EternalLurker

Mercurius' is about as bad, and there are enough 0-death combos in the game that "infinite" doesn't mean too much.

You're probably trying different matchups than you used to try. The AI's particularly decent with some characters and particularly shitty with others.

Jedah best character ever

Unfortunately short, though. Nice while it lasts.

This is why I specified in my post which versions of which songs I meant. Suck a Sage is one of the few songs that are better in XX; most of the rest are worse. In particular, Solitude and Elegance lost a lot of the nice background riffs, and Babel Noise's percussion died. I mentioned this in the comments on Suck a Sage XX's YouTube page and I think the comment's score was at about -12 last I checked.

Cough what

Bleh, I've never studied Japanese in my life. >_> But fair enough. I GUESS. Any more questions?

Um, just Googling the first four words you hear when the movie starts gives you an answer. EDIT: Speaking of Answer...Might as well go back and do this for others, too, since Google is apparently not the strong point of DustLoopers. Klaige, the video called Answer is, not surprisingly, using a song called Answer. C'mon. san-tokie, this question is acceptable, I guess, since the song is fairly obscure. So yeah, here you go. I'm pretty sure that OP is the whole song, though I didn't bother listening to the rest. The Engrish kills my brain about 25 seconds in. Either way I'm sure you can find the full song, if that isn't it, now that you know the name. Alzarath, here.

Holy shit, a Calgary Guilty Gear scene. I have a vacation home in Canmore and go there most winters. Now I have to meet you guys this summer.

*sigh* Guess I gotta emulate Windows for ZSNES. Mac user here, and SNES9x and ZSNES aren't compatible for online play as far as I know. Should be okay I hope, just a bit laggy. I'll be free Thursday night if ya wanna play then. EDIT: Oh hey there's ZSNES for Mac now. Nevermind then. DOUBLE EDIT: No Zbattle for Mac, though, so if that's what you're using, bleh. It'll be laggy then.

So it is an execution thing, then. Thanks for the explanation. 2S is already habitual for me so I'll probably stick with that, then. Furthermore, d.S -> 2S -> S is a combo I often use, so 2S is a necessity. Hey, um, question...How much can you loop 236S on a falling opponent? I've managed 4 loops, but I get the feeling that either better timing or a better setup can make it last for at least 6. I know there are much better sources of damage, but it's amusing and psychologically advantageous to get an opponent stuck in a Resshou loop. This is the one I do on Ky that gets 3 loops fairly consistently and 4 sometimes: d.S,f.S,2S,H,236S,236S-RC-d.S,2D,(236S)*n (I think. Don't have GG access at the moment so I'm typing that from memory. If that doesn't work, then the part after the RC is probably d.S,2D,236P,236K,(236S)*n instead. But that may be the Eddie version. Memory's rusty.) Can that go for more than 4 loops, meaning my timing just gets bad at that point? Or is there a better way to set up the Resshou loop that'll consistently last for more than 4 loops? EDIT: ...Neeeevermind. Ignore the above as it's full of hateful lies. My GG access recently has been solely at a friend's house and he's apparently accidentally had his training dummy set to a 2-frame delay before aerial recovery. Sans the delay I think the most the above loop gets is 2 Resshous, which isn't a loop at all.

If it's reversals that are your issue, dunno why you're specifying CPUs. It's not like humans can't do 'em either; reversals are pretty easy in Endless Duel. But they're as easy to block as they are to pull off. Epyon's super makes the opponent recover WAY too much energy on block. The chip damage doesn't begin to compensate for that fact. About the only advantage of Epyon's super over most is its OTG potential, which is an argument I can see made for it but which isn't sufficient to make it particularly cheap. You're arguing that it can be used even on an opponent who isn't knocked down, without comboing into it, and that's just not right because you're basically giving your opponent a full super meter when you do that. And if your opponent already _has_ a full super meter and you just pull Epyon's super out while they can block, then they can also simply use their own super on you because Epyon sits there like a noob for ages during his super. After all, you can do a super during the block stun of Epyon's super. In particular, Deathscythe LOVES when Epyon uses his super, since Deathscythe can just use his own super with its massive invincibility window to knock Epyon out of the air; Epyon is perfectly positioned to eat the whole thing. Zero's takes out half of a health bar quite reliably at mid-range, so I dunno what you're saying about its damage. There's no reason to use a beam super at close range, and at long range if your opponent doesn't block it he's doing it wrong, so it should only ever be used at mid-range, and its damage is consistent at mid-range. Sandrock's is bad, though, ignore me; I meant HeavyArms'. They're both ranged specialists so I mix 'em up a lot, not being a Gundam fan. HeavyArms' super covers far too much of the screen vertically and doesn't return much energy on block. It's quite irritating.

Sure, but if we're talking about comboing into the super, Tallgeese and Wing and Wing Zero have similarly ridiculous ranged supers: they do somewhat less damage but are much faster and infinitely harder to interrupt. If anyone's super is noticeably cheaper than the rest, it's probably Sandrock's.

I think the casual approachability argument is fairly self-evident and doesn't need to be addressed. The issue is this repeated claim that a high execution barrier is inherently equivalent to greater depth, as seen yet again here: Again I point to the difference between interactive execution requirements -- tests of ability that are dependent on another player's actions -- and things like FRCs. Yes, Hellmonkey, you responded that combos are not innately interactive either, and I agree. They're necessary and they remain fun in GG because they're fairly short; go overboard with them and it does become a solo game for a while, as in Fate/Unlimited Codes. Plus, in GG there are several combo elements that do require interaction on both sides (bursting, blockstrings, staggering, etc). FRCs, on the other hand, are a solitary execution requirement just like pulling off a special move, and while the latter is so easy as not to be a barrier for anyone who expects to have any chance of playing a fighting game, the former is a hurdle the size of which no one here has yet managed to give any argument supporting. I've stated that many if not most FRCs could have significantly larger input windows without at all disrupting their basic functionality and that point hasn't been seriously refuted; unless you plan on doing so, the only defense you've given for FRCs' current input windows is "tougher execution = more depth" with which I simply can't agree. Also lol @ the first post in this thread. This sounds familiar.

....Um wut? I know I haven't played in a while, but I can't recall Epyon's super being cheap. It's easily dodgeable by superjumping and hovering around, it's interceptible by superjumping and attacking him, and, most importantly, simply blocking it all is great for your own super bar too. What makes Epyon stupid is the insanity of QCF+P, as well as how easily his weapon attacks link. Example

....You're all just repeating the same illogical thing: "Other elements of GG require timing, so FRCs can require it too." The truth is the opposite: since timing and other physical elements are already tested in GG, there's no need to go overboard with FRC timing as well. Spacing, instant blocks, slash backs, all of these that you've mentioned are interactive. They're fun elements of GG because they require timing relative to an opponent's actions. FRC timing is solely the result of practice. There's no interaction with the opponent involved in hitting an FRC. Thus there's nothing fun or competitive (unless you think DDR is competitive) about an FRC and there's no reason to compare it to instant-blocks and the like.

So your answer is a combination of "because that's tradition" and "because everything else in the game requires executional skill". So it's somehow a good idea to add yet another such playability barrier for no reason other than to have such a barrier, even though it'd make much more sense to say that there's ALREADY enough of an execution requirement to play and thus making FRCs as hard as they are is unnecessary. (which I said earlier) That's great.

Even the January 16 post of this year by ATG (post #143) uses S(f) where I think 2S would be better. But, judging by your reply, I take it I'm not missing anything, then? Maybe it's just an execution thing; it's easier to double-tap S than to press 2 in the combo, and pressing 2 can also mess up some things like Beta Blade if you're not very careful.

This is logical how now? Yeah, that was kinda the point I addressed when I said "it does make GG quite hard to introduce to people who I know are otherwise skilled gamers." This is the angle of argument that might make sense, but I don't see how in most cases. Isn't it generally true that FRC windows which come after a move's active frames could be extended forwards, and FRC windows which come before a move's active frames could be extended backwards, without changing their functionality, as I pointed out with my Chipp examples and my response to MFRC's Millia example? If an FRC comes in the startup of a move, it usually won't adversely affect anything if the window is extended to include a larger part of the startup; the same is true for recovery FRCs. Active-frame ones would have to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, and there are certainly some dangerous FRCs even in the two other categories I mentioned, but in general I think there's rarely a valid mechanical reason for FRC input windows being only 2-3 frames. And Hellmonkey points out another option I'd considered but hadn't posted, figuring it would be even more flame-worthy than my previous opinions. And if larger FRC windows would open more options, then that's great for depth, isn't it? Options are what allow the mental aspects of player skill to become a real factor in any game that isn't just about the timing (cough DDR). I mean, I'm talking about across-the-board changes, so it wouldn't be a balance issue; if anything, opening up more FRC-based options for lower-tier characters would be a good way to help them catch up.

I'm not referring to cases where extending the window would fundamentally change the mechanics of the FRC; I said "most" for a reason. Such cases are rare anyway. In the example you give, the FRC window can be at least 4 frames longer without allowing her to FRC after the disc comes out; I think it's more like 6 IIRC. Another simple example: there's an FRC at the top of Chipp's Beta Blade to speed up his recovery as well as open up aerial options. It's two frames, but the move itself hits at least 8 frames before that point. Furthermore, the move is RC-able during those 8 frames, so the issue isn't one of the move being unbalanced if it could be cancelled earlier. It can be cancelled earlier; it'll just cost twice the Tension because the player hit PKS one frame too early. How does that benefit the game in any way? Most of the options off of the cancel are Tensionless anyway (chase with air-dash into j.D, simply j.D right away if in a corner, land and Gamma Blade, etc). Similarly (I'm using Chipp just because I know him best, but my point holds for plenty of other characters), the FRC for his 22 teleport is solely intended to speed up the move. Extending the window forwards, not backwards, couldn't possibly break the move. Same goes again for Alpha Plus. There's just no reason for this mentality that "it's harder so it should be better". The difficulty should come from the skill of deciding what to do with the options given by canceling, based on the current situation. How is "too easy for what it gives you" an argument? Isn't Slayer's Big Bang Upper "too easy for what it gives you"? Manual dexterity is already necessary to keep up with an opponent in spacing games and to link combos or blockstrings together, some of which require frame-perfect timing of their own. I'm not hitting a wall. I can do all of my characters' FRCs (mine being Chipp and Axl). But it does make GG quite hard to introduce to people who I know are otherwise skilled gamers. Your analogy is inaccurate; it's more like playing a version of basketball in which a swish is worth five times the points of a normal shot. One can be quite skilled at stealing, layups, backboarded three-pointers, passing, and all of the other components of the game (I'm not knowledgeable enough about basketball to continue this), but that won't compensate for the sudden importance of swishes on the metagame.

*sigh* I really, really hate FRCs. It wouldn't subtract any depth/complexity from the game were most FRCs 8-10 frames instead of 2. Artificial barriers to mastery of a game do not automatically make it better. The existence of 2-frame FRCs singlehandedly kills a good chunk of the fun of practicing GG.

Why do all the combos in this thread use f.S instead of 2S? They have identical ranges and seemingly identical knockbacks, and 2S does more damage. I always chain c.S -> 2S instead of c.S -> f.S, for example. Am I missing something that makes f.S better?

and ever, and ever Note that Archer is the same 138 who later (well, much later) went on to win SBO as we discussed in the last couple pages.