (defined as connecting with an attack). Analogous to static difference but more complicated, as it includes ranges, invulnerability, etc. A player can be at situational advantage and frame disadvantage, but it is less likely.

Transition Model of Fighting Games: A model of fighting games that talks about gameplay in terms of transitions between situational game states, of the form "S1 -> S2" E.G. "SA -> SN" a move from situational advantage to situational neutral. (Props to blitz on this one)

Pressure: Actions taken by a player at situational advantage in order to remain at situational advantage. Or, in transition model notation (SA -> SA).

I'll keep stuff we seem to have reached a consensus on in this top post. As previously stated, any terms I'm personally coining, or offering a more (in my opinion) narrow or operational definition of than is currently typically used, will be posted as suggestions for community comment. I encourage anyone who wants to to contribute terms to be discussed here, and to criticize or voice support for any definitions that have been proposed.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Digital Watches

[Star-Demon]

This is a good effort, man. If I may - I'd like to provide a few pieces of input:

- When it comes up - avoid hyperbole - I don't know what an "operational definition" is, but I know what a "term" is. (you use "Term" yourself!) I'd love to clear up the situations with terms (Like Priority!), but I don't want to use a lot of extensive language and vocabulary when a basic word will work.

- If you're looking for consensus, you'll probably never have it 100%. The truth is that we all use terms we find useful to us. It helps the situation to clear it up with facts, and then consistent use. I appreciate that effort. Good luck - we need it. I'm not sure how much discussion will help as much as make a mess - at some point we have to be forced to just go with something.

- You could use more whitespace. This seems really low-brow, but it's the simple truth of technical writing. No one wants to read, nor do people HAVE to read, but you still have ideas to get to them.

Anyways - I look forward to more stuff.

Please don't Infract me- I wanna help!

[Digital Watches]

@Star: Operational definition is a specific term that means a specific thing, and I'm advocating the use of actual operational definitions, not just mere terms. Fortunately, it's a well-defined term that has its own Wikipedia article and everything, so if it confuses you, you can read up on what it means. That kind of clarity and usefulness is what we're striving for.

Also: I don't know where you get the idea that I'm going to hand out infractions for disagreeing with me, but I'm not, and that would be stupid. It'd be good if you'd keep your disagreement constructive, but infractions are for actual bad behavior defined in rules of the forums.

Anyway, here are some proposed attempts to operationally define some of the specific gameplay terms I used in that article, to start us off:

Frame advantage is any positive static difference. The notation used to describe this state is +(number). Again, in any situation where this doesn't refer to a single attack being blocked by a normal guard, that should be specified. Relatedly, frame disadvantage is the same thing with any negative number, and frame neutral should refer to a static difference of zero. These terms are extremely narrow, use them accordingly.

Situational advantage is the broader concept of having more or more powerful options than the other character given all of the factors at play in a given span of time, including but not limited to range, actual frame advantage, and of course, what moves both characters have access to. When referring to a character being at advantage, at disadvantage, or at neutral, this is the term being invoked. Use the +/- notation to specifically refer to actual static difference. This is hard to measure, but it's theoretically possible with a lot of detailed information on hitboxes and frame data.

Pressure is any situation in a fighting game in which one character is specifically in blockstun and the other is at situational advantage. Note that because of the way chains and other cancel properties work, this often does not mean that the opponent is strictly at frame advantage in an airdashing fighter.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Digital Watches

[TheRealBobMan]

I can't contribute at the moment since I'm on my break at work (and it's just now ending), but I want to throw out the word "momentum" since I hate the way I hear people using it. Can we discuss that one next?

[zeth07]

I think these would be a good starting point:

http://www.dustloop.com/wiki/index.php?title=Notation

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary_of_fighting_games

They already have loose definitions for a starting point, and our wiki has applicable definitions already.

With that said, I think for the most part the definitions given from either of those links are fine, so I think it would be more about what terms people DON'T agree with and why they don't. Because as far as I'm concerned that list we have on the wiki is acceptable enough unless someone just wants to be "that guy" and split hairs about stuff but I guess that's what this thread is about doing.

A list is already given, so I think people should just speak up about what should be changed by what's already provided and make an argument about why instead of trying to start from "zero".

EDIT:

Since you mentioned rushdown being one of the terms you don't really like I would question why that is, unless you just mean when people use it in the wrong context.

So let's look at the two definitions provided by those links:

Dustloop = Style of play where you constantly attack the opponent in close range fighting, never giving him an opportunity to retaliate.

Wiktionary = The complete opposite of turtling, a rushdown style is considered to be completely offensive, often using a huge variety of mix up, pressure and mind games to force an opponent into a suboptimal defensive situation, seeking to create openings and watch for sudden mistakes to capitalize with proper, devastating punishment. Because of its overtly offensive, flashy nature, rushdown is generally considered to be a very entertaining -- if risky -- style of fighting.

In my opinion both apply just fine when trying to describe a character's playstyle, mainly because it would be referring to the CORE playstyle of the character if you're using it in that context. Of course you could just as easily say the instant a character goes into close range and starts pressuring and attacking they are now "rushing down" the opponent. So you can say one is a "style", while the other is the "act".

The same thing can be applied to Zoning/Zoner.

Dustloop = Style of play where you stay far away from the opponent and use ranged attacks to keep the opponent away while slowly whittling away the opponent's life.

Wiktionary = Zoning is a tactic in 2D fighters usually used at mid-range or far mid-range, the purpose of which is to out-prioritize your enemy's moves. The idea is to space yourself so that you are in a position to respond to or punish any entry angle or attack of your opponent's. Ideally, you can use certain pokes and attacks to beat your opponent's attacks, punish his advances or jumps, and hopefully shut down his offensive options, while landing hits. In attempting to zone, it is important to know the properties of your own attacks as well as the attacks of your opponent, in order to find the best move to use in countering your opponent's move. The ability to predict your opponent's next move, and having good reflexes to react to that move, are also important.

Notice this time the different wording used between them. Dustloop Wiki refers to it as a "style", while Wiktionary refers to it as a "tactic". I personally do not think either is "wrong". With that said a character can easily be referred to as a "Zoner" because their core gameplay revolves around the act of "Zoning".

Someone will argue that in every single match each character is zoning and rushing down but that doesn't mean characters can't have that style of play or be defined as such, again unless someone is just trying to split hairs.

Examples:

Rushdown: Sol/Slayer/Bang/Yun/Wolverine

Zoning: Nu/Rachel/Testament/Dhalsim/Morrigan/Viewtiful Joe

I would say those character's primary playstyle fits those descriptions. The rushdown characters can't do much of anything fullscreen and if they can it is minimal. Meanwhile the zoning characters have tools for controlling space even at fullscreen/mid-screen when nowhere even near the opponent. Fortunately for them they each coincidentally or not have attacks that allow them to then rushdown as well, but given the nature of those characters if someone were to ask me I would still say they were "zoners" if I had to pick a playstyle to apply to them. At the same time Bang and Sol both have attacks they can use for "zoning" but it pales in comparison to the actual "zoners". That's why at the same time you get character's who are good all around and jack of all trades like Jin/Ky/Ryu.

I will say that given the nature of the game, Guilty Gear has a lot more instances of offensive tactics than say Street Fighter and characters tend to have A LOT of tools to use so it is probably harder to pin them down into an absolute playstyle. It is very much the same thing that applied to Nu/Rachel during CT, and they still have their moments now but that's what I think makes certain characters fundamentally stronger than others but that's for another topic entirely.

So this is where I think it comes down to the actual context in which you use the terms, quite literally the exact phrase that any given person uses it. If I said Bang was primarily a rushdown character, I would find it kinda hard for someone to disagree with me and if they did I would ask what kind of character they think he was instead since his entire purpose is to get in close range and mix you up while severely lacking any real threat from fullscreen.

Edited May 8, 2013 by zeth07

[Adelheid]

EDIT:

Since you mentioned rushdown being one of the terms you don't really like I would question why that is, unless you just mean when people use it in the wrong context.

So let's look at the two definitions provided by those links:

Dustloop = Style of play where you constantly attack the opponent in close range fighting, never giving him an opportunity to retaliate.

Wiktionary = The complete opposite of turtling, a rushdown style is considered to be completely offensive, often using a huge variety of mix up, pressure and mind games to force an opponent into a suboptimal defensive situation, seeking to create openings and watch for sudden mistakes to capitalize with proper, devastating punishment. Because of its overtly offensive, flashy nature, rushdown is generally considered to be a very entertaining -- if risky -- style of fighting.

In my opinion both apply just fine when trying to describe a character's playstyle, mainly because it would be referring to the CORE playstyle of the character if you're using it in that context. Of course you could just as easily say the instant a character goes into close range and starts pressuring and attacking they are now "rushing down" the opponent. So you can say one is a "style", while the other is the "act".

This is less than meaningless. In Guilty Gear, the vast majority of characters want to be "completely offensive, often using a huge variety of mix-up, pressure, and mind games to force an opponent into a suboptimal defensive situation." Shit, who DOESN'T want that to be the game state at all times? Even Testament is totally okay with that being the game state at all times, throwing down nets after knockdowns, making people unsure what to do against EXE beast, what have you. As I was discussing with Watches while encouraging him to write more about this, airdashers in general are defined by rushdown - the act of "rushdown" is a thing but the playstyle completely is not. Characters in airdashers are defined by what they're doing when they're not rushing the opponent down. Venom's favorite game state is "balls are restricting the opponent's options so they can't fight against my pressure," Carl's favorite game state is "the opponent is between me and my doll, let me do whatever mixup I want," I could literally do this for every character in every game.

So no, saying someone is a rushdown character is useless non-information.

[zeth07]

This is less than meaningless. In Guilty Gear, the vast majority of characters want to be "completely offensive, often using a huge variety of mix-up, pressure, and mind games to force an opponent into a suboptimal defensive situation." Shit, who DOESN'T want that to be the game state at all times? Even Testament is totally okay with that being the game state at all times, throwing down nets after knockdowns, making people unsure what to do against EXE beast, what have you. As I was discussing with Watches while encouraging him to write more about this, airdashers in general are defined by rushdown - the act of "rushdown" is a thing but the playstyle completely is not. Characters in airdashers are defined by what they're doing when they're not rushing the opponent down. Venom's favorite game state is "balls are restricting the opponent's options so they can't fight against my pressure," Carl's favorite game state is "the opponent is between me and my doll, let me do whatever mixup I want," I could literally do this for every character in every game.

So no, saying someone is a rushdown character is useless non-information.

Ok so the whole point of this is pointless then because you ARE trying to come up with "terms" and "definitions" to define parts of the game. Going by those descriptions for Carl and Venom isn't a "term" at all, and if it is a definition then what "term" would you use to describe them to someone in a easy way for them to understand? Anyone with a reasonable sense of the word "playstyle" in fighting games would probably understand the phrase "rushdown character". Anyone new to the genre or trying to decide on characters if they said to you I'd like to play a rushdown character, YOU and just about everyone else on this site know exactly what that person is talking about without question so it seems to have served a purpose and must not have been "useless non-information". And from THAT you can then go on and describe the characters playstyle in more detail like you did with Venom and Carl. Or can we call Carl's playstyle a "Sandwich" character, then we can use your definition for it if you like since it sounds more like your description?

Overview:

Testament used to have a strong focus on zoning and keepaway in his gameplay, but with the additions in AC, he can be played quite freely.

There's an example straight from the GG thread for Testament previously. So before AC, a person could have said Testment was a "Zoner" by "definition", why is that a problem if someone did that (prior to AC)? I'm pretty sure everyone understands the concept that it would be rare for any character to be pure rushdown/zoning and it is always happening in the match for every character, but when describing certain character's core playstyles I hardly see a problem with it. Especially when it is entirely possible for characters to have an "all-around" playstyle, so it already isn't like you have to decide on some Black or White answer to their playstyle.

I guess we need a new term for "Grappler" as well, because as a Bang player I have a command throw and a regular throw so I'd like to get in and throw people for damage so he must be a Grappler too.

The purpose of this was to come up with terms and definitions to be applied to fighting game stuff, and since every character can't seem to fit into the "perfect category" we have to come up with seemingly NEW terminology to TRY and fit them into a different category which goes against what you're saying entirely, thus defeating the whole purpose of this thread. Since we can't seem to just use the terms already commonly accepted among the entire fighting game scene OR just say a character can be good at both.

Or is the point of this to suddenly change 25-30+ years of "fighting game terminology" cause somehow people "don't get it" when any of those terms are already used?

[InWithTheAshes]

Sorry if this sounds idiotic or incorrect or whatever, but could we use the previous terms (E.G. "Zoner", "Rushdown", "Runaway") to refer towards a player's preferred way of doing things rather than a Character's general gameplan?

I don't see how this could confuse anyone aside from it differing from how they've been used previously, and I wouldn't say it would affect people's views of the games negatively.

[Digital Watches]

The problem I have with definitions like that (and you should too) isn't anything on the order of them being inaccurate terms. No, I'm saying that even when they are considered accurate, their accuracy is unimportant, because they are not usefully descriptive terms. The only discussion they'll produce when there's a conflict is a lot of florid prose where a bunch of them get strung together and no information is exchanged. That's why I like the idea of having operational definitions for these terms. I don't want to "just suddenly change years of fighting game terms," and in fact I am specifically trying to avoid changing terms for things as much as possible, and trying to find operational definitions that fit some interpretations of terms that may already exist.

I'm trying to encourage us to form more of a solidified consensus on measurable things that these terms mean so that we can speak clearly to each other, and if we need to, creating new terms to describe situations or concepts that do not have an established term but exist within whatever conceptual framework we map this terminology to. Operational definitions in science are often uses of a word used by the lay population in much broader ways, co-opted to serve as useful definitions for people actually doing research in the field or who actually need to exchange meaningful information about it. I'm not proposing we go proselytize on SRK and be pedantic in every region thread here about using terms loosely, just that we should define a higher standard for serious attempts to exchange and discuss information about gameplay so we can actually use all these concepts to do so in a way that gets anything done.

So hopefully that's clear. That said, rushdown is a pretty problematic term because it's used very interchangeably with "pressure" and sometimes even "mixup" by a lot of people, as well as the simple act of using forward dashes, as well as to refer to characters that do big combos, as well as to justify an artificial class of characters that can include almost any character depending on who you ask in at least Guilty Gear... You see my point. I could go on about how this term is ambiguous, doesn't convey much information (besides the term itself and some vague ideas about being "offense-y" in general) to new players, doesn't allow much useful exchange of information between knowledgeable players, especially ones who disagree about something concerning "rushdown." So it's probably useful to design our terminology around this a little bit, so that instead of a clusterfuck of at-best-overlapping at-worst-equivalent terms about offense, we have useful words that mean things that we can reason about and that we all understand and agree that they mean.

Proposal:

Pressure refers to the acts done to try to maintain situational advantage from the position of situational advantage. (In other words, I'm now using the term more broadly than I previously proposed, but no less operationally.) This means that games like okizeme, blockstrings, and true frame traps are pressure games, as are the specific situation of burst baits, for example. (Well, actually it would mean that if I could operationally define those, which I plan to, but I'm just giving you examples of how this classification better fits what people currently use than my previous proposed usage). It means that footsies and pressure aren't mutually exclusive, and can be talked about in the same context, but with it clear which one is which (Note: The two coming up at once is a common situation in Guilty Gear). It also means that we can safely say that someone who is blocking isn't playing a pressure game on the opponent (okay, maybe sometimes we can say Baiken is, but like I've said a zillion times, she's really weird​)

Rushdown refers to any attempt to move the game state (Or "match flow" from my examples before, but I like poon's term for this) from neutral to a pressure game (for you). Again we have some useful properties with this term. We can now talk about specific points in a game that are strictly "rushdown". We can talk about "successful" or "unsuccessful" rushdowns. It's also useful for excluding some situations. With this narrow criterion for the term, suddenly not all offense is rushdown. We can exclude reversalsfrom rushdown (Which most players would anyway) even though reversals are an offensive play. Pressure also isn't rushdown now. In fact, by the definitions I've just proposed, pressure is never rushdown and vice versa. But we can talk about situations where a player mistook pressure for rushdown, meaning they did not know they were already at disadvantage (I use this example because it happens a lot in real matches). Now we know when a dash is rushdown and when it's not in some very definite terms.

So I think operationally defining things is useful and completely necessary for meaningful discourse. Hopefully I can at least convince you of that, if not even any of the actual specific definitions I'm proposing just yet.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Digital Watches

[Celerity]

Proposal:

Pressure refers to the acts done to try to maintain situational advantage from the position of situational advantage. (In other words, I'm now using the term more broadly than I previously proposed, but no less operationally.) This means that games like okizeme, blockstrings, and true frame traps are pressure games, as are the specific situation of burst baits, for example. (Well, actually it would mean that if I could operationally define those, which I plan to, but I'm just giving you examples of how this classification better fits what people currently use than my previous proposed usage). It means that footsies and pressure aren't mutually exclusive, and can be talked about in the same context, but with it clear which one is which (Note: The two coming up at once is a common situation in Guilty Gear). It also means that we can safely say that someone who is blocking isn't playing a pressure game on the opponent (okay, maybe sometimes we can say Baiken is, but like I've said a zillion times, she's really weird​)

Rushdown refers to any attempt to move the game state (Or "match flow" from my examples before, but I like poon's term for this) from neutral to a pressure game (for you). Again we have some useful properties with this term. We can now talk about specific points in a game that are strictly "rushdown". We can talk about "successful" or "unsuccessful" rushdowns. It's also useful for excluding some situations. With this narrow criterion for the term, suddenly not all offense is rushdown. We can exclude reversalsfrom rushdown (Which most players would anyway) even though reversals are an offensive play. Pressure also isn't rushdown now. In fact, by the definitions I've just proposed, pressure is never rushdown and vice versa. But we can talk about situations where a player mistook pressure for rushdown, meaning they did not know they were already at disadvantage (I use this example because it happens a lot in real matches). Now we know when a dash is rushdown and when it's not in some very definite terms.

I like your definitions of pressure and rushdown, because that is generally how I think of those terms already. However, how exactly would you define a "rushdown character"? I think the most common usage of the word "rushdown" is in reference to character archetype, and I'm not sure if this new definition addresses that usage. Would you say a character with great mobility and poor mixup is a "rushdown" character, while a character with the reverse is a "pressure" character?

Personally, I would define a rushdown character as one who has a higher than average dependency on rushdown (moving the game state from neutral to pressure) to win, regardless of how good they are at it. This definition works across games because it's contextual, but it's not ambiguous because it still operates on the concrete definition you've provided. Using this definition, Venom isn't rushdown (he goes straight from advantage to pressure with little transition), Rachel isn't rushdown (she's very good at it but not strictly dependent on it), and Mitsuru isn't rushdown (I've heard many people say she has "good rushdown" because she can work her way in safely). Millia, on the other hand, is obviously rushdown because she's reliant on going from neutral to pressure without setting up. This is pretty much consistent with common sense and the way most people see things already.

[reaVer]

If I'd define rushdown I'd go with this:

Playerstates:

Offense: Forcing opponent to guess and defend accordingly. (So this means you are attacking and are trying to set up your opponent for a hit)

Defense: Being forced to guess and defend accordingly. (Pokes to interrupt, guard, uppercuts, etc)

Neutral: Not forced or forcing to guess and defending accordingly. (Both players have freedom of movement and attack)

Rushdown is the continuous assumption of offense. Regardless of actual state. This implies that range is NOT important. Chipp for example is perfectly capable of zoning(enforcing a distance) and rushing down at the same time. Venom on the other hand would not qualify as a suitable rushdown character as he's often unable to assume offense without consequence. It doesn't mean his offense isn't good, but he's not able to enforce offense or even keep it.

This is the most accurate way I'd describe rushdown, I'm at work so it isn't very detailed but I can type something out later if interested.

[Digital Watches]

@Celerity: I like the general idea of how you're defining a "rushdown character" because if we're going by a strict definition, we can do stuff like argue from high-level matches whether this is the way a character is being played. Especially because we can (in theory) make arguments like "In (insert recent tournament, E.G. A-Cho or Final Round) we can identify that in matches where (x character) won, we can identify them successfully converting a rushdown attempt into pressure/damage, whereas in matches where they lost, we see them still trying to transition but failing (IE being hit out of their attempt, or succeeding the rushdown but losing their pressure and not getting anything out of it, etc). We can conclude that this character was being played as a rushdown character." If we can then also point out situations where this occurs, do silly stuff like literally count them and compare them to similar statistics about other characters/players, etc, we can at least shift our disagreement to some facts about real games rather than some fuzzy ideas about "offense-y-ness". I think this is a good definition, although we should write it out concisely with a way to measure it.

@Reaver: I don't think offense and defense as you're describing them there are very useful. A definition that is too inclusive tells you as much information as a definition that includes nothing. In the case of trying to determine whether someone is "Forced to guess", I'd argue that depending on what you mean by that, you're either describing too many or too few situations, depending on how you define "forced", "guess", etc. Is someone forced to guess if they're attacking someone with a DP? After all, the person with the DP can DP or block. I'd argue that both players are sort of "guessing" (in that they don't have perfect information on what the opponent will do) at all times, and since this information they don't have is important, we could argue that they are almost always "forced" to do so (Again, by some definition of "forced" that I'm just assuming you're using. This ambiguity itself is telling). On the other hand, you could also say that a player is only "guessing" when there's explicitly an ambiguous situation, where the character they're fighting has two or more equivalently available and unreactable options that have to be defended against differently (What many people describe as "mixup"). Which is it? Can we really describe matches clearly in these terms? Where does the distinction lie, and how can we measure it reliably, or at least settle arguments about it based on facts we can extract from just watching the match (as opposed to reading the players' minds)?

Also: Are you proposing that we use "rushdown" as an explicitly derogatory term? By the definitions you've mentioned, a player that always assumes that they are on offense is pretty much a bad player. Such a person is by definition poor at situational awareness, and if they are assuming that they are always "forcing the opponent to guess" as opposed to ever having to "guess and defend accordingly," they are (setting aside that I still don't necessarily know what's going on in the match by talking about it in these terms) probably just playing poorly and losing if they're against someone who does not have this problem. Do we have a use for operationally-derogatory terms? Possibly. I don't think that's what people want to mean when they say "rushdown" though.

As an aside, while our discussions might get detailed, our definitions should actually be simple. It's easy to string lots of smaller concepts together to talk about complex concepts, but defining words in complex terms is just a headache, and doesn't tend to produce useful definitions. Try something simple, measurable, and that excludes more than it includes within the domain of discourse.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Digital Watches

[zeth07]

I pretty much agree with what Celerity said.

[iora]

Here's one i hear get thrown around wrong a decent bit. Trying to keep the definition simple though... hmmm... i might not be the best for this... but ill try (partly because i think theres a lot more to it than that definition in the wiki for fight game terms also)

Frame Trap: A gap in pressure designed to punish certain actions the opponent might commonly do, usually the opponent hitting a button/attack with no invulnerable frames. A frame trap does not have to give up pressure, but it does mean for at least a part of the pressure, there is a period where advantage can be turned by certain actions.

Feel free to tear me apart if you disagree, but honestly theres a lot to say about frame trap in anime games in particular

Edited May 8, 2013 by iora

[reaVer]

@Celerity: I like the general idea of how you're defining a "rushdown character" because if we're going by a strict definition, we can do stuff like argue from high-level matches whether this is the way a character is being played. Especially because we can (in theory) make arguments like "In (insert recent tournament, E.G. A-Cho or Final Round) we can identify that in matches where (x character) won, we can identify them successfully converting a rushdown attempt into pressure/damage, whereas in matches where they lost, we see them still trying to transition but failing (IE being hit out of their attempt, or succeeding the rushdown but losing their pressure and not getting anything out of it, etc). We can conclude that this character was being played as a rushdown character." If we can then also point out situations where this occurs, do silly stuff like literally count them and compare them to similar statistics about other characters/players, etc, we can at least shift our disagreement to some facts about real games rather than some fuzzy ideas about "offense-y-ness". I think this is a good definition, although we should write it out concisely with a way to measure it.

@Reaver: I don't think offense and defense as you're describing them there are very useful. A definition that is too inclusive tells you as much information as a definition that includes nothing. In the case of trying to determine whether someone is "Forced to guess", I'd argue that depending on what you mean by that, you're either describing too many or too few situations, depending on how you define "forced", "guess", etc. Is someone forced to guess if they're attacking someone with a DP? After all, the person with the DP can DP or block. I'd argue that both players are sort of "guessing" (in that they don't have perfect information on what the opponent will do) at all times, and since this information they don't have is important, we could argue that they are almost always "forced" to do so (Again, by some definition of "forced" that I'm just assuming you're using. This ambiguity itself is telling). On the other hand, you could also say that a player is only "guessing" when there's explicitly an ambiguous situation, where the character they're fighting has two or more equivalently available and unreactable options that have to be defended against differently (What many people describe as "mixup"). Which is it? Can we really describe matches clearly in these terms? Where does the distinction lie, and how can we measure it reliably, or at least settle arguments about it based on facts we can extract from just watching the match (as opposed to reading the players' minds)?

Also: Are you proposing that we use "rushdown" as an explicitly derogatory term? By the definitions you've mentioned, a player that always assumes that they are on offense is pretty much a bad player. Such a person is by definition poor at situational awareness, and if they are assuming that they are always "forcing the opponent to guess" as opposed to ever having to "guess and defend accordingly," they are (setting aside that I still don't necessarily know what's going on in the match by talking about it in these terms) probably just playing poorly and losing if they're against someone who does not have this problem. Do we have a use for operationally-derogatory terms? Possibly. I don't think that's what people want to mean when they say "rushdown" though.

As an aside, while our discussions might get detailed, our definitions should actually be simple. It's easy to string lots of smaller concepts together to talk about complex concepts, but defining words in complex terms is just a headache, and doesn't tend to produce useful definitions. Try something simple, measurable, and that excludes more than it includes within the domain of discourse.

No, the definition I gave is very much in line with what was previously said. Except it was called an attempt to move from neutral to offense. But I didn't find that accurate enough, offense can be given by the opponent for lots of reasons and that doesn't imply you are rushing down. Assuming offense as I believe it to be is to explicitly move gamestate from neutral to your offense. Players doing this aren't bad, as there are a lot of successful rushdown players even in Japan.

Now for my other definitions: mind the "forced to". When you're attacking you are not forced into a guessing game, you are forcing one onto your opponent, often by setups and mixups, and guessing is more or less optional. On defense, you are forced to take action to counter your opponent's setup/mixup, this is often done by proper guarding, but not limited to guarding. Other possible defensive actions are throwing, dragon punching and using your low jab. That is why the terms are so general, when on offense you have momentum and you're forcing the guessing on your opponent while on defense the opponent is doing that to you. The neutral game implies that neither is forcing the other person to take defensive action (even if such action can be desired). Knowing these situations and knowing in which one you are can help you when considering what tools to apply to the situation. You're not going to attempt a 5D when you're in a defensive state because your opponent is very likely to just hit you (because that was his intention anyway), while on offense your opponent is forced to react to you and then a 16-20 frame gap is much less of a problem.

[Digital Watches]

@Iora: Yeah, "frame traps" I think are an important thing to nail down.

Usually when I hear people talk about frame traps, it refers to situations where one player has frame advantage but allows a gap where the opponent can act in some way. The most common one is allowing them to throw out an attack (or "swing") from frame disadvantage, thus effectively dropping the soap. I think that specific situation is best known as a false gap as well. It's a frame trap because it's not really at neutral, and the player doing the trapping is still at actual frame advantage, or at least situational advantage (Maybe that should just be called a trap)

So what's a good operational definition for a trap? A binary condition where we can definitively say "That was a trap" or "That was not a trap?"

Maybe... a trap is a specific kind of pressure game where one player tricks the other player into attacking from disadvantage. Furthermore, A frame trap is a trap performed from frame advantage (As opposed to a more ambiguous advantage state) How does that sound?

Edited May 8, 2013 by Digital Watches

[Moy_X7]

Now for my other definitions: mind the "forced to". When you're attacking you are not forced into a guessing game, you are forcing one onto your opponent, often by setups and mixups, and guessing is more or less optional. On defense, you are forced to take action to counter your opponent's setup/mixup, this is often done by proper guarding, but not limited to guarding.

The thing is that you still have to guess even when you're attacking unless you're using air tight pressure strings. If the opponent has some sort of 1F reversal and there's a gap in your pressure, you're going to have to guess whether to continue your pressure or stop to try and bait the reversal. If you guess right, then great, you just baited and punished the reversal. If you guess wrong, you've either given up your pressure or created an even bigger hole that can give your opponent more options to get out of your pressure or turn the tables on you.

As long as there's a gap in your pressure and your opponent has some sort of 1F reversal, you're going to have to guess even when you're the one attacking. It isn't just restricted to reversals though. Using BB as an example, most overheads leave a gap big enough for your opponent to mash out of it if you're going into the overhead from a gatling. So now you have to worry about both a reversal or mashing. If you were to go into an overhead from a gatling, you have to GUESS whether your opponent will sit there and take it, mash, or throw out a reversal and you'll have to GUESS on the proper counter for the latter two (frame traps, jump cancels, etc.)

[tataki]

Just stop using the word "abare" wrong and everything will be alright.

Damage off of a random hit = damage off of a random hit.

Japanese "Abare" = Attacking while in disadvantage (of frames usually). In FG slang- "no respect" for the opponent.

[Airk]

I'm a little concerned about the current definition for "rushdown" - because as written, Lambda/Nu's 5DD falls into "rushdown" because pushing D twice at neutral may cause your opponent to block. Right now, the definition is too broad and basically covers any attempt to make your opponent block anything, because once your opponent is blocking, you are considered to be applying pressure. I think THAT part is correct (if your opponent is blocking, you are applying pressure) but I don't think that any attempt to do that from neutral should be considered rushdown, because zoning characters also want to "maintain situational advantage from the position of situational advantage" aka "apply pressure".

So not all pressure is rushdown. More specificity is needed here.

[poon]

Rushdown is pressure that doesn't let up. It is continual and while it may have gaps it does not necessarily have breaks. If the action is continually "forward" then you have rushdown. Frametraps and pokes can be converted into damage and can have followups without being a rushdown situation.

Some fullscreen characters present odd situations where they have an opponent in a blockstun/guessing state for long periods of time. This could be construed as rushdown IF the opponent does have the chance to simply block and eventually be out of pressure, imho. True rushdown requires the blocker to proactively do something in order to escape, at least in the way it is traditionally used. If a defender can simply wait it out and be back to neutral, it's pressure at best.

Basically reaver's definition is correct (imo)

Edited May 8, 2013 by poon

[reaVer]

It's not really pressure, because pressure does not have the purpose to break someone's guard. Pressure can be used to initiate offense or continue offense.

Ok, so yes, people can actually use their defensive tools and cause a break in your offense. It still doesn't mean you have to guess during offense, because when you decide to bait your opponent you are essentially giving away offense: your opponent can do something other than the reversal and initiate his offense or push for a neutral game. That said, doing stuff like that isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as you can move between states freely. But again, it's a free choice. Your opponent in contrast is FORCED to either guard high, low, dp, throw, etc and if he guesses right he has a chance to break your offense, if he guesses wrong you break his guard and you get the combo.

[poon]

I guess that's true - rushdown has the added characteristic (unlike pressure) that if all you do is block, OR if you guess wrong, you're eventually going to get hit because it's not going to let up. You can leave someone in pressure for an entire round without ever trying to actually hit them, which is not really rushdown. So yeah, I agree.

[MashThat5A]

Maybe... a trap is a specific kind of pressure game where one player tricks the other player into attacking from disadvantage. Furthermore, A frame trap is a trap performed from frame advantage (As opposed to a more ambiguous advantage state) How does that sound?

Hmm, I'm not sure if I agree with the frame trap definition, since not all frame traps come from strict frame advantage since you can also create frame traps by delaying gattlings. However, if we were to rework frame advantage to include gattlings, then it would work. I guess gattlings are an indirect frame advantage as opposed to the static frame advantage we're used to seeing in frame data.

[poon]

Frame traps are definitely not always performed from frame advantage. At their core they involve abusing situations where defenders believe they have time to execute an action but, in reality, do not, and will get hit by the frame trap if they try.

A character intentionally finishing a string at a frame disadvantage and then Uppercut => RC an opponent's response is a really basic example of this

[DubiousCurvLoop]

It's not really pressure, because pressure does not have the purpose to break someone's guard. Pressure can be used to initiate offense or continue offense.

Ok, so yes, people can actually use their defensive tools and cause a break in your offense. It still doesn't mean you have to guess during offense, because when you decide to bait your opponent you are essentially giving away offense: your opponent can do something other than the reversal and initiate his offense or push for a neutral game. That said, doing stuff like that isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as you can move between states freely. But again, it's a free choice. Your opponent in contrast is FORCED to either guard high, low, dp, throw, etc and if he guesses right he has a chance to break your offense, if he guesses wrong you break his guard and you get the combo.

So basically, you're saying rushdown is pressure with mixups, because mixups force the opponent to make a decision? Your distinction makes sense.

I think there's a discrepancy with "pressure" though. When you think of the dictionary definition of "pressure," the goal is to entice someone into making a decision that is favorable to you. This doesn't align with your pressure definition, but aligns well with your rushdown definition.

Maybe I'm thinking too much about semantics, but to me, it would make sense to transpose the two terms for consistency, but I don't know if that would be going against the grain. If so, I apologize.

Edited May 9, 2013 by DubiousCurvLoop