No throws
Lord Baal
they go up aginst the computer ??!??! they probably call him cheap
and bang on the machine or something...
JOSEPH BEAUREG HARTLEY
What are you talking about? A no-throw person is a laymans defination
of someone who doesn't cheap/tick/cheeze/cheat -whatever your area
calls it. Meaning a blocked attack followed immediately by a throw.
What do they do vs the computer? Play normally. In every version after
the World Warrior edition the computer cannot be cheaped (with a few
exceptions -Sagat.etc). Since it can't be cheaped then the no-throw
people play as they always have.
And why would they call the computer cheap? It doesn't attack/throw
at all (again with rare exceptions).
Either I'm not understanding your post or you really don't play the
game much.
Crying Freeman
>In article <C4Kvp...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jb...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Lord Baal ) writes:
>>Hey thats a good questions what the hell do no throw people do when
>>they go up aginst the computer ??!??! they probably call him cheap
>>and bang on the machine or something...
> What are you talking about? A no-throw person is a laymans defination
> of someone who doesn't cheap/tick/cheeze/cheat -whatever your area
> calls it. Meaning a blocked attack followed immediately by a throw.
A "no-throw" is also usually someone who gets pissed off when someone does
"cheap". At least around here... There aren't too many no-throws left though,
they've either converted, learned to counter, or don't play here anymore...
> And why would they call the computer cheap? It doesn't attack/throw
> at all (again with rare exceptions).
The no-throws that I have seen sometimes throw tantrums if you tick/throw
them... I've even had no-throws get pissed from sac-throws and walk
up from halfway accross the screen throws...
The HF computer will throw you every time you get too close on most
settings... If you don't execute your combos PERFECTLY, you'll get
thrown...
> Either I'm not understanding your post or you really don't play the
> game much.
I guess it all depends on your definition of a "no-throw"...
> jbha...@eos.ncsu.edu
--
Che-Yuan Wang
cw2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
cyw...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Lord Vader
: What are you talking about? A no-throw person is a laymans defination
: of someone who doesn't cheap/tick/cheeze/cheat -whatever your area
: calls it. Meaning a blocked attack followed immediately by a throw.
I am talking about a regular throw, thank you. Did I say tick? No.
: What do they do vs the computer? Play normally. In every version after
: the World Warrior edition the computer cannot be cheaped (with a few
: exceptions -Sagat.etc). Since it can't be cheaped then the no-throw
: people play as they always have.
It is not ticking the computer I am talking about. What do you do when
the computer cheaps you, specifically the HF machine? The HF CPU is
known very well for it's throwing, and it will not hesitate to come up
to you and throw you unprovoked.
: And why would they call the computer cheap? It doesn't attack/throw
: at all (again with rare exceptions).
I am talking about this: the computer does shit that is not humanly possible.
It throws you out of combos that have even the slightest mistiming that no
human could ever muster. Plus, it will trap you in the corner with some
unbelievable flurry of attacks which you block, then he will come in and
throw you at will. Bison and Honda are really good at this. It is not
because my timing is bad, I am trying to get out of this stuff and just
does not work. I have never seen a person do some of the things that the
computer does...
: Either I'm not understanding your post or you really don't play the
: game much.
You are misunderstanding, plus I would guess that you don't play HF much.
Much less the game SF2...
Caine Schneider
Caine Schneider
article that was posted b my friend Lord Baal was refering to an
article that I had written in the threa "HF ryu cpu combos". The
discussion there was HF as you can see, and there was no mention of
Classic throws in it...
Caine
JOSEPH BEAUREG HARTLEY
>jbha...@eos.ncsu.edu (JOSEPH BEAUREG HARTLEY) writes:
>
>>In article <C4Kvp...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jb...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Lord Baal ) writes:
>>>Hey thats a good questions what the hell do no throw people do when
>>>they go up aginst the computer ??!??! they probably call him cheap
>>>and bang on the machine or something...
>
>> What are you talking about? A no-throw person is a laymans defination
>> of someone who doesn't cheap/tick/cheeze/cheat -whatever your area
>> calls it. Meaning a blocked attack followed immediately by a throw.
>
>A "no-throw" is also usually someone who gets pissed off when someone does
>"cheap". At least around here... There aren't too many no-throws left though,
>they've either converted, learned to counter, or don't play here anymore...
>
Well around here there used to be people who cheaped but there aren't many
left because they learned that it is more fun to play without cheaping.
BTW- No-throwers around here can counter and can cheap as well as the
cheapers if not better, they just choose not to. I don't know why
you people keep assuming they CAN'T counterthrow.
>> And why would they call the computer cheap? It doesn't attack/throw
>> at all (again with rare exceptions).
>
>The no-throws that I have seen sometimes throw tantrums if you tick/throw
>them... I've even had no-throws get pissed from sac-throws and walk
>up from halfway accross the screen throws...
>
>The HF computer will throw you every time you get too close on most
>settings... If you don't execute your combos PERFECTLY, you'll get
>thrown...
>
>> Either I'm not understanding your post or you really don't play the
>> game much.
>
>I guess it all depends on your definition of a "no-throw"...
>
>> jbha...@eos.ncsu.edu
>
>--
>Che-Yuan Wang
>cw2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>cyw...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Yes this is definately a defination question. The problem with playing
and calling certain moves cheap is that it leave a window for poor
players to call anything they want cheap. This is what makes you
cheapers think that we non-throwers just call anything cheap. You
can't believe any kid who calls a move cheap is representing the
whole group. A cheap for those who don't know is defined by an attack
that is blocked by an opponent and you immediately throw them while
they are in their blocks. Most of these are counterable, yet not
at a good success rate unless the cheaper just sucks. Some are not
counterable and that is where my problem with them comes in.
JOSEPH BEAUREG HARTLEY
>jbha...@eos.ncsu.edu (JOSEPH BEAUREG HARTLEY) writes:
>
>: What are you talking about? A no-throw person is a laymans defination
>: of someone who doesn't cheap/tick/cheeze/cheat -whatever your area
>: calls it. Meaning a blocked attack followed immediately by a throw.
>
>I am talking about a regular throw, thank you. Did I say tick? No.
>
No you didn't say TICK. But if you have ever had contact with SF2 players
around the world then you would realize that there are more terms for
'ticking' than for the flash kick. I've never heard of someone who
just doesn't throw so I naturally assume you are trying to say ticking.
Try to stay off the coffee.
>: What do they do vs the computer? Play normally. In every version after
>: the World Warrior edition the computer cannot be cheaped (with a few
>: exceptions -Sagat.etc). Since it can't be cheaped then the no-throw
>: people play as they always have.
>
>It is not ticking the computer I am talking about. What do you do when
>the computer cheaps you, specifically the HF machine? The HF CPU is
>known very well for it's throwing, and it will not hesitate to come up
>to you and throw you unprovoked.
>
Yes as I already explained the computer rarely actually cheaps/ticks.
Yes I know about the computer just comming up and throwing you and
I know that it is hard to counter because they will jerk into
a dragon or something of you try.
>: And why would they call the computer cheap? It doesn't attack/throw
>: at all (again with rare exceptions).
>
>I am talking about this: the computer does shit that is not humanly possible.
>It throws you out of combos that have even the slightest mistiming that no
>human could ever muster. Plus, it will trap you in the corner with some
>unbelievable flurry of attacks which you block, then he will come in and
>throw you at will. Bison and Honda are really good at this. It is not
>because my timing is bad, I am trying to get out of this stuff and just
>does not work. I have never seen a person do some of the things that the
>computer does...
>
>: Either I'm not understanding your post or you really don't play the
>: game much.
>
>You are misunderstanding, plus I would guess that you don't play HF much.
>Much less the game SF2...
>
>Caine Schneider
In fact I've played Sf2 for years now...every day...but I haven't played
the computer in HF much because around here there are enough players
to never have to play the computer.
Yes I know EXACTLY what you mean about the ridiculous stuff the computer
does. It does it on all editions...maybe you haven't played them much.
If you go back and look at your origional post you will see that it
is very vague. It implies that no-throw people have a harder time
vs the computer because of their no-throw attitude. Yet just above you
say the computer is impossible because it does combos and moves that
are not possible or counterable. Now if a no-throw won't throw and
you can't counter throw the computer then why would they have a harder
time vs the computer? Seems like they would do just as well...they just
might just get a little more angry.
Seth James Killian
[pro/con ticking debate deleted]
>at a good success rate unless the cheaper just sucks. Some are not
>counterable and that is where my problem with them comes in.
Wrong. The only uncounterable tick, to my knowledge, is
Dhalsims noogie on Classic. None on CE or HF. What, praytell,
are you talking about?
Ian Finch
>
> What are you talking about? A no-throw person is a laymans defination
> of someone who doesn't cheap/tick/cheeze/cheat -whatever your area
> calls it. Meaning a blocked attack followed immediately by a throw.
>
Chun Li against a Ken who'd jump in with the TOD all the time. Basically, his
strategy was to keep doing that, either whittling down my energy (if I
blocked) or dizzying me (if I didn't block). So, he jumped in and TOD'd me
but I blocked so he went up in the air and I threw him as he landed. He then
proceeded to say "Hey ... you threw ... that's cheap" and demanded a `free
throw' back at me. I managed to beat him because he didn't think that air
throws were cheap, so I jumped and threw every time he tried to TOD.
I was asking later what was `cheap' and it was, basically every type of throw
.. sac throws, throws when dizzy, walking up and throwing. Basically, every
battle became a Ken vs. Ken battle there!
Cheers,
Ian
--
// //
// i...@compsci.liverpool.ac.uk //
// //
Lord Vader
:No you didn't say TICK. But if you have ever had contact with SF2 players
:around the world then you would realize that there are more terms for
:'ticking' than for the flash kick. I've never heard of someone who
:just doesn't throw so I naturally assume you are trying to say ticking.
:Try to stay off the coffee.
I drink Pepsi, thank you. And my coffee is caffiene free... Here are some
other terms I've used for tick: milk, cheap, no more come to mind. There
are three that are very common. Flash Kick has been called: razor kick,
knife kick, flip kick, blade kick, and that's aal I know, but I never played
Guile very well, so why bother?
There are some areas that "NO THROWING" is allowed. Some places exist like
this in Chicago among other places. I mean that even if you 'legally' threw
him, he got retaliation even if you did it when you were getting up. No-throw
means absolutely no throws... Throw and you get thrown back for 'free' or
other places allow ONE 'free' hit of your choice. Lord Baal told me of a
place where a guy threw him, so Baal got a free hit, well, he extended that
a bit into one combo: TOD.
:Yes as I already explained the computer rarely actually cheaps/ticks.
:Yes I know about the computer just comming up and throwing you and
:I know that it is hard to counter because they will jerk into
:a dragon or something of you try.
: In fact I've played Sf2 for years now...every day...but I haven't played
:the computer in HF much because around here there are enough players
:to never have to play the computer.
:Yes I know EXACTLY what you mean about the ridiculous stuff the computer
:does. It does it on all editions...maybe you haven't played them much.
Every day, well then you must be pretty good, eh? I don't need to play
every day; I still know all this stuff. I never played Classic too much,
CE was out when I started, then HF came out (playing since July '92). BTW,
SF2 came out in early, early 1991. It is 2 years now, but 'years' is a
bit much... I.e. implies you played it before it was a game. :P
:If you go back and look at your origional post you will see that it
:is very vague. It implies that no-throw people have a harder time
:vs the computer because of their no-throw attitude. Yet just above you
:say the computer is impossible because it does combos and moves that
:are not possible or counterable. Now if a no-throw won't throw and
:you can't counter throw the computer then why would they have a harder
:time vs the computer? Seems like they would do just as well...they just
:might just get a little more angry.
Ok here is my post, well, part of it:
>One thing I've always wondered: How do no throw areas penalize the
>computer for throwing them? :) The HF computer is notoriously "cheap"
>with all of its moves, so what do you do? Obviously you want to
>avoid playing the computer in that situation, but there are some times
>that you get left with the machine by yourself...
Obviously, the computer won't come up and short short throw you like a human
will. However the computer will throw you if you jump in on it, as would
any person that plays in a 'throw' area. My question is rather apparent
since it is above, but I see no vagueness in it. Anyone who has played HF
long enough will be familiar w/ it's habits. I'm so familiar with them,
that I could beat it with only Strong and Fierce.
I never did say that no-throwers are inferior, I think that the attitude
to no-throws is impeding, however. Throwing is a dimension of the game.
Some of the characters suffer when their throws are 'taken' from them.
For example Dhalsim, Chun Li, and Vega. Other characters like Honda, Bison
and Zangief can use their regular throws to make them a more dangerous
character.
The little bit about not wanting to play the computer in that situation means
this: You don't like playing when the opponent throws, and so you will not
play the opponent because he won't play in the style that you are used to.
--
Caine Schneider (Lord Vader) ca...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"My strength is much greater than yours." -Zangief
"You are not a warrior, you are a beginner." -Sagat
Thomas Calvin Cannon
[stuff deleted]
>
>
>Yes this is definately a defination question. The problem with playing
>and calling certain moves cheap is that it leave a window for poor
>players to call anything they want cheap. This is what makes you
>cheapers think that we non-throwers just call anything cheap. You
>can't believe any kid who calls a move cheap is representing the
>whole group. A cheap for those who don't know is defined by an attack
very true
>that is blocked by an opponent and you immediately throw them while
>they are in their blocks. Most of these are counterable, yet not
^^^^
>at a good success rate unless the cheaper just sucks. Some are not
>counterable and that is where my problem with them comes in.
Nope. A blocked move + throw is classically called a 'tick.' Any move
or series of moves that does much damage w/o much skill, (like repeated
Bison torpedoes) is usually denoted as 'cheap.' This is classically of
course...now a days it seems like people are using the terms interchangeably.
And no ticks (or cheaps) are un-counterable. Some bugs are, (like Guile's
magic-throw and cuffs) but it's silly to ocunt these as real moves in the
game.
>
> jbha...@eos.ncsu.edu
>
---
Tom Cannon
ink...@leland.stanford.edu
(just adding to the confusion)
Caine Schneider
[ Etc, etc deleted ]
% Nope. A blocked move + throw is classically called a 'tick.' Any move
% or series of moves that does much damage w/o much skill, (like repeated
% Bison torpedoes) is usually denoted as 'cheap.' This is classically of
% course...now a days it seems like people are using the terms interchangeably.
% And no ticks (or cheaps) are un-counterable. Some bugs are, (like Guile's
% magic-throw and cuffs) but it's silly to ocunt these as real moves in the
% game.
The FAQ will have the new and improved definitions of ticking and cheap in
it. These definitions are based on what they are classically known as.
I don't want to go indepth here, but it is along the lines of what Tom
Cannon says here (I wonder why... you'll see :).
Caine Schneider
3chieca
>
>Yes this is definately a defination question. The problem with playing
>and calling certain moves cheap is that it leave a window for poor
>players to call anything they want cheap. This is what makes you
>cheapers think that we non-throwers just call anything cheap. You
>can't believe any kid who calls a move cheap is representing the
>whole group. A cheap for those who don't know is defined by an attack
>that is blocked by an opponent and you immediately throw them while
>they are in their blocks. Most of these are counterable, yet not
>at a good success rate unless the cheaper just sucks. Some are not
>counterable and that is where my problem with them comes in.
>
Ticking ("attack that is blocked by an opponent and you
immediately throw them while they are in their blocks") is
not the only thing that should be considered cheap. Anything
that is easy [easy being relative to a non-practitioners' view
point] to execute and does a lot of damage. For example,
walking up to a character and throwing him. Now, I understand
that if such a move is succesful, it is the throwee's fault,
but that doesn't excuse the 'thrower' form being called a cheater.
Anything that is not in the spirit of the game is cheap. If
one were to follow strict definition: everything would be legal
(except of course guile's magic tricks which ARE cheating
because they take advantage of flaws in programming). Now,
you have to take everthing into account (newbies, hustlers,
"professional" cheaters, etc.) and play as the situation
demands. I REALIZE STREET FIGHTER IS JUST A GAME, BUT IF
PEOPLE WISH TO MAKE IT SOMETHING MORE, THEY SHOULD AT LEAST
ABIDE BY SOME STANDARD. Amen, and happy fighting.
Antonio Gatta
st92...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
------I encourage anyone with a differing point of view to
e-mail me...I'd be more than happy to 'duke' it out.
3chieca
>
>I was asking later what was `cheap' and it was, basically every type of throw
>.. sac throws, throws when dizzy, walking up and throwing. Basically, every
>battle became a Ken vs. Ken battle there!
>
.....I've been playing this game for a long time and have come to
the conclusion that throws ARE, indeed, cheap. Not cheap in the
sense that they are unstoppable or anything like that, but that
they are a waste of everyone's time (and $$$) and should be avoided
(with the exception of 'throw' based characters such as zangief
and/or E. Honda (which is a little iffy considering the stuff hes
been given in HF)). I've played with mobs of people who agree and
*none* of our games resort to 'Ken/Ken' battles (if I am correct
in using your analogy) every character is still a balanced fighter
without his/her throw (again, with the exception of throw based).
Try fighting without throwing and you'll see its alot more fun...
...believe me, I've been fighting for a long time.
3chieca
st92...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
Eu-Ming Lee
In classic, we had uncounterable ticks, but we didn't even have problems
with that, since there were so many other ridiculous things you could do.
However, I haven't discovered any ticks on CE or HF which I, personally,
could not counter. If you know of any, feel free to list them because it
would certainly help my game ;). Of course, if you can't come up with any
examples... it wouldn't surprise me.
Some ticks really ARE tough to get out of, and the key is not getting
yourself in that situation in the first place. We learned that early on
in classic. Simply DON'T go in for the throw on Dhalsim. He WILL noogie
you to death. If you got that close, it was your fault for losing the
game, just the same as if Dhalsim tried to do a standing forward when
Guile was jumping in for a combo. You take a chance. If you mess up, you
pay for it.
--
Eu-Ming Lee (aka CyberGeek) eum...@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
Friends don't let friends use Windows.
Eu-Ming Lee
> Anything that is not in the spirit of the game is cheap. If
The spirit of the game has nothing to with anything. There is no 'spirit
of the game' (Sheng Long is long dead!). Cheap is anything you or
your opponent say it is. If you both agree that throwing is cheap, fine.
I personally think that BLOCKING is cheap. And blocking and not allowing
ME to throw you is REALLY cheap. It requires very little skill to block,
even less skill than torpedoing back and forth with Bison.
> one were to follow strict definition: everything would be legal
> (except of course guile's magic tricks which ARE cheating
> because they take advantage of flaws in programming). Now,
> you have to take everthing into account (newbies, hustlers,
> "professional" cheaters, etc.) and play as the situation
> demands. I REALIZE STREET FIGHTER IS JUST A GAME, BUT IF
> PEOPLE WISH TO MAKE IT SOMETHING MORE, THEY SHOULD AT LEAST
> ABIDE BY SOME STANDARD. Amen, and happy fighting.
The standard I abide by are the rules which Capcom has programmed and
fine-tuned to the sound of two revisions. If you want to restrict
yourself to a smaller subset of those rules, fine. Just don't call me
'cheap' when I exploit all of the moves which have been designed into
the game by Capcom.
>Antonio Gatta
>st92...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
>------I encourage anyone with a differing point of view to
> e-mail me...I'd be more than happy to 'duke' it out.
Eu-Ming Lee
> Try fighting without throwing and you'll see its alot more fun...
> ...believe me, I've been fighting for a long time.
I have. It gets really tiresome. It eventually degenerates into a Ryu
vs. Ryu match in which neither Ryu jumps in on the other. One thing I
noticed about no-throw Ryu's is that they don't always DP when you jump
in. It's safe for them to just block.
Not only that, but after I beat them playing by THEIR rules, they call
me cheap for being 'too defensive'. Sheesh! Why would I ever go in and
attack if all the damage I can do is a blocked roundhouse/fireball combo?
I don't like no-throw matches because it's easier for me to win using the
same formula over and over. And it's easier for me to get defeated by a
player using a better formula over and over.
>3chieca
>st92...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
Philip John Stroffolino
Gief vs. anyone - the only move he has that can hurt a defending player
other than throwing is his larriet, and this won't hit a ducking player
Blanka vs. Balrog/Dhalsim - Blanka can't do squat against these
characters (on CE - on HF, he has the 'vertical ball') without biting;
the ball is the only other thing that will hurt them when they are
defending, but both of these characters can block and retaliate...
(come to think of it, he has the electricity, too, but you've got to get
pretty darn close for it to be effective as a means of attack...)
Honda vs. Guile - well, actually, Honda is pretty much doomed no matter
what in this match-up, IMHO, but if Honda _does_ get in, he'd better
throw if he wants to stand a chance...
situations: low time, opponent has considerably more health: _no_
character can do damage to a defending player more quickly than with
throws
re: "no throws" - yes, many of them can counter-throw, and tick, if they
choose to do so. However, sneakiness is very important, too. I've seen
players who hate throwing go on a tick rampage when provoked, only to be
counter-thrown themselves. Also, it is not always obvious when to go
for the counter-throw:
throws can be faked up close - if you think your opponent will attempt
to counter throw, you can DP instead...
you can fake out people who like to counter ticking with DPs or razor
kicks by blocking at the last moment, instead (fun!)
throws can be easily faked at range - dance in and out like you are
going for a throw, but sweep instead
I think most "no-throws" dislike throwing because it adds
unpredictability to the game when played up close - correct me if I'm
wrong. A lot of people who are otherwise "good" don't like being
tricked for the win.
then again, why don't "no-throws" complain about combos? A lucky jump
over a fireball can result in a quick death for the would-be attacker.
My guess is that a defender can just wait, and render all jumping
foolish.
IMO, sneakiness with throwing can make up for a lack of dexterity or
reflexes (me :) ) - what is wrong with that? I think it broadens the
appeal of the game to people who might otherwise be inept.
Why do "no-throws" despise throwing so much, while tolerating other
potentially hard-to-get-out-of tactics such as Guile/Ryu patterns?
I remember when it was first discovered that you could throw an
non-stunned player back home (on classic). There was an immediate split
between players who didn't want the introduction of this potentially
powerful equalizer and those who were excited with this development...
I also remember a player going on saying that Zangief's throws were
cheap, but his SPD wasn't because it took more skill than a simple
button press, only to change his mind later, and deem SPDing cheap as
well, once people began to master it...
to each his own - just don't tell me how to play when I am playing and
you challenge me - I need every advantage I can get :)
BTW, some "throws" can play without throws, too :)
hey, man, DPs are cheap against Chun Li!!! :)
- Phil
Steve Larsen
: st92...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (3chieca) writes:
: > Try fighting without throwing and you'll see its alot more fun...
: > ...believe me, I've been fighting for a long time.
: I have. It gets really tiresome. It eventually degenerates into a Ryu
: vs. Ryu match in which neither Ryu jumps in on the other. One thing I
: noticed about no-throw Ryu's is that they don't always DP when you jump
: in. It's safe for them to just block.
Well, I don't see why it has to degenerate to a Ryu vs. Ryu match. There
are characters in the game who can take out Ryu rather easily, IMO. I
would consider blocking against an incoming character a bad move, if you
have alternatives (ie: DP). Although you can block the combo and take only
minimal damage (a blocked fireball or whatever), you lose tactical ground.
You either:
a) are pushed back into the corner by this combo,
b) are pushed closer towards the corner,
c) let your opponent out of his corner.
I consider having your opponent in the corner to be a GREAT advantage for
you, and since any semi-competent Ryu player can DP (or HK if they are in
the corner) as soon as they can block, I see no reason to.
: Not only that, but after I beat them playing by THEIR rules, they call
: me cheap for being 'too defensive'. Sheesh! Why would I ever go in and
: attack if all the damage I can do is a blocked roundhouse/fireball combo?
Yes, this is too typical. Actually, this kind of person is really just
complementing you by bitching about your play. Chances are pretty good
they would love to play as good, but just won't admit it. I always thank
them for complaining/calling me names. This takes them back a little.
: I don't like no-throw matches because it's easier for me to win using the
: same formula over and over. And it's easier for me to get defeated by a
: player using a better formula over and over.
I don't think there is any 'formula' for playing SF2. Maybe guidelines or
strategies, but I find the most challenging people I play are the people
why play unpredictably, and do wild stuff (which of course I don't expect).
Any pattern player is going to be defeated by a player with imagination,
especially on HF.
I play any type of game my opponent wants. I play people who are just a
bag of cheap tricks rolled up in a carcass. I also play people who cry
cheap at any throw or pattern. I can play either of these ways, or
anywhere in between. When I get beat, I don't complain about my opponents
playing style, I complement his play because quite frankly (at the risk of
sounding completely conceited), it doesn't happen too often. I like it
when I lose (not too often though :-). That means that I have found
someone that I can learn from. Far better than beating some poor kid, IMO.
Sorry to ramble,
Stev
cl23...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
> The standard I abide by are the rules which Capcom has programmed and
> fine-tuned to the sound of two revisions. If you want to restrict
> yourself to a smaller subset of those rules, fine. Just don't call me
> 'cheap' when I exploit all of the moves which have been designed into
> the game by Capcom.
>
Later...
Nik Shaw
Scott D Bradburn
|> Ticking ("attack that is blocked by an opponent and you
|> immediately throw them while they are in their blocks") is
|> not the only thing that should be considered cheap. Anything
|> that is easy [easy being relative to a non-practitioners' view
|> point] to execute and does a lot of damage. For example,
|> walking up to a character and throwing him. Now, I understand
|> that if such a move is succesful, it is the throwee's fault,
|> but that doesn't excuse the 'thrower' form being called a cheater.
[stuff deleted to save space]
The first part, I'll agree in part, it's reletively easy to perform, but, I
believe that good ticking is as tough as good dragon punching. And therefore
not particularly easy to perform. The second part, you have neglected a serious
detail. Ease of countering. The counter to a walk up and throw is trivial, just
do almost ANY attack. That's the EASIEST move in the game. On that point, should
we outlaw roundhouse and fierce because they're easy to do, and do lots of damage?
In fact, shouldn't we outlaw everything but HARD combos (those involving 3 hits
minimum and a special move) and DP's and SPD's can stand alone without being
part of a combo because they're reletively difficult to perform. Boy, now
if you're not Ken/Ryu/Sagat/Zangief, you better have a 3-hit special move combo.
Blanka is out, Honda is out, Guile is in, Chun Li is in (hope you can do the
fierce/fierce/lightning kick though...), Dhalsim is out, Bison is in, Balrog
is in, Vega is out. Now that we've eliminated the cheap characters, The others
only have a combo or two, or in the case of the first four, a couple combos and
a stand-alone move. Boy, we can get rid of all those unnecessary buttons now.
Although, Zangief players now seem pretty powerful because the SPD beats all
the opponents legal moves. Of course, we've gotten to a really boring game with
little variety. I think I'll go play Mortal Kombat instead of SF2 now.
Anyway, back to the real point: The counter to ticking is hard, while the
basics of ticking is easy, that's a reason to call it 'cheap.' Not a good one,
IMHO, because good ticking is hard, and bad ticking is easy to counter. But
a walk in throw is easy, and the counter is EASY. And without it, if I get ahead
I'll sit in my corner and block, FOREVER, and you'll never beat me. Jump in, and
I'll use my characters jump in counter. (Zangief jabs,DP,shield kick, helicopter
kick, body ball, torpedo, etc.), throw projectiles I'll jump or block for a tiny
bit of damage, walk in and attack I'll block, and counter if it was a special
move like a DP. You are helpless, the walk in throw is necessary to get people
out of block everything mode.
Justin C. Hogue
> the conclusion that throws ARE, indeed, cheap. Not cheap in the
> sense that they are unstoppable or anything like that, but that
> they are a waste of everyone's time (and $$$) and should be avoided
> (with the exception of 'throw' based characters such as zangief
> and/or E. Honda (which is a little iffy considering the stuff hes
> been given in HF)). I've played with mobs of people who agree and
> *none* of our games resort to 'Ken/Ken' battles (if I am correct
> in using your analogy) every character is still a balanced fighter
> without his/her throw (again, with the exception of throw based).
> Try fighting without throwing and you'll see its alot more fun...
> ...believe me, I've been fighting for a long time.
for way too long now and the most boring thing I think is when a fight
degenerates onto measly attacks. Whats so frightening about your opponent if
he gets into your face, but can't do anymore than if he is a mile away?
I have played the "no throw" crowd, and throwing myself into the flames I
think they cry to much--I'm sure there are some out there that simply like
long, neato looking fights (which are cool) but the ones I met simply combo
combo all day I throw once--which they consider "inelegant", and they bitch
all day. My friend and I have started introducing Tick-throws into every
match now, as it's the only thing that gives some spice to the game (if all
you gotta do ois block to avoid being hit, then all you gotta do is sit
around until you get a chance. But not if you get slung across the screen
first). I guess I got tired of Block high--block low every time they jumped.
bitch mode off.
--Jowfus
Alex Mystic Soto
Well I agree with the guy above. I think throws are boring. An attack
involves strategy on how to outwit and get your opponent. Throws don't.
Besides strategy, it's more fun. I never play the game to win, I play to
have fun. Sometimes when facing an expert, I'll take Balrog, or somebody
else that I'm not good at - just for the fun of it. All these people who
do ticks always seemed to me like they were that sore loser type and
therfore do this b'cse they don't want to rely on their playing skill.
In fact that's about what I've mostly encountered. In general I'll be
playing somebody and I'll beat him and he'll have to resort to ticking
to beat me - and by the way, I don't consider ticking to be a skill! I
hope SF3 removes it, or atleast either reduces the damage it does to
you, or makes it harder to be done.
Mystic
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mystic (617) 461-3822 (day)
alex...@analog.com (617) 461-2470 (night)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Calvin Cannon
[debate on throwing deleted]
>
>Well I agree with the guy above. I think throws are boring. An attack
>involves strategy on how to outwit and get your opponent. Throws don't.
>Besides strategy, it's more fun. I never play the game to win, I play to
>have fun. Sometimes when facing an expert, I'll take Balrog, or somebody
>else that I'm not good at - just for the fun of it. All these people who
>do ticks always seemed to me like they were that sore loser type and
>therfore do this b'cse they don't want to rely on their playing skill.
>In fact that's about what I've mostly encountered. In general I'll be
>playing somebody and I'll beat him and he'll have to resort to ticking
>to beat me - and by the way, I don't consider ticking to be a skill! I
>hope SF3 removes it, or atleast either reduces the damage it does to
>you, or makes it harder to be done.
>
I certainly mean no offence by this, but the reason you feel this way may
be because of your skill level. If you're anywhere below the point of
'COMPLETE MASTER" (note: i'm _not_ saying that I'm at this level), I can
understand why you think that ticking, and maybe even throws are boring.
But, when two people who have played the games A LOT square off, it really
isn't so much a contest of strategy; it's more like a slight contest of
position and pattern execution. There are only so many successful styles of
play for each character, so for a master the game can start to get
monotonous. That's where throws come in. Throwing well (which doesn't mean
throwing all the time) adds a whole new psychological level to the game.
You opponent won't feel really comfortable in any of his patterns, cause
he'll never know when he might get thrown. And if you can counter-throw,
he'll be even more hesitant to try to throw you back. When this is the
case (i.e. both players are aware of the other's throwing prowess) the game
again becomes one of strategy, rather than pattern-play.
> Mystic
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mystic (617) 461-3822 (day)
>alex...@analog.com (617) 461-2470 (night)
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Tom Cannon
ink...@leland.stanford.edu
Alain Hoang
In article <1993Apr5.1...@leland.Stanford.EDU>, ink...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Thomas Calvin Cannon) writes:
|> In article <torresce....@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> torr...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Alex "Mystic" Soto) writes:
|>
|> [debate on throwing deleted]
|>
|> >
|> >Well I agree with the guy above. I think throws are boring. An attack
|> >involves strategy on how to outwit and get your opponent. Throws don't.
|> >Besides strategy, it's more fun. I never play the game to win, I play to
|> >have fun. Sometimes when facing an expert, I'll take Balrog, or somebody
|> >else that I'm not good at - just for the fun of it. All these people who
|> >do ticks always seemed to me like they were that sore loser type and
|> >therfore do this b'cse they don't want to rely on their playing skill.
|> >In fact that's about what I've mostly encountered. In general I'll be
|> >playing somebody and I'll beat him and he'll have to resort to ticking
|> >to beat me - and by the way, I don't consider ticking to be a skill! I
|> >hope SF3 removes it, or atleast either reduces the damage it does to
|> >you, or makes it harder to be done.
|> >
|>
|> throwing all the time) adds a whole new psychological level to the game.
|> You opponent won't feel really comfortable in any of his patterns, cause
|> he'll never know when he might get thrown. And if you can counter-throw,
|> he'll be even more hesitant to try to throw you back. When this is the
|> case (i.e. both players are aware of the other's throwing prowess) the game
|> again becomes one of strategy, rather than pattern-play.
|>
|> > Mystic
|> >alex...@analog.com (617) 461-2470 (night)
|> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> ink...@leland.stanford.edu
Yay, another thread on this topic, well since it's here might as well
finish it off unless someone keeps it up. I agree with Tom Cannon (and half of
the UIUC people) the art of throwing becomes MUCH more interesting. It's
a psychological deterrent for people who play. You throw them out of a miffed
combo it screws them up and scares them to try to combo again. It's a great
psychological tool. As for Mystic's thoughts on playing to win, ticking MIGHT
be considered NO skill, but with BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of Ken and Ryu players
out there, the blatant ticks which get in on stupid people are so damn easily
counterable. Oh give me a break.. you think short short short throw on a downed
opponent is cheap? I can't even try it here with all the ()&%#@% boring Ryu
players, all they do is DP out of it. And since I'm not perfect I can't stop
my jab fury all the time to psyche them out. And ticking is a great way to get
back your lost stamina... because give me a break.. when you get to the point
where people block EVERYTHING and ANYTHING because they KNOW they can and won't
get thrown for it.. where's the variety? That is BORING as hell.... it comes
down to FB traps and clever ways to tick off energy and hopefully the blocking
stops. I'd rather be thrown left and right then get stuck in a well engineered
FB trap. A WELL engineered FB trap is playing to win. Don't believe me eh?
Well take someone that sux on FB traps and try to get out of one... since they
can't rely on throws what else are they going to do? FB trap you... and with
a Grand total of about 6 moves at MOST they can keep you in a corner until your
life meter ticks away or you get dizzy THEN they combo you. I'm sorry but the
FB trap is the most evil thing I've ever encountered, I used to be a vehement
anti-cheese person but after getting splattered by numerous people who don't care
about FB trapping you to death well..... screw that, I decided they needed tick-
ing even if it was harder to do than everyone thinks it is. So at this point
I play Ken now.. his psychotic style is much more fun when you don't rely on
fireballs... in fact I throw more DP's than FB's with Ken... just against those
BORING Ryu's....
_/^-^-^-^\
/ _____ |
\ | | | "Might makes Right"
\ | |/ "Suck my Sheng Long"
|------|
|------|
|------|
|------|
Alain Hoang
hoa...@rpi.edu
P.S. Yes I got splattered today by a STUPID FB trap. And I got too angry after
my first two quarters to even concentrate. I dunno about anyone else
but when I'M angry I suck... I REALLY suck. And the fact that the
"Fixed" joysticks (yeah they were fixed alright.. the diagonal was
so *()&*( up that I couldn't DP at the times I NEEDED it) weren't helping
me either. The guy had some good technique but relied too much on FB
trapping to win IMO.
Alex Mystic Soto
>[debate on throwing deleted]
Well...it's not like I'm bragging, but there are few people that can actually
beat me at the local arcade. I think I consider it more of an honor type thing
to not throw. The only people I throw with is Zangrief - b'cse he's a wrestler
and that's his power/skill. It's funny you should bring up skill level, bc'se
I really don't think that has much to do with it. As I said, I play to have
fun and not to win. I have a friend who plays with me all the time and we have
a blast each and everytime. I think if you've played so-o-o much that you
actually get bored of it, then maybe you should stop for a bit. I play on
Hyper and maybe once or twice a week. Anyways, back to what I was talking
about, my friend and I have so-o-o much fun that people flock around us when
we play just to try and get in on the fun that we're having. The funny thing
is we look like we don't know how to play b'cse we experiment and play around
with each other (we try and get each other differently each time) but when
somebody gets in and tries to play either of us, they soon find out that they
have misjudged us severely. So, for me, it's an honor type thing, and
definately more fun - and fun is the key! After all, it's a game!!!!!
Naval Ravikant
hoa...@nason108.its.rpi.edu (Alain Hoang) writes:
Hear hear. I mostly play Guile, and around here, the no throw
mentality prevails. I may be the only regular "ticker" on campus (I
hope not, though it seems that way). As it is, the only tick I really
use is the ol' slow sonic boom, follow throw. (Yea, we all know how
hard that is to get out of with Ryu) As it is, I throw that way maybe
once out of three rounds. The rest of the time I follow and do an
upside down roundhouse, block and throw the DP'ing Ryu, backfist, or
roundhouse the jumpers as they come down. Still, if I don't throw every
now and then, what's to stop them from blocking every time? Every
single person here plays Ryu, and it always seems to end up with me
playing Guile against a Ryu who does FB, FB, DP all day, fireball traps
me to death, and gets angry if I hit, then throw.
Anyway, I've just adopted the following policy now. If I'm about to
join in against a Ken/ Ryu/ Sagat, I just say, "Hey, no rules. Play as
dirty as you want." They usually grumble, but don't object, so I play
Guile. If they do object, I take Blanka (and usually win, and then they
take Guile, and then I take Guile, and they go back to Ryu, and I take
Blanka, ... ad nauseum.). If I'm already playing at the machine and
somebody else is joining in, I tell them "no rules" before they put in
their quarter. I think people are starting to get used to it, and I
even got ticked back the other day (short, short, throw: I really
wasn't expecting it), but hey, it made the game a lot more interesting.
In short, even in a no throw zone, I find that I can get away with
declaring my own rules - no rules! (90% of the time) before the match
starts. This way, they can't complain if they get ticked, and I take it
in stride if it happens to me. This way, however, I get a chance to
beat Ryu, and to play other and IMHO, more interesting characters (Chun
Li, Dhalsim, Honda, etc).
Most people will agree to play without rules in a no throw zone just
because of their ego ("I don't need rules to win!") Some will agree
just out of politeness or because you were at the machine first. The
ones that don't, are usually the ones unsure of themselves, and I don't
need throws to beat most of those people anyway. Surviving in a no
throw zone is not too hard if you declare "no rules" beforehand.
Especially in a campus community, it works pretty well. (Don't think
it'll work in most arcades, though)
- Naval
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and
despair!"
Naval.R...@Dartmouth.Edu
Dar...@coos.dartmouth.edu
Layne A. Robinson
Just to add my thoughts on the subject (not that anyone cares):
I personally think combo's are more boring than throws. It's a
fast win/loss once they get in, and there is "nothing" you can do
once you are in one. With throws and ticking, you can stop and
change tactics easier (well, once you throw you have to let the
animation continue, but you don't HAVE to throw again, but you
can) To me, combo's are more cheap than ticking (no skill can
get you out of a started combo -- skill can only prevent them)
I like to play Ryu...only for versatility. I'm not a master, but
I'd venture to say that I'm the best person who play's Ryu who's
best weapon is not his DP. (It took me a while to learn to do it,
but by that time, I was pretty good without it and I have trouble
trying to adjust my strategy.) I play for fun, and combo's just
aren't fun. But of course I also feel that if you can do it in
the programming (except bugs) it is leagal, so I'd rather the
prgrammers limit the combos, but they won't because they make the
game shorter and thus more money can be pumped into the machine.
But I digress and my sentances start to run like my sisters mascara
in a storm....
Layne
Eu-Ming Lee
Ahhhh... I love to play against no throws. I especially love to play against
the kind who whine alot. If you ever play me, I'm quiet and rather unemotional,
unless I'm with people I know. I solemnly and rather unexcitedly beat you.
I get a kick out of people who throw little tantrums.
Besides that reason, there are little advantages you can exploit on all
players who choose not to throw. Usually, I start a game and play my usual
cheap ass throwing style. If they start whining and complaining (which I
really enjoy... it adds more to my gaming experience), then I'll stop throwing
and play whatever style is 'acceptable' to them--- without saying a word.
Of course, I have enough experience playing with throws and without throws
to know the differences and hence know how to exploit those differences.
Players who limit themselves to no throws (you can't limit yourself to JUST
throws, even if you're Zangief!) can't tune in to the subtle differences
and are usually clueless as to why they lose to me.
The ironic part is that when I DO exploit these advantages which my opponent
has freely chosen to bestow upon me, they call me 'cheap'! Sigh. Rather
than calling me 'cheap', I wish they'd simply learn these annoying no
throw tactics and take on their no throw counterparts. Sooner or later,
they'll figure out that things get pretty dull when you can always be safe
and just block that possibly deadly Ken (or whomever) combo. But instead,
they continue to give each other second rounds and play without any regard
to REAL competition. I guess that's fine, if you think this is an
amusement video game, like TMNT or other side-scrollers. But to me, the
fun is in the competition. And what's the point of competition if neither
side tries their best to win? I mean, really. I don't see a 'too defensive'
bar underneath the life bar... so whiners should quit complaining about
my strategy and develop some of their own.
Brian Odom
>Well...it's not like I'm bragging, but there are few people that can actually
>beat me at the local arcade. I think I consider it more of an honor type thing
>to not throw. The only people I throw with is Zangrief - b'cse he's a wrestler
>and that's his power/skill. It's funny you should bring up skill level, bc'se
>I really don't think that has much to do with it. As I said, I play to have
>fun and not to win. I have a friend who plays with me all the time and we have
>a blast each and everytime. I think if you've played so-o-o much that you
>actually get bored of it, then maybe you should stop for a bit. I play on
>Hyper and maybe once or twice a week. Anyways, back to what I was talking
>about, my friend and I have so-o-o much fun that people flock around us when
>we play just to try and get in on the fun that we're having. The funny thing
>is we look like we don't know how to play b'cse we experiment and play around
>with each other (we try and get each other differently each time) but when
>somebody gets in and tries to play either of us, they soon find out that they
>have misjudged us severely. So, for me, it's an honor type thing, and
>definately more fun - and fun is the key! After all, it's a game!!!!!
Again, this is only subjunctive. I think throwing is VERY FUN!!! I don't
always play to win, but sometimes you have to act like an arrogant asshole.
I think throwing is very honorous. When someone comes in and you counter throw
their ass (even if they weren't even going for a throw), they respect you and
know not to jump in again. :) They'll sit back and throw a bunch of FBs! :)
I love that scaredy cat look.... Sure, we experiment and fool around with
characters we don't know, but we also throw and it's part of the game.
People respect those who can combo easily, but also
people respect those who can throw very good too.
I remember when this guy tried to cheap me.
He did a short-short-throw ha!! Well, of course, I reverse threw him and
countered it and put him in the corner. Then, I did a tick and reverse threw
him out of the corner. He didn't come in anymore.... :)
Honorous indeed. It seems to me to be more honorous to counter throw rather
than offensive throw. Some guy tries to cheap you and he gets his butt tossed!
What I hate is the short-short-roundhouse. Damn this. I have this throw
mentality in my head and I'll go for the throw instead of blocking the
roundhouse. It's basically a guess and you have to guess correctly. This is
what makes it fun. Much more involved than just blocking. Keeps you on your
toes.
Laurent Delfosse
> ink...@leland.stanford.edu
>
I will be the living, walking, breathing mass of ego that I am
and say that this is exactly why throwing may have gotten temporarily
removed from the repertoire of moves at intermediate levels of game
play, but is certainly found at a higher level of play ...
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------/
/ Laurent F. Delfosse / Street Fighter II Champion Edition /
/ 'Pattern rules' "You are not a warrior, /
/ delf...@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu you are a beginner" /
John Nishinaga
I've been reading quite a few messages lately concerning throwing/ticking.
Anyways, here's my two cents worth...
(The lands of LA where I come from, it's not called "ticking" but "cheaping."
Keep in mind, this term is just a lable for type of attack -- not necessary
having to do with the dictionairy meaning.)
___
Back in the days of original SF2, cheaping was discovered and henceforth it
spread around the world like a sinistar plague. As the public soon realized
the mass power in the cheap move, those who couldn't readily grasp the
concept quickly brandished it as evil and forbade it from their games.
As time moved on, those skilled ones who learned the art of SF2 (and knew it
was only a game) were not so frightened by the concept. Instead, they
accepted it and wondered why others looked so disfondly upon it. They
swallowed the redicule and played amongst themselves. They practiced and
mastered such teniques as "distancing" and "timing," usually unbenounced to
the popular audiences.
As many tournaments were held, it was found that most of the champions played
that evil style. However, the masses ignored the examples set before them
and continued to walk the straight path.
Then came SF2:CE, and it was embraced by masses. However, amongst some evil
ones, it did fair too well. Cries of their old techniques such as "cheap
moves", "distancing", "re-dizzy's" -- those were all lost to this new
version. They shuddered and slowly realized that it was not worth it. They
quietly departed from the SF2 scene, only to occasional return, if ever.
(Footnote: a few decided to begin playing again with the advent HF.)
___
Anyways, from my experience, about half of the best players I knew from
original SF2 left about a month into CE. I was one of those, but I would
sometimes still play here and then.
I have to disagree with those (Eu-Ming and Seth Kellin) that there wasn't a
lot strategy involved with SF2, that it came down how cheap moves and that
was it. I don't know how well you played it back then, but if you did, you
would know there that there were two important element to the game that is
missing in HF.
First and foremost -- distancing. Original was that you had to have the
perfect distancing if you wanted to have something work (against other good
people at least). Distancing is sorely lacking in CE and HF -- mainly
because how the moves were changed in CE. Secondly, timing was much more
crucial in the original than the later versions. Like with distancing, you
had to have perfect timing to get some things off correctly -- CE and HF are
much more lenient.
The way they played (I personally wasn't that good at the time) was really
insane. Each person had so much style flowing from their characters is was
almost like watching a dance. I don't know, maybe it's just how they played
down here in LA, but it was really cool. It still shows in some of the "OG"
players when they play HF. It was definetely different than how people play
HF now.
Was it better? Well, some of the "OG" players think it was, but I think
that's just because they're not as good on HF. I personally think original
called for a different type of game play than CE and HF, but I can't really
say if either is better. Oh well, that is past, HF is for now. :)
___
Anyways, more about ticking. Look, there's a reason why Capcom made it
easier in HF to cheap. Why do you think they did it? Play to win damnit!
If both people are trying their hardest and using everything in their
resources to win -- you always get good/exciting matches. Guaranteed!
BTW, if you haven't figured it out yet, there is something nasty you can do
to people who have a habit of counter throwing... low attack's. Take this
Ken vs. Chun Li match for example:
After the start of the round, the time passes by with both character taking
off about a 1/4 of their damage each. Ken knocks Chun Li down with a
roundhouse and jumps in as she's getting up. Chun Li blocks the the air kick
and thinks to herself, "he's pausing, he's going to try to throw." So she
quickly moves to Back/Defense and hits Strong. Bad move. Ken does a
crouching Foward to Dragon Punch. She goes down and Ken jumps on her again.
She blocks the first hit and thinks to herself, "he's pausing again, maybe
he's going to throw, but I think he's going to try another combo." She
blocks. Bad move. Ken throws and she goes dizzy and the rest is history.
(You know how much Ken combo's take off.)
Basic point is that countering throwing isn't that safe, especially with the
speed increase with HF. Maybe that wasn't a good idea -- now everybody will
be playing the psycho-ken style. :)
--
John Nishinaga - jnis...@netcom.com
Scott D Bradburn
|>
|> The ironic part is that when I DO exploit these advantages which my opponent
|> has freely chosen to bestow upon me, they call me 'cheap'! Sigh. Rather
|> than calling me 'cheap', I wish they'd simply learn these annoying no
|> throw tactics and take on their no throw counterparts. Sooner or later,
|> they'll figure out that things get pretty dull when you can always be safe
|> and just block that possibly deadly Ken (or whomever) combo. But instead,
|> they continue to give each other second rounds and play without any regard
|> to REAL competition. I guess that's fine, if you think this is an
|> amusement video game, like TMNT or other side-scrollers. But to me, the
|> fun is in the competition. And what's the point of competition if neither
|> side tries their best to win? I mean, really. I don't see a 'too defensive'
|> bar underneath the life bar... so whiners should quit complaining about
|> my strategy and develop some of their own.
|>
|> --
|> Eu-Ming Lee (aka CyberGeek) eum...@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
|> Friends don't let friends use Windows.
This is classic stuff. I have been told that I don't know how to fight because
I didn't jump in on Blanka very much with Chun Li. I have been told that it's
cheap to play defensive vs. Honda with Chun Li. I suppose they have good reason,
since when Chun Li plays defensive vs. these opponents they have to be able to
fight to win, rather then just pummelling me out of the air every time I
jump. And obviously, since I'm winning, I should learn how to fight. it's
the logical conclusion.
Eu-Ming Lee
>I remember when this guy tried to cheap me.
>He did a short-short-throw ha!! Well, of course, I reverse threw him and
>countered it and put him in the corner. Then, I did a tick and reverse threw
>him out of the corner. He didn't come in anymore.... :)
Haha! That's my favorite. It always pleases me when people try to short-
short throw me--- ESPECIALLY the ones who think it's 'impossible' to get out
of. So when I counterthrow them into the corner, I say, "Your turn!" And
when they don't counter-throw I might say, "That's okay, I'll give you another
chance" and short-short-throw again. And if they STILL don't counter that,
"Get ready, I'll try it again" (short-short-DP!) "NOT!" :)
>What I hate is the short-short-roundhouse. Damn this. I have this throw
>mentality in my head and I'll go for the throw instead of blocking the
>roundhouse. It's basically a guess and you have to guess correctly. This is
>what makes it fun. Much more involved than just blocking. Keeps you on your
>toes.
If you're really good, you can tell the difference between short-short-
roundhouse and short-short-throw. After a certain distance, the ticker
pushes himself too far back to do anything, so you stay in block. If they
remain within your throw range and try short-short-roundhouse or short-short-
throw, you will counterthrow them if your timing is good. People know
better than to try short-short-roundhouse-fireball when they play me.
However, there are deeper levels of tricky-ticks like short-short-short-walk
up-(throw or roundhouse sweep). Or short-short-wait-DP. Note: Short-short-DP
doesn't work if you do it too fast because they MUST block the DP no matter
if they're trying to counter or not. So add a slight pause and you hit your
counter-thrower.
Kenneth K Lee
>Well...it's not like I'm bragging, but there are few people that can actually
>beat me at the local arcade. I think I consider it more of an honor type thing
>to not throw. The only people I throw with is Zangrief - b'cse he's a wrestler
>and that's his power/skill. It's funny you should bring up skill level, bc'se
>I really don't think that has much to do with it. As I said, I play to have
>fun and not to win. I have a friend who plays with me all the time and we have
>a blast each and everytime. I think if you've played so-o-o much that you
>actually get bored of it, then maybe you should stop for a bit. I play on
>Hyper and maybe once or twice a week. Anyways, back to what I was talking
>about, my friend and I have so-o-o much fun that people flock around us when
>we play just to try and get in on the fun that we're having. The funny thing
>is we look like we don't know how to play b'cse we experiment and play around
>with each other (we try and get each other differently each time) but when
>somebody gets in and tries to play either of us, they soon find out that they
>have misjudged us severely. So, for me, it's an honor type thing, and
>definately more fun - and fun is the key! After all, it's a game!!!!!
>
> Mystic
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mystic (617) 461-3822 (day)
>alex...@analog.com (617) 461-2470 (night)
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, about two or three months ago here at U. Mich, we used to have the
same "no-tick" attitude, in fact, it was even before that, and back then it
was quite serious too, at least I thought it was. If someone accidentally
ticked you, they'd let you throw them back. This went on for a while, and
eventually, the game became *dull* as hell when one person could rely on his
defensiveness to carry him through the last 30 seconds of a match when he was
clearly ahead.
So what happened? Well, more "questionable" tactics appeared, such as
jumping in without an attack and throwing, or intentionally whiffing on an
attack (i.e. axe-kick next to someone early, so it doesn't hit) and then
throwing, but eventually, people learned to counter these pretty fast. So
again, once you got ahead, you could play defensively, and that got boring.
So, one day, a friend proposed that we play "no holds barred", so that
started up a bit, afterwards, I had to take a break from the game, due to
school. Well, I come back a few weeks later, and I find that everyone ticks
now. Well, at first I thought, "this sucks", but what do you know...after
getting used to ticking and the counter-throw a bit more, we find that the
game isn't so boring anymore. Hell, a new favorite tactic of mine is to
play someone, tick them, and get a good lead, where the next throw will kill
them. Then I'll lapse into a defensive game, just waiting for the other guy
to try to tick me. It's great fun when you get the counter :).. I suggest ya
try it sometime..
Seth James Killian
>I have to disagree with those (Eu-Ming and Seth Kellin) that there wasn't a
>lot strategy involved with SF2, that it came down how cheap moves and that
>was it. I don't know how well you played it back then, but if you did, you
Not cheap moves... Character choice. Guile or Dhalsim.
>would know there that there were two important element to the game that is
>missing in HF.
>
>First and foremost -- distancing. Original was that you had to have the
>perfect distancing if you wanted to have something work (against other good
>people at least). Distancing is sorely lacking in CE and HF -- mainly
>because how the moves were changed in CE. Secondly, timing was much more
I simply disagree about the distancing. Ever had your Guile
caught in a really well done FB trap? Tell me there's no distancing.
The moves may have more "attack" sprites, but you still have to be
fairly precise to pull off a good combo.
>crucial in the original than the later versions. Like with distancing, you
>had to have perfect timing to get some things off correctly -- CE and HF are
>much more lenient.
Timing on Classic was very precise, albeit very EASY. The
game moved slowly; I even thought so back then. After you had
learned the basic timings, everything came off like clockwork. No
last minute adjustments and the move priorities were so well defined
that it was really too easy.
>
>The way they played (I personally wasn't that good at the time) was really
>insane. Each person had so much style flowing from their characters is was
>almost like watching a dance. I don't know, maybe it's just how they played
>down here in LA, but it was really cool. It still shows in some of the "OG"
Two words: Pattern Guile. Anyone here can tell you that I
play very little more than a competent pattern Guile, but on Classic,
you can kiss my razorkick. Guile was simply too good. Dhalsim was
the same way, and all the rest of the characters had their individual
"sure wins" (Honda vs. Chun Li). You can dance all you like, but
you will not get in on either my Guile or Dhal. With the ultrapriority
crouching fierce, Guile could not be touched from the air, and his
almost unDPable leg just swept you away... A silly game, kept in the
hearts of those partial to unbeatable Guiles and magic throws...
>players when they play HF. It was definetely different than how people play
>HF now.
Yes. Now the game can be won by more than 2 characters :)
>
>BTW, if you haven't figured it out yet, there is something nasty you can do
>to people who have a habit of counter throwing... low attack's. Take this
>Ken vs. Chun Li match for example:
Actually, this will not really work against a good counter
thrower, but it should keep him on his toes. There are necessary
pauses from the end of the last blocked move to the space when the
attacker can throw. It is only a fraction of a second, but he must
commit himself. You should be able to tell, eventually, what he is
up to. There are very slight animation cues, or just a joystick
position on his side that you can look at. Certain characters like
Dhalsim seem slightly more prone to this type of thing, (slower,
maybe?) but it is probably just me. Low attacks should be used
occasionaly in throw sequences, but non-special moves can still be
counterthrown and eventually, spotting a low attack will become
second nature...
>
>Basic point is that countering throwing isn't that safe, especially with the
>speed increase with HF. Maybe that wasn't a good idea -- now everybody will
>be playing the psycho-ken style. :)
Technically speaking, the counterer has the advantage, but it
is very difficult to fully exploit. (Good) countering is safe as it
has always been.
Seth Killian
John Nishinaga
skil...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Seth James Killian) writes (in partial):
> jnis...@netcom.com (John Nishinaga) writes:
> >I have to disagree with those (Eu-Ming and Seth Kellin) that there wasn't a
> >lot strategy involved with SF2, that it came down how cheap moves and that
> >was it. I don't know how well you played it back then, but if you did, you
>
> Not cheap moves... Character choice. Guile or Dhalsim.
fight with any character was more or less even. I know a E. Honda that beat
master Guile's, a certain Ryu player that beat the best Dhalsims...
Point is, I don't want to hear how Guile and Dhalsim rule all. Master vs.
master fights were VERY even -- I honestly don't think you and the people you
played were that good.
> >First and foremost -- distancing. Original was that you had to have the
> >perfect distancing if you wanted to have something work (against other good
> >people at least). Distancing is sorely lacking in CE and HF -- mainly
> >because how the moves were changed in CE. Secondly, timing was much more
>
> I simply disagree about the distancing. Ever had your Guile
> caught in a really well done FB trap? Tell me there's no distancing.
> The moves may have more "attack" sprites, but you still have to be
> fairly precise to pull off a good combo.
(conceptually) on the original and it isn't as easy.
> >The way they played (I personally wasn't that good at the time) was really
> >insane. Each person had so much style flowing from their characters is was
> >almost like watching a dance. I don't know, maybe it's just how they
> >played down here in LA, but it was really cool. It still shows in some of
> >the "OG"
>
> Two words: Pattern Guile. Anyone here can tell you that I
> play very little more than a competent pattern Guile, but on
> Classic, you can kiss my razorkick. Guile was simply too good.
> Dhalsim was the same way, and all the rest of the characters had
> their individual "sure wins" (Honda vs. Chun Li). You can dance all
> you like, but you will not get in on either my Guile or Dhal. With
> the ultrapriority crouching fierce, Guile could not be touched from
> the air, and his almost unDPable leg just swept you away... A silly
> game, kept in the hearts of those partial to unbeatable Guiles and
> magic throws...
there's nothing more to winning than those patterns, let me be the first to
inform of you of your ignorance.
> >BTW, if you haven't figured it out yet, there is something nasty you can do
> >to people who have a habit of counter throwing... low attack's. Take this
> >Ken vs. Chun Li match for example:
>
> Actually, this will not really work against a good counter
> thrower, but it should keep him on his toes. There are necessary
> pauses from the end of the last blocked move to the space when the
> attacker can throw. It is only a fraction of a second, but he must
> commit himself. You should be able to tell, eventually, what he is
> up to. There are very slight animation cues, or just a joystick
> position on his side that you can look at. Certain characters like
> Dhalsim seem slightly more prone to this type of thing, (slower,
> maybe?) but it is probably just me. Low attacks should be used
> occasionaly in throw sequences, but non-special moves can still be
> counterthrown and eventually, spotting a low attack will become
> second nature...
speed of HF. I could sort of react to this shit on classic and CE, but on
HF? Hardly. Think about it -- how long does it take for the character to
switch from a walking foward stance to a crouching stance with his leg (or
whatever) connecting with you. It's just too fast on HF.
BTW, if you didn't know, it's impossible to counterthrow one of these attacks
if correctly done. Why? Because you're still blocking. You see, when a
person counterthrows, he (usually) pulls the joystick to Back/Defense, hits a
button, then pulls it down. What happens is that the character is still
blocking, but he goes to a standing block stance -- thus low attacks hit.
It's in this very little time frame where a correctly performed "short - DP"
will get you.
> >Basic point is that countering throwing isn't that safe, especially with
> >the speed increase with HF. Maybe that wasn't a good idea -- now
> >everybody will be playing the psycho-ken style. :)
>
> Technically speaking, the counterer has the advantage, but
> it is very difficult to fully exploit. (Good) countering is safe as
> it has always been.
HF, it's the attacker has the advantage (at least against characters that
don't have a power move to get out of it).
Philip John Stroffolino
general differences: attack/vulnerability regions / "priority" for
various moves
subtle, but important;
new moves/variations added in CE and HF for some characters
speed of game
big change from classic to CE
small change from CE to HF
damage for moves:
on classic, all characters did very similar damage with similarly
powered strikes
on CE, things character damage differentiated quite a bit (and in
general, is less)
on HF, damage was further adjusted to compensate for the addition of new
moves and other factors
dizzies - on classic, approx. 2 fierce/roundhouse hits, 3 strong/forward
hits, or 6 jab/short hits would dizzy;
redizzies were possible, but apparently the first hit on a dizzied
opponent did not contribute
on CE, the "stamina" of different characters was differentiated;
in general, it is much harder to dizzy most characters on CE, and the
only redizzy I've heard of is M. Bison's seven hitter (rumor or fact? -
re: it's redizzy potential, that is)
on HF, the "stamina" of different characters was further modified for
reasons similar to damage
---
OPINIONS:
re: "general advantage" for a character vs. master vs. master battles
advantages in character-character matchups can be classified loosely as
follows:
(1) easy of playing defensively when opponent char is attacking unpredictably
(2) difficulty to get in when opponent char is playing defensively
(3) likelihood of success in random clashes (both playing aggressively)
matches where both characters can easily defend against the other
character are usually not too exciting, as good players tend to wait
alot (Blanka vs. Blanka, Balrog vs. Blanka on CE, Guile vs. Guile)
what sucks is that on classic, Dhalsim and Guile can put up a
more-or-less continued assault while maintaining virtual invulnerability
to attacks/counterattacks
consider poor Zangief (even in the hands of a god) against Dhalsim on classic
a fireball is sent towards him - if he jumps it, he gets kicked out of
the air; if he spins in place, he gets tripped or low punches; if he
blocks, he gets pushed back and takes damage;
I always wondered if he could press the attack and eventually get into
SPD range, but never saw anyone good enough to pull this off against a
good Dhalsim.
Honda vs. Guile
on classic, Honda can't successfully attack a defensive Guile - all
Guile needs is his long, almost invulnerable forward sweep and his razor
kick, and viola! Honda is screwed. Also, all Guile needs to do is chuck
one sonic boom and follow up with a uppercut (if Honda jumps over it),
or sweep (if Honda jumps straight up), and there isn't much poor Honda
can do...
what I am suggesting is that on classic, there are certain matchups that
are doomed, even if both players are masters/gods, whatever... I don't
believe there is any way the computer Honda and Gief could be programmed
to win (or even draw) against a well played pattern Guile/Dhalsim, even
with perfect reflexes and the like...
re: distancing
I don't think distancing is as crucial on CE or HF - you can recover
more easily from a mistake, for one thing, and don't have to worry about
getting killed in the blink of an eye; besides the obvious, like
improved recovery time for Ryu, the faster pace of the newer versions
make it harder to capitalize on mistakes...
re: character styles
I think that character styles have evolved considerably since classic
also, I think you see less variety mainly because of "natural selection"
with regards to effectiveness...
re: Guile patterns on classic
- deadly! especially when you are cornered...
re: counter-throwing
reaction speed vs. timing, and intuition
I don't think it is humanly possible to react to a fake without guessing
to some extent...
throwing people out of low attacks (non-special moves)
when you go from a block to a counter-throw attempt, go for the counter
throw right as you come out of block-stun, no earlier; this avoids the
possibility of standing up into a sweep
Also, I mentioned this before, but I don't think it is possible to throw
many characters out of some of their "normal" moves... for example, if
Gief delivers a roundhouse sweep from close range right as a character
is getting up, and they try to throw, they almost invariably get
tripped; same goes for Dhalsim's slide, I think...
advantage to aggressor?
the faster the game is, the harder it becomes to react defensively
- example: Balrog's TAP is very hard to react to on HF; a rushing jab is
probably impossible to react to;
anyone who thinks that on HF it is easier to counter stuff has probably
either improved since CE, or confused the computer's dramatic
performance increase with the realm of human possibility...
exception: new moves added to overcome handicaps
close range player getting up advantage?
the characters without "power moves" are at a disadvantage when getting up:
if your opponent showers Balrog with a flurry of short kicks or jumps in
as he is getting up, he doesn't have the option of doing a quick DP...
on the other hand, characters with "power moves" don't really have an an
advantage when hovering around the body of a knocked down opponent over
the long run - one blocked DP or razor Kick has dire consequences for
the would-be aggressor...
- phil
Seth James Killian
[much pointless Classic debate deleted]
I know that you come from the land where Classic made legends,
but I've been there and was sadly underwhelmed. This is not to say that
I know the scene there, just to say that I am tired of hearing about
how California is the center of SF2 godhood. It is my belief that due
to the sheer amount of time the game has been out, there are masters
of the highest calibre in every part of the country, especially in hot
beds of competition like Universities and big cities. The people I
played on Classic WERE that good. IMO, on Classic, Blanka and Chun Li,
(and Z if he EVER got in on you) could win in addition to Guile and
Dhalsim. If the case in your experience was much different, then I
assume you didn't have Dhalsims that noogied you TO DEATH if you got
within that monster throw range, or a Guile who would shamelessly put
you in the corner and magic throw you TO DEATH. There is _no way_ out
of these maneuvers, once you are in them. A silly game. I'm sure you
were very good at it, but it is a thing of the past. I think very few
people (bitter old Classic masters not included) will agree that
Classic was superior to either CE or HF. It is a thing of the past,
let it rest in peace.
>>
>> Actually, this will not really work against a good counter
>> thrower, but it should keep him on his toes. There are necessary
>> pauses from the end of the last blocked move to the space when the
>> attacker can throw. It is only a fraction of a second, but he must
>> commit himself. You should be able to tell, eventually, what he is
>> up to. There are very slight animation cues, or just a joystick
>> position on his side that you can look at. Certain characters like
>> Dhalsim seem slightly more prone to this type of thing, (slower,
>> maybe?) but it is probably just me. Low attacks should be used
>> occasionaly in throw sequences, but non-special moves can still be
>> counterthrown and eventually, spotting a low attack will become
>> second nature...
>
>I seriously doubt any human being could react that fast, especially with the
>speed of HF. I could sort of react to this shit on classic and CE, but on
>HF? Hardly. Think about it -- how long does it take for the character to
>switch from a walking foward stance to a crouching stance with his leg (or
>whatever) connecting with you. It's just too fast on HF.
Doubt it all you like. It can be done. We do it. There are
differences in the speeds of some HF machines, and maybe your machine
is set really fast, making you assum it can't be done. Our's is about
25-30% faster than CE, but I know of at least one that was about 50%
faster. It is hard to learn, and eventually becomes more of an instinct than concious effort, just like combos. This is one of those problems
inherent in the net: you say it can't be done, and I'm not there to
show you that it can.
>
>BTW, if you didn't know, it's impossible to counterthrow one of these attacks
>if correctly done. Why? Because you're still blocking. You see, when a
>person counterthrows, he (usually) pulls the joystick to Back/Defense, hits a
>button, then pulls it down. What happens is that the character is still
>blocking, but he goes to a standing block stance -- thus low attacks hit.
>It's in this very little time frame where a correctly performed "short - DP"
>will get you.
You really think that we are so slow and bad here that we havent seen and tried this??? Sure, it works if you are a little off on your
counter, and if the attacker times it very well. It is still harder to
even do than you say it is, because the attacker must recognize that the
opponent has tried to counterthrow, and then hit short and perform a DP
motion. You can do all this in the space of a fraction of a second, but
you don't believe that you can judge what the attacker is doing in the
exact same time?? That does not make sense. The motions you describe
are MUCH more complex than the counterthrow motion which I described,
and you say it is done in the same timeframe. Think again. Also, what
you have described is seen as "the easy one" to counter here. If you
put in a short kick, you are just giving the defender that much more
time to throw you out of a non-DP move. I think you are the one who
needs to hit the books again... what you have described has been _old_
news to me for about 6 months.
>
>> >Basic point is that countering throwing isn't that safe, especially with
>> >the speed increase with HF. Maybe that wasn't a good idea -- now
>> >everybody will be playing the psycho-ken style. :)
>>
>> Technically speaking, the counterer has the advantage, but
>> it is very difficult to fully exploit. (Good) countering is safe as
>> it has always been.
>
>You are so very wrong! :) Well, not THAT much, but you're still wrong. In
>HF, it's the attacker has the advantage (at least against characters that
>don't have a power move to get out of it).
The attacker only has the advantage if the defender fails to
exploit his own, which is _very_ difficult to do in the realm of
counterthrowing. So, for the general public, you are right, the
attacker has the advantage. However, I assumed we were talking about
masters here. The defender ALWAYS has the advantage, throughout the
entire game. Why would it be any different here? You may like to
hold this belief as a crutch or excuse for when you get thrown, but
it really is your own failure, not an attacker advantage. People
(including myself) don't like to admit this, and some even take it
so far as to ban throwing altogether. But when you get tired of making
excuses, maybe you will begin to understand what I am saying...
Seth Killian
mike antalek
possible to use a joystick rather than the keyboard. Any and all information
is appreciated. E-mail mant...@kentvm.kent.edu
John Nishinaga
>
> [much pointless Classic debate deleted]
>
> I know that you come from the land where Classic made
> legends, but I've been there and was sadly underwhelmed. This is
> not to say that I know the scene there, just to say that I am tired
> of hearing about how California is the center of SF2 godhood.
places. LA in general is good, but it's not anything special (I think).
It's those few players (4-5) within LA that were incredible. Maybe it was
just luck that they happen to have all resided here?
I don't think you really have seen them play. They play like they're looking
at you're joystick when they aren't. They can react to the slightest things
so well that it looks like they're the computer. That's why it really didn't
matter what character they played -- they could win because they were so
quick.
Most players (you and I and most everybody in the world) aren't that
super-human -- we have to rely on patterns and strategy that doesn't consider
perfect reaction but odds. In terms from the newbiews to the "masters",
character choice does make a difference. However, the advantages were very
minimal for those gods I'm referring to.
> If the case in your experience was much different, then I assume you
> didn't have Dhalsims that noogied you TO DEATH if you got within
> that monster throw range, or a Guile who would shamelessly put you
> in the corner and magic throw you TO DEATH.
over as it should have been. BTW, magic throw (at least down here) wasn't
used since it obviously was never intended to be there.
> I'm sure you were very good at it, but it is a thing of the past.
> I think very few people (bitter old Classic masters not included)
> will agree that Classic was superior to either CE or HF. It is a
> thing of the past, let it rest in peace.
classic! :P
> >I seriously doubt any human being could react that fast, especially with
> >the speed of HF. I could sort of react to this shit on classic and CE, but
> >on HF? Hardly. Think about it -- how long does it take for the character
> >to switch from a walking foward stance to a crouching stance with his leg
> >(or whatever) connecting with you. It's just too fast on HF.
>
> Doubt it all you like. It can be done. We do it.
> There are differences in the speeds of some HF machines, and maybe
> your machine is set really fast, making you assum it can't be done.
do with how fast the opponent can throw you after you get out of a blocking
stance. It's simply longer on CE than it is on HF, thus you don't have much
leeway in trying to react to it. *I* could react to this on CE (easily in
fact), it's far from easy for me on HF.
> It is hard to learn, and eventually becomes more of an instinct than
> concious effort, just like combos.
guessing the opponent! You've got a feel for what he's going to do and you
do it. It's the only way to combat it.
> >BTW, if you didn't know, it's impossible to counterthrow one of these
> >attacks if correctly done. Why? Because you're still blocking. You see,
> >when a person counterthrows, he (usually) pulls the joystick to
> >Back/Defense, hits a button, then pulls it down. What happens is that the
> >character is still blocking, but he goes to a standing block stance --
> >thus low attacks hit. It's in this very little time frame where a
> >correctly performed "short - DP" will get you.
>
> You really think that we are so slow and bad here that we
> havent seen and tried this??? Sure, it works if you are a little
> off on your counter, and if the attacker times it very well. It is
> still harder to even do than you say it is, because the attacker
> must recognize that the opponent has tried to counterthrow, and
> then hit short and perform a DP motion.
does it. E.g. he determines in his mind what he's going to do ahead of time.
> You can do all this in the space of a fraction of a second, but you
> don't believe that you can judge what the attacker is doing in the
> exact same time?? That does not make sense.
to do -- that's a reaction. The attacker just does it -- it was already
pre-determined.
> Also, what you have described is seen as "the easy one" to counter
> here. If you put in a short kick, you are just giving the defender
> that much more time to throw you out of a non-DP move.
<pause> short + DP. It's jump <block> <small pause> short + DP. You're
still blocking (you cannot do anything, including counter-throw) when he
sticks out his short kick. However, you might be pulling up on the joystick
preparing to counter-throw just as the short connects with you. It's
difficult to constantly get the joystick and the button press simultaneously
so you usually move the joystick up a little ahead of time (perhaps 1/30 -
1/20th of a second) for leeway. It's in that little time frame where the
short will nail you.
> I think you are the one who needs to hit the books again... what you
> have described has been _old_ news to me for about 6 months.
out (2-3 months ago). I don't know why anybody would try this on CE.
The two characters I'm currently focusing on (Chun Li and Bison) are very
suspetible to the Ryu/Ken/Sagat short + DP stuff. I've also been playing at
a place where people play these characters very aggresively. I've tried to
counter it visually but it usually resulted with them taking off my entire
lifebar with that simple strategy. The only way I could deal with it was to
rely on feel and instinct. This got me me to a point where I can now deal
with it with an approximate 85% accuracy rate.
> >> Technically speaking, the counterer has the advantage,
> >> but it is very difficult to fully exploit. (Good) countering is
> >> safe as it has always been.
> >
> >You are so very wrong! :) Well, not THAT much, but you're still wrong. In
> >HF, it's the attacker has the advantage (at least against characters that
> >don't have a power move to get out of it).
>
> The attacker only has the advantage if the defender fails to exploit
> his own, which is _very_ difficult to do in the realm of
> counterthrowing. So, for the general public, you are right, the
> attacker has the advantage. However, I assumed we were talking
> about masters here. The defender ALWAYS has the advantage,
> throughout the entire game. Why would it be any different here?
(pre-determines) wrong compared with what happens if the defender guess's
wrong. The advantage is minimal, but I believe it's there.
However, if a defender is better at figuring his opponent than vice versa,
the intelligent play will conpensate for the attacker advantage, and thus the
defender will have the advantage (confusing?). In other words, a smart
master will do better than a quick master. Since most masters I know tend to
be quicker than smarter, the attacker would have an advantage (in general).
Maybe where you play at it's the opposite, but I'm not going to assume
anything.
> You may like to hold this belief as a crutch or excuse for when you
> get thrown, but it really is your own failure, not an attacker
> advantage. People (including myself) don't like to admit this, and
> some even take it so far as to ban throwing altogether. But when
> you get tired of making excuses, maybe you will begin to understand
> what I am saying...
advantage. This isn't a crutch or an excuse, it's a conclusion I made from
many many hours of playing just to figure out if there was an advantage at
all. Is your opinion just from experience or have you actively went out of
your way trying to "analyze" it? (Yeah, maybe I have too much free time on
my hands...)
Eu-Ming Lee
>Most players (you and I and most everybody in the world) aren't that
>super-human -- we have to rely on patterns and strategy that doesn't consider
>perfect reaction but odds. In terms from the newbiews to the "masters",
>character choice does make a difference. However, the advantages were very
>minimal for those gods I'm referring to.
The way I like to play is to rely on my BETTER reactions and intuition to
beat my opponent's well honed patterns and strategies. That's a BIG reason
why I like throws, counterthrows, and ticking and why I despise no-throw
pattern playing. Anyone can learn to play pattern Guile or pattern Dhalsim
on classic, and indeed they did. However, I used Blanka to defeat both of
those characters. Not everyone (which you admit) has super-human reflexes.
But if the joysticks are working and I'm in my SF-Zen state, then you
won't find anyone with better reflexes than me. That slight edge is the
difference between your Krazy Ken getting DP-ed as he jumps over a fireball
you REACTED to, and you getting in a hit.
How do I know I have the best reflexes? Simply, I've done things which I
KNOW are out of pure reflex which other people don't even do out of
anticipation. Fierce punch Ken's fireball with Blanka before it comes out,
throw people out of short/short/roundhouse sweeps, dragon punch Blanka
balls. Standard stuff if you're guessing. But I don't. I react.
People around here might wonder how I throw them out of their short-short-
roundhouse fake-ticks and yet block the rest. Simple. I listen. I've
stressed this in previous articles, but the key is to concentrate and go
into 'automatic' mode. Once you're in that mode, it doesn't matter HOW
fast the game is going, you'll just counter automatically. Here's what
each tick sounds like:
short-short---throw: The hyphens (-) denote the delay time.
^
At the point marked (^), move the joystick to
back defense and hit your button once to throw.
Then immediately go back to defensive crouch.
If you AND your opponent timed it correctly, you will easily counter your
opponent. If your OPPONENT did not time it correctly, you will either:
standing block (opponent too early) or stand up for a frame and then crouch
and block (opponent too late and too far away).
short--throw: The delay before the opponent can throw is slightly shorter.
^
But if you listen for it, you'll know when you hear a long delay. It's
harder on HF, but on classic it's like an eternity.
What's happening in slow-motion (you can see the individual frames if
you're really Zenned out and Coked up) in these short-short-ticks is that
you're throwing them as their short kick retracts. If you try to counter
AFTER that point, you leave yourself vulnerable to attack.
short-short-roundhouse: You didn't hear a delay, so your automatic counter
ticker in your brain does not go off. You safely block this attack, which
was not counterable (except by DP) anyway.
short-short--roundhouse: Ooops, the opponent messed up somehow!
^
I never know when I throw an opponent out of his roundhouse sweep, unless
they tell me. They usually do because they say something disgustedly like,
"Hey, I wasn't even trying to tick." I say, "Too bad, you got too close
and mistimed your attack."
Well, there you go. Now it's just up to you to listen to that deafening
silence which tells you 'THROW ME, I'M OPEN!' If you play with ticks
long enough, it'll become second nature, which is part of the coolness of
SF2. And remember, we've played with ticks ALWAYS, non-stop, since the
game came out.
>The strategy was never to get in them. If you fucked up -- you're game was
>over as it should have been. BTW, magic throw (at least down here) wasn't
>used since it obviously was never intended to be there.
So, pray tell, how did you hurt Classic Dhalsim if you never got in on him?
Please don't say by hitting his limbs, because Classic Dhalsim doesn't
need to stick his limbs out for you to hit (which is pretty tough anyway).
I agree that if you messed up, you died. That contributes to the silliness
of Classic. Ooops, you took a chance and tried to surprise tick Dhalsim and
got yourself noogied to death from full health. Your fault, dufus! It was
a game of who could be more patient (Dhalsim vs. Guile) and who widdled
away the most energy at the beginning of the round. How silly! I played
Blanka to keep those two pattern characters from holding the machine.
>> >I seriously doubt any human being could react that fast, especially with
>> >the speed of HF. I could sort of react to this shit on classic and CE, but
>> >on HF? Hardly. Think about it -- how long does it take for the character
>> >to switch from a walking foward stance to a crouching stance with his leg
>> >(or whatever) connecting with you. It's just too fast on HF.
The faster HF improves my performance. A split second here and there off of
classic made little difference. But the better reactions count for much
more when the game is speeded up. I think it's at the perfect speed. Any
faster, and that advantage is lost.
>> Doubt it all you like. It can be done. We do it.
>
>Ha! You're obviously disillusioned. :)
You're obviously not SF-gifted! :)
>
>It has nothing to do with game speed (well, not that much really). It has to
>do with how fast the opponent can throw you after you get out of a blocking
>stance. It's simply longer on CE than it is on HF, thus you don't have much
>leeway in trying to react to it. *I* could react to this on CE (easily in
>fact), it's far from easy for me on HF.
Zen out! Transend the puny barriers of time. If time stretches out for
you relatively, then things are just the same as Classic speed. I'm sure
each of you has experienced this when playing HF. After a while, it
DOESN'T _SEEM_ any faster than classic, yet you know that it is! Your
mind is adjusting to the speed. The problem is, you're adjusting your
mind to play at the optimal speed for patterns and positioning. Now, I
completely agree that's very important, perhaps 90% of the key to winning
at SF. BUT, that 10% extra reaction and intuition, that extra Zen-power
is what gives you the edge over the patterns and predictability. Tap
into it! It's fun. The last game I could Zen on was Galaga, but it took
a long time to get to the tough stages :(.
>I think you just proved my case. What you described isn't reaction, you're
>guessing the opponent! You've got a feel for what he's going to do and you
>do it. It's the only way to combat it.
No, it's not guessing the opponent. You can DP whenever the opponent jumps
in, right? That's reaction, no problem. You do it more or less
unconsciously. Feeling is certainly very important, but it's not the same
as guessing. When I get the 'feeling' that someone is going to tick, I
concentrate on one thing--- counterthrowing. Time slows down to a relative
time which is optimal for counterthrowing. If I'm not having a good game,
or if my opponent isn't very good, I can rely on guessing. I don't like
that because I lose my 'edge'. Same with fighting 'no-throws'. Takes off
my edge. The only redeeming value in fighting no-throws is that sometimes
they go on a tick frenzy, and I can concentrate all on countering :).
>You're talking about something different though! It's not: jump <block>
><pause> short + DP. It's jump <block> <small pause> short + DP. You're
>still blocking (you cannot do anything, including counter-throw) when he
>sticks out his short kick. However, you might be pulling up on the joystick
>preparing to counter-throw just as the short connects with you. It's
>difficult to constantly get the joystick and the button press simultaneously
>so you usually move the joystick up a little ahead of time (perhaps 1/30 -
>1/20th of a second) for leeway. It's in that little time frame where the
>short will nail you.
I disagree. NEVER try to counter when you CAN'T. That's the key. If
he's out of your throw range, don't move the joystick up. You're just
vulnerable then. Your throw is instantaneous. AS SOON AS your opponent
is within range, throw. If your opponent is on the ground, and isn't
hitting you with an attack, he WILL get thrown. The attacker is at a
disadvantage because the defender is ALWAYS in a safe position. Once
the defender has the ability to attack, he WILL, and there is nothing
the attacker can do about it other than NOT enter that range (DP or
jump or whatever before entering that range). That's something I like
to do... exploit that 'gray' area where you're 'supposed to counter'.
From what you describe, it would work perfectly on you.
>The two characters I'm currently focusing on (Chun Li and Bison) are very
>suspetible to the Ryu/Ken/Sagat short + DP stuff. I've also been playing at
>a place where people play these characters very aggresively. I've tried to
>counter it visually but it usually resulted with them taking off my entire
>lifebar with that simple strategy. The only way I could deal with it was to
>rely on feel and instinct. This got me me to a point where I can now deal
>with it with an approximate 85% accuracy rate.
Feel and instinct are correct. But mix it with reactions, not guessing.
>
>Because the attacker doesn't have as much to lose if he guess's
>(pre-determines) wrong compared with what happens if the defender guess's
>wrong. The advantage is minimal, but I believe it's there.
The attacker stands to lose positional advantage AND a throw's damage.
The defender is already at a positional disadvantage and can only lose
a throw's damage. And here you were saying how positioning isn't
important?
>However, if a defender is better at figuring his opponent than vice versa,
>the intelligent play will conpensate for the attacker advantage, and thus the
>defender will have the advantage (confusing?). In other words, a smart
>master will do better than a quick master. Since most masters I know tend to
>be quicker than smarter, the attacker would have an advantage (in general).
>Maybe where you play at it's the opposite, but I'm not going to assume
>anything.
Not at all. I'd be much better off playing defensively and reactively
in all aspects of the game than aggressively. (That means throwing and
positioning... ie. not going in for ticks).
>I've played BOTH sides extensively and have concluded that the attacker has an
>advantage. This isn't a crutch or an excuse, it's a conclusion I made from
>many many hours of playing just to figure out if there was an advantage at
>all. Is your opinion just from experience or have you actively went out of
>your way trying to "analyze" it? (Yeah, maybe I have too much free time on
>my hands...)
The fault in your argument is that you assume that no one can have super
human reflexes and timing. Do not make this assumption. Assume that it
IS possible and that people DO have it and it will be clear to you that
the defender of ticks has the advantage. This is not a yes/no answer, but
rather 'how much' or 'to what extent'. If your opponent is not quick
enough to DP when you jump in, then it's to your advantage to jump in.
Similarly, if your opponent is not quick enough to counterthrow, it is
to your advantage to tick. However, do not say that such things are
impossible when it's a matter of degree. If you're fast enough, it's
possible. And at varying degrees of playing ability, the game is very
different.
>John Nishinaga - jnis...@netcom.com
Sung H. Yi
Haven't you gotten to the point where you can tick throw just as
fast as you can hit the next low short kick with Ken/Ryu? When
you have (on HF, you can throw extremely quick, without breaking your
short kick rhythm), you'll find that you can't listen, and you can't
simply 'react'. You have to ANTICIPATE and react.
Seth James Killian
Well, Ming has just gone and done what I was hoping I wouldn't
have to by carefully explicating what I like to call "commiting". The
would-be ticker must "commit" himself (by the time delay involved in-
between his moves) as to whether he will throw or not. Once you learn
to recognize this, the advantage is yours once again. Superhuman
reflexes? I don't really think it's superhuman, I mean, I can do it,
and I'm fond of slow characters. Ming is right on about the time
frame; just adjust and you can fool yourself into thinking you are
playing Classic again. The Zen takes over and you can read your
opponents moves like he is announcing them. The short to throw delay
is definitely longer than 1/30 of a second, which I am confident that
you pulled more or less right out of your butt. Technical descriptions
be damned. The case in point is that we have soooo many _evil_ bastards that would be happy to routinely use a superinstantdeath move ( if one
existed) to win. For many of them, this constitutes ticking constantly. If this tick really worked the way you feel it does, ALL of our matches
would be pure ticking, as honor is out the door in the face of winning.
They don't get away with this, (and they are really skilled as well as
being bastards) so therefore it is not anymore effective than any other
tick. If it works for you, that is SF2 on your level, and that is fine. More power to you. Just don't be too shocked when that same trick
suddenly stops working one day...
About Classic: I loved the game, and it was what originally
drew me to SF2. But your talk about how your masters played with
such grace and reaction is just hot air. No amount of grace and
reaction will let your Zangief get in on either Guile or Dhalsim.
What you talk of in awed tones, was pretty much standard procedure
here (anyone remember Tak? The "perfect" Zangief?). Subtleties
were there all right, but character choice was everything.
Seth Killian
Steve Larsen
I think the reason some of us are arguing points here is that one mans reaction
is another mans guess. When I play against a Ken/Ryu player, I don't 'guess'
when to jump over their fireballs, I predict it. At the high levels of play,
SF2 reminds me all too well of another great game, chess. It becomes a major
mind game riddled with fakes, gambles, glory moves, gambits, sacrifices, etc.
The analogy's don't end there. There is a opening sequence, volleying for
strategic advantage, and definite strategy involved in the end-game (end-round?).
This is what I would classify as the major compelling reason most people play the game.
Playing at this level is what makes the game for me. Do any of you play
racquetball as more than just a passing fancy? If so, have you ever noticed that
the most entertaining games are those played against someone of approximately your
skill level? To learn, the better your opponent is, the more you will learn. For
fun, the closer to your abilities your opponent is, the closer the game is, the more
fun the game is for both participants. This is also true for SF2.
As far as this LA thing goes, I have homes in LA and Vegas, and have played
extensively in both locations (as well as here). I have even played the much
revered Tomo (a long time ago) when he was reputed to be the 'master' of SF2.
I have found every level of player in each location that I have played. I have
lost to players from almost everywhere I have played, but for the most part,
they do the losing, even when playing in LA. You should see the look on the losers
face when I tell them I am one of those mormons from Utah ("You guys have SF2 in
Utah? What do you plug it into, a current bush?"). I consider myself to be
a master at the game. The reason I prattle on about my abilities is not to
aggrandize myself, but so that hopefully my next statement will hold some clout.
Although I find Killian, Ming and their hapless disciples to be:
conceited (some more than others)
sometimes arrogant,
always opinionated
I also know them to be:
knowledgeable about the game,
willing to share their experience with others,
excellent or better players (by reading their posts),
kind to those of lesser ability,
and usually (sometimes ;-) open-minded.
While I am not one of the MANY on this group who revere the ground they walk on (I
am usually the first to argue with them), I respect their abilities and can tell you
that they know a great deal about the game. I wholeheartedly agree with them that
there is NOOOOOOO WAY a Zangief player of ANY skill level can consistently get in
on a master pattern playing Guile/Dhalsim on the classic. Some characters were/are just
better than others, period. The skill of the player could make up the inherent weaknesses
of certain characters. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Anyway, sorry to ramble.
--
Steve (lar...@cs.utah.edu)
Any Linux user knows,
the DOS Operating System blows.
John Nishinaga
eum...@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Eu-Ming Lee) writes (in partial):
> jnis...@netcom.com (John Nishinaga) writes:
> The way I like to play is to rely on my BETTER reactions and intuition to
> beat my opponent's well honed patterns and strategies. That's a BIG reason
> why I like throws, counterthrows, and ticking and why I despise no-throw
> pattern playing. Anyone can learn to play pattern Guile or pattern Dhalsim
> on classic, and indeed they did. However, I used Blanka to defeat both of
> those characters. Not everyone (which you admit) has super-human reflexes.
> But if the joysticks are working and I'm in my SF-Zen state, then you won't
> find anyone with better reflexes than me. That slight edge is the
> difference between your Krazy Ken getting DP-ed as he jumps over a fireball
> you REACTED to, and you getting in a hit.
I can't really compare you to the ones I knew. You know, maybe my memory is
fogged and I'm hyping them for more than they were. I can't really say for
sure since it was many moons ago.
> How do I know I have the best reflexes? Simply, I've done things which I
> KNOW are out of pure reflex which other people don't even do out of
> anticipation. Fierce punch Ken's fireball with Blanka before it comes out,
> throw people out of short/short/roundhouse sweeps, dragon punch Blanka
> balls. Standard stuff if you're guessing. But I don't. I react.
quick. You maybe one of the best, but I doubt you are THE best. :)
> People around here might wonder how I throw them out of their short-short-
> roundhouse fake-ticks and yet block the rest. Simple. I listen.
period of time (e.g. Ken's short and Blanka's short should not be countered
by the same timing). Although the difference is subtle, it is important.
> short-short---throw: The hyphens (-) denote the delay time.
> ^
> At the point marked (^), move the joystick to
> back defense and hit your button once to throw.
> Then immediately go back to defensive crouch.
>
> If you AND your opponent timed it correctly, you will easily counter your
> opponent. If your OPPONENT did not time it correctly, you will either:
> standing block (opponent too early) or stand up for a frame and then crouch
> and block (opponent too late and too far away).
you move your joystick to back defense, you are vulnerable. The problem is,
you can't move the joystick to back/defense and press the button at the same
time since if you tried to do it, you would sometimes get crouching Strongs
or Fierce's by accident. Instead, most people give a few game-cycle leeway
before pressing the button but that little time frame is often enough for the
short to get in. The fact that you sometimes did standing block would show
that you of all people can be nailed by a Jumping Foward, (fake) Short + DP.
BTW, short ticks are pretty easy to counter IMHO. It's the Foward Flip +
Foward, (walk in) throw that I find are the most difficult to counter.
> short--throw: The delay before the opponent can throw is slightly shorter.
> ^
> But if you listen for it, you'll know when you hear a long delay. It's
> harder on HF, but on classic it's like an eternity.
>
> What's happening in slow-motion (you can see the individual frames if you're
> really Zenned out and Coked up) in these short-short-ticks is that you're
> throwing them as their short kick retracts. If you try to counter AFTER
> that point, you leave yourself vulnerable to attack.
Short is retracting.
> short-short-roundhouse: You didn't hear a delay, so your automatic counter
> ticker in your brain does not go off. You safely block this attack, which
> was not counterable (except by DP) anyway.
blocking combo or not, but if it isn't, you definetely can throw albiet very
difficult and in most cases, not worth the risk trying.
> Well, there you go. Now it's just up to you to listen to that deafening
> silence which tells you 'THROW ME, I'M OPEN!' If you play with ticks long
> enough, it'll become second nature, which is part of the coolness of SF2.
> And remember, we've played with ticks ALWAYS, non-stop, since the game came
> out.
BTW, about "ticking" in LA, there are only a few places I know of where it's
used (at least now). It really pisses me off when I used to go around LA
only finding just about every godamn place is anti-ticking. There are only
three places I can think of that are pro-ticking: World's Finest in Pico
Rivera, 4th Street in Hermosa, and the Family Fun Center in Westwood (or
around there). 4th Street (where I used to play at) has got really messed-up
machines so I don't bother there any more. If anybody knows any other places
that has decent machines please mail me.
> >The strategy was never to get in them. If you fucked up -- you're game was
> >over as it should have been. BTW, magic throw (at least down here) wasn't
> >used since it obviously was never intended to be there.
>
> So, pray tell, how did you hurt Classic Dhalsim if you never got in on him?
> Please don't say by hitting his limbs, because Classic Dhalsim doesn't need
> to stick his limbs out for you to hit (which is pretty tough anyway).
Chun Li could get out. No, it was far from easy but it was possible. Please
correct me if I am wrong about this.
There were master Ryu's that beat master Dhalsim's, and master Honda's that
beat master Guile's, and master Blanka's that beat master Honda's, and many
of these so called impossible match-ups. I saw many of these fights and the
person playing the character of advantage didn't fuck up or come even close
to doing so. Why did he lose then? Luck is about all I can think of. These
so called impossible fights became much more even as the both sides became
better and better (personal observation).
> I agree that if you messed up, you died. That contributes to the silliness
> of Classic. Ooops, you took a chance and tried to surprise tick Dhalsim
> and got yourself noogied to death from full health. Your fault, dufus! It
> was a game of who could be more patient (Dhalsim vs. Guile) and who widdled
> away the most energy at the beginning of the round. How silly! I played
> Blanka to keep those two pattern characters from holding the machine.
suspenseful, and it always ended in a bang. :)
> >> Doubt it all you like. It can be done. We do it.
> >
> >Ha! You're obviously disillusioned. :)
>
> You're obviously not SF-gifted! :)
> >It has nothing to do with game speed (well, not that much really). It has
> >to do with how fast the opponent can throw you after you get out of a
> >blocking stance. It's simply longer on CE than it is on HF, thus you
> >don't have much leeway in trying to react to it. *I* could react to this
> >on CE (easily in fact), it's far from easy for me on HF.
>
> Zen out! Transend the puny barriers of time. If time stretches out for you
> relatively, then things are just the same as Classic speed. I'm sure each
> of you has experienced this when playing HF. After a while, it DOESN'T
> _SEEM_ any faster than classic, yet you know that it is! Your mind is
> adjusting to the speed.
there still is a fundamental difference between the two. Ticking can be done
faster than it could on CE. On CE, ticking usually came down to something
like: Foward Flip + Short, Jab + Sonic Boom, <walk up> Jab <walk up> throw.
Ticking on HF is like Short - throw. Yes, I am exaggerating a bit, but you
get the point.
> The problem is, you're adjusting your mind to play at the optimal speed for
> patterns and positioning.
> Now, I completely agree that's very important, perhaps 90% of the key to
> winning at SF. BUT, that 10% extra reaction and intuition, that extra
> Zen-power is what gives you the edge over the patterns and predictability.
> Tap into it! It's fun.
> >I think you just proved my case. What you described isn't reaction, you're
> >guessing the opponent! You've got a feel for what he's going to do and
> >you do it. It's the only way to combat it.
>
> No, it's not guessing the opponent. You can DP whenever the opponent jumps
> in, right? That's reaction, no problem. You do it more or less
> unconsciously.
> >However, you might be pulling up on the joystick preparing to counter-throw
> >just as the short connects with you. It's difficult to constantly get the
> >joystick and the button press simultaneously so you usually move the
> >joystick up a little ahead of time (perhaps 1/30 - 1/20th of a second) for
> >leeway. It's in that little time frame where the short will nail you.
>
> I disagree. NEVER try to counter when you CAN'T. That's the key. If he's
> out of your throw range, don't move the joystick up. You're just
> vulnerable then. Your throw is instantaneous. AS SOON AS your opponent is
> within range, throw. If your opponent is on the ground, and isn't hitting
> you with an attack, he WILL get thrown.
account that you prepare for the split second ahead. Like I said before, one
cannot pull up on the joystick and press the button instantenously (within
the same game cycle) with much consistancy. Don't give me any B.S. that you
can. The less than perfect mechanics of a joystick and the buttons prevents
you.
Now for example, when a person does a Jumping Foward and starts to walk up,
you have to make a quick judgement. If you decide to react to that, you feel
in 3/60th of a second ahead he will be in throw range. You start to pull up
and press the button so that you would press the button just as he enters the
throw range. If you do it later, you're risking him throwing you. Of
course, if you decide wrong, chances are you will get hurt in some way or the
other.
It's that _3/60th_ of a second vulnerability that will get you (as I have
been saying in the last 3 posts). More importantly, the people I play are
skillfull enough to take advantage of that. I can't say the same about you
and your crowd since I haven't watched your games personally.
> >Because the attacker doesn't have as much to lose if he guess's
> >(pre-determines) wrong compared with what happens if the defender guess's
> >wrong. The advantage is minimal, but I believe it's there.
>
> The attacker stands to lose positional advantage AND a throw's damage. The
> defender is already at a positional disadvantage and can only lose a
> throw's damage. And here you were saying how positioning isn't important?
to classic, not that it didn't exist.
Good that you pointed out positional advantage which I so ignorantly left
out. However, Ryu is gaining a positional advantage against Bison by getting
close to him. If I am wrong about this, please correct me.
BUT, you also forgot to include that the defender has a risk of being Short +
DP'd. Then again, you are so vehement in that it could never happen to any
real master I guess it didn't factor with you. Also, two mistakes in a row
is usually a dizzy -- another disadvantage for the defender.
> >I've played BOTH sides extensively and have concluded that the attacker has
> >an advantage. This isn't a crutch or an excuse, it's a conclusion I made
> >from many many hours of playing just to figure out if there was an
> >advantage at all. Is your opinion just from experience or have you
> >actively went out of your way trying to "analyze" it? (Yeah, maybe I have
> >too much free time on my hands...)
>
> The fault in your argument is that you assume that no one can have super
> human reflexes and timing. Do not make this assumption. Assume that it IS
> possible and that people DO have it and it will be clear to you that the
> defender of ticks has the advantage.
If both players had perfect timing and one did a walk up throw and the other
tried to counter-throw (let's assume same character), who would win? This
applies to the Foward Flip + Throw routine because the attacker isn't in
range but walks into it just after the green light to throw. If you have an
answer to this please inform me, because I certainly don't know.
> This is not a yes/no answer, but rather 'how much' or 'to what extent'. If
> your opponent is not quick enough to DP when you jump in, then it's to your
> advantage to jump in.
> Similarly, if your opponent is not quick enough to counterthrow, it is to
> your advantage to tick. However, do not say that such things are
> impossible when it's a matter of degree.
timing."
> If you're fast enough, it's possible.
> And at varying degrees of playing ability, the game is very different.
Eu-Ming Lee
>Not every character is doomed in the Noogie of Death. Every character except
>Chun Li could get out. No, it was far from easy but it was possible. Please
>correct me if I am wrong about this.
You're wrong. You can't get out of the noogies of death unless Dhalsim
backs you into the corner. This is true for all characters. Dhalsim DOES
have to make slight timing modifications according to what the opponent is
going to attempt (special move or counterthrow), but the leeway is pretty
large (the game is sooo slow). Anyone with even poor timing can
perform the noogies of death.
>There were master Ryu's that beat master Dhalsim's, and master Honda's that
>beat master Guile's, and master Blanka's that beat master Honda's, and many
>of these so called impossible match-ups. I saw many of these fights and the
>person playing the character of advantage didn't fuck up or come even close
>to doing so. Why did he lose then? Luck is about all I can think of. These
>so called impossible fights became much more even as the both sides became
>better and better (personal observation).
A master Ryu could never beat Dhalsim in Classic. A master Blanka could
never beat a master Honda on Classic. I do agree that Honda could beat
Guile, however.
I disagree that as abilities improved, matches became closer. As our
abilities improved, the matches became more and more lopsided. We
discovered small advantages in each character and turned them into very
large advantages, and eventually, overwhelming advantages, until it became
very clear which characters were the best against which. If I were to make
a matchup chart of SF2 Classic, I could do it digitally. You either lost
or you won depending on which character you chose. Only a few matchups
were competitive.
>> No, it's not guessing the opponent. You can DP whenever the opponent jumps
>> in, right? That's reaction, no problem. You do it more or less
>> unconsciously.
>
>That's not reaction, that's timing.
It's reaction. You see the character jump in. You DP. You don't have to
time anything. The issue is the same for counter-throwing, only in a
smaller time frame. You hear the ticks, and then you counter when you DON'T
hear them.
>Now for example, when a person does a Jumping Foward and starts to walk up,
>you have to make a quick judgement. If you decide to react to that, you feel
>in 3/60th of a second ahead he will be in throw range. You start to pull up
>and press the button so that you would press the button just as he enters the
>throw range. If you do it later, you're risking him throwing you. Of
>course, if you decide wrong, chances are you will get hurt in some way or the
>other.
These are the easiest to counter. Really. I prefer these ticks to short-
short-ticks and other 'fast' ticks. I don't have to concentrate as hard
to counter these ticks because it doesn't require super-human reflexes, as
you call it. It takes only timing.
>It's that _3/60th_ of a second vulnerability that will get you (as I have
>been saying in the last 3 posts). More importantly, the people I play are
>skillfull enough to take advantage of that. I can't say the same about you
>and your crowd since I haven't watched your games personally.
No. You are being unnecessarily paranoid. If you're vulnerable for 3/60th
of a second, then wait 1/2 second longer. If you are patient, and have good
timing, you will have the advantage as the defender. Do not leave yourself
open to fakes for even 1/60th of a second. Force the attacker to time his
attack within that 1/2 second time frame in which you are vulnerable to one
attack--- the throw. As long as you're blocking in that 1/2 second time
frame, you will be safe from all fakes. You are ONLY vulnerable to being
thrown for that 1/2 second. And as you get more confident with your
counterthrowing abilities and learn your timing, you can narrow that window
down to nothing.
I might get thrown this way 10-15% of the time against UIUC masters, and
faked about 5% of the time, if I am ready. If I'm caught by surprise,
that's a different story. There was a time when people CHEERED when I
got ticked because it was so rare. Ah... those were the days. Then I
posted my articles about throwing and counter-throwing.
Against a non-UIUC master, I have a much higher counter-throw rate.
And what you say about joystick delays leaving you vulnerable is nonsense.
I have routinely stood up for a frame of animation and then crouch back
down into defensive crouch against opponent's mistimed fakes and ticks.
I have even done it in between player's short-short attacks (They pause
slightly because they can't hit the button fast enough, and I try to
counter.)
Also, I stress that the throw is instant. Once the opponent is within
range, do it. If the opponent goes for any move after he has walked into
your range, he will get thrown. Not only does the opponent have to MOVE
into range, but he has to move the joystick to attack, if he's faking.
And after that, the frames of animation for the attack are drawn. During
this entire time, you can throw him---- AFTER he's started his attack!
So the attacker suffers the SAME joystick lag, if any as the defender.
But in addition, the attacker suffers the delay of the move being drawn
frame by frame.
>BUT, you also forgot to include that the defender has a risk of being Short +
>DP'd. Then again, you are so vehement in that it could never happen to any
>real master I guess it didn't factor with you. Also, two mistakes in a row
>is usually a dizzy -- another disadvantage for the defender.
It's not that big of a deal. Really. If I'm getting up, I'd much rather
get short-short-tick or faked than get a fireball thrown at me from my
opponent's optimal range. You can throw the opponent in between the short
kick and DP. The attacker must wait a split second so that he doesn't put
the DP into the buffer (different than interrupting the short kick). If
that split second isn't there, then the defender can't do anything other
than block, anyway, no matter how many times or when he's hitting the
buttons.
>> The fault in your argument is that you assume that no one can have super
>> human reflexes and timing. Do not make this assumption. Assume that it IS
>> possible and that people DO have it and it will be clear to you that the
>> defender of ticks has the advantage.
>
>You're right if that is the case but I have a question with that theorizing.
I'm not doing the theorizing, since I CAN do the things I describe. You
can't, and then make some assumptions about other people to explain why
NOBODY can. I'm telling you, in explicit detail, HOW I do these things,
and how you can copy it. Try it out, get used to it, and you might draw
a different conclusion based on different assumptions.
>If both players had perfect timing and one did a walk up throw and the other
>tried to counter-throw (let's assume same character), who would win? This
>applies to the Foward Flip + Throw routine because the attacker isn't in
>range but walks into it just after the green light to throw. If you have an
>answer to this please inform me, because I certainly don't know.
If both players press the buttons at nearly the exact same time as the throw
window opens, the defender stands up and the blocks the attacker's normal
attack. It's a TIE! The throw window opens as soon as the defender's
block stun is gone. In any other case, one throws the other. It doesn't
even have to be 'perfect timing'. The leeway is pretty large, IMO. You
have probably experienced this phenomenon yourself.
>I can safely say it's impossible when you're basing your arguments on "perfect
>timing."
Perfect timing is not that hard. Can you short hurricane kick thru a fireball?
Sure you can. Can you DP combo Ken as he falls from a missed DP? Sure you
can. You can time things at very precise moments, without even trying. This
is done mostly unconsciously. Timing things well and perfectly is only a
matter of degree. And of all of the SF players out there and all of the
masters, certainly there will be a handful who can time things perfectly.
Timing is nothing. It's concentrating on reacting which is hard. If you're
in a groove, timing is going to be perfect without any effort.
Great baseball players have perfect timing. How long do you think a 100
mph fastball stays within a batter's hittable area? Let's say the sweet
spot is 1 inch in diameter at the center of the ball. And that sweet spot
must match the sweet spot on the bat. So let's say that happens when the
ball crosses the 9" from the front to the rear of home plate.
100 mph = 1760 inches/second. That ball is over the plate for a mere 5
milliseconds. 3/60th of a second, from your example, is 10 times that
long. If you keep throwing the same 100 mph fastball, that great baseball
player is gonna hit it outta the park every time.
Now, by comparison, you have MUCH finer control over the joystick of SF2
(even BAD ones!) than a baseball bat. You're concentrating only on one
dimension (pulling back and throwing) as opposed to the three dimensions
of a baseball. And the speed of the attack is ALWAYS the same, as opposed
to the fastball. If the ticker doesn't try to tick the correct way, he
will get countered, or his tick will be blocked.
Now, if the logical argument can't convince you, then all I can say is
that I CAN do these things. And I KNOW I do them out of reflex rather
than anticipation because I concentrate on doing it that way. I USED
to use intuition, guessing, and predicting as a counter, but it wasn't
reliable. I would stand up in short-short-short attacks, etc. Now,
that only happens when I'm not concentrating on my game--- which is often
if the joysticks aren't good or the opponents aren't good.
Try it yourself. Surprise people with your 90% counter-throw rate. After
the initial shock, people accept it as a given and respect your abilities.
Some other people try and learn that same ability.
Have fun,
Ming.
>John Nishinaga - jnis...@netcom.com
--
Eu-Ming Lee (aka CyberGeek) eum...@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
jeffrey d. lake
statement, but that's only because it was they who ticked first. The first
thing I learned how to do playing Classic was tick. No one in Ann Arbor had
did it before and it won a LOT of matches before. Some time later...
people learned to counter it frequently. It got boring against scrubs, and
decent players were able to counter. 3 words for ya: IT DOESN'T PAY. I can
counter 90% because I have FAST FINGERS, not FAST REFLEXES. Trying to
concentrate if someone is trying to tick me or not is just not worth the
neural impulses necessary to make me feel better. I play tickers all the time
and I still win most of my matches, and I don't tick! When masters play
masters it comes down to 'faking' ticks to get the footsweep and anticipation.
It gets boring.
Jeff Lake
"And God said: 'Let there be a no-tick haven for the righteous.'"
John Nishinaga
> never beat a master Honda on Classic. I do agree that Honda could beat
> Guile, however.
>
> I disagree that as abilities improved, matches became closer. As our
> abilities improved, the matches became more and more lopsided. We
> discovered small advantages in each character and turned them into very
> large advantages, and eventually, overwhelming advantages, until it became
> very clear which characters were the best against which. If I were to make
> a matchup chart of SF2 Classic, I could do it digitally. You either lost
> or you won depending on which character you chose. Only a few matchups
> were competitive.
implanted in my head. Anyways, its obvious you don't believe that either it
happened or that they were as good as claim. Hey, I'm not going to bother
arguing about it anymore. At first, _I_ didn't believe it when I saw it.
What makes me think people half way across the nation would believe some
babble on the net?
> >> No, it's not guessing the opponent. You can DP whenever the opponent
> >> jumps in, right? That's reaction, no problem. You do it more or less
> >> unconsciously.
> >
> >That's not reaction, that's timing.
>
> It's reaction. You see the character jump in. You DP. You don't have to
> time anything.
somebody jumping in, at least I hope so!
> The issue is the same for counter-throwing, only in a smaller time frame.
> You hear the ticks, and then you counter when you DON'T hear them.
you hear them stop. However, if they're not (two shorts usually pushes one
out), then you have to time it based on when you think he's going to walk in.
A good cheaper doesn't necessarily move foward immedietely.
> >Now for example, when a person does a Jumping Foward and starts to walk up,
> >you have to make a quick judgement. If you decide to react to that, you feel
> >in 3/60th of a second ahead he will be in throw range. You start to pull up
> >and press the button so that you would press the button just as he enters the
> >throw range. If you do it later, you're risking him throwing you. Of
> >course, if you decide wrong, chances are you will get hurt in some way or the
> >other.
>
> These are the easiest to counter. Really. I prefer these ticks to short-
> short-ticks and other 'fast' ticks. I don't have to concentrate as hard to
> counter these ticks because it doesn't require super-human reflexes, as you
> call it. It takes only timing.
everybody I know considers short-ticks very easy compared to Foward <walk in>
throw's. I personally think it's harder since each one can have a little
different timing after the first hit. Short-ticks more or less have the same
timing every time.
> >It's that _3/60th_ of a second vulnerability that will get you (as I have
> >been saying in the last 3 posts). More importantly, the people I play are
> >skillfull enough to take advantage of that. I can't say the same about
> >you and your crowd since I haven't watched your games personally.
>
> No. You are being unnecessarily paranoid. If you're vulnerable for 3/60th
> of a second, then wait 1/2 second longer.
> Do not leave yourself open to fakes for even 1/60th of a second.
up on the joystick, hit the button and pull it down within one game cycle.
I'm sure one can do this, but consistantly? I doubt anyone is going to want
to to attempt it THAT fast since mistiming it would result in a crouching
punch. The longer the joystick is in the Back/Defense position, the more
consistant you'll get a throw vs. a crouching punch. The reason I've been
saying 3/60th is that an estimate for _my_ time frame, which is just about as
fast as my wrist can move. And yet, I still sometimes get Short + DP'd.
Hmmmm...
> Force the attacker to time his attack within that 1/2 second time frame in
> which you are vulnerable to one attack--- the throw. As long as you're
> blocking in that 1/2 second time frame, you will be safe from all fakes.
> And what you say about joystick delays leaving you vulnerable is nonsense. I
> have routinely stood up for a frame of animation and then crouch back down
> into defensive crouch against opponent's mistimed fakes and ticks. I have
> even done it in between player's short-short attacks (They pause slightly
> because they can't hit the button fast enough, and I try to counter.)
attacks, period. That's just how the game works. Even the quickest reverse
motions can still be hit, albiet unlikely.
The attacker is not arbitrarily throwing out low attacks hoping to hit you.
He's instead trying to time them so they hit when he thinks you're going to
try to reverse, usually at the most optimal times.
> Also, I stress that the throw is instant. Once the opponent is within
> range, do it.
> If the opponent goes for any move after he has walked into your range, he
> will get thrown. Not only does the opponent have to MOVE into range, but
> he has to move the joystick to attack, if he's faking. And after that, the
> frames of animation for the attack are drawn. During this entire time, you
> can throw him---- AFTER he's started his attack! So the attacker suffers
> the SAME joystick lag, if any as the defender.
button -- they are both done in conjuction. The attacker just needs to time
the button, as the joystick can be set ahead of time.
> But in addition, the attacker suffers the delay of the move being drawn
> frame by frame.
button at _that_ time, he hits the button so that the kick (or whatever) will
hit at _that_ time.
> >> The fault in your argument is that you assume that no one can have super
> >> human reflexes and timing. Do not make this assumption. Assume that it
> >> IS possible and that people DO have it and it will be clear to you that
> >> the defender of ticks has the advantage.
> >
> >You're right if that is the case but I have a question with that
> >theorizing.
>
> I'm not doing the theorizing, since I CAN do the things I describe. You
> can't, and then make some assumptions about other people to explain why
> NOBODY can.
can have perfect timing because it assumes consistancy. I'm sure we all can
time something near perfectly, and in some/most cases, perfectly. However, I
don't think anybody can time something perfectly with 100% consistancy. I
can speak through personal observation that absolutes don't exist with life
forms. They just don't.
Secondly, what you're describing as doing is having instant reactions. I
don't think you are because its physically impossible! Have you ever did
that trick with a dollar bill where one person holds it with two fingers on
top and drops it and the other person tries to catch it? Well, it's
medically proven to be impossible because nerve impulses just don't travel
quickly enough (from eyes to fingers).
> I'm telling you, in explicit detail, HOW I do these things, and how you can
> copy it. Try it out, get used to it, and you might draw a different
> conclusion based on different assumptions.
wouldn't be arguing if I hadn't.
> If both players press the buttons at nearly the exact same time as the throw
> window opens, the defender stands up and the blocks the attacker's normal
> attack. It's a TIE! The throw window opens as soon as the defender's
> block stun is gone. In any other case, one throws the other. It doesn't
> even have to be 'perfect timing'. The leeway is pretty large, IMO. You
> have probably experienced this phenomenon yourself.
character had the "faster" throws. People conducted tests where they had
characters run into each other and pressed the buttons at the same time.
Now, the results of those tests were largely inconclusive to say the least,
but more importantly, I remember them showing that in every case, somebody
was thrown. In other words, the situation you described didn't happen when
it was supposed to.
What I believe happened in your case is very simple. First, the attacker hit
the button too early, hence a normal attack came out. Secondly, the defender
pulled the joystick up but didn't hit button before the attack hit, hence it
wasn't perfect counter-throw sequence. Ming, did _you_ commit such a thing?
> Perfect timing is not that hard. Can you short hurricane kick thru a
> fireball? Sure you can. Can you DP combo Ken as he falls from a missed DP?
> Sure you can. You can time things at very precise moments, without even
> trying.
> And of all of the SF players out there and all of the masters, certainly
> there will be a handful who can time things perfectly.
> It's concentrating on reacting which is hard.
> Great baseball players have perfect timing. How long do you think a 100 mph
> fastball stays within a batter's hittable area? Let's say the sweet spot
> is 1 inch in diameter at the center of the ball. And that sweet spot must
> match the sweet spot on the bat. So let's say that happens when the ball
> crosses the 9" from the front to the rear of home plate.
>
> 100 mph = 1760 inches/second. That ball is over the plate for a mere 5
> milliseconds. 3/60th of a second, from your example, is 10 times that
> long. If you keep throwing the same 100 mph fastball, that great baseball
> player is gonna hit it outta the park every time.
seem, he might screw up. Happens all the time...
> Now, by comparison, you have MUCH finer control over the joystick of SF2
> (even BAD ones!) than a baseball bat. You're concentrating only on one
> dimension (pulling back and throwing) as opposed to the three dimensions of
> a baseball. And the speed of the attack is ALWAYS the same, as opposed to
> the fastball.
swing shortly after the pitch (nowhere near the plate). That is an
assumption based on what he thinks the ball is going to do. One must do the
same when expecting to reverse. The reverser watches the attacker walking
foward and he decides if he's going to try to reverse. He can't wait until
he's in throw range because the attacker would have thrown him by then. In
the same sense, a batter can't wait until the ball is over the plate to swing
because the ball would have already landed in the catcher's glove.
Furthermore, the speed of an attack is not ALWAYS the same. The attacker can
stop and walk back. More importantly, he can stop just short of your throw
range.
> Now, if the logical argument can't convince you, then all I can say is that
> I CAN do these things. And I KNOW I do them out of reflex rather than
> anticipation because I concentrate on doing it that way.
those kind of reactions. You do use reaction but only to certain point,
after that it is anticipation. Hey, if you don't believe me, look it up
yourself.
> Try it yourself. Surprise people with your 90% counter-throw rate. After
> the initial shock, people accept it as a given and respect your abilities.
> Some other people try and learn that same ability.
the techniques that you described for a long time -- I'm here trying to argue
one of them.
Brian Odom
>How do I know I have the best reflexes? Simply, I've done things which I
>KNOW are out of pure reflex which other people don't even do out of
>anticipation. Fierce punch Ken's fireball with Blanka before it comes out,
>throw people out of short/short/roundhouse sweeps, dragon punch Blanka
>balls. Standard stuff if you're guessing. But I don't. I react.
Pretty standard stuff over here.
>People around here might wonder how I throw them out of their short-short-
>roundhouse fake-ticks and yet block the rest. Simple. I listen. I've
>stressed this in previous articles, but the key is to concentrate and go
>into 'automatic' mode. Once you're in that mode, it doesn't matter HOW
>fast the game is going, you'll just counter automatically. Here's what
>each tick sounds like:
>short-short---throw: The hyphens (-) denote the delay time.
> ^
> At the point marked (^), move the joystick to
> back defense and hit your button once to throw.
> Then immediately go back to defensive crouch.
no no no. I throw by instinct, too. I couldn't go to a no-throw area,
because when I throw, it's a reflex rather than an anticipation. People
over here don't just short, short, roundhouse. They do a short, short, delay,
then roundhouse the moment you hear that delay and go for a counter throw.
This gets me in trouble since that delay makes me counter throw, then I get
easily swept. grrrr!! :( Oh, btw, always reverse counter throw. Moving
forward to counter throw is BAD. You leave yourself way too open. Throw
backwards and it's easier to stay in block so you can react.
>If you AND your opponent timed it correctly, you will easily counter your
>opponent. If your OPPONENT did not time it correctly, you will either:
>standing block (opponent too early) or stand up for a frame and then crouch
>and block (opponent too late and too far away).
>short--throw: The delay before the opponent can throw is slightly shorter.
> ^
>But if you listen for it, you'll know when you hear a long delay. It's
>harder on HF, but on classic it's like an eternity.
Tell me about it. Counter throwing on classic is easy. You can actually
see it coming before it comes. But counter throwing on HF takes much more
skill.
>What's happening in slow-motion (you can see the individual frames if
>you're really Zenned out and Coked up) in these short-short-ticks is that
>you're throwing them as their short kick retracts. If you try to counter
>AFTER that point, you leave yourself vulnerable to attack.
>short-short-roundhouse: You didn't hear a delay, so your automatic counter
>ticker in your brain does not go off. You safely block this attack, which
>was not counterable (except by DP) anyway.
No delay. really? Yeah, if they're stupid. Most players mix it up including
adding extra delays and/or throwing to throw you off (no pun intended).
That's where the automatic ticker in your brain goes off and you get swept. :(
>short-short--roundhouse: Ooops, the opponent messed up somehow!
> ^
>I never know when I throw an opponent out of his roundhouse sweep, unless
>they tell me. They usually do because they say something disgustedly like,
>"Hey, I wasn't even trying to tick." I say, "Too bad, you got too close
>and mistimed your attack."
This happens sometimes and you get your opponent off-guard. This is
equivalent to walking up and throwing them, since they are in delay and you
went right up and threw them (or reverse threw whatever the case may be).
>Well, there you go. Now it's just up to you to listen to that deafening
>silence which tells you 'THROW ME, I'M OPEN!' If you play with ticks
>long enough, it'll become second nature, which is part of the coolness of
>SF2. And remember, we've played with ticks ALWAYS, non-stop, since the
>game came out.
This is where you need to react. Sure, I listen to those delays, too, but
I'm surprised that people don't fake it more often where you are. It's a
real tiny delay that the offensive attacker puts in to throw you off.
I can stop short-short-roundhouse rather easily, and I block it just fine,
but short-short---roundhouse can be a killer since it sets off that throw
timer in your head. You move from defensive crouch to back defense to execute
a throw and you get swept before the throw can come out. very effective.
>>The strategy was never to get in them. If you fucked up -- you're game was
>>over as it should have been. BTW, magic throw (at least down here) wasn't
>>used since it obviously was never intended to be there.
>So, pray tell, how did you hurt Classic Dhalsim if you never got in on him?
>Please don't say by hitting his limbs, because Classic Dhalsim doesn't
>need to stick his limbs out for you to hit (which is pretty tough anyway).
>I agree that if you messed up, you died. That contributes to the silliness
>of Classic. Ooops, you took a chance and tried to surprise tick Dhalsim and
>got yourself noogied to death from full health. Your fault, dufus! It was
>a game of who could be more patient (Dhalsim vs. Guile) and who widdled
>away the most energy at the beginning of the round. How silly! I played
>Blanka to keep those two pattern characters from holding the machine.
Yes, indeed. Once everyone figured out those nuances, the game became evil
and not fun anymore.
>>> >I seriously doubt any human being could react that fast, especially with
>>> >the speed of HF. I could sort of react to this shit on classic and CE, but
>>> >on HF? Hardly. Think about it -- how long does it take for the character
>>> >to switch from a walking foward stance to a crouching stance with his leg
>>> >(or whatever) connecting with you. It's just too fast on HF.
>The faster HF improves my performance. A split second here and there off of
>classic made little difference. But the better reactions count for much
>more when the game is speeded up. I think it's at the perfect speed. Any
>faster, and that advantage is lost.
It improves my performance, too, and helps me to react quicker.
>>> Doubt it all you like. It can be done. We do it.
>>
>>Ha! You're obviously disillusioned. :)
>You're obviously not SF-gifted! :)
I won't even say anything here... I don't want to start any flame wars...
>>It has nothing to do with game speed (well, not that much really). It has to
>>do with how fast the opponent can throw you after you get out of a blocking
>>stance. It's simply longer on CE than it is on HF, thus you don't have much
>>leeway in trying to react to it. *I* could react to this on CE (easily in
>>fact), it's far from easy for me on HF.
>Zen out! Transend the puny barriers of time. If time stretches out for
>you relatively, then things are just the same as Classic speed. I'm sure
>each of you has experienced this when playing HF. After a while, it
>DOESN'T _SEEM_ any faster than classic, yet you know that it is! Your
>mind is adjusting to the speed. The problem is, you're adjusting your
>mind to play at the optimal speed for patterns and positioning. Now, I
>completely agree that's very important, perhaps 90% of the key to winning
>at SF. BUT, that 10% extra reaction and intuition, that extra Zen-power
>is what gives you the edge over the patterns and predictability. Tap
>into it! It's fun. The last game I could Zen on was Galaga, but it took
>a long time to get to the tough stages :(.
Just what is this Zen power?? Maybe I'm just clueless...
>>I think you just proved my case. What you described isn't reaction, you're
>>guessing the opponent! You've got a feel for what he's going to do and you
>>do it. It's the only way to combat it.
>No, it's not guessing the opponent. You can DP whenever the opponent jumps
>in, right? That's reaction, no problem. You do it more or less
>unconsciously. Feeling is certainly very important, but it's not the same
>as guessing. When I get the 'feeling' that someone is going to tick, I
>concentrate on one thing--- counterthrowing. Time slows down to a relative
>time which is optimal for counterthrowing. If I'm not having a good game,
>or if my opponent isn't very good, I can rely on guessing. I don't like
>that because I lose my 'edge'. Same with fighting 'no-throws'. Takes off
>my edge. The only redeeming value in fighting no-throws is that sometimes
>they go on a tick frenzy, and I can concentrate all on countering :).
Well, once again everyone doesn't play Ryu/Ken, so DP is not always an option.
If you DP, when the attacker pauses, well then you get swept. if the attacker
doesn't mix it up and does short-short-roundhouse, then the DP will hit, but
with that pause, it can fake you out pretty effectively. And don't say you
never fall for fakes, either.
>I disagree. NEVER try to counter when you CAN'T. That's the key. If
>he's out of your throw range, don't move the joystick up. You're just
>vulnerable then. Your throw is instantaneous. AS SOON AS your opponent
>is within range, throw. If your opponent is on the ground, and isn't
>hitting you with an attack, he WILL get thrown. The attacker is at a
>disadvantage because the defender is ALWAYS in a safe position. Once
>the defender has the ability to attack, he WILL, and there is nothing
>the attacker can do about it other than NOT enter that range (DP or
>jump or whatever before entering that range). That's something I like
>to do... exploit that 'gray' area where you're 'supposed to counter'.
>From what you describe, it would work perfectly on you.
As soon as player is in throwing range can be tough to do. Lately, we have
been having a lot of Sagat players, doing tiger knee straight into jab TU.
This is a pretty good strategy. Your mind instantly thinks throw right after
Sagat does that knee, but when you throw and get smacked with a TU when trying
to counterthrow, it can be a pain.
>Feel and instinct are correct. But mix it with reactions, not guessing.
Yeah, this sounds so morally correct, but against players who do a lot of fakes
your reactions may be the wrong reactions and you essentially have to resort to
guessing.
>The attacker stands to lose positional advantage AND a throw's damage.
>The defender is already at a positional disadvantage and can only lose
>a throw's damage. And here you were saying how positioning isn't
>important?
>>However, if a defender is better at figuring his opponent than vice versa,
>>the intelligent play will conpensate for the attacker advantage, and thus the
>>defender will have the advantage (confusing?). In other words, a smart
>>master will do better than a quick master. Since most masters I know tend to
>>be quicker than smarter, the attacker would have an advantage (in general).
>>Maybe where you play at it's the opposite, but I'm not going to assume
>>anything.
Must be. That's the whole point of attacking; to put the defender at a
disadvantage. The attacker has an advantage, but must be careful and not get
thrown himself.
>Not at all. I'd be much better off playing defensively and reactively
>in all aspects of the game than aggressively. (That means throwing and
>positioning... ie. not going in for ticks).
Same here. I can play aggressively all that well.
>>I've played BOTH sides extensively and have concluded that the attacker has an
>>advantage. This isn't a crutch or an excuse, it's a conclusion I made from
>>many many hours of playing just to figure out if there was an advantage at
>>all. Is your opinion just from experience or have you actively went out of
>>your way trying to "analyze" it? (Yeah, maybe I have too much free time on
>>my hands...)
>The fault in your argument is that you assume that no one can have super
>human reflexes and timing. Do not make this assumption. Assume that it
>IS possible and that people DO have it and it will be clear to you that
>the defender of ticks has the advantage. This is not a yes/no answer, but
>rather 'how much' or 'to what extent'. If your opponent is not quick
>enough to DP when you jump in, then it's to your advantage to jump in.
>Similarly, if your opponent is not quick enough to counterthrow, it is
>to your advantage to tick. However, do not say that such things are
>impossible when it's a matter of degree. If you're fast enough, it's
>possible. And at varying degrees of playing ability, the game is very
>different.
I agreeing 100% percent. Exploit your opponents weaknesses. Eu-Ming makes
it sound like if someone tries to tick at UIUC, they will get counterthrow
almost 100%. Well, that is not the case and if it were, people would never
attack and play very defensively. But, then people at UIUC has said to tick
certain characters mercilessly. Well, if you do, wouldn't you get thrown?
I don't mean to flame, it's just that countering isn't all that simple provided
that the attacker throws in many delay fakes to fool your train of thought.
Eu-Ming Lee
>ditto - if a character strikes when he intended to throw, he wasn't
>close enough.
No, that's not true. You can do short-throw when you are close enough
and not suffering from block stun and STILL get the standing punch blocked
by a standing back defense.
--
Eu-Ming Lee (aka CyberGeek) eum...@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
Philip John Stroffolino
>character had the "faster" throws. People conducted tests where they had
>characters run into each other and pressed the buttons at the same time.
>Now, the results of those tests were largely inconclusive to say the least,
>but more importantly, I remember them showing that in every case, somebody
>was thrown. In other words, the situation you described didn't happen when
>it was supposed to.
ditto - if a character strikes when he intended to throw, he wasn't
close enough.
if anything conclusive came out of those tests, it was the following:
when two characters are right next to each other in the "ready"position
(no block stun involved), and both attempt to throw each other within a
very small time interval, someone gets thrown - no "whiffed" attacks, no
ties...
there is no noticeable character/throw-choice advantage for resolving
"simultaneous" (within the window required for simultaneous strikes)
throw attempts;
BTW, the guy who said he did some tests involving wiring buttons
together said there seemed to be an advantage to "reverse" throwing
(throwing backwards rather than forwards) - this sounded interesting,
but he never followed up... I think his name was Rodriguez?
- p
Eu-Ming Lee
>How I love analogy's. :) It has been shown that a batter actually decides to
>swing shortly after the pitch (nowhere near the plate). That is an
Sure, that's because of the momentum of the bat. You have much finer control
in SF2, so you don't have to commit yourself that early.
>assumption based on what he thinks the ball is going to do. One must do the
>same when expecting to reverse. The reverser watches the attacker walking
>foward and he decides if he's going to try to reverse. He can't wait until
>he's in throw range because the attacker would have thrown him by then. In
>the same sense, a batter can't wait until the ball is over the plate to swing
>because the ball would have already landed in the catcher's glove.
That's EXACTLY what you do. You WAIT until he IS within throw range (or
until the block stun wears off whichever is first) before trying to counter
throw. I don't decide whether or not I will try to reverse beforehand.
I see if the attacker crosses that imaginary line where he WILL get counter
thrown. And once he DOES cross that line, he IS thrown. If I mess up my
timing, then that's another story. The reason I'm so emphatic about
arguing this point with you is because I _USED_ to counter the way you
do, but I learned a better way of doing it. If you refuse to try or
refuse to acknowledge that it is even POSSIBLE, then that makes me upset
because you're telling me that what I do is IMPOSSIBLE!
>Furthermore, the speed of an attack is not ALWAYS the same. The attacker can
>stop and walk back. More importantly, he can stop just short of your throw
>range.
If he stops short of your throw range, nothing happens because you don't
try to counter UNTIL he enters your throw range. You can give him 1/2
second leeway to begin with and shave off time from there.
>> Now, if the logical argument can't convince you, then all I can say is that
>> I CAN do these things. And I KNOW I do them out of reflex rather than
>> anticipation because I concentrate on doing it that way.
>
>I've shown you that it's been scientifically proven to be impossible to have
>those kind of reactions. You do use reaction but only to certain point,
>after that it is anticipation. Hey, if you don't believe me, look it up
>yourself.
The time between ticks is longer than you think. The fastest _I_ can tap
my fingers is about 8 Hz (8 times a second). I measured this with a
switch and a digital oscilloscope, if you curious. And I KNOW that the
short kicks come out less frequently than the finger tapping. The short
kicks don't come out as fast as you can tap the buttons. For me, it comes
out maybe once out of every three of my finger taps. That gives you about
4/10th of a second in between short kicks... much more time that the 3/60th
of a second you speculate. And aside from the audio cues from the game,
you have cues from the guy next to you tapping the buttons--- telling you
0.4s ahead of time that he's stopped tapping short.
Well, I'm curious, so I'll write a short program to measure my reflexes.
>Well I appreciate you offering advice, but it wasn't called for. I have known
>the techniques that you described for a long time -- I'm here trying to argue
>one of them.
Your argument is invalid because you are making invalid assumptions about other
people Your argument is only true for you, a small subset of 'everybody'.
I'm saying that at least one person can do what I do, and I know of one
example who can. You are also basing your fundamental assumptions on
unreferenced scientific studies (which I have also read, btw) which also
sample a small subset of 'everybody' to draw their conclusions.
You're saying I'm wrong, and I'm saying you're wrong, but for me to PROVE
you wrong, I need only provide one example. For you to prove ME wrong, you
need to experiment on everyone in the world.
And I'm providing you with that one example. If I could show you, I would,
because it's simply the way it is.
>John Nishinaga - jnis...@netcom.com
--
Eu-Ming Lee (aka CyberGeek) eum...@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
Eu-Ming Lee
>This is where you need to react. Sure, I listen to those delays, too, but
>I'm surprised that people don't fake it more often where you are. It's a
>real tiny delay that the offensive attacker puts in to throw you off.
>I can stop short-short-roundhouse rather easily, and I block it just fine,
>but short-short---roundhouse can be a killer since it sets off that throw
>timer in your head. You move from defensive crouch to back defense to execute
>a throw and you get swept before the throw can come out. very effective.
The reason they don't fake is because they'll CERTAINLY get counterthrown,
if they try and slip in ANY kind of delay. There is no room for that
kind of error. I've thrown people out of short-short--roundhouse because
their finger was too slow going from short to roundhouse. This happens
alot in no-throw zones where they typically do a lazy short-short-roundhouse-
fireball routine.
>>The faster HF improves my performance. A split second here and there off of
>>classic made little difference. But the better reactions count for much
>>more when the game is speeded up. I think it's at the perfect speed. Any
>>faster, and that advantage is lost.
>It improves my performance, too, and helps me to react quicker.
>Well, once again everyone doesn't play Ryu/Ken, so DP is not always an option.
>If you DP, when the attacker pauses, well then you get swept. if the attacker
>doesn't mix it up and does short-short-roundhouse, then the DP will hit, but
>with that pause, it can fake you out pretty effectively. And don't say you
>never fall for fakes, either.
Against me, you'd have a better chance going for the throw than the fake.
But that's because of the way I counter as described in detail in previous
articles.
>As soon as player is in throwing range can be tough to do. Lately, we have
>been having a lot of Sagat players, doing tiger knee straight into jab TU.
>This is a pretty good strategy. Your mind instantly thinks throw right after
>Sagat does that knee, but when you throw and get smacked with a TU when trying
>to counterthrow, it can be a pain.
Doesn't Sagat have a delay after a missed tiger knee? I know the above can
be done if the knee is blocked, but if it whiffs, Sagat is thrown
immediately.
>Yeah, this sounds so morally correct, but against players who do a lot of fakes
>your reactions may be the wrong reactions and you essentially have to resort to
>guessing.
If I get unnerved because I got thrown alot with ticks which I KNOW I
could have prevented (only one person I know can unnerve me with ticks)
then I start guessing, and my counter-throwing ability goes out the window
because I begin guessing. But against everyone else, I'm fine.
>Must be. That's the whole point of attacking; to put the defender at a
>disadvantage. The attacker has an advantage, but must be careful and not get
>thrown himself.
Yep, and going in for the tick isn't a great advantage. If I'm playing
against a respected counter-thrower in a close match, I'll stay back rather
than go in.
>I agreeing 100% percent. Exploit your opponents weaknesses. Eu-Ming makes
>it sound like if someone tries to tick at UIUC, they will get counterthrow
>almost 100%. Well, that is not the case and if it were, people would never
>attack and play very defensively. But, then people at UIUC has said to tick
>certain characters mercilessly. Well, if you do, wouldn't you get thrown?
>I don't mean to flame, it's just that countering isn't all that simple provided
>that the attacker throws in many delay fakes to fool your train of thought.
When I was there, I _TRIED_ to make the game into a tick-fest, but it
usually wasn't. There would be perhaps 2 or 3 ticks total in a 3 round
match. I dunno about now, though...
Also, glad to see that someone else uses REFLEXES rather than anticipation
to counter.
Michael McCool
--MLM
John Nishinaga
>
> >How I love analogy's. :) It has been shown that a batter actually decides
> >to swing shortly after the pitch (nowhere near the plate). That is an
>
> Sure, that's because of the momentum of the bat. You have much finer
> control in SF2, so you don't have to commit yourself that early.
> >assumption based on what he thinks the ball is going to do. One must do
> >the same when expecting to reverse. The reverser watches the attacker
> >walking foward and he decides if he's going to try to reverse. He can't
> >wait until he's in throw range because the attacker would have thrown him
> >by then. In the same sense, a batter can't wait until the ball is over
> >the plate to swing because the ball would have already landed in the
> >catcher's glove.
>
> That's EXACTLY what you do. You WAIT until he IS within throw range (or
> until the block stun wears off whichever is first) before trying to counter
> throw. I don't decide whether or not I will try to reverse beforehand. I
> see if the attacker crosses that imaginary line where he WILL get counter
> thrown. And once he DOES cross that line, he IS thrown. If I mess up my
> timing, then that's another story.
you for the last time. You cannot react to something instantaneously, it has
been clinically proven to be impossible. If you studied human biology, you
would know that nerve impulses do not travel instantaneously.
If you want a practicle example, try the one I wrote about before. Have a
friend hold a dollar bill in the air with two fingers. Place your index and
thumb around the middle of the dollar bill but not touching it. When you see
your friend let go, try to catch it. Having problems? Now, try it again but
this time you hold the dollar with one hand and catch it with the other.
Pretty easy huh? That's because you know when the dollar bill is going to be
dropped and you can coordinate the other hand to catch it. This is why if
everybody followed your suggestion, the attacker would get thrown every time
(he's coordinating the button press).
> The reason I'm so emphatic about arguing this point with you is because I
> _USED_ to counter the way you do, but I learned a better way of doing it.
counter, but I realize it doesn't entirely use reaction.
> If you refuse to try or refuse to acknowledge that it is even POSSIBLE, then
> that makes me upset because you're telling me that what I do is IMPOSSIBLE!
hard-headed not to admit you're wrong, go ahead and live with ignorance.
> The time between ticks is longer than you think.
in> throw's. It has been covered that tick - throws are pretty
straightfoward to counter -- as soon as he stops, he's going to get thrown.
> The fastest _I_ can tap my fingers is about 8 Hz (8 times a second). I
> measured this with a switch and a digital oscilloscope, if you curious.
> And I KNOW that the short kicks come out less frequently than the finger
> tapping. The short kicks don't come out as fast as you can tap the
> buttons.
there is one button press per Short.
> For me, it comes out maybe once out of every three of my finger taps. That
> gives you about 4/10th of a second in between short kicks... much more time
> that the 3/60th of a second you speculate.
kicking -- he tries to reverse when he gets out of block or when he thinks
the opponent will be in range. That time is absolutely irrelevent to this
argument.
> Your argument is invalid because you are making invalid assumptions about
> other people Your argument is only true for you, a small subset of
> 'everybody'. I'm saying that at least one person can do what I do, and I
> know of one example who can. You are also basing your fundamental
> assumptions on unreferenced scientific studies (which I have also read,
> btw) which also sample a small subset of 'everybody' to draw their
> conclusions.
impracticle to do it on everybody. Yet, for some reason, people take these
results and by correlating similar results, they can make fact out of it.
> You're saying I'm wrong, and I'm saying you're wrong, but for me to PROVE
> you wrong, I need only provide one example. For you to prove ME wrong, you
> need to experiment on everyone in the world.
can say it's possible for a human being can jump 100 meters straight up, and
that for you to prove me wrong you would have experiment on every person in
the world to make sure nobody can jump 100 meters into the air.
> And I'm providing you with that one example. If I could show you, I would,
> because it's simply the way it is.
some "unreferenced scientific studies" to back myself up.
Sung H. Yi
> Jeff Lake
90%?!!? I tick you 5 times (at least) before you even counter me once. No
one in Ann Arbor? Don't believe anything this guy says. You win very few
of your matches against good tickers.
Seth James Killian
Hi everybody, have a nice Easter? OK, I see this little flame-
esque debate is still raging. Well, here's my 2 cents (which I think
I may have posted before, but lucky you, here it comes again :)
As I'm sure you all know, UIUC loooves to tick. It is done
both frequently and shamelessly, with a high degree of skill. In the
2+ year history of UIUC ticking, the majority of all ticks, and every
_effective_ one, has been used at some time. If it seems to work,
people will use it relentlessly until the counter becomes common
knowledge. To illustrate the point, I played Classic the other day,
just to try and tick the computer to death every match, for fun :).
Well, there I was, minding my own business in the corner, when a certain
Guile I know decides to join in. Great, I'm trouble now, but I like
a challenge, and making Guile eat it on Classic is always a treat. So
were playing along, and I get aerial thrown into the corner. He proceeds to magic throw me to death. Skilless? Not quite, *I* don't
have a consistent magic throw. Fun? Definitely not. But that was
not the question, he was trying to win, and he used what the game gave
him, even if it was not there on purpose. So I lose. The point of
this little SF2 vignette, is that if there existed a tick dastardly
enough to kill everyone with, everyone (not Hamed :) would use it.
We have known about faking, and walk in and throw techniques since
before I even went here (Ooooh!), and while they are still fairly
popular, they do not win matches consistently. Why? Because _WE_
can counter them. I don't think it requires this "superhuman" reflex
time (although that Zen is great :), it just works. I sincerely doubt
that we just don't have anyone trying this in the right way, it has
just become counterable. You say it's not. That implies where you
play, no one counters it. Fine. This is that bullshit relativistic
SF2 that is sooo unsatisfying. Alas, there is simply a disparity in
the schools of thought. If you agree with John, fine, but I must say
that you should at least always try our methods, maybe one day it will
start working for you. If you resign yourself to the fact that the
attacker just has a nasty advantage and leave it at that, it will get
you nowhere. I, for one, have faith in the surprising insight of the
programmers and playtesters. Up to you folks...
Seth Killian
Philip John Stroffolino
1. attacker jumps in close, hitting low with an ariel attack
2. the defender blocks high
3. both go for the throw
who has the advantage? I think in this situation, neither player does,
and if you get more than a 50% success rate as either attacker or
defender, your opponent probably just has worse timing...
there is no reflex involved - simply an instant where each player is
suddenly simultaneously vulnerable to a throw; whoever has better timing
has the advantage, right?
scenario:
1. Honda jumps in with a low roundhouse so that he lands just outside of
the opponent's throw range
2. the defender blocks high
3. the attacks throws the defender as he comes out of block stun with
superior throw range (Honda)
only Gief has the ability to counterthrow this Honda tick when applied
perfectly (with a SPD), so far as I know;
some characters can jump away as Honda attempts to throw, and of course
a DP will work...
scenario:
1. attacker is flush next to a victim that is getting up
2. as the victim gets up, the attacker either DPs or goes for a throw
(no leading short), unpredictably
who has the advantage?
the action of the attacker is done at the last second, and there is
nothing to react to...
the advantage is still the defender's in the long run :)
---
alternative method for countering throws (other than ZEN / "inhuman :)"
reflexes and gray-zone perception)
opponent jumps in: hit 'em out of the air!
opponent walks in - if the defender has an extended throw range built
up, the window of opportunity for a counter throw is greater than that
for the attacker; the attacker must take at least one step through a
space were the defender can safely throw... (assuming the attacker
doesn't have a superior normal range throw - Dhalsim, Honda, Gief)
opponent short kicks when you are down - unless the attacker does a DP
or razor kick, the defender can simply throw as he gets up without
having to block any of the short kicks
personally, I think a 50% counter rate is fine for detering "cheap shots"
as Ming mentioned in his Art of Throwing guides, most people don't like
to take risks, even if the average outcome is the similar (what would
you rather have? half a cookie or a 50/50 chance at a whole cookie?)
I count myself lucky when I counter a well executed tick one out of
three times. I have rather shabby reflexes...
The worst situation's I've ever been in were the following:
CE: a Blanka player did a jumping forward kick followed by a chomp 4
times in a row to my Balrog (sob!)
HF: a Vega player did a flying roundhouse kick followed by a slam 4
times in a row.
I said, "wait a second..." right as I was about to die
my opponent hesitated and I luckily finished him with a dashing jab
(blocked) followed by a ducking roundhouse (not blocked) for the KO
I really pissed him off :)
in both situations, I attempted to counter throw every time, sometimes
blocking, sometimes purposely taking the hit...
it is funny, what usually gets me is when a Vega player mixes it up,
sometimes following a jumping attack with a throw attempt, and sometimes
with a slide...
- Phil
John Nishinaga
To summarize this "flame," I'll give the people of the net something easy to
digest:
___
What am I implying?
1) People can't react instantaneously.
2) People can't reverse successfully when using reactions entirely.
3) Ming is wrong.
Method: If it's possible to throw, throw; otherwise block. Play by reactions
until the reaction delay (time to see and push button) exceeds time for
opponent to walk and enter range -- then play by intuition.
What is Ming implying?
1) (Some) people can react instantaneously.
2) People can reverse successfully when using reactions entirely.
3) I am wrong.
Method: If it's possible to throw, throw; otherwise block. Play by reactions
always -- throw only if you see opponent enter throw range.
(There was also other side debates but those were more or less insignificant.)
___
So what's to make of this? IMHO, Ming's argument is incorrect since it
implies humans can have instantaneous reflexes (yeah... sure!). Of course,
he will claim he's proof of this but rest assured that his ego has
overwhelmed him.
Secondly (this might suprise you), each method works better for some
situations than others. My method works better if there's a tendency for
walk-in throws while Ming's method works better if there's a tendency for
fakes. Coming from what Ming and Seth were writing about, you would've
assumed that they were two totally radical methods.
The thing that really irks me about all of this is that cloud of superiority
that hovers about the UIUC folk. Of course they can't be wrong, Ming is God!
He'll easily "mop up [my] sorry ass" at SF2 as one guy so nicely put it.
What can I say -- I'm just a nobody in LA who likes to play SF2. :)
Lord Baal
anyways... I think that mr. Ming could probably mop your sorry ass up...
mr. Nishina , although that is just an educated guess from my experience..
who the hell really cares what you call it ?!?!? relex or intuition, or
Zen as one (moron) called it, it doesnt really matter, i've seen only
a handful of good tickers and counter throwers and ming happens to
be one of them... although i'm kinda glad that hes not here anymore
now i get to play the bad guy and be cheap all the time...(except
for Seth that is :))
Lord Baal........
JOSEPH BEAUREG HARTLEY
Thank you Jeff for expressing my feelings so well. I have always
argued against ticking, not because it is "unfair", but because it
just make the game boring. In this area (Raleigh) most people feel
that cheaping is all right but nobody does it because it makes the game
VERY boring.
jbha...@eos.ncsu.edu