Operational Definitions for Gameplay Terms: The Project

[tataki]

What's the point in trying to define rushdown yourselves in this thread when no one around you uses it like that?

The very first step is to analyze what exactly people mean when they say "rushdown" (which can vary from person to person) and replace it with a clearer word.

Rinse repeat for every other word and viola!

When people on the internet say "rushdown" they usually mean "close ranged offense", period. So if every time you just say "close ranged offense" you'll be clearer. If you have anything to say beyond that, just spell it out loud instead of trying to put it all under a single word which the rest of the internet isn't informed of.

Edited May 9, 2013 by tataki

[Digital Watches]

Man, I'm torn because on the one hand, I really need sleep, but this has generated a lot of discussion, which is good. I'll compromise and try to address what I see as a concern about the premise of this effort.

@tataki and a few others: The point is to have terms that are useful. We're not trying to do linguistics or anthropology here. I'm not trying to write the Oxford Fighting Game Dictionary. There are probably plenty of resources that already do that. I know the whole "linguistics are descriptive, not prescriptive" thing. The fighting game community has no shortage of people who want to talk about it, in terms of its culture.

I'm proposing a way to talk about fighting games, the games themselves, in a useful, clear, and informative manner that can hopefully bring about actual new information from analysis and discussion. Hella theory fighter goes around with lots of smart people saying very contradictory things and there is no resolution or gold standard because there's no real way to tell precisely what anyone means. You say "just use terms how people use them", but people mean different things in ways that are ill-defined.

There comes a point where mere emergent language fails to resolve disputes or produce solid information. That's why there's specialized language used in contexts where the meanings of words have to be well-defined because what they mean actually matters. Legal texts define words in specific ways. These words are usually words people actually use, but they try to use narrow definitions to ensure that precedent can be applied consistently. Scientific fields use terms in specific, operationally defined ways so that if you read a peer-reviewed paper, they can discuss the actual facts of their experiments in terms that always mean the same thing, and can be measured, tested, and falsified. Again, scientific terms often overlap with real words people use, but you can't go backwards and say that means that other usages from normal speech are valid in the scientific context.

To use an example people will be familiar with: People go around saying they're "OCD" because they like their bookshelves straight and their houses clean, or because they're grammar nazis, or because they're pedantic about some other minor thing in some other stupid way, or even a lot of things. Generally, almost none of these people would get diagnosed with the serious, crippling, actual psychological disorder that is called OCD (Which actually has way more to do with a concept called "thought-action fusion," intrusive thoughts that cause severe distress, and an irrational belief in ritual alleviation of said thoughts). The DSM, which is basically just a book of operational definitions of disorders for psychiatrists, defines OCD in much narrower ways so that actual trained doctors can make an actual diagnosis.

If you look it up in the DSM, you'll notice that their terms are pretty narrow. You'll also notice that even though the DSM is a serious project undertaken by a lot of smart, well-educated experts, there are still disagreements because the human brain is pretty damn complicated and it's a genuinely hard problem to recognize meaningful patterns of behavior or mental function that are problematic and unhealthy, let alone fix them. And compared to some fields, clinical psychology can actually be said to have a pretty loose standard for some of its terminology.

Once you want to convey actual meaningful information about complex topics, it becomes necessary to agree on narrow, measurable definitions of words. They may not end up being completely clean like mathematical concepts, because interesting, complicated problems can't always be broken into easy math. But distilling terms into small concepts that are defined by at least somewhat measurable criteria means we can at least get past the phase where all arguments have to end with people agreeing to disagree, because there's no mechanism to even reconcile whether their terms mean the same thing every time, let alone an actual disagreement between people.

In other words, using terms people already use is fine, but using them how they use them (IE nebulously and with no way to fact-check them) doesn't suit our purposes here. For the purposes of being tied to measurable criteria, just saying "rushdown" is equivalently useless to saying "close range offense". Neither of those terms have litmus test in and of themselves. And besides, what if we end up defining some equations? Do you really want to write out an equation every time you talk about, for example, centripetal force? We could just as easily agree on a definition that's exact, and then know by consensus that that's what that means in contexts where we have a need for well-defined language.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Digital Watches

[Dime_x]

I haven't read the entire thread just mainly the first page and half the next one...I concur that rushdown is indeed to broad a category to define characters in airdashers, cause every character in an airdasher wants to be at frame advantage.

I "pioneered" a concept long ago that I'm sure others have pioneered as well:

That offense of a mixup type, is based on pressure and... Blockbeaters.

Blockbeaters are lows,highs,crossups,throws and chip (block damage) all of these things force the opponent to make a decision besides sit in crouch block or high block (or chicken block). Without these things opponents can sit in block forever and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

The last form of offense in my mind is pressure...some might call it frame trapping... its constantly attacking your opponent and not needing any of the aforementioned block beaters... Generally speaking your opponent will just keep on attacking forever, hopefully gaining meter for themselves in the process, but at the very least not allowing the defending character any room to break out or maneuver... Generally speaking pressure gets all/most of its damage not from blockbeaters per se, but from opponents trying to break out of the pressure... Some not so perfect examples are:

Soul calibur 2 taki... (Relentless offense... But not much in the way of a high/low/throw game though it was there.... Somewhat)

Strider doom.. (Ok not the greatest example because the chip damage block beater threat employed by this team.. But the style is pressure based more than anything.. It just gets its teeth from chip damage and the teleport high/low even though the port is kinda easy to see and the chip takes forever to kill if you just sit there blocking the whole time... Strider doom still does most of its da,age via killing people for trying to get out of it... Which is pressure game in a nutshell.

Old school tekken hwaorang... Infinite pokestrings with shit lows throws and hids, it still pretty viable cause the pressure allowed for easy counter hit setups for trying to get out.

Generally speaking to be a highly pressure based character you need at least 1 of 3 things:

Low pushback on your moves when blocked (hwaorang)

Good advancing moves that are safe when blocked or better yet advantage on block (strider doom teleport) various dive kicks in streetfighter games

The corner cause once an opponent is cornered moves don't push the opponent back but instead push the attacker out and if the attacker simply has a decent advancing ove they can just continually put on the pressure, even without a great advancing move a lot of times since they can just dash or walk back in.

The point being, you can define a rushdown character by not only what distance it applies its rushdown from.. But more importantly, which of the 4 types of block beaters that character SPECIALIZES in and whether those themselves are helped by a huge pressure game.

An example of a character that doesn't seem to have much of a pressure game yet is still considered an offensive powerhouse is slayer... He just has mixups and stupid damage. Kinda like sg painwheel... She isn't pressure based, she's blockbeater based and she has all the types of blockbeaters heavily present in her arsenal save for pressure which she generally is pretty lacking in.

But filia is way more pressure based cause of the extreme goodness of iad jhp x n

Filias offense is pressure based into high/throw mixup. Not high/low cause her low is unsafe on block and most importantly is a disconnect from pressure if blocked. Whereas a missed throw recovers much more quickly and allows pokes against an airborn opponent when wiffed, or when etched she's still in iad jhp range so there is little pressure disconnect for either option.

My point being that airdash characters can probably be defined by "how" they offend. Magneto is high/low for days... Wolverine is crossups with b-slash and dive kick get in priority...

So er yeah, just my.02

Edited May 9, 2013 by Dime_x

[Amadeus46Art]

Dime I think what you're referring to "Blockbeaters" is what people normally call "Mixup", in either highs, lows, grabs, left/right, frame traps, anything to make your opponent guess or react while they're on the defensive, in order to do as you say, "something other than hold downback".

I do agree that it's rather impossible to be able to call any character a "rushdown character" and be done with it. I can think off the top of my head that Jam and HOS are both called "rushdown characters" but they get their damage in different ways and play their neutral game very differently. Saying more like "Jam is a rushdown character who has strong mixup on okizeme and powerful frametraps with some zoning options" is longer but it's actually accurate and tells a lot more.

Now cue the 3 pages arguing "mixup v okizeme" and "what is zoning" so we can figure out that stuff too.

[oldkiller]

Rush down is not a term that apply to a character, it is infact a playstyle of the player them self. So saying a character is a rushdown type is not right. Saying that character has strong factors to maximize the rushdown playstyle of a person is more accurate.

The term rushdown is used when the attacker continuously attack the defender. And this term has been used in other types of game not only in fighting game.

The reason people confuse these terms is because one term has elements of others. When you are pressuring, you are using: mix-up, block-string, frametrap... But you can't say pressure is mix-up. It just has the factor that the term mix-up define.

I think frame trap is just a more specific definition of the term bait. In a siuation where the attacker is pressuring the defender, the attacker purposely make a hole in his block-string, baiting the defender to counter them, then use a more frame advantage move to neutralize that counter.

It just specificly say that the attacker use the "frame advantage move". When Slayer make a hole in his block string, then use dandy step and follow up with pile bunker to counter the defender. You can't say he was using frame trap. It is more apropriate to use the term bait here.

[Dime_x]

How about for these definitions we/you guys just include multiple definitions? The dictionaries already do this and have been for years, so I see no reason to try and force a small definition on something since that small definition will always be in dispute...

An example for abare:

Abare/:

1. A term originating in Japanese and loosely referring to attacking from frame disadvantage, being disrespectful of the opponents offense and sometimes even used to describe button mashing in 3d fighters.

2. An English take on the original Japanese word, now used to describe any given fighting games charcters ability to convert random hits into full combos or good damage.

-----

Or you know, something like that cause now we have 2 definitions and both parties can be happy. Yes it may be convoluted at first, but that allows us to come up with better original stuff.

In other words instead of arguing what pressure or Oning or abare is... Lets just accept that they have different meanings, whethe one or the other is older is immaterial, it's just how things are now. Once that has happened, then we can come up with some more original terms for what exact kind of rushdown jam is when compared to slayer or what chip is when compared to milia... Or what this character is cause they specialize in high/low.

Anywho... Just some really stupid names to get the ball rolling:

A frame trap pressure character = gapper?... Cause they leave gaps...lol

A high/low character is... Er... A stepper? A staircaser? I'm just thinking of the fact that high and low hit at different levels...and completely failing

A crossup character might be a...backstabber? (From rts and moba games... Assassin style characters are always trying to hit people from the back and the usual spell is specifically called backstab) lol maybe an assassin.. So wolverine in umvc3 is an assassin... Lol

A chip damage character might be a chipper... Haha... Er no, probably not. But something of that nature.

Etc etc... I'm terrible at this sort of thing but I sure that there are those out there that aren't.

As an excercise. How about someone writes a gameplay description of what every character is trying to do in general and then that would make it easier to understand what to call that character...

A guy that sells stocks is a stock broker, a guy that installs and fixes plumbing is a plumber... A guy that deals with wires all day is an electrician... Etc etc

So a character like slayer that concentrates on landing that 1 hit into massive damage might be a sucker puncher... Lol

I'm tired.

[InWithTheAshes]

Except for the fact that a word having multiple definitions lends towards ambiguity, which is something particularly specified to avoid.

[Circuitous]

Maybe people shouldn't write in this thread when they're tired, it leads to some really confusing/nonsensical things.

We don't need new terms, but it'd be nice to have concise definitions for our existing terms so that they're actually useful. That's the objective here.

Now to complicate that unnecessarily, I wanna go back to rushdown for a sec. For me, rushdown always meant moving forward. You could apply it like an adjective with that in mind. A rushdown attack propels the user forward/towards the opponent. A rushdown playstyle favors dashing in/using rushdown attacks to clear distance between the player and their opponent and start pressure. A rushdown character favors or has moves that cater to a rushdown playstyle. It even suits the phrase "rush that shit down."

Rushdown attacks would be, for example, Lambda's tackle (Cavalier, I think?), Potemkin's Hammerfall, etc. Similarly, homing in Arcana Heart would be a rushdown maneuver.

Rushdown playstyle is the stupid way I play Sol/Chipp/anyone Melty Blood, dashing forward and pressing buttons. (It doesn't have to be stupid, but mine is.)

Rushdown characters would be Sol, Chipp, Ragna, Noel, Tsubaki, etc. It doesn't represent the character as a whole, just a potential playstyle option they might be suitable for. Also don't lynch me if those characters don't qualify based on the information I've presented here, I don't know them that well!

[Digital Watches]

@circ: Definining "rushdown" by closing distance is not a bad idea. I also like that the implication of this model is that it's a property of an attack rather than a character or a player (And that the property is inherited by having that kind of attack.) That facilitates a tool-based model of characters, which I like a lot, because it allows us to be more granular in our assessments but also gives us a way to qualify assessments of characters, which can really be seen as kits, or sets of moves. So as an operational definition, could we say rushdown is the use of any attack or sequence of attacks (such as IAD->j.H, or rekkas, or whatever) that also moves the character closer to their opponent?

@dime_x: I don't really find drawing a distinction between EG high-low, crossup-based, and throw mixup all that strategically meaningful, because when it comes right down to it, it's basically an implementation detail. Having access to more than one of these games means your opponent has to keep more things in mind, but if I'm sitting there blocking and suddenly get hit by a mixup, what kind of mixup it is is kind of irrelevant to what the state of the game now is. It's information, but it's a methodology, not a concept in and of itself.

It's like combos. There are combos with cool properties, and obviously if you play a certain character, it matters what buttons you have to press to do the most damage, or get knockdown, or be burst-safe, or set up a tech trap, but often there isn't really an actual difference in the situation implied by the structure of the combo. When talking about broader concepts, it's what the mixup or the combo accomplishes that matters.

However, I do like that you're trying to do what's called duck typing, or defining things by what they do. That's a great way to produce operational definitions.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Digital Watches

[iora]

Simple way i always viewed rushdown (as a character style anyway) as a character who

a: really wants initiative as fast as possible

b: usually wants/needs to be at close range to be effective

c: lacks zoning capabilities

d: will make sacrifices to maintain initiative

So maybe a 'rushdown' character would be a close-ranged fighter that wants to get, and maintain, situational advantage for as long as feasibly possible?

EG: Jin might not be rushdown, because if things went back to neutral, he has plenty of tools still, and he can moves to use defensively. He would not mind losing initiative for a different trade off (damage/meter gain). Where a character like Millia might be rushdown, since she wants it to be her turn for as long as possible. She has a one-off move to get in in hair pin, tons of moves to maintain momentum like FB disc, and she lacks tools for playing her game outside of close range (mostly).

Some example characters I would say as rushdown by my definition would be Millia/low charge Order sol/I-No in GG... Tsubaki/Noel/Valk/Tao in BB... Aigis when she has Orgia/Akihiko/Chie/Yu maybe in P4...... just saying off the top of my head anyway.

Feel free to disregard/correct what you dont agree with.

Edited May 9, 2013 by iora

[Amadeus46Art]

Definining "rushdown" by closing distance is not a bad idea. I also like that the implication of this model is that it's a property of an attack rather than a character or a player (And that the property is inherited by having that kind of attack.) That facilitates a tool-based model of characters, which I like a lot, because it allows us to be more granular in our assessments but also gives us a way to qualify assessments of characters, which can really be seen as kits, or sets of moves. So as an operational definition, could we say rushdown is the use of any attack or sequence of attacks (such as IAD->j.H, or rekkas, or whatever) that also moves the character closer to their opponent?

I'm cool with this but I think it needs to be more strict. Moves like Jam's Bakushuu, Potemkin's Hammerfall, Holy Order Sol's Rock It, etc, those are rushdown moves because you use them to keep "in" and close to your opponent, while maintaining pressure. But I don't think it should be simply "moves that move you closer to your opponent." In that case, things like Lambda's Act Parser; Cavalier would be put into that category like Circ brought up, but as anyone who's played Lambda knows, that's not a move that you pressure or "rushdown" with. Using it in a blockstring is pretty much saying "please block this and kill me" as it's so unsafe. I think other moves like Sol's Riot Stamp would also fall into that "not true rushdown moves" because you don't USE them for rushdown tactics.

I guess what I'm getting at is that we might agree not all pressure is rushdown, all rushdown is pressure, and moves that don't pressure can't be used for rushdown even if they close distance and keep "in".

[Circuitous]

Yeah, Cavalier was a bad example. It would need to be something a character would actually want to use to close distance and begin pressure, that's also effective. Hammerfall's unsafe, too, but the Brake, FRC, and armor make it more viable (especially since he doesn't have much else to close the gap). Bakushuu is very rushdown.

And I hinted at this with my Homing example, but it doesn't strictly have to be an attack. It could basically be any gameplay decision (attacking, dashing, homing, hell even teching forward) that gets you in the opponent's face.This video of Tsubu ABA does a pretty good job of illustrating rushdown tactics. When he enters Moroha mode, he consistently attempts ground and air dashes, rekkas, anything that gets him in on Testament and lets him attack.

[Orrax]

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.

I really dislike this definition for pressure. If I tap someone with one move that grants frame advantage, I'm, according to this definition, applying "pressure." But I don't think pressure refers to just one move. That's more... I don't know, a frame trap, or enforcing a mixup.

I think a useful way to begin defining words is to look first at how a term is used colloquially. All of these terms came from somewhere, and they derive from terms that had some common meaning that the specific fighting lingo evolved from. So, I first want to look at how Merriam-Webster defines "pressure":

1 a : the burden of physical or mental distress

b : the constraint of circumstance : the weight of social or economic imposition

2: the application of force to something by something else in direct contact with it : compression

3: archaic : impression, stamp

4a : the action of a force against an opposing force

b : the force or thrust exerted over a surface divided by its area

c : electromotive force

5: the stress or urgency of matters demanding attention : exigency <people who work well under pressure>

6: the force of selection that results from one or more agents and tends to reduce a population of organisms <population pressure> <predation pressure>

7: the pressure exerted in every direction by the weight of the atmosphere

8: a sensation aroused by moderate compression of a body part or surface

According to the first three definitions in particular, "pressure" is a psychological or physical burden, a constraint of circumstance, and the application of force. In terms of fighting game terminology, there definitely does seem to be a "constraint of circumstance," where one player is trapped by another's pressure and has to find a way out, which can create a "psychological burden," where the trapped player must figure out how to escape, and the player applying pressure is constantly applying some sort of tangible threat ("force") to keep the other player trapped -- here, I think it's probably safe to say that maintained blockstun is the "force." Also, this sort of situation in a fighting game doesn't arise in an instant; my example above of trapping an opponent with one normal that grants frame advantage does involve a constraint of circumstance, but it doesn't really create a "psychological burden" (psychological conundrum, perhaps, but I think of burden as something someone carries with difficulty over time), and only a small amount of force (blockstun) is used. So, I think we need a definition of pressure that emphasizes that one player is trapped and constrained over time through the use of some sort of force (blockstun). Maybe we could say something like:

Pressure: The continual enforcement of situational advantage through the use of blockstun.

I think the term "blockstun" already carries with it a sense of being constrained so I didn't mention constraint in the definition.

I also want to add that I like the idea of defining "rushdown" as something involving movement. I'm not going to quote Merriam-Webster again, but I tend to think of "rush" as hurrying and "down" in this circumstance as the closing of distance -- like moving "down" a gradient, or movement toward a physical location. Putting those two together, I get something along the lines of "hurrying to close the distance." Most rushdown characters that I am aware of are often close range fighters, where they need to get in close to be effective, so I think this (admittedly rough) definition is on the right track.

I'm also not quite sure how to parse the term "rushdown move." It seems to me that "rushdown" applies more to character types or a general sort of game plan. While many moves are useful in helping a character "rushdown," the moves themselves aren't the "rushdown"; they're tools used in a "rushdown," but I think they can also often serve other purposes. Like I'd say Rock It or Hammerfall would also be useful moves in pressure, which I think is a different thing than "rushdown" (namely that "rushdown" can frequently have the player rushing down at some sort of situational disadvantage, while the player applying pressure is pretty specifically in situational advantage). Hence, I wouldn't want to call the moves themselves "rushdown moves" when they have more applications and purpose than just rushing down.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Orrax

[DJ_Blactricity]

This is how I look at fighting games and define things. This is just a simplified version because fighting games are too complex to truly define them with terms past a certain level in my opinion. Fighting games are all about decisions, reading, and pressure. You win by making good decisions and lose by making bad ones. You pressure your opponent in order to establish or maintain the advantage. You force them to make bad decisions through the use of psychological threats. At all times, you should be observing how your opponent reacts in order to read them or keep from being read. You can be pressured while on defense, offense or at neutral.

Threats – can be just about anything and largely depend on who you’re playing.

Pressure – controlling and limiting the opponent. Can be active, passive, or psychological

Active Pressure - controlling the opponent by keeping them in blockstun for a period of time to keep or gain situational advantage usually with the intent to employ a mixup or gain better positioning.

Passive Pressure – controlling the opponent by keeping them in brief periods of blockstun to keep or gain situational advantage usually with the intent to keep them away or gain better positioning.

Psychological Pressure – controlling the opponent with threats to keep or gain situational advantage.

Rushdown – actively pressuring the opponent from close range.

Zoning – pressuring the opponent from a distance that's not close range. Can be active, passive, or psychological.

Active Zoning – actively pressuring the opponent from a distance.

Passive Zoning – passively pressuring the opponent from a distance.

Psychological Zoning – pressuring the opponent with threats from a distance.

Example for a little clarification(I can give more if needed)

There are 15 seconds left in the match, the opponent only needs 1 round to win the match and you are rushing down the opponent in the corner. You are using a high damage character, but their damage is only high in the corner without meter which you lack. They have a large life lead, have enough meter for a counter assault and are playing a character with great movement options. They are actively being pressured, but they have the situational advantage. The threat of them escaping or stopping your rushdown with a counter assault is causing you a lot of psychological pressure. They are experiencing little psychological pressure and are content playing it safe and blocking. You back off a little and switch to passively pressuring the opponent to eliminate the threat of the counterassault and coerce them into jumping so you can go for an airthrow and possibly take the round. They just sit there and you lose.

Edited May 10, 2013 by DJ_Blactricity

[MashThat5A]

I think the best definition of pressure is somehow related to the first Merriam-Webster definition:

1 a : the burden of physical or mental distress

After all, only keeping your opponent in blockstun doesn't really seem to be a good definition. How pressured do you feel by a player that only does block strings using 2A? I'd argue that applying pressure to your opponent is the act of making them feel as if they need to commit to something to stop your options. It might also help to discuss why we use pressure in our definition as well? i.e. Pressure is used for force the other player to make a mistake.

Edited May 11, 2013 by MashThat5A

[Rhiya]

Rushdown, IMO, is getting in, then staying in and attempting to capitalize off staying in. Rushdown characters tend to focus on staying in or capitalizing once they're in, but aren't necessarily good at getting in -- most all characters in airdash fighters are capable of rushdown itself (as noted before), so the characters that get called rushdown characters (in airdash games) are those that give the most incentive to do it.

[DJ_Blactricity]

I think the best definition of pressure is somehow related to the first Merriam-Webster definition:

1 a : the burden of physical or mental distress

After all, only keeping your opponent in blockstun doesn't really seem to be a good definition. How pressured do you feel by a player that only does block strings using 2A? I'd argue that applying pressure to your opponent is the act of making them feel as if they need to commit to something to stop your options. It might also help to discuss why we use pressure in our definition as well? i.e. Pressure is used for force the other player to make a mistake.

This is what I was trying to say, but I don't believe pressure is just used to force an opponent to make a mistake. In my opinion, pressure can be used for a variety of things. You can physically pressure your opponent into the corner to gain better positioning and/or employ some form of mixup. The threat of being put in the corner and/or getting hit may cause the opponent mental distress and may force the opponent to make a mistake. I say may because the opponent may be confident in their ability to escape physical pressure and/or block. Because of this, they will experience little or no mental distress, and will most likely wait for an opportunity to turn the tables. This is why I believe there are two basic types of pressure: physical(what I separate into active and passive) and mental pressure. These can exist alone or together. Mentally pressuring players can be quite difficult because as you play better and better players it usually gets harder to do. Edited May 11, 2013 by DJ_Blactricity

[TheRealBobMan]

I feel like one of the conditions for rushdown should be "not using options that are strictly defensive". Using Riot Stomp to avoid getting thrown/bursted/DP'd, while a silly move, is rushdown because you're dodging those things by attacking instead of by blocking or backdashing.

But this is my brain on 80+ hours of work per week for an amount of time that I can't remember. There was a meteorite that hit Russia and a bombing at a Marathon recently right? And then GG was supposed to come out but hasn't yet. That's my brain right now. : V

[Moy_X7]

I believe that pressure pertains to both "keeping the opponent in blockstun and situational disadvantage" and "forcing the opponent to eventually try something risky to get out of pressure (making a mistake/mental distress)"

I like the way Orrax's definition sounds but how about we add the "mental burden" to it?

Pressure: The continual enforcement of situational advantage through the use of blockstun. The main goal of applying pressure is to place a mental burden on the opponent, causing them to try something risky and punishable in order to get out of pressure.

@Mash - You'd be surprised at the amount of people that try to mash or jump out of 5A/2A pressure alone. People just don't want to be placed in a position where they're blocking, even if it's just 5A/2A pressure. It's not the 2As that cause people to stress, it's the thought of knowing what comes after them that makes them want to get out of pressure.

Of course, that depends on the character who is applying the 2A pressure. If it's someone like Jin without meter, one would probably just auto-pilot down-back and IB whatever they can to get free meter while reacting to the predictable throws. What's he gonna do after 2A? Hit you with 6A which leaves him at a situational disadvantage against certain characters (lol Noel 5A) on hit and end his pressure on block? Attempt to break your guard with his ever-so-obvious j.2C cross-up attempts?

However, someone like Hazama will place a heavier burden on the opponent since he can go into the command throw and Rasenga from his 2As, not to mention that they're + on block. You MUST jump in order to avoid the command throw and hopefully have good reflexes to block Rasenga. That's where his 2A pressure/staggers shine as they tag people during the start-up frames for both the jab and the jump (beats mashing and jumping).

Edited May 13, 2013 by Moy_X7

[zeth07]

I believe that pressure pertains to both "keeping the opponent in blockstun and situational disadvantage" and "forcing the opponent to eventually try something risky to get out of pressure (making a mistake/mental distress)"

I like the way Orrax's definition sounds but how about we add the "mental burden" to it?

Pressure: The continual enforcement of situational advantage through the use of blockstun. The main goal of applying pressure is to place a mental burden on the opponent, causing them to try something risky and punishable in order to get out of pressure.

@Mash - You'd be surprised at the amount of people that try to mash or jump out of 5A/2A pressure alone. People just don't want to be placed in a position where they're blocking, even if it's just 5A/2A pressure. It's not the 2As that cause people to stress, it's the thought of knowing what comes after them that makes them want to get out of pressure.

Of course, that depends on the character who is applying the 2A pressure. If it's someone like Jin without meter, one would probably just auto-pilot down-back and IB whatever they can to get free meter while reacting to the predictable throws. What's he gonna do after 2A? Hit you with 6A which leaves him at a situational disadvantage against certain characters (lol Noel 5A) on hit and end his pressure on block? Attempt to break your guard with his ever-so-obvious j.2C cross-up attempts?

However, someone like Hazama will place a heavier burden on the opponent since he can go into the command throw and Rasenga from his 2As, not to mention that they're + on block. You MUST jump in order to avoid the command throw and hopefully have good reflexes to block Rasenga. That's where his 2A pressure/staggers shine as they tag people during the start-up frames for both the jab and the jump (beats mashing and jumping).

Isn't the main goal of pressure to hit the opponent? Or at least include something like "enforce a mixup to try to damage the opponent".

[mAc Chaos]

Mixup is where you open up the opponent's defense. Pressure is placing them in a situation to enable mixup.

[MashThat5A]

Lambda applies full-screen pressure with swords. The point isn't to create mixup.

Moy, I'm not saying that. I'm saying you would not be threatened by a player that ONLY uses 2A.

[mAc Chaos]

That's not pressure, it's zoning. Just because it puts you in blockstun and can damage you doesn't mean it's pressure. Would you say a Sagat Tiger Shot barrage keeping you out is pressure?

[zeth07]

Mixup is where you open up the opponent's defense. Pressure is placing them in a situation to enable mixup.

It's all about the wording. To say the goal of pressure is to place a mental burden on the opponent isn't exactly what I think of when I'm pressuring the opponent. When I'm applying pressure all I want to do is hit them, I couldn't care less about their mental burden, and pressure can lead to a mixup which can lead to hitting them. The way that's worded seems to ignore the main objective, to actually damage the opponent, and like the rest just seems like an overcomplicated definition.

Which is why I said the "definition" should say something about mixup. Hell even what you just said is exactly what I was referring to, and yet it is nice and simple compared to the rest.

From wiktionary:

"Pressure involves using a sequence of attacks to keep an opponent on the defensive and often involves okizeme and mix up tactics. The purpose of pressure is to keep an enemy from effectively attacking back until they make a mistake, usually allowing for a damaging command move or combo to be performed."

What's wrong with that? Which is why I said from the start, there should be an initial list and then people can speak up and say "I disagree with this definition, here's why." Why over complicate things?

Let's compare:

1) 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.

OR

2) "Pressure involves using a sequence of attacks to keep an opponent on the defensive and often involves okizeme and mix up tactics. The purpose of pressure is to keep an enemy from effectively attacking back until they make a mistake, usually allowing for a damaging command move or combo to be performed."

#1 Uses more "terms" than needed and if anything leads to someone probably having to lookup some of those other terms anyway, particularly the last sentence which makes it even more confusing.

#2 Uses very clear and understandable wording to describe the term at hand, and the average person not just a fighting game player can probably understand. The only term that might be unknown for the reader is "okizeme", everything else is perfectly understandable on a basic level. Pressure is a term that could be applied even in sports, and #2 is the clearest definition of the two that still defines the term.

EDIT:

When you go to "pressure" someone the first thing you do is throw out an attack (besides movement), if I do 5B with Bang and it hits there is no "mixup" there, I'm immediately damaging them from my initial pressure. So saying the opponent has to be in blockstun is wrong in my opinion.

Edited May 13, 2013 by zeth07

[Moy_X7]

Isn't the main goal of pressure to hit the opponent? Or at least include something like "enforce a mixup to try to damage the opponent".

This is where things get tricky in my opinion.

The way I see it (IMO), pressure as a non-stop assault on the opponent, leaving tiny gaps that you can exploit with frame traps.

Mix-up in the other hand (IMO), is trying to get through your opponents defense by any means necessary, sometimes leaving a gap big enough for the opponent to jump or mash out successfully. Of course, that depends on just when and where you attempt your mix-up.

They're not necessarily the same thing but they must be used in tandem in order to successfully open up your opponent. You exploit impatience/disrespect with pressure and you exploit conditioned/respectful opponents with mix-up.

The problem with what I said is that it's just my opinion, hell for all I know my definition of mix-up could be completely wrong.

@Mash - The thing is that if people are using 2A pressure on its own, it most likely means that they got mashed out in their previous string. Which is why they're now attempting 2A staggers. Of course if they're just doing 2A and nothing but 2A without even delaying them, then yeah, what does the opponent have to worry about but IB'ing for free meter.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Moy_X7