Digital Watches

I wouldn't be too sure of that. A lot of little things changed in those two games. I'd have to test it.

Roboky and Zappa. I think robot can't do like, 5P-2S or something, and Zappa has something that normally gatlings into c.S normally but it becomes f.S in that gatling when done in plus. Those were the only glitches I heard about

You can actually run up and 5K pretty easily from any range at which 3P will hit.

Fuck a sol, fuck a ragna. Baiken and Hazama for logo. The TRUE spirit of dustloop. But in actuality, I think having even two characters on the logo and keeping it silhouetty looks dumb. Either keep it simple or don't. I liked the one with just Sol better from an aesthetic perspective, because it's a fucking LOGO, a simple thing that can be a shorthand representation for our site, not a "DECLARATION OF EVERYTHING WE ARE AND EVERYTHING WE STAND FOR WHICH MUST BE ALL INCLUSIVE!"

Er, Millia needs FRCs to be effective on a HIGH level (A lot of her craziest mixup is haircar FRC). The others you listed, not so much. Anyway. In after lock.

Lawl. 3P CH already lets you combo for 50+% Just link 5K or something.

Thread in a nutshell: -Learning FRCs ain't that hard, especially on stick, a lot of people can learn them just by knowing when they are. -Some people who don't understand how this game works think they're unnecessary fake difficulty -There are other games you can play if you don't like difficult shit like FRCs or Defense. Also: Completely stupid argument I heard: "If I had my druthers, hits would automatically trigger combos." This is dumb for a lot of reasons. First off, combos aren't some magical thing that does a bunch of damage when you hit. In guilty gear, there are a lot of games that go on between players during the combo itself, including weighing risk-reward for teching, doing different combos that favor positioning over damage, etc. Secondly, almost no one can hitconfirm every hit that could be a combo into a combo. That would be as dumb as every move taking 40 frames so everyone could block perfectly on reaction to everything (If anyone's actually in favor of that, I don't even know what to say to you). No, I don't think execution barriers need to be hard so we can have some kind of pissing contest about who's more "Skilled" or whatever, but taking human reaction time out of the equation wouldn't work for the kind of game this is. Besides, autocombos would take a lot of the emergent depth out of the game, as it would require the designers of the game to build the combos into the game in the first place, which isn't how they work in the first place, and again, anyone who thinks so is fundamentally mistaken in a way that would preclude you from playing this game at a high level in a much more immediate way than any execution barrier ever would. Anyone object to me locking this?

Well, while I agree that most games that have competitive potential and are fast-paced necessarily have execution barriers, I think your conception of the causality is a little flawed. If I'm reading that right, it seems like you're proposing that for such a game to be competitive, there have to be execution barriers in order to differentiate skill levels, which I disagree with. However, I will note that most attempts to eliminate execution barriers would undoubtedly change the mechanics in some way, a good example being lengthening FRC windows (Changing the amount of options you have with FRCs). In other words, it's not that it HAS to be hard, and therefore it's 2-3 frame windows for the most part, it's that it HAS to be 2-3 frame windows to work the way they do, and therefore it's a little hard.

You playing Millia?

Lawl. I'm with Baiken alex on this one. FRCs aren't fake difficulty, they're small cancel windows because they're not meant to be so versatile. You're looking for RCs (Play Sol or something).

Lawl. This works on Zappa, possibly others: 5K, c.S->(Rensen[FRC], run, [4]H) x 4, rensen, 2 It's like if Axl had Carcassraid loop!

Actually, I even edited the summary to add a section on it. Seriously.

I wanna play you too.

This is GG, yeah? Sounds like most of my matches are going $10-20, so if you're not setting an amount, $15 sounds about right. Good by you? My estimate for Evo money is now up to an $80 margin of error.

Helluva down. Koog Lrrrr: ??/?? $10 Dat Monkey: 2/3 $15 JO: 5/9 $20 Derek: 3/5 $20 TUNE IN, FOLKS

Russian FRCs?

Oh, right.

Sorry for the confusion. I think my whole point was Well, that and what Baiken Alex said.

Where is the HYPE? I challenge Latif for money.

Man, I mostly just lurk this thread, but I gotta join the chorus re: congrats on your future hitching.

Look, space and time, whoever you are. I could go and point out the fallacy of each of your supposed counterpoints, but not only would that be boring, it'd also be rather pointless, because this seems to be your main point: We're not playing a magical pretend game you made up. We're playing a game that was designed and released. You said it yourself: The characters were not designed to be competitive. No thought whatsoever was put into making them balanced, thinking out how they'd fit in with the overall game, etc. Additionally, AC and AC+ are not different games. That's the whole point. AC+ is just AC with a bunch of bonus content. Storyline stuff for the fanboys, and funny extras, like the infamous GEORGE BADGUY and new EX characters. By reasonable competitive standards, the games are (for the most part, and certainly were supposed to be) no different. So I'm NOT saying a game with like 50 characters can't work. I play MBAA, it's a fine game, and every character has 3 different versions, sometimes drastically different from each other. The point is, the game was designed with these characters in mind, and was balanced around the idea that they're all part of the game. This is simply not true of Guilty Gear, and if it was, it wouldn't even be a question. Of course we'd allow EX characters in competitive play if that were the case. By your logic, why not allow Kliff and Justice? Why not allow, for that matter, gold characters? They're in the game, right? I could kick some ass with infinite-meter Jam (Unburstable infinite with super, anyone?) or IK Mist Finer Johnny, seriously. So let's be clear: We're not riding Japan's dick, we're not imposing some ridiculous standard because we're afraid to man up. Arcade Perfect is an easy shorthand for Definitely considered during development and balancing. And as in my earlier example of SFIV, if the scene was able to determine that those characters were pretty balanced in the scope of the game, they'd probably be de-facto allowed.

Well, you see this diverge a little between scenes. For example, I'm pretty sure console-exclusive content (characters and the like) was largely allowed in SFIV stuff, as I'm pretty sure I saw some Cammy matches on the big screen last Evo. But with EX characters, you have a plethora of issues to address: 1. A lot of the metagame of Guilty Gear revolves around matchup experience. Obviously with 23 characters that are for the most part viable, it's difficult to become good at fighting all of them, particularly ones who are not represented in your particular scene. 2. Not everyone wants to play through the whole damn story or mission mode or however the hell you unlock those things, and by allowing them in tournaments, you are, as per 1., allowing the tacit assumption to be that people know how to deal with these characters. Now while most people who main EX characters at the moment are pretty much scrubs, due to there not really being a reason to play them seriously (because they're banned), that's not to say that someone couldn't theoretically get good at one and win a tournament because no one had played that EX character before. Do you really want to force everyone playing competitively to take a bunch of time to unlock all the EX characters, and then FURTHER stunt the growth of players in smaller scenes by allowing 46 characters? 3. There's just no way we can know how balanced EX characters are, even within themselves. That would require a LOT of playtesting by competitively viable and experienced players. I mean, how long did it take AC's NORMAL tierlist to resolve? Is it even resolved NOW? 4. The fact that AC and AC+ are just about the same game (Barring some glitch with Robot and Zappa and maybe some other minor stuff) makes it convenient for people to run tournaments, since some people will inevitably have copies of one and some of the other. Allowing EX characters would RUIN that, as the EX characters differ between those two, further cementing, by the way, their role as non-serious extra content. 5. As per 4, do you really want to create a standard where there are 69 allowed characters, and numerous disputes about what version to play, because, for example, an AC+ EX Venom player is assigned to an vAC station? 6. For that matter, what happens when an AC+ EX Millia player is in a tournament match with an AC EX Testament player? What setup do they use? Who is forced to switch? Should they have to flip a coin? I dunno about you, but that sounds fuckin' lame. There are a lot of reasons, some of which I'm sure I haven't gotten to, why EX characters just would not make viable sense to allow in tournament play.

Eh, I think SOME 3-7s exist, but they're both anomalies and DOable. Like Jo-Za, An-Ma, that kind of thing. Really, you should pick a character and stick to it. The dumbest thing people do is try to learn counterpick characters.

Hella down for that. Hopefully we still at least have EC people.

Speaking of which, I'm totally gonna make this. Someone better be playing Gear and Melty.