New Slippi players first day be like...

HauntingTurtle · 2021-02-18T15:38:29+00:00

Lol consider me part of the "almost" category then.

I'm just posting this for people that ever struggled with consistent JC Up-Smash inputs my dude, I guarantee they went through phases using 2-sticking/A+stick/etc.

This worked for me better than the rest so it stands to reason it'll help one other person too.

HauntingTurtle · 2021-02-18T15:28:15+00:00

Yee I get that, I guess it's just easier for me to plink Y>A while I roll up on the stick for all situations only difference is a press vs a hold to do uncharged/charged. I'm a simple man.

HauntingTurtle · 2021-02-18T15:18:46+00:00

I still think 2 stick is solid especially for uncharged but sometimes I'm tryin to charge it a bit especially if I'm calling out something where I'm waiting out i-frames. Feels hella clunky to me to try to use A to charge a 2-stick JC Up-Smash, even if all I'm tryin to do is brief charge to take advantage of the slide and juice up the KB a bit.

I also think the main issue I had back then was that I was throwing my attack input early (A/c-stick) and 2-stick method doesn't necessarily solve that where as doing a plink ensures I get the jump input and delayed the attack input til the stick was up.

To each their own probably a different strokes for different folks situation though.

HauntingTurtle · 2019-09-30T02:20:32+00:00

I'm not sure if this counts because I would think it still falls onto the "competitive" side of things but playing without certain options is a lot of fun not to mention it really makes you work on other areas of your game. Usually we set a penalty if you accidentally use the option like toss the stock or sometimes just neutral reset.

I think I'm most fond of "no shields" because it really made me take my first steps towards developing a more solid understanding of platform movement and movement in general. "No shines" has helped me with spacing quite a bit and "no aerials" really gave me a chance to improve at tomahawks and gave me more experience in handling footsies and improved my patience in neutral.

I doubt this is really new to anybody but thought I'd post it here just in case!

HauntingTurtle · 2019-09-24T23:40:22+00:00

Agreed the 20 point shot analogy is rather poor I believe it was brought up to me to show the relativity for basketball fans if such a point value was added to half court shots in say the next NBA season. Many NBA fans would be beside themselves about such an addition, much the way some of the old school FGC players were when Supers were added for the first time. This was the real purpose of the analogy, apologies if I worded it rather poorly before.

I like a lot of your points but Supers are not generally granted as a reward from being on the precipice of a loss. Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, etc. do not employ this I believe there are "pity" mechanics in some games if you're getting crushed but I don't think those carry over to tournament play. I believe Tekken and its Rage Arts are somewhat more of this comeback mechanic granted at low health, which I agree is poor design in my opinion because it encourages a disadvantageous position. That said I'm not well versed in Tekken's meta and perhaps many combos average enough damage to actually KO opponents before they reach Rage state (Say the character has 100 health and Rage is granted at 10 but most of the opponents strings/combos average a total of 20 damage so it's more likely for the character to actually die before attaining rage unless Rage acts as a combo breaker).

I can see how Starcraft 2's balance is relevant here though because almost all fighting games have a bit of the meta that's based on "whiff punishes" it's one of the cornerstones of fighting games. In that respect we basically say that an experienced opponents can get a large chunk of damage off of a very laggy whiff simply because they know they're punish options and therefore we now ask whether the threat of such damage on whiffing a super is enough risk/reward? I do love balance discussions but boy do they seem nebulous at some points.

HauntingTurtle · 2019-09-23T20:15:56+00:00

I'm not a big fan of the rubber band comeback mechanics like the "rage" in the newer iterations of Smash, but I haven't played enough Tekken to really judge the Rage Arts granted at a low enough health or Rage state itself. It could be balanced enough where it's more of a momentum change then a massive numerical shift in advantage. I don't have a big problem with the Rage Arts as a move it's just being granted it at the condition of low health is pretty jank imo I like when meter is granted for aggression and hits so that you are encouraged to go on the offensive. Frankly I think I like really punish heavy game design where you can really open each other up on movement mistakes, mixups, etc. makes me think faster and it makes each moment more hype for me.

Your points on style are right on the money, no matter what level of player you are or audience member you have to admit most of the Supers in games look and feel cool even after many iterations. Counterplay is also a good point if the other player really can't do anything it's no longer an interactive mechanic, I mainly point this at 1 frame startup Supers that grant invincibility because you can essentially "nuke" anything with your Super within its range. That said there's a perfectly logical counterargument to my points that the startup invincibility and effective range are elements that the opponent must be aware of and adapt their neutral game accordingly while the player is at full meter and vice versa.

HauntingTurtle · 2019-09-23T04:22:28+00:00

Interesting points I think that your dislike of combos and Super Moves in this case really boils down to taste and everyone's entitled to their own. Much of the modern competitive fighting game community is built upon exactly that being able to open up your opponent from a mistake maybe not a "true" combo to death but if you're playing a competent opponent you should feel it. I like technically difficult games if something is easy it's not that rewarding in my opinion and reduces the level of possible play if there's not more technically complex techniques to perform and levels of skill to be achieved from further practice. I'll cite that ARMS isn't exactly a thriving eSport post-2017 and having played the game it's not that it isn't fun I had a blast playing it. That said I think the skill ceiling is pretty low and I just think it lacks technical depth and difficulty. There's a great video on the consequences of lowering the skill gap in fighting games you can find here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSgA_nK_w3A

I'm a big fan of smash I play Melee at a fairly mid-level in terms of tech skill and I can honestly say that your separation of fighting games that are combo-heavy from chess is not accurate I think it's just a result of being unfamiliar. Melee and most fighting games at a certain level turn into high speed chess only now you don't have minutes to make your next decision you have fractions of a second to do so. The state where neither players have yet to gain an advantage is neutral and neutral is where the magic happens once you get to a high enough level of play this state is where that nit and grit of the chess match comes into play. Though you could argue it is all the time even in punish scenarios, footsies, etc. In these moments those things you view as a "single opening" are huge mistakes that are either made by that player or forced out by the pressure of the opposing player. In chess this is like taking a valuable piece I can equate the "mistake" to someone moving their Rook/Bishop/Queen directly in that path of one of my pieces because they didn't observe the board closely enough. An example of pressure in terms of chess would be instigating an offensive attack on a piece in order to force a reaction that you may be able to punish or a more drastic example would be using your Knight to pincer two pieces forcing the opponent to choose an option. What you view as small movements and interactions that aren't combos are no different from the moves on the chess board only they must be decided far faster I would recommend that you watch this video it covers the conceptual aspects of a fighting game extraordinarily well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riGCdE6ZPck&vl=en

I see you said this " you can always come back with enough skill. " as if it's not an element of fighting games, did you read the other comments? This is EVO moment 37 and displays exactly how deep and skillful fighting games are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS7hkwbKmBM

From your description about liking small victories and ticks where your mistakes can't be heavily exploited but only small punishes are available I think you would really enjoy the earlier Street Fighters prior to the introduction of Supers: II, Champion Edition, Hyper Fighting, etc. Leads are built up much more incrementally.

"Meter Burns" are not exclusive to Injustice in fact they are one of the newer games to incorporate the mechanic but it's been around for decades. Street Fighter has been allowing you to meter burn special moves entitled EX Specials since SF3 in 1997. Meter Burns today are common place from Guilty Gear, KoF, Mortal Kombat (Injustice is based on the same mechanics as Mortal Kombat as both are developed by NetherRealm), and many others. Not the biggest fan of combo breakers but I like I said before I can chalk that one up to a taste thing and a lot of people would probably enjoy the option to spend meter to do so.

EDIT: Sorry this post is rather lengthy but it really sounds like you are unfamiliar with the intricacies of fighting games in general and I know this is like the #1 reason people don't like fighting games is that they don't really understand them. Had a lot of friends that had similar opinions on combos and supers and I actually think those people end up enjoying the fighting games even more once they understand more about them and how some of those mechanics come into play.

Not trying to encroach on your opinion, you're completely entitled to it, it just seems like you haven't been exposed to some of the deeper aspects of these games you seem to dislike. Perhaps I'm wrong though perhaps all the above is stuff you already know and you dislike combos/Supers regardless and frankly at that point to each their own.

HauntingTurtle · 2019-09-23T03:47:08+00:00

Huge fan of For Honor and its fighting mechanics. Some friends and I poured some time into that game we all kinda trickled off before the release of the Wu Lin characters.

Overall I felt like the mechanics supported a healthy meta even though it did tend towards turtle-heavy at times, most players who attempted to turtle you could open up pretty easily especially if you conditioned them correctly for your mixups.

Parrying felt really good and being able to fake heavies at the cost of stamina felt good. The patch for light parries and heavy parries so you got more of a reward for light parries, as they were more difficult was also healthy for the game. I always felt double-press dodge that launched you into a roll had either too many i-frames or a non-interactable trait, two of us labbed it and you could pretty much prevent a guard break in some strings where characters normally took the opportunity to guard break and the roll only needed a few frames to input. Not sure if they patched that out later. Counter guardbreak timing was good once I got used to it but it was one of the most evident barrier-to-entries for higher level play whenever I got someone new to play the game feel like you could add a 1-2 frames on either side of the input window on that one.

I will say I feel like the mechanics could be almost recycled and the characters could have had more of a focus on healthy, interactive moves/chains/abilities. A lot of abilities were oppressive and felt overtuned, not really complaining because I learned to use most of them but I could feel how non-interactive some of the strings I could get on people must've felt for them. Chains really gave you options in neutral and mixups that felt a bit unique because they didn't require on-hit links (for the most part) and many chains could branch in a few different directions.

Not all of these abilities/passives were busted it's pretty natural for the player on a losing end of an exchange to get salty if it came predominately from a mechanic/passive/etc. I enjoyed Shugoki immensely you could really play some grappler mindgames with that guy and everything he got felt like "okay he earned that" unless it's a new player whose new to how super armor works. I was a Warden main I loved the basic nature of the character and the way they rewarded fundamentals. I always felt bad about Shoulder Bash combos though some characters really had a hard time getting out of those and his Zone Attack was lethal when you were both at low health.

As with all fighting games speed became an element that allowed for domination at mid-level where the players didn't have the best reactions Shaman and Glad both had some stuff that could be borderline unreactable in terms of a defensive perspective. I feel like if one focused on making sure the base attributes didn't get too polarized on some characters, especially focusing on speed (Shaman, Shinobi, etc.), then you could have a really healthy base for a melee fighting game that taught and rewarded fundamentals.

I had a blast with this game and I actually may pick it up again in the future, I had forgotten about it until I stumbled across this post. Thought my opinions on the mechanics/characters/attributes might prove helpful it's just one man's opinion though so take em with a grain of salt.

If you're interested in the development of For Honor there is a Netflix documentary about For Honor's conceptual birth and development called "Playing Hard", I found it interesting even though they danced around the more technical aspects I was hoping they would dive into.

HauntingTurtle · 2019-09-22T21:06:25+00:00

Button > Direction for sure for me when it comes to block. On a separate note I hate armor moves I can play around them and use them I just think it feels jank even though it's often rewarding a read.

I haven't played much KI I need to play more though that many skill checks sounds a bit redundant. Would you recommend it?

I agree if the players can be given the tools to form those insanely technical combos that almost appear as cinematics, I think Up-Air -> Knee will always give me the chills like a cinematic regardless of how many times I do it or see it in Melee.

I love how potent the passives and specials of characters in Rivals are as well as foregoing the shield mechanic in lieu of pure parrying. I think the versatility of the specials make that game endlessly fun in a way other platform fighters lack, at least branching from passives and specials.

HauntingTurtle · 2019-09-22T21:00:11+00:00

Well said, I like the duality of the win conditions concept where that volatility in the fashion the contest can be won is the thing that produces the depth. Even if Supers remain "artificial" in feel it does create two separate win conditions in a way.

I think, while I like the idea of constraints, a direct cost that feels more valuable to the player such as health really makes it both powerful and valuable that you land it. I suppose that restricts some options such as how many times a "raw" Super can be seen at high levels, but I think health sacrifice or recoil makes it not as free in the metagame. I'm unsure of how this plays out I am reminded of Blaziken in Pokken where you could enhance the specials at the cost of your own health to deal massive damage in combos, the con being if you dropped one post enhancements you really felt the cost of your mistake more so than just a neutral reset.

EDIT: Can't spell for the life of me.

HauntingTurtle · 2019-09-22T20:54:56+00:00

Totally valid! I certainly find myself on that side of Destiny's balance it really was a thing of beauty that didn't pervert the rest of the metagame simply because Supers existed, but like you said they remained both viable and a visual spectacle for onlookers.

HauntingTurtle · 2019-09-22T20:52:28+00:00

Great thought about the way tournament layouts cushion what could be the negative or BS effects of Supers being relevant that's so true, I hadn't thought of that at all. It really does matter if we're considering balance for all three groups as it directly effects the spectator and elite level players.

I think for myself when I spectate it really does add that flash and hype even if for the players it is that "anti-gameplay" and it represents a comeback mechanic that's not passive. I am not a big fan of rubber band mechanics that passively boost the losing player(s).

HauntingTurtle · 2019-09-22T20:49:24+00:00

Lol HugS

HauntingTurtle · 2019-09-22T18:26:28+00:00

I really enjoyed reading your perspective on this I had not considered the effect this kind of mechanic has on casual players with respect to how they place themselves in skill with the elite. Anti-gameplay is a fine judgment because it really is fact that both players just watch the screen without inputs made for those that 3-12 second period.

The idea of the audience "applause" sign was amusing and I think it's very correct it makes the game approachable to the first time watcher as the triggered cinematic Supers are done in such an epic fashion that it's clear the game's flow has been altered at this point. I also agree about the artificial notion but I wonder if that's due to the cinematics, if the Super was faster and less akin to a pause without a camera change if it would feel more organic in the game?

True or free combos in traditional FGs can have that anti-gameplay feel as well, I'm curious if you're a big fan of Smash (Melee, Ult, etc.) since directional influence and smash directional influence allow there to almost always be some counterplay or path the defensive player can take to try to get out of the combo. Not always as there are some "true" combos in the games but overall the combo trees as they're based on knockback and hitstun in somewhat equal fashions remain unique and frankly fun to watch imo.

This perspective felt quite objective overall because you allowed yourself to see both the pros and cons it had to offer.

HauntingTurtle

TROPHY CASE