[Xrd] News & (Theoretical) Gameplay Discussion

[Destin]

I have ALL SORTS of CH setups with Hos (and some for dizzy) if people are mashing tech. If they aren't mashing tech they often give me black beat combos.

I'm not sure how much I like automation of things, but hold to tech certainly wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. I don't want people popping out of combos because they thought maybe I would fuck up. Should they be able to hold a button to reversal tech into dp as well? I mean, it's what they were going for, why add the difficulty? I much prefer making players take guesses as to where I might drop my combo than having an auto filter. (I mean, we have had alot of this conversation before, but couldn't you do the same with the FRC points, hold to frc?)

I read an interview with Miyamoto once where he said, never do automatically that which you could let the player do. It takes away from the immersion, the feel of control over the character. I suppose a similar point might be in play here.

[Delrian]

And? Most new people mash buttons when they're being combo'd on their own, and try to tech as early as possible anyways. You're effectively saying that making it harder for someone to do what they want is better for them, since it's bad, when they would learn it on their own either way. In fact, they'd probably get the message sooner with hold to tech, since they'd know they were teching out on the first frame, whereas they might think they did it too early or too late if they were just mashing.

I'm saying that implementing a mechanic that encourages bad play is poor design.

[Effenhoog]

on the subject of teching, there is something I have thought about for a long time

even in high level GG matches, you see a good deal of black beat combos, especially off weird hitconfirms and other situational stuff. With manual teching, there is that little margin of error where even if the opponent is mashing tech, they can't mash every frame. So if you have just a slight gap in your combo due to an awkward situation (or just the general fickleness of the combo system) or whatever, you still have a little leeway and will probably not lose the combo, while a big gap/error is still easily escapable.

Regardless of how "smart" it is to constantly try to tech and the penalties thereof (which are relevant points, just not immediately related to what I'm talking about) I think that in this aspect adding a P4A-style hold-to-tech system would be detrimental to the game. However, if the Xrd combo system is different and not as strict somehow, it would be a whole different story, these are just my thoughts considering the GG combo system as it exists now (in AC and probably +R, though I have not played +R)

hopefully that makes sense, I could have probably worded it better

[Rhiya]

I'm saying that implementing a mechanic that encourages bad play is poor design.

But then, it's also bad play when they should've teched and couldn't. Teching's main purpose isn't trapping players, anyways -- teching primarily punishes poor exec by letting an opponent get out of a dropped combo. The fact there are mindgames with teching is excellent, and I think it's great that teching has that kind of depth in GG. However, teching is primarily a way to deny damage and position. Even if teching is always a bad idea in "perfect play," "perfect play" doesn't exist. People accidentally fuck up their exec sometimes, and when they do, they won't be doing tech chases or punishes; they'll just lose advantage. One unintentionally dropped combo can be a dropped round in a momentum-heavy game like Guilty Gear. Hold-to-tech makes it easier to take advantage of those situations, and encourages good play in those situations.

You're too caught up in the theoretical world where your opponent has perfect execution and master yomi.

[Digital Watches]

I guarantee you that you would not see as many black beat combos in high-level matches in japan if it were a margin-of-error thing. People who play this game well (not theoretically-perfect, just well) are thinking about tech traps, either setting them up or working to avoid them. They may not have a perfect trap set up for every combo they do, but they are paying attention, they have an idea of when they might be leaving a window to tech, and they have an idea of what their character can do to take advantage of it in that situation (Sometimes that's "not a whole lot", but it's still worth knowing that).

I would argue that at an observable (As in not theoretical) high level of play, teching on the first available frame is at least slightly (In certain matchups and especially against characters like Chipp and Axl, way more than slightly) more often a mistake than not. However, I like hold-to-tech because it eliminates an execution barrier that's an additional layer of difficulty. If someone knows they want to tech on the first frame it's possible, but don't have the timing to do it, I don't think interesting gameplay is occurring because they can't. If someone is holding down tech at all times against a strong player, the game is no different from a game where they teched on the first frame of every window because they are not smart, but have perfect timing. This will force an intermediate player to do honest combos, and it will allow an advanced player to set up tech traps easily.

It will allow the beginner who is teching predictably to learn quickly that they are not failing and dying because their timing is bad, they are failing and dying because they are teching predictably, and perhaps they will learn to stop doing so more quickly. Teching as soon as possible is often bad play, but allowing it is not the same as encouraging it. Getting destroyed by resets and tech grabs is a far worse outcome than eating black beat combos, and the game only "encourages" what works. Removing execution barriers allows more people to be actually playing the higher-level game, where they get to tech where they want, and learn why they shouldn't want to tech there.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Digital Watches

[Destin]

But then, it's also bad play when they should've teched and couldn't. Teching's main purpose isn't trapping players, anyways -- teching primarily punishes poor exec by letting an opponent get out of a dropped combo. The fact there are mindgames with teching is excellent, and I think it's great that teching has that kind of depth in GG. However, teching is primarily a way to deny damage and position. Even if teching is always a bad idea in "perfect play," "perfect play" doesn't exist. People accidentally fuck up their exec sometimes, and when they do, they won't be doing tech chases or punishes; they'll just lose advantage. One unintentionally dropped combo can be a dropped round in a momentum-heavy game like Guilty Gear. Hold-to-tech makes it easier to take advantage of those situations, and encourages good play in those situations.

You're too caught up in the theoretical world where your opponent has perfect execution and master yomi.

When I used to fuck up my execution, you damn well better believe I had tech chases planned. That was like guilty gear 101, we were all doing that by year 2.

[Rhiya]

snip

Good points, good post.

When I used to fuck up my execution, you damn well better believe I had tech chases planned. That was like guilty gear 101, we were all doing that by year 2.

It's one thing to think, "Alright, I'm probably going to drop here. I can tech chase." It's another to drop unexpectedly, in which case you probably don't have a chase planned. The second is the case I'm referring to. I slip up on really easy stuff sometimes when I play Melty, which is my main game -- and my character's exec, while not braindead, is far from hard. In a case where I'm not expecting a drop, teching is beneficial.

I'm honestly unfamiliar with GG exec and combos, but I know in the games I play, finishing your combos is more beneficial than not finishing them 99% of the time. You get guaranteed positioning and damage over a gamble that could cause you to lose momentum, and momentum is god. (I play pixie charas, so momentum is doubly god for me.) If there's an easier alternative combo you're less likely to drop, the advice I always hear is that unless the difference is significant (corner carry vs. none, 2000 more damage, etc.), you should always go for what you feel comfortable doing at your current level of exec, because the rewards for a finished combo are guaranteed and pretty goddamn good. As a result, this whole tech chase deal feels a little weird to me. I think it's a really interesting mindgame, but it seems really ballsy and knee-deep in yomi. Maybe GG exec and combos are sufficiently different that this just isn't the case.

[Circuitous]

I was going to write a long ass post, then I settled on a tl:dr version.

simply put, I think "resets" in GG are overrated, and I wholeheartedly support the hold=tech option.

The only advantage to hold-to-tech, as the person teching, is that you're infinitely less likely to get an unwanted attack when you tech unexpectedly. (You're also infinitely less likely to get random throws from your techs, which I've done a handful of times. Consider it a trade-off.)

On the offense, it makes catching bad techs a little more reliable. A good player will still decide when to tech instead of attempting to tech as soon as possible at all times. So, idk, it's fine.

[Ctrlaltwtf]

I greatly prefer hold-to-tech, I feel it actually adds a bit more control to the players. Now you can guarantee that you'll tech on the first frame possible at all times. This allows people to more consciously go for tech traps that they know will work if people tech as soon as they are able. Conversely, it also encourages players to control their teching more because hold-to-tech becomes more reliable and thus, predictable.

So basically with mash-to-tech it's either: 1) mash to tech and hopefully get a tech as soon as possible or 2) control your tech to avoid tech traps but potentially open yourself up to blue beats.

With hold-to-tech it's: 1) hold to tech to always get a tech as soon as possible or 2) ditto above.

To me that just makes more sense in every way. As Circ said it also prevents accidental button presses after teching which is really helpful when you're dealing with weird untech-prorations.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Ctrlaltwtf

[Destin]

I greatly prefer hold-to-tech, I feel it actually adds a bit more control to the players. Now you can guarantee that you'll tech on the first frame possible at all times. This allows people to more consciously go for tech traps that they know will work if people tech as soon as they are able. Conversely, it also encourages players to control their teching more because hold-to-tech becomes more reliable and thus, predictable.

So basically with mash-to-tech it's either: 1) mash to tech and hopefully get a tech as soon as possible or 2) control your tech to avoid tech traps but potentially open yourself up to blue beats.

With hold-to-tech it's: 1) hold to tech to always get a tech as soon as possible or 2) ditto above.

To me that just makes more sense in every way. As Circ said it also prevents accidental button presses after teching which is really helpful when you're dealing with weird untech-prorations.

Accidental button presses is part of the danger of teching. I have counter hit setups for people who try to mash tech out of my combos.

[Destin]

I'm honestly unfamiliar with GG exec and combos, but I know in the games I play, finishing your combos is more beneficial than not finishing them 99% of the time. You get guaranteed positioning and damage over a gamble that could cause you to lose momentum, and momentum is god. (I play pixie charas, so momentum is doubly god for me.) If there's an easier alternative combo you're less likely to drop, the advice I always hear is that unless the difference is significant (corner carry vs. none, 2000 more damage, etc.), you should always go for what you feel comfortable doing at your current level of exec, because the rewards for a finished combo are guaranteed and pretty goddamn good. As a result, this whole tech chase deal feels a little weird to me. I think it's a really interesting mindgame, but it seems really ballsy and knee-deep in yomi. Maybe GG exec and combos are sufficiently different that this just isn't the case.

Even for hte second part, it becomes second nature. I'm not sure how to explain it.

But let's think about this. There is a part of my combo that might have a 1f gap in it if I do something wrong. It's a hard combo, but doable, I go for it every time. Sometimes I mess it up and it blackbeats, I still get the combo. If the player is mashing, they might get out but are also likely to get a move that follows, possible CH setup bait. But the situation I see most commonly with my friends because of this, is they go for a single tap, maaaaybe two, around the time of the tech window. They know my combos, and it becomes a timing match for them too. If they are on point, they get out of that 1f gap safely (assuming I messed up). It requires finesse on both sides.

Would people settle for an auto tech that came out on frame 3 after possible? Or that could only be done for neutral tech (1-2 f's later?) That seems like a reasonable compromise.

[shinr]

A question for those with knowledge of Japanese Arcades: Other than the different player card network, does it means anything to arcade players that Xrd is going to be released on Sega's RingEdge 2 and not on something else like Taito Type X, or is it basically a equivalent of two slightly different Windows using PCs (from the player's point of view) and thus not worth thinking about?

[Rhiya]

Even for hte second part, it becomes second nature. I'm not sure how to explain it.

But let's think about this. There is a part of my combo that might have a 1f gap in it if I do something wrong. It's a hard combo, but doable, I go for it every time. Sometimes I mess it up and it blackbeats, I still get the combo. If the player is mashing, they might get out but are also likely to get a move that follows, possible CH setup bait. But the situation I see most commonly with my friends because of this, is they go for a single tap, maaaaybe two, around the time of the tech window. They know my combos, and it becomes a timing match for them too. If they are on point, they get out of that 1f gap safely (assuming I messed up). It requires finesse on both sides.

Would people settle for an auto tech that came out on frame 3 after possible? Or that could only be done for neutral tech (1-2 f's later?) That seems like a reasonable compromise.

The point of hold-to-tech is increasing accessibility. Something like that only increases accessibility at a nominal level -- think Beginner Mode in BB, which makes the game more "accessible" but does nothing for people who want to actually learn the game. It's also unintuitive.

1f window for a bnb sounds pretty impractical, honestly, unless you've done such a solid grind that it becomes pure muscle memory that doesn't fuck up 99% of the time -- and getting that kind of muscle memory just sounds rough as hell, since you have to learn to do it without the help of muscle memory first. If you're getting that shit consistently, you're a better man than I. Damn.

[Destin]

The point of hold-to-tech is increasing accessibility. Something like that only increases accessibility at a nominal level -- think Beginner Mode in BB, which makes the game more "accessible" but does nothing for people who want to actually learn the game. It's also unintuitive.

1f window for a bnb sounds pretty impractical, honestly, unless you've done such a solid grind that it becomes pure muscle memory that doesn't fuck up 99% of the time -- and getting that kind of muscle memory just sounds rough as hell, since you have to learn to do it without the help of muscle memory first. If you're getting that shit consistently, you're a better man than I. Damn.

You only really need to increase accessibility to the level that people can actually play the game, not to the level that they are playing at the optimal level, if you do that they will still be playing the game. You give people a good combo that works and gets decent damage. Not the best combo that does the best damage and position. You give them a good tech that hits a decent window safely, then let them work to get that 1f tech. You give them decent movement, but perhaps make optimal movement something to work towards.

[Destin]

The point of hold-to-tech is increasing accessibility. Something like that only increases accessibility at a nominal level -- think Beginner Mode in BB, which makes the game more "accessible" but does nothing for people who want to actually learn the game. It's also unintuitive.

1f window for a bnb sounds pretty impractical, honestly, unless you've done such a solid grind that it becomes pure muscle memory that doesn't fuck up 99% of the time -- and getting that kind of muscle memory just sounds rough as hell, since you have to learn to do it without the help of muscle memory first. If you're getting that shit consistently, you're a better man than I. Damn.

You only really need to increase accessibility to the level that people can actually play the game, not to the level that they are playing at the optimal level, if you do that they will still be playing the game. You give people a good combo that works and gets decent damage. Not the best combo that does the best damage and position. You give them a good tech that hits a decent window safely, then let them work to get that 1f tech. You give them decent movement, but perhaps make optimal movement something to work towards.

[Rhiya]

You only really need to increase accessibility to the level that people can actually play the game, not to the level that they are playing at the optimal level, if you do that they will still be playing the game. You give people a good combo that works and gets decent damage. Not the best combo that does the best damage and position. You give them a good tech that hits a decent window safely, then let them work to get that 1f tech. You give them decent movement, but perhaps make optimal movement something to work towards.

The thing is, you'd probably always get it in at least 3f by mashing. There's no point in adding an option that doesn't do anything, which is your suggestion. It's inelegant at best.

I feel like you don't want to lower the execution for the game. That's fine, but you should know that it's only going to turn people away who might really enjoy playing your game otherwise. No one is saying to make 5PPP autocombo in GG and autoselect an optimal combo. I do think people would be in favor of an easier combo system in general, though. That sort of thing. Don't make everything braindead, but choose where you want the execution barriers to go, and put them in places that are intuitive and don't involve naturally simple actions. A successful tech only takes one button press, anyways -- what difference is it if you press it once and hold it?

[shinr]

Arc confirmed for TGS.

Also, now that I think about it, the 3D models now also allows for cheaper creation of characters whose gimmick is complete stance changing (not just Zappa spirit pseudo-stands or ABA blood install, but full Gen/Jhun Hoon/May Lee package).

Edited June 28, 2013 by shinr

[Vashimus]

I feel like you don't want to lower the execution for the game. That's fine, but you should know that it's only going to turn people away who might really enjoy playing your game otherwise. No one is saying to make 5PPP autocombo in GG and autoselect an optimal combo. I do think people would be in favor of an easier combo system in general, though. That sort of thing. Don't make everything braindead, but choose where you want the execution barriers to go, and put them in places that are intuitive and don't involve naturally simple actions.

I've only starting taking Guilty Gear seriously just recently, so I guess I can say from my newbie point-of-view, after playing for a while, I don't think there's anything in the combo system that needs much simplifying. You have Punch, Kick, Slash, Heavy Slash, Dust. OK, relatively easy to get behind compared to 3 different punches and 3 different kicks. What I like about GG is that moves flow into each other nicely thanks to gatlings so combos feel smooth and natural, while still being satisfying, instead of being a chore trying to get the timing down for links. Then you'll think "Oh, this'll be ABC simple Marvel combos.", But outside of 5P>5K>5S>5H>2D, any of the combos that actually good for BnBs require more than that. Really, I think Guilty Gear, control and difficulty-wise, is perfectly fine where it is. The biggest thing that I THINK scares newer players away is trying to get into a game where there aren't too many concise, in-depth tutorials on the game's system mechanics and characters (starting to change more now), and that's been out long enough that anyone that has stuck with it all this time is gonna be godlike anyway and doesn't want to waste time on you. First time I played SF, I was scrubby scrubby scrubby, only using the strongest attack buttons (because why would I use weaker attacks anyway? Don't I want to hit with the strongest attack possible?) and doing wake-up ultras. But of course, being the popular game that it was, many help guides sprung up, and with extremely concise tutorials that helped us in not only SF, but 2D fighters in general, as well as a community willing to help those who help themselves, you finally got that FADC combo down. SF was not a friendly game to me in the beginning. Shit like Guile's Ultra made no sense to me on how to input it (crazy motions like that need to leave from fighters). Guilty Gear, I got the feel and speed for it pretty quickly. And teching seems pretty fine to me. No need to have to dumb things down, it's already fairly approachable enough. We just need a little tour first.

[Rhiya]

I've only starting taking Guilty Gear seriously just recently, so I guess I can say from my newbie point-of-view, after playing for a while, I don't think there's anything in the combo system that needs much simplifying. You have Punch, Kick, Slash, Heavy Slash, Dust. OK, relatively easy to get behind compared to 3 different punches and 3 different kicks. What I like about GG is that moves flow into each other nicely thanks to gatlings so combos feel smooth and natural, while still being satisfying, instead of being a chore trying to get the timing down for links. Then you'll think "Oh, this'll be ABC simple Marvel combos.", But outside of 5P>5K>5S>5H>2D, any of the combos that actually good for BnBs require more than that. Really, I think Guilty Gear, control and difficulty-wise, is perfectly fine where it is. The biggest thing that I THINK scares newer players away is trying to get into a game where there aren't too many concise, in-depth tutorials on the game's system mechanics and characters (starting to change more now), and that's been out long enough that anyone that has stuck with it all this time is gonna be godlike anyway and doesn't want to waste time on you. First time I played SF, I was scrubby scrubby scrubby, only using the strongest attack buttons (because why would I use weaker attacks anyway? Don't I want to hit with the strongest attack possible?) and doing wake-up ultras. But of course, being the popular game that it was, many help guides sprung up, and with extremely concise tutorials that helped us in not only SF, but 2D fighters in general, as well as a community willing to help those who help themselves, you finally got that FADC combo down. SF was not a friendly game to me in the beginning. Shit like Guile's Ultra made no sense to me on how to input it (crazy motions like that need to leave from fighters). Guilty Gear, I got the feel and speed for it pretty quickly. And teching seems pretty fine to me. No need to have to dumb things down, it's already fairly approachable enough. We just need a little tour first.

It's not a question of initial approachability; it's a question of how far you have to go to play ball at the top level. People like games that are easy to learn (i.e., you can do everything pros do and learn to do it quickly), and hard to master (i.e. the meat of the game is in making the right decisions at the right time, and the game has enough complexity to make that interesting). GG, at the top level, is hard to learn and hard to master. Pretty much all fighting games are like this, to be fair -- even Melee, which most people who don't know FGs think is a simple game, is hard to learn to play competitively -- but it's not something that needs to be this way. The meat of the game is in the decisions, not executing them, and emphasizing that through gameplay is something I wholeheartedly support, so long as the complexity doesn't suffer unacceptably in exchange.

I do feel like competitive fighting games have become a bit of something different, though; they tend to cater to a crowd that wants constant displays of skill. If that's what people want to see, that's what should get made, but people should just be aware that it makes your community more resistant to growth -- and growth is something I'd rather have. It does me no good to play a game no one else is playing.

[Yukikaze]

Vashimus, Guiles motions are easy not crazy. 1P side [1]319 or [4]646

GG has harder ones, actually nearly every fighter has 720s

[Vulcan422]

I can't think of any fighting game that has a finishing move as complex as "Respect, then [2]8462+P+HS" (Dizzy's Instant Kill)

[Vashimus]

Vashimus, Guiles motions are easy not crazy. 1P side [1]319 or [4]646

GG has harder ones, actually nearly every fighter has 720s

Why is Guile's Ultra 1 that complicated? What does it add? Not to mention you can't clearly see wtf this is supposed to mean in the move list the first time you see it. It's all arbitrary, and GG is just as at fault. I'm not a noob when it comes to motions, but I think everyone can agree with me when I say there's no need for retarded motions. You want you attract more people to your game? Don't nerf execution across the board, just get rid of overly-complicated and arbitrary motions for inputs, like Dizzy's Insta-Kill (doesn't matter if you never use her Insta Kill, that's besides the point). That makes everyone happy.

[Essay]

What is being proposed instead as an input? I've played Vega for 15 years and have had less trouble with his super than double QCF's. Hell, I'd argue that Guilty Gear's common 632146x overdrive input is easier than both. I even find it easier to input 23632167+S in a flash for an instant air super like I-No's than trying to TK off double QCF's in other games, which usually sees me jumping too early if I'm in a rush. Until you get down to Marvel super inputs or NetherRealms super inputs, very little is getting objectively easier, and both of those systems introduce limitations in terms of Guilty Gear's design principles.

Anyway, I'd argue that the biggest group that Guilty Gear could do with attracting (and that it probably will attract, if the next-gen competition stands as it is) is experienced fighting game players who have only shied away from Guilty Gear until now because of it having not been on an HD console they had arcade sticks for, and, now that it is, there being little motivation to play because it'll soon be out of date with two new versions on the horizon.

[Yukikaze]

Why is Guile's Ultra 1 that complicated? What does it add? Not to mention you can't clearly see wtf this is supposed to mean in the move list the first time you see it. It's all arbitrary, and GG is just as at fault. I'm not a noob when it comes to motions, but I think everyone can agree with me when I say there's no need for retarded motions. You want you attract more people to your game? Don't nerf execution across the board, just get rid of overly-complicated and arbitrary motions for inputs, like Dizzy's Insta-Kill (doesn't matter if you never use her Insta Kill, that's besides the point). That makes everyone happy.

Execution adds to a fighter IMO, TBH I can't remember what I thought the first time I saw that motion its been 16 years or so

IMO it was the most logical motion for a super flash kick because you could not have [2]828, majority of people perform flash kick as [1]8. so [1]318 is only really a small deviation from the usual doubled up special motion.

[White Man]

IMO it was the most logical motion for a super flash kick because you could not have [2]828, majority of people perform flash kick as [1]8. so [1]318 is only really a small deviation from the usual doubled up special motion.

Depends on how strict the input system is. If it lets you fudge the inputs a little bit, okay. But a [1]318 input requires you to hit three different points on the pad/stick that are at opposite ends of each other, meaning it's really easy to hit an extra direction at some point. The added difficulty of properly timing the charge makes it even trickier.

I don't think it necessarily hurts a game to simplify inputs to a certain extent. I actually dislike Smash Bros. style commands for traditional 1-on-1 fighters, but some inputs that show up in this genre serve no logical purpose besides adding a completely arbitrary execution barrier to certain characters. For example, I remember when I was playing Justice a lot in a series of attempts to beat Survival mode. The input for Imperial Ray was the bane on my existence. I got it down to where I could pull it off about fourteen out of every fifteen attempts, but despite doing that damn motion upwards of a million bajillion times, I would still occasionally input something like 6741236 or 64126 and eat a counter combo that ended my run. I have no idea why the input for that move couldn't have been a double QCF. 641236 is utterly random and unintuitive, especially on a d-pad.

Personally, I think BlazBlue did it best by making most of the inputs reasonably simple and saving the complicated motions for Astrals. Since those are really only in the game to make someone's pride swell up for landing them, they may as well go a step further in satisfying someone's ego by requiring them to pull off pretzel motions and 1080s and stuff like that.

For anyone who thinks really complex inputs make for a deeper game, look at Marvel 2. There are virtually no command inputs in that game more complex than a half circle motion, yet the skill cap for tournament play is extremely high due to the difficulty of the combos, managing assists, etc. Marvel 2 has its problems and I wouldn't point to it as the pinnacle of FG engine design, but if you want a competitively viable fighter that's easy to pick up and tough to master, there you go.