Sophisticat

^ Blown up!

Heya guys. I'm trying to train a total n00b at playing Hazama, and wouldn't mind a couple pointers. But first off, a couple simple combos would be plenty. I showed him how to do 5b -> 5c -> 3c -> 236D and he more or less can pull it off. I'm looking for similar easy stuff to practice on. Anything good? Thanks!

I am the White North. I am the Cold Winter. I am the Judge of Naughty and Nice. With elves in hand I will provide the gifts of this world and sublimate it in the Joys of Giving! I am Hakumen, Christmas has come! Happy Holidays, guys. Have a good un', and may your loot tower above the White North!

^ Meter: Three beers Dmg: $1.2k

^ Mac, I played EX Haku for a bit, and the meter gain change is noticeable. Rejoice! :3 I didn't get to check out his new combos since I can't combo atm, but j.B untech time is also sweet stuff.

Fear me, brethren. My old skills are starting to flow back into my being. I can now adequately block scrub mashing again. >:3 Also, Nedel, real sorry last night. I simply didn't notice your msg as I was tutoring another guy. Next time! D: EDIT: Don't take it too hard, Bibliothek. Transitioning to CS2 Haku was a major pain for me and made me switch to Valk for a while. I almost didn't touch Haku again, but I'm thankful I did because it wasn't that bad at the end of the day. Just stick to it!

Oh whoops, misread that, lol. Anyway, heading on netplay for some practice I dearly need to put in. Everyone's already on Extend as far as I can see, though.

^ Someone's hatin' on the new look.

Yeah, you should, dude. I think there's another meetup tomorrow, so come on over!

Good stuff, guys! I sucked horribly, lol. I might have to put in a minimum of practice now. Kirb, I was impressed with how quickly you adapted to stick. I don't think there's that much difference with your pad performance. Brice. Free beer. <3 Nice meeting the new guys, too. I saw a lot of fresh faces since the last couple months. Hope you guys are here to stay. :D Foonzo's new look is awesome too, I think they really did a lot to change it for the better. Also, did the owners change or something?

^ Somewhat. The time to take risks is when an opportunity arises, or you properly set up a situation in which you can take a risk. I do not believe hp should have much to do with it. Let's say you're low on hp. Players tend to become afraid here, and self-fulfilling prophecy makes it so they lose as a result. Players who can do remarkable comebacks kept their cool and decided to push back because they had nothing to lose (should they not have taken risks and played safe?). Imo, playing with hp bars turned off can be good training for the psychology of this situation. Forget about hp: just stick to your plan. Precisely. I can agree with this. As people step their game up, though, I think this is something they'll think about more. ----- As an aside, I really like how Valk plays in general. It's a very fluid and dynamic style that lends itself to some interesting on-the-spot decisions. His unpredictability is one of his best features (and being S+ tier in this game or so it seems). He's probably the most flexible of all characters at this time, too. Example with the latest A-Cho: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wAotLAm-z0

Sweet, Brice. :D Seems like everyone's saying between 4 and 6, so I'll average that and be there around 5 or 6. Can't wait to try out Haku's new carry combos.

I'm so down for tomorrow. First CSEX meet at Foonzo! Hype!

^ Hush you. :P But you're right. I think I should add that the context for my srs bzns posts are with the idea that you would do this for a living or want to place high in tourneys like Evo, hence why I emphasize the psychology so much. If you're just doing casuals, then that aspect naturally isn't as prevalent. Meh, maybe I'm thinking too much into it, but I really do think that this is an underappreciated area of discussion in FGs. >_>

Alright, so this post addresses a lot of stuff I want to talk about. Disclaimer: This post is a bit skewed towards the theoretical, so take with a grain of salt. I hope the point will come across, though. Blargh, my laptop's keyboard also somehow died a couple minutes ago, and I had to hook-up a USB keyboard, so I'll post this as-is for now. Should be good enough. ----- Without further ado, sG's post: Okay, let's start with optimality. The implication is that there is always one decision or set of decisions that is above all the others in a given situation. This is somewhat true in some instances (i.e. Lambda preventing entry by throwing swords around as I play Hakumen... frikkin' annoying). However, there are a number of fallacies with this: 1) Players are humans, not robots. No human is 100% optimal. 2) It implies the optimal decision is obvious. 3) If players were optimal, then everyone would play the same and there would be no variance of style since there is only one way to play. There is a right way of playing, for sure, but it doesn't have to be optimal in order to win. 4) No judgement would be required in optimal play because you are always doing the right thing at all times. Unless you have 10,000+ hours of play time under your belt, this is an unlikely case. The implication of the above is that there might be optimal, mechanical decisions such as combo selection, but taken as a whole, we come to the idea that fighting games have to do with a selection of "best of" decisions rather than any one single option that is better than the rest. Since we deal with an imperfect, mutable environment, this brings us to... Risk vs. reward With no one best option, you have to weigh the risk of available options. This risk is also not always apparent, but I've generally noticed that people say "this is the best option in this case" (I do the same, guilty as charged). Let's deconstruct this. Your risk is generally: 1) Being baited. 2) The recovery/startup/hitbox on the move. Now here's an example of a straightforward risk/reward decision: - I play Hakumen vs. a Ragna. I decide to jump in, and the risk/reward here is in favour of the Ragna going for 6a. Thing is, I know this. So what we really have in practice is this: - Let's say I jump in on Ragna as Hakumen. He does 6a. I anticipated it, and do j.D. He got baited. - What if he did 5a instead if he anticipated I would do j.D to make me react? I got baited (assuming 5a is out of j.D's hitbox). The recovery on j.D kills me. - Then what if I anticipated that he anticipated... And so on. My point: there is no optimal decision in this case, but you do have to make a decision, even if it's just blocking. So, considering the above, even the risk/reward profile is mutable through judgement and decisions. Which move to use is not always obvious in some cases. I can only conclude one axiom: The true risk/reward of any situation is the one you create. (And also: don't autopilot.) And how do you create such a situation? We come to... Player Psychology (I assume a tourney play situation for this section. Casual play doesn't have the same kind of emotional involvement) Given the assumption of perfect play (i.e. no mistakes) on both ends, what is it that would make you get in a hit? There are three ways that I know of: 1) Baiting moves. 2) Capitalizing on failed risk taking. (In other words, you CH'd your opponent. This can be as simple as throwing out your 2a 2f before his) 3) Causing mistakes in your opponent. We have discussed that play is mutable and not optimal. This means there are certain uncertainties in play and this is where you will find holes to poke through. I have found that the area where this is best present is in your opponent's expectations and anticipations since only a very few have gdlk reactions to everything. So, knowing this, this is where you lay the foundation for your master plan that will carry you through the match, and also maybe a little bit of creativity. Have you noticed any patterns that make your opponent jittery? Does he have trouble reacting to overheads? Or are you going to have to create such a situation from scratch? First, you have to know what your opponent expects of you. If he expects you to do X in situation Y, then that, for him, is his high-probability optimal move. Let's make up a simple (*cough* netplay, but assume tourney nerves) scenario: Most players expect Hakumen to do j.2c when airdashing at them, and most will do standard fare anti-air moves. They are confident in their expectation of success in a favourable outcome. I, knowing this, can then shatter their confidence in this move by going for j.D or Hotaru or something. They get unnerved, and start trying out new moves on the spot. But since I laid out a plan right from the start just for this situation can then press the advantage and not allow them time to recover. What I mean here is that I took their expectation of a situation and turned it on them. In this case, what was high-probability for him, turned out to be high-probability for me! I believe the same happened in the Evo2k11 Spark v. LK grand final as I mentioned in a previous post. I could make up other scenarios, but not much point. So: Axiom #2: Don't hold any expectations, and follow your plan. (And also: don't autopilot) The Competitive Edge From all this, what do we finally come to? The edge: the one weapon a player has that allows him to win against another, skilled player. As sG mentioned, being flexible and adaptable has a lot to do with this. I agree. But the real point I want to make here is that since there is no such thing as optimal play, and since player psychology and your decisions towards thus are the most important factors determining success, then what matters is not your style, but rather how you create advantageous situations for yourself using this style. This creation of advantageous situations is your edge. You could simply be a very solid player, you could have the power of yomi, superior analytical skills, or you might have gdlk reactions. But the point is that this edge is what allows you to create an opening for you to press an advantage. Finally, to guard against this edge, you must... Axiom #3: Be adaptable. This is probably the one thing everyone needs to have to make it in FGs. (And also: don't autopilot) I also could go on about the winner's mentality, but I'll leave that for another time. Whew. I think this is going to create another shitstorm, though I hope not since I'm a bit worn out, lol. Anyway, I think there's a lot of stuff missing, but the main points are there so it's good enough!

Bit of extra stuff... That's not the case. This "creativity" is just a subset of what I think makes for an edge in good players. What makes a top player is the edge he has over his competition. This could come in many forms, some of which sG (and I in my post prior to yours) mentioned. I doubt he would. He plays way too wild and random play implies not having a set plan. It's a pretty good style to take your opponent off-guard, though.

Ok, time to make a big write-up. I'll first answer a couple things here. Well, of course they were available? You are limited by the system, after all. Creativity doesn't just mean making stuff up -- it can also mean simply using the conventional in new ways. You are correct that a lot has to do with judgement, but it can also be a creative decision. More about this in my upcoming post. This man knows. What if it's bait?

Sounds like you guys had a great time. :D So when's the next meet? I'm getting antsy for some BB since it's been forever and a half since I've gotten some play. My technique's rusted, but I might have a bit of new tech to show off. At least the mind was kept well-oiled.

Lol, nice to see the thread's alive. I'll post up some tl;dr of my own in a couple hours with stuff I've thought about. For now, I'll say that creativity was off-base to start the discussion. I was operating from my own context of things and didn't properly explain where I was coming from. My next post will hopefully clarify all that.

Are you insinuating Spark has poor defence? :P I kid. I'll change that up asap.

Hmm... Alright. There is some good stuff in here. But I'm still pissed, and I spent too much time on this since I have a final first thing tomorrow. I'll get back to it later. For now, this is where we're at:

It is limited when speaking of games like SFIV and perhaps BB. The play is more structured, yes. This is less the case for, say, GG and SF3 where the system allows more freedom. Besides, this thread was about the kind of ingenuity players come up with, not the inherent (im)possibilities of the system. But I digress. I cannot help but disagree. He had an interesting perspective and is one of the best players I know. He did nothing but state his own view. I liked that it got people interested in the thread, but it turned out to be much more of a distraction than anything else. The derailing was not his fault. Well, I'll leave it at that. Not much point in going further.

And... Mods are going to lock this thread soon. Good going, guys. I expected better.

Basically, assuming you have a pool of players of equal strength, all using characters of equal strength, then what is the defining element that would make a small set of players consistently place at the top? For example, it could be... : - Better reaction speeds. - Better analysis of the other guy's habits. - More experience/play time. - Better defence (can block everything à la Spark) Etc., you get the point. Now, of course characters aren't of equal strength. This is why we have tiers and matchups. When you say a matchup is 6-4, then the "6" character has a competitive edge over the other character for X and Y reasons. So, tiers are about character edges. This is fairly straightforward once the game has been out for a while; tiers don't move much. My original intent with this thread was to talk about the player edge, and how it interacts with the chosen character. So let's say you pick a really shitty character. This means your competitive edge has to be really good to beat the top tiers, right? If you're a phenomenal player, then this can be done. You have X and Y element that makes you a cut above the rest. The question is, what is this element? Coming back to my OP, I assumed creativity. Perhaps that's my edge? I don't even know what my own edge is actually, lol. Hope it's clear now. This should be much more conducive to discussion. :P Anyway, I ask of everyone: what is your edge? Do you even know it?

^ Lol, no shit. I recall playing him once, he's no joke. But yeah, time for me to chime in. Ok guys, if you have more to argue about take it elsewhere, please. I want to get back on track here. ----- Going forward, I think "competitive edges" could be an interesting discussion because I don't think it's something that's ever been talked about in relation to FGs. I'll add in risk v. reward, psychology & "tourney nerves", and the top player's mentality. Forget about creativity, that was too abstract a concept just yet. But that said, is there any interest in this thread? I'm ready to continue, but if there's no interest, then I'm not about to do a bunch of TL;DR for nothing. I realize my OP is more of a rant so it wasn't really conducive to constructive discourse, but there was some good stuff said in here and I think it could form the base for some interesting insights. I'll start over fresh in a new thread in that case with a more open structure. So, who's interested out there?