Operational Definitions for Gameplay Terms: The Project

[mAc Chaos]

The way I always thought of pressure was basically locking the opponent down so you can try and do other things to them, like mixup.

I think that's how most people use it too. Our definition shouldn't be that far off from the way people normally use it since the whole point is to make what people think of intuitively when using the term into something explicit.

Mash's idea that you want to have some mental stress on the opponent is also good but that is more like something extra you want to apply, using varying tactics. In other words, you make the opponent make a mistake by locking them down with pressure, then using baits, mixup, frame traps and other things to make them desperate to get out. Or you just hit them.

For instance, Hakumen's pressure isn't that good, but his mixup is good if he can lock you down for a short time to apply it, which is what causes peopel to want to get out. It's not the pressure itself that is that good, it's the threat of Tsubaki and such.

Edited May 13, 2013 by mAc Chaos

[zeth07]

I edited my other post to include this but since the other posts were after I'll just repeat it:

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. It shouldn't have to be Pressure > Mixup > Damage which is what I'm getting out of some of those other definitions people are saying.

[mAc Chaos]

Well, it depends how you define mixup. I mean, anything can hit them if they are just not blocking. Zoning, neutral, etc. So dealing damage is not necessarily the thing that defines it.

If you are putting them in pressure and something hits them because you did a frame trap, that could be put down under a form of mixup. Or maybe they just tried to up back out of the pressure and got hit, but that's just a matter of how strong the pressure is at keeping them locked down. If it happens to hit them it merely enforces that next time they should be blocking.

That's just what I think though.

[Moy_X7]

I edited my other post to include this but since the other posts were after I'll just repeat it:

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. It shouldn't have to be Pressure > Mixup > Damage which is what I'm getting out of some of those other definitions people are saying.

You mean just throwing out 5B in neutral and landing it successfully right there and then? Or doing 5B during pressure and tagging the opponent?

Edit: So you're saying that the opponent doesn't have to be in blockstun or frame disadvantage at all in order to initiate pressure? If you use 5B and it lands, that's just something that needs to be hit-confirmed. If you use 5B and it gets blocked, then the pressure begins. The opponent was not in blockstun during neutral or whatever, yet you initiated pressure from the 5B that you just threw out there if it gets blocked.

Pressure doesn't necessarily have to be done from blockstun. From my understanding, the opponent just has to be in a situation where they're at frame disadvantage (whiffing a move, getting up, blocking a move). However, just throwing out a 5B during neutral can't be considered pressure (IMO), the opponent has to be at frame disadvantage before you attempt your pressure. If you throw out the 5B and the opponent blocks it, then that's where your pressure starts.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Moy_X7

[zeth07]

You mean just throwing out 5B in neutral and landing it successfully right there and then? Or doing 5B during pressure and tagging the opponent?

As soon as I attack with the intention to hit the opponent, I'm applying "pressure". That's how I see it. Hell I'd even look at it as if I'm even remotely moving toward them I'm applying "pressure", especially if you want to throw in that "mental burden" aspect of it. Again using sports as an example, on defense you can apply pressure just by being near your opponent (like Full-court Press in Basketball).

So in fighting games you can say you are applying pressure even while zoning. It isn't just one or the other. Same way a mixup can be a part of pressure. So when you watch a stream you hear the commentator's saying things like Morrigan's Soul Fist pressure or Sagat's Tiger Shot pressure. Even if it is zoning, there's still pressure involved even if the opponent is nowhere near you as long as they are doing SOMETHING to put you on the defensive or under.....pressure.

[Moy_X7]

So just approaching your opponent or getting them to do something, anything, in response to what you're doing would be considered "pressure" to you.

For me, it would be attacking your opponent when you have the situational advantage (your opponent whiffs a move, blocks a move, or is getting up) and getting them to block whatever comes afterward with the goal of having them push a button or try to up-back and catching them in the act.

While I agree that pressure doesn't have to be initiated from just a move that's blocked, I can't say that just rushing towards your opponent or zoning them out could be considered pressure. In a way, you're right, if Lambda is zoning you out it places a mental burden on you as you must think of a way to get past her zoning, hence the "pressure" placed on you. I guess we could have two definitions for this as someone mentioned before with the whole abare thing? One being the "psychological" definition of it and the other the actual act of locking the opponent down and giving them little room to fight back.

[Osuna]

Being mentally pressured is not what I'm talking about when I describe pressuring someone in fighting games. One of the big goals I have when teaching someone to deal with being pressured is to Not feel mentally pressured. To think clearly, understand what is happening and react appropriately.

So maybe it'd be easier to define if we could decide what good, bad, so-so, and very strong pressure looks like.

The functional characteristic of pressure I think measures the quality of pressure best is how much it reduces the number and quality of options the opponent has. Or perhaps it would more accurately be relative options? Reducing options for them while keeping options for yourself. Perhaps specifically aggressive options?

Also frame traps are very clearly a kind of mix up aren't they? I would never have considered they could be anything else.

[zeth07]

So just approaching your opponent or getting them to do something, anything, in response to what you're doing would be considered "pressure" to you.

For me, it would be attacking your opponent when you have the situational advantage (your opponent whiffs a move, blocks a move, or is getting up) and getting them to block whatever comes afterward with the goal of having them push a button or try to up-back and catching them in the act.

While I agree that pressure doesn't have to be initiated from just a move that's blocked, I can't say that just rushing towards your opponent or zoning them out could be considered pressure. In a way, you're right, if Lambda is zoning you out it places a mental burden on you as you must think of a way to get past her zoning, hence the "pressure" placed on you. I guess we could have two definitions for this as someone mentioned before with the whole abare thing? One being the "psychological" definition of it and the other the actual act of locking the opponent down and giving them little room to fight back.

I was stating it as merely a point towards how you were describing it as a goal in the other post and in reference to other people's posts.

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.

Going by this, a lot could be considered pressure, which is what my point was.

I personally am on the side of keeping things as simple as possible without needless terms and definitions. So if anything this definition is what I think of when I think of pressure:

"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."

It covers exactly what it needs to cover and is completely understandable without extra knowledge required (outside of okizeme which I already mentioned).

I know the thread is trying to quantify definitions into something measurable, but I find that entirely unnecessary for some as I've said before. There's no math involved in that definition, and yet it is perfectly clear and gets the point across. The only definitions that should go anywhere near "math" and measurable are ones dealing with frames because it is in fact measurable AND precisely what the terms are referring to in-game within the given situation.

[mAc Chaos]

> Going by this, a lot could be considered pressure, which is what my point was.

Yeah I feel like that is too broad since pretty much everything is pressure at that point.

Plus the most basic thing, blockstun, is at least measurable.

Yes, 2AAAA would be easy to block, but that's only if the character had literally nothing but that move. If that keeps them in blockstun and then creates opportunities to use mixup and other kinds of blockstrings then it's pretty good.

[Rhiya]

There's generally pressuring your opponent to do something, which seems to be what zeth is talking about, and then there's the matchflow phase called pressure (what happens when someone wins neutral but doesn't get a combo out of it and also doesn't return to neutral, but instead presses their advantage), which is what Mac seems to be talking about.

The former is valuable, but the latter is arguably what we want a definition of.

[Digital Watches]

So I've been busy for a bit but coming back to this thread, I notice a few things we're converging on and would like to update the first post soon so we have something to work with.

Basically: I think people generally already agree with what I've defined as advantage and disadvantage, both in the strict sense of actual static difference E.G. on block, and in terms of the harder-to-measure situational difference that can be used to mean having more options in a given frame than the opponent, or, if we want to inject some math into it (which we should whenever possible): having a higher statistical likelihood of winning the exchange (defined as either hitting the opponent or forcing them to block) assuming both players chose randomly out of their possible actions. I realize that no one is literally choosing randomly, but it's a more powerful definition that way, because it means we can quantify it in terms of all possible actions from a given point of the match rather than just the ones we think the players are likely to want to do.

This means that our model of play is not confounded by players acting unpredictably, and can still definitively say whether they played an exchange from advantage, neutral, or disadvantage in all cases, at least in theory. It also means we could sit down and look at cancel states, ranges, etc. of a character and make a complete list of all of their options at a given point, and then draw some conclusions based on knowing all possible options (including "waiting and doing nothing this frame"). Might be silly to do so, but it's possible.

As for pressure (Which people seem to agree on more than what rushdown is), I'd argue that we do need to narrow the definition people use when talking about pressure for it to be useful to our purposes here. I think the idea of psychological pressure is a good theory as to why the term is used (or in other words the term's etymology), but doesn't constitute a strong operational definition. I do like blockstun as an operational criterion for pressure, but we don't necessarily need to use it if people are iffy on that aspect. What I do think is that we can talk about situations like Nu pressuring someone from long-range, or things like that. That's actually a great strength of an operational definition: Because the term is defined by what can be measured about it, it allows us to talk definitively about uses of the term that might be counter-intuitive to people using the term more loosely.

So what I'd say we agree on is that pressure consists of a player who has situational advantage acting in order to maintain situational advantage, limiting the opponent's options and keeping your own options open. If we use the statistical likelihood given random actions criteria, we can even stop there and call it good. What this gives us is the first of a set of terms involving game state transitions. This is an idea I have to give blitz some credit for, because he PMed me with a very good post about it (Not sure why it's not here, but I'll respect his wishes on that). Pressure is then the general name for the "transition" from advantage to advantage, and we can talk about more specific cases of pressure, like okizeme or block strings or offensive footsies, with pressure operationally defined as the general case.

Is it cool with everyone if I put these definitions in the first post? Then we can get back to trying to nail down rushdown and stuff.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Digital Watches

[blitz]

It's ok, I'll post it here after I've updated the definitions with more useful wording. I like this definition of Pressure, as it is measurable.

Watches does a solid job of really laying down some infrastructure for what we CAN define, so far, strictly in mathematical terms. SD, States, transitioning from one state to another, as well as clearly stating operational intent. I'd like to look at those physical definitions of "States" and "Transitions", and try to actually establish as much ground on THOSE things as we possibly can. I'm not sure how much help this will really be, and sorry if it ends up being just a huge waste of time, but anyway...

Lets start with a list, why not:

Actual States

>Frame Advantage (SD+)

>Frame Disadvantage (SD-)

>Neutral (SD = 0)

Implied States

>Situational Advantage

>Situational Disadvantage

>Situational Neutrality

(S=Situational, A=Advantage, N=Neutral, D=Disadvantage)

To point out, I am defining Situational Neutrality to mean a situation where the exhaustion of options available to both characters is deemed equal in terms of winning the exchange, whether someone has actual frame advantage or not. It's the sum of options available that determines it to be neutral in this situation. Such a definition would be dependent on the totality of known outcomes stemming directly from this situation. To give some idea, I'll entertain a simplified scenario: one character's fastest poke is 5 frames, the others is 3. If the latter were to use an attack that left them at SD -2, both being in their respective pokes effective range afterwards, and if these were the only options either could use at this point, then the situation is effectively neutral and the soonest either could act would, I'm guessing, result in a trade or a clash.

Obviously the actual situation would be complicated by other factors in practice. But the concept is that the sum of those options is either mathematically equal, or close enough to it for it to be indistinguishable from true equality from our perspective.

So, for the purposes of keeping things unambiguous, we should define what the difference between "actual" and "situational" means in this context...

Actual State: A state that is directly determined (an exclusion of, or lack of, outside variables)

Situational State: A state that is indirectly determined or implied (by inclusion of, or existence of, outside variables)

We can now separate what we mean by Situational Advantage and Actual Advantage. Situational Advantage may define a state where Actual Advantage exists or doesn't exist, but Actual Advantage cannot be used to describe a Situational State by itself. The attributes of Actual Advantage are merely part of the possible criterion in determining Situational States with the aid of outside factors, such as the options available as a result of an exchange. For a fuller picture, this statement must be qualified by a determination of roles and what an exchange means in this context. An "active" player in an exchange is one who is attacking, Advantage or not. The "passive" player in an exchange is one who is blocking, advantage or not. Two player can be active at the same time, but it's the result of that exchange that determines the situational state. Passivity from both players just means an exchange has not yet taken place. It is physical neutrality. Exchanges are 1 for 1 actions. Since situational advantage is based on utilizing the stun of an attack to alter the game state, all exchange have at least 1 active player. We also need a way to describe the action an active player takes in a given exchange. So now we have some idea of the metrics, lets redefine our initial terms to match our new infrastructure:

Actual States

>Frame Advantage: The physical determination of an exchange in which an active player retains or obtains the ability to act before the opponent.

>Neutral: The physical determination of an exchange in which neither player gains nor retains the ability to act before the other.

>Frame Disadvantage: The physical determination of an exchange in which an active player loses or fails to obtain the ability to act before the opponent.

Implied States

>Situational Advantage: The implied determination of an exchange in which an active player retains or obtains the ability to act before the opponent.

>Situational Neutrality: The implied determination of an exchange in which neither player gains nor retains the ability to act before the other.

>Situational Disadvantage: The implied determination of an exchange in which an active player loses or fails to obtain the ability to act before the opponent.

So with that out of the way, we now have Transitions:

A Transition is the movement from one state to another, as a consequence of an exchange.

(S=situational, N=Neutral, A=Advantage, D=Disadvantage)

A > A..............N > A..............D > A

A > N..............N > N..............D > N

A > D..............N > D..............D > D

SA > A...........SN > A...........SD > A

SA > N...........SN > N...........SD > N

SA > D...........SN > D...........SD > D

A > SA...........N > SA...........D > SA

A > SN...........N > SN...........D > SN

A > SD...........N > SD...........D > SD

SA > SA........SN > SA........SD > SA

SA > SN........SN > SN........SD > SN

SA > SD........SN > SD........SD > SD

If both actual and situational are the same, the S is left out. So what I have here, is complete chart of all possible transitions from one predefined state to another. On an individual basis, some will be more useful than others. For instance, a valuable state would be the transition A>SA. This is the transition, I would think, where "frame traps" happen. Certain other transitions would be pretty good indicators of when momentum shifted in a match as well. Like, if you could just translate a match into a text file that simply generated state changes, would you be able to pinpoint when certain kinds of play were going on? zoning, rushdown, combos, etc. Granted, I'd consider this the "closed" exchanges portion, there should also be an "open" exchanges portion for when space is being controlled without anyone blocking anything. It might also need more indication values to determine constant blockstun/hitstun instead of just frame advantage. Mind you, any move someone puts out that isn't blocked is technically physical frame disadvantage, but you tell that to sol's j.H and tell me how it goes. So yeah, it doesn't take everything into account just yet, it's just a starting point.

I'll write up more stuff later, just have to start pinning real examples of these from vids and start building up a psychological profile: perceived A, D, and N to begin connecting the dots between perception and the limits of the game engine/human error.

Edited May 16, 2013 by blitz

[Digital Watches]

Updated first post with some of this.

[devlkore]

Updated first post with some of this.

Haven't posted here in months. Just logged in to say I think this article/thread/idea is awesome.

I actually came in to post what I thought my strict definition of pressure was, but your last one covered it more concisely. I do think it's important for blockstun to not be a prerequisite for pressure as the player at situational disadvantage could be (air)dashing/parrying/rolling/focus absorbing/sidestepping/etc. attacks while still being under pressure.

I really enjoyed your article, especially the bit about characters being good at different things in different situations (including considering the opponent). Discussing characters in this way is far more useful than tier lists.

To those saying "chill, just use the terms we have", no one is proposing NOT using those terms. What this is is an attempt to allow us to discuss fighting games on a more granular level with some consistency. We already talk about these concepts, but it can be very hard or lengthy to get to the really nitty-gritty of what we are discussing without very specific definitions.

I'll take a stab at some more:

Rushdown (might as well add my 2 mao) - Using close range pressure to score a hit. "Rushing down" can be done with any character (I think), if you just try to pressure someone to get a hit. A "rushdown character" is a character that relies on "close range pressure to score a hit". "A rushdown" can be considered a series of states where one player maintains situational advantage and switches between frame advantage and neutral (possibly, need to think a little more).

Mixup - forcing the choice of a specific set of actions from the opponent. There are loads of types of mixups and not all mixups are close range.

Hole - situation where during someones pressure or actual combo there is the opportunity for the opponent to do something to escape (various blocks, reversals, techs, throw break, jump, etc.).

Block string - series of attacks that leaves no holes when blocked. IB/SB exceptions should be identified where relevant I think. Maybe a block string that is even completely safe when IB'ed should be identified as a subtype, 'Perfect Block String' for example.

One other thing. I don't like the idea of measuring hypothetical exchanges based on statistical win/loss calculations of all options since char A may have 1 good option and 3 bad options in situation X vs char B who has 3 good options and 17 bad options. My brain is tired and I need sleep, but what I think you'd have to do is draw up a matrix of each characters options vs each other.

[Xtra_Zero]

I think "rushdown" is most useful when used in the sense "How do you beat character X? Rush that shit down." This doesn't seem to differ too much from our functional definition of pressure except maybe it implies doing so specifically to prevent the other character from escaping? It really just sounds like a way of saying "pressure-driven gameplay."

[Xtra_Zero]

One other thing. I don't like the idea of measuring hypothetical exchanges based on statistical win/loss calculations of all options since char A may have 1 good option and 3 bad options in situation X vs char B who has 3 good options and 17 bad options. My brain is tired and I need sleep, but what I think you'd have to do is draw up a matrix of each characters options vs each other.

I don't think it matters how many options a character has out of a situation. What matters is whether the character's BEST option is consistently successful. Therefore, what's important is how many bad situations (situations where char X's best option is poor) character Y has against X and vice versa, and how likely the game is to steer into those, or maybe just THE ONE WORST situation Y has against X and how easily Y can steer the game into it (because optimally you'd try for optimal everything).

Edited June 17, 2013 by Xtra_Zero

[TheRealBobMan]

How about "fundamentals"? I hear this word thrown around a lot, to the point where I don't even know what it means anymore. I hear people talking about how ____ game that isn't a fighting game has "fundamentals", but I get the feeling they're using the term as a cached thought - they don't know wtf they're talking about, but they're saying it because they feel like that's what they're supposed to say or what their audience should hear.

I'm assuming it's a skill set that's the extreme basics of fighting games. Something so elementary it will apply to just about all fighting games, though they will possibly apply to any type of game, including sports and board games and anything we haven't yet invented or classified as a game yet. The skills you need to know thoroughly to compete, but aren't specific to mechanics that are unique among competitions. That is, knowing your FRCs isn't part of fundamentals, but learning how to hit the buttons at a precise moment such that it is possible for you to FRC would be fundamental. Not knowing the optimal form to throw a football, but having the general motor skill to throw a ball.

The only exception to "not specific" would be knowing the rules to the game you're playing. Not being able to count cards effectively for optimal statistical advantage playing poker, but knowing the hands well enough to know that it's probably safe to bet on a straight flush. I mean, if you're playing poker and you don't know what the hands are, it's like mashing buttons your first time playing any video game, so that doesn't really count.

Am I totally backwards with what I think people are talking about? I get the feeling that if I ask someone they'll just regurgitate "you gotta know your mixup and your blocking and your combos". But then I hear this word used for games like Catherine, which have competitive modes, but don't have mixup or blocking or combos. Moving a sequence of blocks to slow the other guy down might be similar to a combo, but it's different in function, execution, and the amount of player interaction.

So uh... discuss.

[Rhiya]

When I hear "fundamentals," I think of things like spacing, hitconfirming, and knowing how to vary pressure. It's the stuff that's common to every fighter that adheres to the conventional set of fighting game mechanics. Understanding neutral game is probably the biggest thing that comes to mind, though.

[mAc Chaos]

Good footsies, execution and use of game mechanics.

[TheRealBobMan]

Ok, so this is the same thing I was complaining about.

How many of you guys have heard of Sirlin's Yomi? It's a fighting game in a card game format. Because of its design, it emphasizes certain skills more than others (and he made other games that emphasize other skills from fighters). Combat is determined as follows: Each player puts a card face down, so their actions are double blind (sort of like players throwing out attacks in fighting games while being unable to tell what the other guy did for around 12 frames minimum, which is too late for moves that are faster than that). Once both cards are down, they get flipped so you can determine what happened. Attacks beat throws, throws beat block and dodge, and block and dodge beat attacking. When both attack or throw, the faster one wins, and in speed ties, attacks trade, and throws break (nothing happens).

Spacing and/or footsies does not exist in this game because there is no way to measure position. Execution exists on the level of "can you put a card on the table without setting the table on fire". Hitconfirming does not exist since you're not operating under a "do this in time or you **** up" constraint.

Pressure, as we defined it in this thread, exists in this game. You can knock the other guy down to prevent him from dodging and weaken the effectiveness of blocking on the next turn, so you gain a situational advantage. You can also check out the discard piles at any time and try to count cards - if your opponent has 4 DP cards (speed 0 attacks - so attacks that beat all other attacks) and all of them are in the discard pile, you have the advantage in knowing they can't reversal DP. One character has the ability to look at the other player's hand, which is a huge situational advantage. "You have no blocks/dodges right now? Good thing I have 3 reversal DP cards."

It's still very different from real-time pressure. And "varying" pressure doesn't really exist. There are multiple ways to put pressure on the opponent in other fighting games, via positioning, frame advantage, knockdown, etc, but you really only have the ability to knock them down as tangible pressure here, so while you can repeatedly knock down to remain at a situational advantage, you can only really vary what card you place face down. Figuring out that their options are restricted by a shitty hand is a situational advantage since they get/lose cards every turn (so it's technically pressure as we defined it), but it's usually not something forced on them. It's also totally possible to loop throws when you're a grappler character and your opponent has burned his hand on a combo, because then he/she can't combo to do any real damage when attacking to beat your throw (no cards left to combo with), and can't get more cards by blocking because blocking will always lose to throws. This really only works because of this game's mechanics because in other fighters you can use all of your moves all the time. You also don't really vary between either of these methods of pressure because the latter is situational, and they operate independently of each other.

---

These are good answers, but they sort of fall short of what I'm looking for, because they don't always apply. I hate semantics (and so I sort of hate this thread to be honest), so I don't want to get into a big "now we need to define 'fighting game' so we know what words apply to just this definition we agreed on, so we can then define those words and blah blah blah" argument. The good part of this thread is that we think about these ideas more and try to refine them to their simplest points. Thinking of pressure as trying to remain at a situational advantage is probably more useful than thinking of pressure as using moves with frame advantage, because you think of different ways to achieve that situational advantage. You'll further understand that psychological pressure you put people in when you, for example, play Ky and stay in his "rainbow of lameness" position relative to your opponent where just about anything he does beats your opponent's hitboxes, even if you're not actively attacking or filling the screen with CSE and j.214D at every possible moment.

I want to call out "varying pressure" because I think you really meant being unpredictable. You don't want to attempt to stay in situational advantage via the same actions because they'll use actions that remove your situational advantage. Perhaps you meant "playing with variance in one's actions while attempting to maintain a situational advantage", which is pretty solid.

I also want to call out "use of game mechanics". If you're not using the game's mechanics, you're probably not actually playing the game. This answer isn't wrong... you can't really win a game if you're not playing it. It's like my example of playing poker but not knowing the hands, except that not using mechanics would be like playing poker with everyone's cards face-up all the time.

I think that both of these answers fit the "cached thought" problem I brought up with my post. There's little point in this exercise where we try to figure out definitions for these terms if we're not going to update our priors with the new information and attempt to be more specific when we answer questions.

I like that "understanding the neutral game" answer. It brings up how players respond to having a game state in which there is no advantage to either side, which then brings up general game states in which there is advantage. Knowing the difference seems like an important and fundamental skill, so discussing this seems like a good idea. Anyone care to elaborate?

[Osuna]

Use of game mechanics is a fine criteria. There's more than on/off to describe how someone's use of game mechanics are. Those who need to work on their fundamentals usually need to work on things like moving, blocking, and pressing buttons at the correct time. I'm not sure how to define it so that it includes the aspect of applying your character's strengths though.

[Delrian]

Use of game mechanics is a fine criteria. There's more than on/off to describe how someone's use of game mechanics are. Those who need to work on their fundamentals usually need to work on things like moving, blocking, and pressing buttons at the correct time. I'm not sure how to define it so that it includes the aspect of applying your character's strengths though.

Maybe "understanding your tools enough to know what situations each is effective in". Using it in the context of your tools being all possible options (blocking, attacking, moving) and situations being varied by both the momentary situational advantage or disadvantage, and your opponent's tools.

I do think recognition of situational advantage and disadvantage would be a fundamental skill. Especially after playing someone (who doesn't play fighting games) neither reversal or block on wakeup, despite me telling him to. :S

[Xtra_Zero]

stuff

Obviously the "fundamentals" between games is going to change, and the "fundamentals" is going to change a lot more if we're talking about different genres. Usually when I hear the term, it's used to refer to mechanics that are generally consistent across all fighting games. Stuff like spacing, advantage, blocking, reversals. Basically stuff from SSF2, mostly because that's what most fighting games are built off of, and those tactics are still usually very effective even in more complicated fighting games. This is why someone who has played SF2 extensively and jumps into Guilty Gear cold will most likely body someone who has never played any fighters, despite the amount of experience they have with that specific game being the same. Of course it kind of depends what the person is implying, too. You could change the definition by implying that you're talking about airdashers, or the Marvel series, or 3D fighters. For example, most people here would consider understanding the basics of chain combos pretty fundamental, but lots of Street Fighter players might not, especially if they didn't stray into airdashers. However, we can both agree that special/super cancels are fundamental, because they're common between our games. It really depends on the scope of people you're talking with.