SF2 Terminology
Allen J Klein
Jaykeen L Ho...@blue.seas
> Hi. I've been following this newsgroup for awhile now and I was
> simply wondering...What is the definition of tick, buffer, chain
> combo, two-in-ones, and the other terms you use around here?
/me cracks his knuckles.
Hey! Speaking of knuckles, did you folks know that Sega is coming out
with a Sonic Hedgehog 3d arcade fighting game? That is FUCKED UP.
Hehe, it's about time I got the chance to use Tails and beat the shit
out of Sonic for always leaving me behind. ^_^
Tick
----
Also known as "tap-toss" or "hit-throw."
When you attack your opponent with some move (anything, really) and they
block it, they immediately go through 2 special states in which their
actions as well as their opponent's are limited. As a group, these 2
states are known as "block stun."
1) "Deep block stun:" During this time, the blocking character can't be
thown. (besides throwing, the attacking character can do whatever they
want) The blocking character, however, can't do anything. Er, I'm not
sure, but I think they can decide whether they are standing or
crouching. (might be able to jump as well?) In older versions of SF2,
the computer Ryu would do a flurry of standing/ducking short kicks which
left the recipient completely in deep block stun until it was over. In
CE, I think Vega had a corner trap involving repeated ducking strong
pokes which also left his opponent suck in deep block stun.
2) "Normal block stun:" When in normal block stun, the blocking
character can now throw and be thrown. In addition, they can use
special moves. They can't, however, use any normal moves.
A tick is when someone attack their opponent, then throws 'em while
they're in secondary block stun. It's relevant to discuss 'deep block
stun,' because if you try to tick, but get impatient when trying to
throw your opponent and press the throw button too early, it won't work
and a punch or kick will come out instead as your opponent wasn't out of
deep block stun yet.
Buffer
------
Outdated terminology used to describe the mechanics of an SF2 combo.
Y'know Ken's standing fierce + fierce dragon punch combo? People used
to describe that like so: "buffer the standing fierce into the dragon
punch."
Buffer is a crappy word, I wouldn't recommend using it; instead of the
above, you should say "cancel the standing fierce into the dragon
punch," or even "combo the standing fierce into the dragon punch."
Some things in the game ARE, however, buffered. In street fighter
alpha, for example, when you get knocked down - do a fireball motion
with punch before you hit the ground and you'll roll upon landing. IMO,
that would be "buffering" the roll motion into the falling animation or
whatever as there is a certain window of time in which you can input the
motion producing one invariable outcome.
Chain Combo
-----------
In Street Fighter Alpha (1, not 2), Darkstalkers (1+2), and Capcom's two
marvel comics games, it is possible to use several normal moves in
succession as a combo. This generally works from weaker -> stronger
moves and what happens is, the attacking player presses the buttons at a
certain speed (quickly) such that the animations of the weak attacks are
interrupted into the stronger attacks producing a combo.
Two-in-one
----------
The Ken combo described above is a two-in-one. If I didn't explain it
enough above, please ask! ^_^
Later,
al
--
0UY0T allen jamie klein S1HT0D yow! 3MT3LU0Y yan...@cmu.edu 0DYHW
Chris Finnie
>1) "Deep block stun:" During this time, the blocking character can't be
>thown. (besides throwing, the attacking character can do whatever they
>want) The blocking character, however, can't do anything. Er, I'm not
>sure, but I think they can decide whether they are standing or
>crouching. (might be able to jump as well?) In older versions of SF2,
>the computer Ryu would do a flurry of standing/ducking short kicks which
>left the recipient completely in deep block stun until it was over. In
>CE, I think Vega had a corner trap involving repeated ducking strong
>pokes which also left his opponent suck in deep block stun.
>2) "Normal block stun:" When in normal block stun, the blocking
>character can now throw and be thrown. In addition, they can use
>special moves. They can't, however, use any normal moves.
Allen, there is only ONE type of block stun. it's called BLOCK STUN.
At the end of the block stun there is a split second reversal point
where you can execute a reversal throw or special move, while still
being un-throwable.
>A tick is when someone attack their opponent, then throws 'em while
>they're in secondary block stun. It's relevant to discuss 'deep block
>stun,' because if you try to tick, but get impatient when trying to
>throw your opponent and press the throw button too early, it won't work
>and a punch or kick will come out instead as your opponent wasn't out of
>deep block stun yet.
Nope, a proper tick is simply timing your throw so that you grab them the
instant their reversal opportunity out of blocksun, is over. Any SPD,
or normal throw tick (there is no difference except throw range), is
escapable with a special move (provided it is invincible enough),
or just with a throw, provided you are within range. Yes, any character
can escape a Zangief/T.Hawk SPD tick with a normal throw.
>Buffer
>------
>Outdated terminology used to describe the mechanics of an SF2 combo.
>Y'know Ken's standing fierce + fierce dragon punch combo? People used
>to describe that like so: "buffer the standing fierce into the dragon
>punch."
>
>Buffer is a crappy word, I wouldn't recommend using it; instead of the
>above, you should say "cancel the standing fierce into the dragon
>punch," or even "combo the standing fierce into the dragon punch."
I prefer '2in1'.
chris f
Allen J Klein
Chris Finnie@intergate.b
> where you can execute a reversal throw or special move, while still
> being un-throwable.
No shit? When I first started reading this group (couple years ago), it
was Ming and his "extended throw ranges." Then it turns out that
"extended throw ranges" were kinda iffy. For quite some time I've been
thinking that ticking is pretty much 50/50. Heh.
Thanks for the schooling,
jk
Benjamin Louis Hayek
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.games.sf2: 20-Mar-96 Re: SF2 Terminology by
>Chris Finnie@intergate.b
>> At the end of the block stun there is a split second reversal point
>> where you can execute a reversal throw or special move, while still
>> being un-throwable.
>No shit? When I first started reading this group (couple years ago), it
>was Ming and his "extended throw ranges." Then it turns out that
>"extended throw ranges" were kinda iffy. For quite some time I've been
>thinking that ticking is pretty much 50/50. Heh.
Extended throw range has to do with a situation in which your opponent
becomes "closer" to you when he uses some kind of standing or crouching
attack. It seems like you can throw him from farther away, but in fact,
he was just closer to you for the duration of his attack and then you
threw him. A reversal attack can be combined with this situation, but
it doesn't have to be a reversal.
Ben.
Seth James Killian
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.games.sf2: 20-Mar-96 Re: SF2 Terminology by
>Chris Finnie@intergate.b
>> At the end of the block stun there is a split second reversal point
>> where you can execute a reversal throw or special move, while still
>> being un-throwable.
>No shit? When I first started reading this group (couple years ago), it
>was Ming and his "extended throw ranges." Then it turns out that
>"extended throw ranges" were kinda iffy. For quite some time I've been
>thinking that ticking is pretty much 50/50. Heh.
Your misunderstanding at times amazes me. This has nothing
explicitly to do with "Ming's extended throw range", although since they
both have to do with throws (duh) they could both be involved in the
same situation. Extended throw ranges are just that: when your throw
range is extended, by the action of your opponent (although some have
claimed (with no clear support, although I do not deny it out of hand)
that throw range can also vary with the direction in which the thrower
holds the stick). Man.
I would like suggest just leaving all answering of questions
to the ever-posting Mr. Klein, in an effort to completely befuddle future
generations of SF2 so that the current gods will have such a huge
knowledge advantage that no one will ever be able to touch us...
Seth Killian
Allen J Klein
I was writing this...
Excerpts from netnews.alt.games.sf2: 22-Mar-96 Re: SF2 Terminology by
Seth James Killian@stude
> >Excerpts from netnews.alt.games.sf2: 20-Mar-96 Re: SF2 Terminology by
> >Chris Finnie@intergate.b
> >> At the end of the block stun there is a split second reversal point
> >> where you can execute a reversal throw or special move, while still
> >> being un-throwable.
>
> >No shit? When I first started reading this group (couple years ago), it
> >was Ming and his "extended throw ranges." Then it turns out that
> >"extended throw ranges" were kinda iffy. For quite some time I've been
> >thinking that ticking is pretty much 50/50. Heh.
>
> Your misunderstanding at times amazes me. This has nothing
> explicitly to do with "Ming's extended throw range", although since they
> both have to do with throws (duh) they could both be involved in the
> same situation. Extended throw ranges are just that: when your throw
> range is extended, by the action of your opponent (although some have
> claimed (with no clear support, although I do not deny it out of hand)
> that throw range can also vary with the direction in which the thrower
> holds the stick). Man.
Why do you always give me such a hard time? In my above quote, I was
conceding that I didn't know what was up. Yep, conceding.
> I would like suggest just leaving all answering of questions
> to the ever-posting Mr. Klein, in an effort to completely befuddle future
> generations of SF2 so that the current gods will have such a huge
> knowledge advantage that no one will ever be able to touch us...
Well now it's too late isn't it: turn on the time machine, go back a
few days, send an e-mail to Mr. Beasley, Mr. Cannon, yourself, Ming,
whoever else is interested... maybe in some, but certainly not all of
the responses do you
get Chris' explanation. I've been reading this group for quite a while,
and Ming's old throwing/counter-throwing guide was only partially
debunked. A proper
re-evaluation of the phenomenon was never discussed in entirity.
Remember how Mr. Finney's postings on wake-up DPs were shot down by
various "gods?" The wake up process is a direct parallel with the block
process.
I don't think I'd have to scroll too far back, in fact, to find one of
your "agsf2 gods" posting the same old "deep block stun" info as always.
AOL saves messages for some months I think (least when I last used
their newsprogram,
it seemed like they held on to messages longer than most), bet I could
catch Mr. Cannon in the act.
Seth James Killian
>Why do you always give me such a hard time? In my above quote, I was
>conceding that I didn't know what was up. Yep, conceding.
Amazingly though, even in conceding your cluelessness, you still
miss the point.
>Well now it's too late isn't it: turn on the time machine, go back a
>few days, send an e-mail to Mr. Beasley, Mr. Cannon, yourself, Ming,
>whoever else is interested... maybe in some, but certainly not all of
>the responses do you
>get Chris' explanation. I've been reading this group for quite a while,
>and Ming's old throwing/counter-throwing guide was only partially
>debunked. A proper
>re-evaluation of the phenomenon was never discussed in entirity.
I don't think I've ever read Ming's guide to counterthrowing, so
I'm certainly not going to vouch for the accuracy of a document nearly,
what, 4 years old (hell, they could have changed things in all that time.
things did change after Classic). *However*, extended throw ranges do
exist. The last detractor from this phenomenon was, I believe, John
Nishinaga, who would never buy it despite my examples. Are you attempting
to claim that they don't exist? I'm assuming this is the "phenomenon"
you are referring to in your ambiguous final sentence.
>Remember how Mr. Finney's postings on wake-up DPs were shot down by
>various "gods?" The wake up process is a direct parallel with the block
>process.
Please, do not drag this back out. What we had was a disagreement,
which was in fact never settled by the infamous "I'll go to Vegas and DP
everything" claim. I did never claimed wake-ups are some logical
impossibility, but that my experience led me to believe they didn't exist.
Experiences change, and if I am shown conclusively that 'meaties' don't
work, I will change my mind. This is not some "god" thing. You might
recall many years ago back in the early CE days, when I had complete faith
in the ability to DP everything. This faith left when the most accurate
consistent DPers I knew were unable to consistently handle meaty attacks.
I am happy to change my mind when I am shown to be wrong. As it happens,
Finney has yet to do that, and I just let the topic lay because rehashing
it is obviously fruitless.
>I don't think I'd have to scroll too far back, in fact, to find one of
>your "agsf2 gods" posting the same old "deep block stun" info as always.
> AOL saves messages for some months I think (least when I last used
>their newsprogram,
Umm, the "gods" as you like to say are not some secret cabal that
meet on some "members only" board to collectively formulate a.g.sf2 dogma.
Undoubtedly, some respected posters here are wrong about some things. So
what? How does this relate to the example at hand? And as it happens,
Finney and I (at least) agree on the block-stun issue, so take that for
whatever you think it's worth. What you likely remember (although almost
certainly not from me, since I don't get into these things unless really
necessary, this post excluded, of course :) is that someone was talking
about being "deep in block stun" or somthing like that, which is just
an expression and not some technically distinct 'kind' of block stun. Of
course, that's just a guess to try and account for your obviously fallible
recollections, but whatever...
>it seemed like they held on to messages longer than most), bet I could
>catch Mr. Cannon in the act.
My, then you'd have something to write home about, wouldn't you.
Somebody got some extremely obscure videogame fact somewhat confused. And
it was your hero, Tom Cannon to boot. I'm getting excited just thinking
about the mighty coup you could make here. Please, don't hesitate to
search through those filebases, it will be well worth your time...
Seth Killian
Allen J Klein
Seth James Killian@stude
> I'm certainly not going to vouch for the accuracy of a document nearly,
> what, 4 years old (hell, they could have changed things in all that time.
> things did change after Classic). *However*, extended throw ranges do
> exist. The last detractor from this phenomenon was, I believe, John
> Nishinaga, who would never buy it despite my examples. Are you attempting
> to claim that they don't exist? I'm assuming this is the "phenomenon"
> you are referring to in your ambiguous final sentence.
Read it, dude. The implication is that the extended throw range will
work whether your opponent presses a button or not.
BTW - of course I've seen the non-ming use of the term in action. You
can't miss it. At the most blantant level, Zangief's running SPD thingy
is a good example. Hopefully even in SFA2 it will have the power to
grab too-late low sweeps and thus magically increase the range of the
move.
> I did never claimed wake-ups are some logical
> impossibility, but that my experience led me to believe they didn't exist.
> Experiences change, and if I am shown conclusively that 'meaties' don't
> work, I will change my mind.
Ok. Careful with the use of the word "meaty," btw. An attack can be
"well timed" (would take reversal timing to avoid when getting up) but
not necessarily "meaty."
Meaty is something like SSF2T Bison low forward - low forward combo.
That first low forward must be meaty in that it hits a waking up
opponent in a later frame.
J Chensor
(Seth James Killian) wrote:
> I don't think I've ever read Ming's guide to counterthrowing, so
> I'm certainly not going to vouch for the accuracy of a document nearly,
> what, 4 years old (hell, they could have changed things in all that time.
> things did change after Classic). *However*, extended throw ranges do
> exist. The last detractor from this phenomenon was, I believe, John
> Nishinaga, who would never buy it despite my examples. Are you attempting
> to claim that they don't exist? I'm assuming this is the "phenomenon"
> you are referring to in your ambiguous final sentence.
I'm not perfectly clear on the concept of "Extended Throw Ranges" as
I wasn't here on the group when that toic was discussed... I am really
curious as to the technical definition and method of extended throw
ranges... because frankly, if I interpret what you're saying correctly, I
don't think they exist.
> Please, do not drag this back out. What we had was a disagreement,
> which was in fact never settled by the infamous "I'll go to Vegas and DP
> everything" claim. I did never claimed wake-ups are some logical
> impossibility, but that my experience led me to believe they didn't exist.
> Experiences change, and if I am shown conclusively that 'meaties' don't
> work, I will change my mind. This is not some "god" thing. You might
> recall many years ago back in the early CE days, when I had complete faith
> in the ability to DP everything. This faith left when the most accurate
> consistent DPers I knew were unable to consistently handle meaty attacks.
> I am happy to change my mind when I am shown to be wrong.
Please! There is no REASON to be "shown" you are wrong... all you
need to do is to PERFORM the Wake-Ups yourself... after merely HEARING
about it, I practiced and tried it and have found that it ALWAYS beats a
meaty attack. There is no need to be SHOWN that Wake-Ups exist unless you
are too stubborn to accept or attempt new ideas for yourself. I believed
in Meaty Attacks, gave Wake-Ups a try, and found out Wake-Ups do exists
and win over all Meaty Attacks. Perhaps if you tried it long enough, you
MAY actually get it to work. But if you believe everytime you DON'T get
it out was the fault of the Meaty Attack and not your own timing, then
you'll NEVER learn.
- J.C.
--
"What's the sense in arguing when you're all alone?"
- TMBG
_____________________________________________________________________
J Chensor
jche...@ucla.edu
_____________________________________________________________________
J Chensor
<aj...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Read it, dude. The implication is that the extended throw range will
> work whether your opponent presses a button or not.
>
> BTW - of course I've seen the non-ming use of the term in action. You
> can't miss it. At the most blantant level, Zangief's running SPD thingy
> is a good example. Hopefully even in SFA2 it will have the power to
> grab too-late low sweeps and thus magically increase the range of the
> move.
So what exactly is this? That when someone does a move, their range
at which they can be thrown INCREASES? If that's the case, then yeah, it
DOES exist 'cause I've taken advatnage of that with Zang before.
Seth James Killian
> Please! There is no REASON to be "shown" you are wrong... all you
>need to do is to PERFORM the Wake-Ups yourself... after merely HEARING
>about it, I practiced and tried it and have found that it ALWAYS beats a
>meaty attack. There is no need to be SHOWN that Wake-Ups exist unless you
>are too stubborn to accept or attempt new ideas for yourself. I believed
Don't you see how ridiculous this is, on its own? Just reverse
the argument to assert the existence of a supreme meaty as defeating all
wake-up attempts. I think pretty much everyone during the height of Ken
play (in early CE, I would guess, when the DP was *really* cool) thought
the DP was unassailable. Since that time, some (including yourself,
apparently) changed their mind to accomodate belief in meaties. How did
you acquire this new belief? Probably the same way I did, which was to
have all your wake-ups get stuffed for a while. So, you were SHOWN (if
only by yourself) that meaties existed (or so you thought, at the time).
Your insistence on wake-ups has exactly the same dogmatic flavor as
anything I might say, especially since you make no appeal to theory here.
This is why I *hate* seeing this dragged up again. Such bad writing,
all around.
>in Meaty Attacks, gave Wake-Ups a try, and found out Wake-Ups do exists
>and win over all Meaty Attacks. Perhaps if you tried it long enough, you
>MAY actually get it to work. But if you believe everytime you DON'T get
>it out was the fault of the Meaty Attack and not your own timing, then
>you'll NEVER learn.
Heh. Um, believe me, I have reason to be shown. I will say that
I practically never play on homesystems, so all of what happens is for
some stakes (even if it is only a quarter). And as for my "eventually"
getting it to work, supposing they exist, I already do get them to work.
I can time reversals such that I get the reversal message, and get out
of whatever attack it was, etc. We also have plenty of scrubs who firmly
believe in wake-ups. When I call them scrubs, this is only to say that
they can't beat me, not that they can't DP essentially perfectly. From
time to time, I get "reversed", but I still use meaties routinely (although
not always). Using meaties pays off. That is unquestioned by anyone
I have yet heard speak on the subject. This effectiveness is doubtless
somewhat proportional to the relative stress of the situation, where in
no-stakes free home matches, your mileage may vary. To imply that I
don't know the reversal timing is ridiculous. In fact, I would be willing
to bet I could reverse most of your attempted meaty attacks, while
simultaneously catching you with my own. All of this plays to the point
that regardless of the truth about the game (which, from the standpoint
of theory seems to strongly support wake-ups, excepting my (still) as yet
unexplained reversal examples), meaties are an effective strategy vs.
every player I have ever encountered. Hence, I need to meet a player
against whom they are not effective, which is the same as my needing to
be *shown* the error of my ways.
Seth Killian
Seth James Killian
> So what exactly is this? That when someone does a move, their range
>at which they can be thrown INCREASES? If that's the case, then yeah, it
>DOES exist 'cause I've taken advatnage of that with Zang before.
Yes, thanks. That is more or less what we're talking about, and
yes, it does exist. The only interesting addition I will make is that
1) the "throwable" range of the person attempting a move increases rather
dramatically (such that Ryu, with his "average" throw range can throw
you from literally SPD ranges)
2) the increase happens immediately upon button press, and (as far as I
can tell), NO frames of animation need be manifest to produce the
effect.
As an aside, how did you come to acquire this belief in extended
throw ranges? However it happened, I'm sure it wasn't that you were SHOWN
that it was true, be it by your own or someone else's example... :)
Seth Killian
J Chensor
(Seth James Killian) wrote:
> jche...@ucla.edu (J Chensor) writes:
>
> > Please! There is no REASON to be "shown" you are wrong... all you
> >need to do is to PERFORM the Wake-Ups yourself... after merely HEARING
> >about it, I practiced and tried it and have found that it ALWAYS beats a
> >meaty attack. There is no need to be SHOWN that Wake-Ups exist unless you
> >are too stubborn to accept or attempt new ideas for yourself. I believed
>
> Don't you see how ridiculous this is, on its own? Just reverse
> the argument to assert the existence of a supreme meaty as defeating all
> wake-up attempts.
True, but what is the secret Meaty Attack timing? There is no
grasping of it. Do you consider a Meaty Attack as something that is
hitting while the opponent rises? Dies Chun's Stand Close-Up Fierce count
as a Meaty because it lasts such a long time? Or is there a special
timing in which the "Meaty" Attack doesn't work? So far as I have seen, I
have DPed upon Wake-Up against MANY of these types of moves at different
points in their hitting... early in the attack, late in it, and in the
middle of it. There doesn't seem to be a consistent timing that PREVENTS
Wake-Ups whereas there IS a consistent timing that defeats MEATIES. So as
long there is a consistency for the Wake-Up timing, I can show myself they
do exsist... I've have non-consistent results with my Meaty Attacks, thus
I cannot show myself that MEATIES exist.
> I think pretty much everyone during the height of Ken
> play (in early CE, I would guess, when the DP was *really* cool) thought
> the DP was unassailable. Since that time, some (including yourself,
> apparently) changed their mind to accomodate belief in meaties. How did
> you acquire this new belief?
I never understood the basics of Wake-Up timing before so I believed
Meaties existed. However, after reading from Chris the correct timing of
Wake-Ups, I knew what the timing way so then I started performing them
fairly well.
> Probably the same way I did, which was to
> have all your wake-ups get stuffed for a while. So, you were SHOWN (if
> only by yourself) that meaties existed (or so you thought, at the time).
But, as I said, I have Meaty Attacked people all the time but
sometimes got hit... EVERYTIME I got DPed, my attack was in all sorts of
stages! Whereas the enemy who DPed me cancelled his get up at the same
point everytime. This consistency of Wake-Ups vs. the non-consistency of
Meaties has giving me reason to believe in Wake-Ups rather than Meaties.
> Your insistence on wake-ups has exactly the same dogmatic flavor as
> anything I might say, especially since you make no appeal to theory here.
> This is why I *hate* seeing this dragged up again. Such bad writing,
> all around.
Good point. I suppose if you have no desire to continue this
discussion, which has had it's share of discussion, I would perfectly
understand.
> Heh. Um, believe me, I have reason to be shown. I will say that
> I practically never play on homesystems, so all of what happens is for
> some stakes (even if it is only a quarter). And as for my "eventually"
> getting it to work, supposing they exist, I already do get them to work.
> I can time reversals such that I get the reversal message, and get out
> of whatever attack it was, etc. We also have plenty of scrubs who firmly
> believe in wake-ups. When I call them scrubs, this is only to say that
> they can't beat me, not that they can't DP essentially perfectly. From
> time to time, I get "reversed", but I still use meaties routinely (although
> not always). Using meaties pays off. That is unquestioned by anyone
> I have yet heard speak on the subject.
Yes, I will agree to this. Meaties are STILL very effective since
they work often against people who are bad at Wake-Ups. However, if you
can show the other player that you are good enough to Wake-Up even 50% of
the time, it's enough to make them reconsider trying Meaties often. But
that's the whole risk factor... Wake-Ups are 100% assured of victory over
the Meaty Move, but the timing is very tricky. That's what makes the
Wake-Up game so good... WAke-Ups DO win, but they are hard to time
correctly.
> This effectiveness is doubtless
> somewhat proportional to the relative stress of the situation, where in
> no-stakes free home matches, your mileage may vary.
A good point. At home, fear of missing a Wake-Up timing isn't as
effective since it doesn't cost me anything. I see your point.
> To imply that I
> don't know the reversal timing is ridiculous. In fact, I would be willing
> to bet I could reverse most of your attempted meaty attacks, while
> simultaneously catching you with my own.
Sorry for assuming you don't know the timing. I just felt that since
you believe in Meaties more so than in Wake-Ups, you did not WAke-Up
often... but it is false to assume such a thing so I will change what I
said and apologize.
I see your point... although Wake-Ups do exist, they are difficult
enough to pull off successfully 100% of the time that Meaties are still
useful, right? Is that's what you're saying, I agree 100%.
> All of this plays to the point
> that regardless of the truth about the game (which, from the standpoint
> of theory seems to strongly support wake-ups, excepting my (still) as yet
> unexplained reversal examples),
What are these unexplained examples if I may ask?
> meaties are an effective strategy vs.
> every player I have ever encountered. Hence, I need to meet a player
> against whom they are not effective, which is the same as my needing to
> be *shown* the error of my ways.
Point taken and understood. I'll drop this, then.
> Seth Killian
J Chensor
(Seth James Killian) wrote:
Hehehe... Yes, true, I wasn't shown, this was from my own
experience. But I may not believe in this the same way you do, but I have
grabbed with Zangief after missed moves from ranges further that wouldn't
have grabbed if they didn't make the move. As for grabbing RIGHT when
someone hit the button, I'm not too sure about that 'cause I haven't
experienced that a lot. But I'll be glad to believe it if someone could
SHOW me that it works... :-)
Seth James Killian
> I see your point... although Wake-Ups do exist, they are difficult
>enough to pull off successfully 100% of the time that Meaties are still
>useful, right? Is that's what you're saying, I agree 100%.
Yes. Plus, against anyone but an approximately 80% effective
reversal attacker, meaties will pay off in percentages even if they don't
really work. I don't know any consistent 80%+ reversers, hence the meaties.
Further, that 80% figure is based against damage for the DP. Weaker attacks
damage wise (ie Balrog's buff. charge) are correspondingly a worse idea.
> What are these unexplained examples if I may ask?
They center around unexplained occurences of the "reversal"
message. One instance is where you think you did a DP as you stand, get
the reversal, but get nailed anyway. This, I believe to be explained by
you actually doing a FB, but you only see like less than one frame before
you get hit, so it's basically impossible to notice (I used a frame
accurate VCR, and am now convinced that this must just be a missed DP,
and actually a FB).
The second and more bizarre thing hasn't happened to me since Super,
but then again I really don't play DP characters too much anymore. It
is when you stand and block an oncoming HK, and try and buffer in a DP to
hit the HKer. Well, on two separate occassions when I was with a second
person to document it, this was what was tried. You try the DP, but nothing
comes out. Yet, the reversal message does appear. Finally, you do not
get hit by the HK, and both players are unharmed in the exchange. Since
you don't get hit, I figure it can't be a FB, and I am also at a loss to
explain it, except to say that it does not fit in with reversal theory as
currently espoused.
Incidentally, thanks for being sensible in the response. It was
a refreshing change. As it happens, I'd *like* to be shown that the wake-up
does rule supreme, since meaties seem so conceptually awkward, and fit
so badly with the rest of the overall design.
Seth Killian
Allen J Klein
You are both misusing the word "meaty."
What you mean to say is well-timed attack. Meaty only applies to a
ground-based move done early such that new combos become possible.
Sagat can only do the combo: low short, low forward, if the low short is
a meaty attack against an opponent getting up.
In the discussion of wake-up DPs, it doesn't take a meaty attack for the
waking up character to need reversal timing to escape. Any well timed
attack will do.
jk
J Chensor
(Seth James Killian) wrote:
> > What are these unexplained examples if I may ask?
>
> They center around unexplained occurences of the "reversal"
> message. One instance is where you think you did a DP as you stand, get
> the reversal, but get nailed anyway. This, I believe to be explained by
> you actually doing a FB, but you only see like less than one frame before
> you get hit, so it's basically impossible to notice (I used a frame
> accurate VCR, and am now convinced that this must just be a missed DP,
> and actually a FB).
> The second and more bizarre thing hasn't happened to me since Super,
> but then again I really don't play DP characters too much anymore. It
> is when you stand and block an oncoming HK, and try and buffer in a DP to
> hit the HKer. Well, on two separate occassions when I was with a second
> person to document it, this was what was tried. You try the DP, but nothing
> comes out. Yet, the reversal message does appear. Finally, you do not
> get hit by the HK, and both players are unharmed in the exchange. Since
> you don't get hit, I figure it can't be a FB, and I am also at a loss to
> explain it, except to say that it does not fit in with reversal theory as
> currently espoused.
Wow, sounds odd... I haven't experienced something like that
before... but if you and someone else has seen it, who knows?
> Incidentally, thanks for being sensible in the response. It was
> a refreshing change. As it happens, I'd *like* to be shown that the wake-up
> does rule supreme, since meaties seem so conceptually awkward, and fit
> so badly with the rest of the overall design.
No problem. If you say something right, I won't disagree. Too few
people are willing to agree on this newsgroup it seems these days.
Seth James Killian
>You are both misusing the word "meaty."
I know I said I'd try and be nicer, but fuck you. I fucking
introduced this distinction, and you, of all people (take that however
you want) are throwing it back in my face? Did you miss any of the point
of the previous discussion? No? Then ask yourself, as is always a good
idea in your case, "what is the purpose of this post"? Further, it is
just too funny, that Klein, master of misinformation and SF2 half-truths,
now steps boldly forward to correct such a grave oversight. Another
quality post.
Seth Killian
David Scott Boudreau
: Allen J Klein <aj...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
: >You are both misusing the word "meaty."
: I know I said I'd try and be nicer, but fuck you. I fucking
^^^^^^^^^
: introduced this distinction, and you, of all people (take that however
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--whoa, whoa hold on a second here... YOU are the one? YOU are the one that
came up with the term "meaty"? then fuck YOU.
"meaty" is the gayest word i've ever heard used on this newsgroup. do you
consider yourself a 'meaty' kind of guy? where the hell did that come from?
and you know what, i STILL don't know what the hell it means. apparently,
this is because of all the freetime or whatever al has had to post so much
lately, so we wind up with this kind of confusion. but that's ok, cause at
least now i know who the hell started with the word 'meaty'. my fulfillment
of keeping up with this newsgroup is half satisfied.
so what the hell does it mean, anyways? simply 'well-timed' or what? wait a
sec, it doesn't even matter. no one will know what the fuck you're talking
about anyhow. i mean, besides yourself, is there anyone else on this
newsgroup that you can say, 'meaty' to and they actually understand what you
are saying? how many of those people are like al, who thinks he knows and
posts like he knows but doesn't really know.
(now someone bitch at me for how i pronounce rAI yOu, pschht.)
: you want) are throwing it back in my face? Did you miss any of the point
Allen Klein
>Allen J Klein <aj...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>
>>You are both misusing the word "meaty."
>
> I know I said I'd try and be nicer, but fuck you. I fucking
I'll take it as a lie. A guy named Brian Weissman "introduced" the
distinction to this group quite a while ago. Kinda handy that he played
at Sunnyvale, where the term was invented! I believe the first
application of the term on this group was a note that Sagat duck short,
stand roundhouse, low tiger had incredible dizzy potential.
FYI - fuck me or no, the Finnies, Mr. Chensor, Apoc, Mr. Beasley (?), and
many other posters STILL misuse the word "meaty," whether you, sir, are
enlightened or not.
jk
--
Thomas Calvin Cannon
Allen Klein <yan...@max.tiac.net> wrote:
>In article <4jfs8k$m...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> skil...@students.uiuc.edu (Seth James Killian) writes:
>>Allen J Klein <aj...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>>
>>>You are both misusing the word "meaty."
>>
>> I know I said I'd try and be nicer, but fuck you. I fucking
>>introduced this distinction, and you, of all people (take that however
>>you want) are throwing it back in my face?
>
>I'll take it as a lie. A guy named Brian Weissman "introduced" the
>distinction to this group quite a while ago.
1) Open mouth
2) Insert foot
Heck..insert the whole freaking leg. I *vividly* remember this episode for
several reasons. The first is that I came out on the losing end of a rather
drawn out and bitter net.debate. The second is that I ended up getting
my ass handed to me in direct play by Mr. Weissman and Jon Prentice. So
here's what happened.
Quite a while ago, a bunch of the UIUCers on the group introducted the idea
of a "well timed" attack. This was a jumping attack executed against a
fallen opponent. The theory was that the defender had to block or eat the
jump-attack. DPing, crouching, or anything else would get stuffed by the
"well timed" jump attack. Eu Ming Lee apparently didn't believe this,
hence the term "Minging" (where you try to DP out of well-timed jump attack
and subsequently eat a combo).
Of course, no one on the net believed the UIUCers, especially me.
Then along came Brian Weissman, who also claimed that these attacks
existed. To up the ante, he offered to take a trip down to Stanford and
show me first hand. The well-timed attacks of Weissman and his Golfland
partners in crime were different than the UIUCers only in that they were
initiated from the ground. The Golfland term for this was a "meaty" attack,
which is where you're getting terribly confused. A "meaty" is just a
well-timed attack. Why meaty? How the hell should I know.
Anyway, after getting my ass handed to me, I posted quite a large review
describing the incredible power of these new attacks. Seth was quick to
point out that I was in fact wrong in my original stance and rubbed my face
in the dirt quite a bit.
With that argument resolved, we quickly moved on to bickering about whether
ground based meaties were suprerior to UIUC jumping meaties. Such is
life in alt.games.sf2
[snip]
>FYI - fuck me or no, the Finnies, Mr. Chensor, Apoc, Mr. Beasley (?), and
>many other posters STILL misuse the word "meaty," whether you, sir, are
>enlightened or not.
You have a habit of making yourself look silly. Stop. Please.
---
Tom Cannon
ink...@leland.stanford.edu
Thomas Calvin Cannon
David Scott Boudreau <dbou...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>Seth James Killian (skil...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>
>
>: >You are both misusing the word "meaty."
>
>: I know I said I'd try and be nicer, but fuck you. I fucking
>: introduced this distinction, and you, of all people (take that however
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>--whoa, whoa hold on a second here... YOU are the one? YOU are the one that
>came up with the term "meaty"? then fuck YOU.
>
1) Seth didn't come up with the term "meaty." He did however, discribe
the "meaty" phenomenon long before the term "meaty" found its way to
this group.
[snip]
>so what the hell does it mean, anyways? simply 'well-timed' or what? wait a
>sec, it doesn't even matter. no one will know what the fuck you're talking
>about anyhow. i mean, besides yourself, is there anyone else on this
>newsgroup that you can say, 'meaty' to and they actually understand what you
>are saying?
2) "Meaty" has become part of the regular vocab of this group, though it
is used less frequently than terms like "deep" and "block stun." If
you don't know...ask. But don't go raving like a banshee because you
don't like the way the term sounds. There's enough shit on this group
already.
[snip]
---
Tom Cannon
ink...@leland.stanford.edu
Allen Klein
>In article <4jhejq$1...@camelot.ccs.neu.edu>,
>David Scott Boudreau <dbou...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>Seth James Killian (skil...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>>: Allen J Klein <aj...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>
>1) Seth didn't come up with the term "meaty." He did however, discribe
> the "meaty" phenomenon long before the term "meaty" found its way to
> this group.
Hmm.. something is not quite right here... OH! no cursing! ^_^
I am 100% certain Seth did not introduce the term to this group.
(grr.. fucking 2400 baud noisy line... sorry if this post is garbled)
jk
--
Allen Klein
>The Golfland term for this was a "meaty" attack,
>which is where you're getting terribly confused. A "meaty" is just a
>well-timed attack. Why meaty? How the hell should I know.
No way. I specifically remember a couple of posts where Mr. Weissman
chastized people for using the term to include standard well timed
attacks and _especially_ jump attacks. He definately wrote a clarifying
post or two explaining why the word meaty did not include well timed jump
attacks.
Get the dude (or Mr. Wallace) on the phone. Do they still play at all?
Have e-mail?
--
Seth James Killian
>>1) Seth didn't come up with the term "meaty." He did however, discribe
>> the "meaty" phenomenon long before the term "meaty" found its way to
>> this group.
>Hmm.. something is not quite right here... OH! no cursing! ^_^
>I am 100% certain Seth did not introduce the term to this group.
Okay, since my original claim that got you calling "liar" is
no longer quoted, let me say it again "I fucking introduced the distinction..."
See that? The word "distinction"? As in, to distinguish between one thing,
and another? Nowhere in the post did I claim to have introduced the term
"Meaty", nor would I want such dubious fame. Everyone knows that was
Weismann. In fact, although I use it due to common practice, you might
remember me bitching about it then because of how ridiculous it sounded.
I still sometimes use Ming's alternate term: "bjorking", as in, "I really
got bjorked there."
The *distinction* was the one you were originally referring to,
between "meaty" attacks, and "well timed attacks". This distinction only
really came about part way through the discussion, when it was claimed
that although some attacks hit "meatily" (like Chun's palm press, Zans
crouching RH), just doing them like this was no guarantee whatsoever that
they would necessarily be well-timed, in the sense that they would stuff
DP-attempts. And yes, I introduced this, although you'll be happy to know
that in the current pro-DP atmosphere, the distinction would be mostly
meaningless.
You, however, are still a retard, if only for deficient reading
skills coupled with a tendency to go apeshit over nothing. Boudreau, if
you ever contribute anything whatsoever to the group, much less learn how
to throw a FB or use indoor toilets, please, be sure to post it.
Seth Killian
Seth James Killian
>>The Golfland term for this was a "meaty" attack,
>>which is where you're getting terribly confused. A "meaty" is just a
>>well-timed attack. Why meaty? How the hell should I know.
>No way. I specifically remember a couple of posts where Mr. Weissman
>chastized people for using the term to include standard well timed
>attacks and _especially_ jump attacks. He definately wrote a clarifying
>post or two explaining why the word meaty did not include well timed jump
>attacks.
After the point was brought out in discussion, he may have tried
to exclude jumping attacks, I can't say I remember. If he did however,
he would have been wrong, in that (assuming the phenomenon to exist at all)
jumping attacks can be both meaty and well timed in much the same way as
ground based attacks. Although he and his Sunnyvale pals may have only
used the term for ground based attacks, that would simply have been their
incomplete application of their own term.
Further, if you had been listening closely, you would have caught
pre-Sunnyvale mentions of UIUC ground based "meaty" combos, even if we
didn't go so far as to give it a special name. I guess we were too busy
jumping in like a bunch of freaks. But I know, since I don't think much
of you, you must seek every available chance to try and impugn anything
I might say. I think you have graduated to honorary KotM, every month.
You just have standing kook status, until you demonstrate (how? I could
never guess) something remotely relevant to say.
>Get the dude (or Mr. Wallace) on the phone. Do they still play at all?
>Have e-mail?
That would be awesome. "Hello, Brian Weissman? Hi, I am some
complete fucking moron with nothing better to do than argue about exactly
how bad I am at SF2. Do you remember about a year ago when you said some
exact thing about some trivial point? Hello?"
Seth Killian
Thomas Calvin Cannon
Allen Klein <yan...@max.tiac.net> wrote:
>
>>The Golfland term for this was a "meaty" attack,
>>which is where you're getting terribly confused. A "meaty" is just a
>>well-timed attack. Why meaty? How the hell should I know.
>
>No way. I specifically remember a couple of posts where Mr. Weissman
>chastized people for using the term to include standard well timed
>attacks and _especially_ jump attacks. He definately wrote a clarifying
>post or two explaining why the word meaty did not include well timed jump
>attacks.
Whatever. You're quibbling. The basic point is that if you want to credit
any one person to "bringing" the idea of well timed attacks to the group,
that credit has to go to Killian. Terminology is irrelevant.
---
Tom Cannon
ink...@leland.stanford.edu
Chris Finnie
>
>In article <4jh1hn$b...@news.tiac.net>,
>Allen Klein <yan...@max.tiac.net> wrote:
>>FYI - fuck me or no, the Finnies, Mr. Chensor, Apoc, Mr. Beasley (?), and
>>many other posters STILL misuse the word "meaty," whether you, sir, are
>>enlightened or not.
>
>You have a habit of making yourself look silly. Stop. Please.
A hamburger is meaty I guess... And I don't care if I misuse the word
meaty, cause everyone understands what I'm saying when I use it right?
chris f
>
>---
>Tom Cannon
>ink...@leland.stanford.edu
>
>
CreeD
>jche...@ucla.edu (J Chensor) writes:
>> So what exactly is this? That when someone does a move, their range
>>at which they can be thrown INCREASES? If that's the case, then yeah, it
>>DOES exist 'cause I've taken advatnage of that with Zang before.
> Yes, thanks. That is more or less what we're talking about, and
>yes, it does exist. The only interesting addition I will make is that
>1) the "throwable" range of the person attempting a move increases rather
> dramatically (such that Ryu, with his "average" throw range can throw
> you from literally SPD ranges)
>2) the increase happens immediately upon button press, and (as far as I
> can tell), NO frames of animation need be manifest to produce the
> effect.
> As an aside, how did you come to acquire this belief in extended
>throw ranges? However it happened, I'm sure it wasn't that you were SHOWN
>that it was true, be it by your own or someone else's example... :)
Usually crap like this comes from the CPU doing it to us and we
wonder "what the fuck!? What's going on here?"
I have a question that the CPU raised in me today <okay, I saw a human
do this too> . .. what's the deal with throwing someone out of a move
while it is executing? I know obviously that wake-up throwing and
reversal throws are clearly an easy example, but I've seen
run-of-the-mill non wake-up and non-reversal throws grab right through
anything, almost like the "special" throws that the grapplers have.
Does it work like, I can throw anything that is not yet in the "hit
frames" of animation? This phenomenon is especially obvious when you
play dhalsim, and you can see the dhalsim play go into his fun move
animation really clearly and get thrown a split second later... like
I've seen 'sim thrown out of low fierces. I'm probably just a little
to inured to VF and the whole idea of throwing someone out of a move's
execution seems really foreign to me. Oh, another /wonderful/
example.... Gen did his vega style roll in whatever style and got
grabbed out of it LATE in the roll, like just before the "poke". ..
that sucks. People could probably throw him out of that on reaction
or prediction all the time.
CreeD.
> Seth Killian
J Chensor
> Usually crap like this comes from the CPU doing it to us and we
> wonder "what the fuck!? What's going on here?"
> I have a question that the CPU raised in me today <okay, I saw a human
> do this too> . .. what's the deal with throwing someone out of a move
> while it is executing? I know obviously that wake-up throwing and
> reversal throws are clearly an easy example, but I've seen
> run-of-the-mill non wake-up and non-reversal throws grab right through
> anything, almost like the "special" throws that the grapplers have.
> Does it work like, I can throw anything that is not yet in the "hit
> frames" of animation? This phenomenon is especially obvious when you
> play dhalsim, and you can see the dhalsim play go into his fun move
> animation really clearly and get thrown a split second later... like
> I've seen 'sim thrown out of low fierces. I'm probably just a little
> to inured to VF and the whole idea of throwing someone out of a move's
> execution seems really foreign to me. Oh, another /wonderful/
> example.... Gen did his vega style roll in whatever style and got
> grabbed out of it LATE in the roll, like just before the "poke". ..
> that sucks. People could probably throw him out of that on reaction
> or prediction all the time.
Dude, this is SF, not VF. You can throw people no matter WhAT frame
of animation they are in unless the frame is invincible. So you can throw
people out of any frame. I've seen Sagat get grabbed out of the second
frame of his Tiger Uppercut before.
> CreeD.
Michael Christopher Kutas
Yeah, as long as the move isn't in the "hit" animation, then you can be
thrown out of it. As for Dhalsim in SFA2, I believe he has some moves
that will go through the opponent if he's in too close kind of like in
ST, where Vega's low claws would sometimes go through the opponent and
not hit when at point-blank range. Also, Vega could be thrown out of his
roll too, if you didn't space it out right. I think this happened with
his fierce roll most often because after one or two rolls he seems to
bounce back farther and you have time to either throw or reverse him.
Mike Kutas
CreeD
>of animation they are in unless the frame is invincible. So you can throw
>people out of any frame. I've seen Sagat get grabbed out of the second
>frame of his Tiger Uppercut before.
Ewwwwwwww.
...well, there's something that needs to be messed with, not for the
sake of realism, but for the sake of the gameplay.
CreeD.
Allen J Klein
Cr...@ucla.edu
What? It's fine the way it is. If you want VF, play VF.
J Chensor
> > Dude, this is SF, not VF. You can throw people no matter WhAT frame
> >of animation they are in unless the frame is invincible. So you can throw
> >people out of any frame. I've seen Sagat get grabbed out of the second
> >frame of his Tiger Uppercut before.
>
> Ewwwwwwww.
>
> ...well, there's something that needs to be messed with, not for the
> sake of realism, but for the sake of the gameplay.
>
> CreeD.
Forget that, that's what makes SF so GOOD when it comes to throws...
I HATE the fact that you can't throw people in VF out of their moves...
that BITES. SO MANY TIMES I've wanted to Low Throw a dumb jerk Low
Punching with Wolf... but just because he BARELY started the punch, I
can't throw him anymore. It's totally crap.
CreeD
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.games.sf2: 5-Apr-96 Re: SF2 Terminology by
>Cr...@ucla.edu
>> > Dude, this is SF, not VF. You can throw people no matter WhAT frame
>> >of animation they are in unless the frame is invincible. So you can throw
>> >people out of any frame. I've seen Sagat get grabbed out of the second
>> >frame of his Tiger Uppercut before.
>>
>> Ewwwwwwww.
>>
>> ...well, there's something that needs to be messed with, not for the
>> sake of realism, but for the sake of the gameplay.
>What? It's fine the way it is. If you want VF, play VF.
thanks, I do... no, I just think that it would add to the game.
<shrug>. It strikes me as odd that I can grabb people out of
anything. <not to mention grab them right off the floor> ... I mean,
if the example I made is typical, moves like gen's roll could always
be snagged with throws. Having to find a unique counter for it
instead of the throw would seem to me to add a little depth.
CreeD
>In article <4k2gk6$1m...@saba.info.ucla.edu>, Cr...@ucla.edu (CreeD) wrote:
>> > Dude, this is SF, not VF. You can throw people no matter WhAT frame
>> >of animation they are in unless the frame is invincible. So you can throw
>> >people out of any frame. I've seen Sagat get grabbed out of the second
>> >frame of his Tiger Uppercut before.
>>
>> Ewwwwwwww.
>>
>> ...well, there's something that needs to be messed with, not for the
>> sake of realism, but for the sake of the gameplay.
>>
>> CreeD.
> Forget that, that's what makes SF so GOOD when it comes to throws...
>I HATE the fact that you can't throw people in VF out of their moves...
>that BITES. SO MANY TIMES I've wanted to Low Throw a dumb jerk Low
>Punching with Wolf... but just because he BARELY started the punch, I
>can't throw him anymore. It's totally crap.
> - J.C.
bullshit. Stop, breathe, and take a second and think what it would
mean if you could do this. Okay, done? Good. Hopefully that
suffices. That's why I like VF. I'm SF has plenty of this too, buut
the fact is, because you can't just grab people while waking up or
uunder certain circumstances means you have to find an effective
couunter. For your example: that's what the body blow is for. And
it IS possible to throw someone after a low punch although it's rpetty
insane and your opponent has to be pretty predictably spazzy on the
low jabs. That's what they usually are though :) .. and if you've
been reading the posts about those GREAT "wheel of fortune" tapes,
you can low punch interrupt an attack and then, depending on whther
they're standing or crouching, getin a low grabb or standing one. It
works. I tried it. It's vaguely difficult. But it works great for
low attacks. And the VF throw system seems to me to be a lot better
because you're always working for the throw positioning <they're so
muuch more effective than SF> ... you don't generally wait for whiffs
then punish with a throw in SF I assume . In VF it's a staple. And
the art of timing throws between attacks, instead of just having an
easy grab regardless of what button or combination of buttons the
other guy pressed... well, obviously that's gotta add to the game, it
doesn't just make it harder, it simply desimplifies something that
strikes me as somewhat no brainer from SF. Of course, I've been
brainwashed by the VF series for a while now, so...
CreeD.
J Chensor
> Allen J Klein <aj...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Excerpts from netnews.alt.games.sf2: 5-Apr-96 Re: SF2 Terminology by
> >Cr...@ucla.edu
> >> > Dude, this is SF, not VF. You can throw people no matter WhAT frame
> >> >of animation they are in unless the frame is invincible. So you can throw
> >> >people out of any frame. I've seen Sagat get grabbed out of the second
> >> >frame of his Tiger Uppercut before.
> >>
> >> Ewwwwwwww.
> >>
> >> ...well, there's something that needs to be messed with, not for the
> >> sake of realism, but for the sake of the gameplay.
>
> >What? It's fine the way it is. If you want VF, play VF.
>
> thanks, I do... no, I just think that it would add to the game.
> <shrug>. It strikes me as odd that I can grabb people out of
> anything. <not to mention grab them right off the floor> ... I mean,
> if the example I made is typical, moves like gen's roll could always
> be snagged with throws. Having to find a unique counter for it
> instead of the throw would seem to me to add a little depth.
If moves like Gen's roll could be snagged by throws, then it would be
a problem. But let's face it, Gen's Roll has a BETTER hit range than
everyone else's Throw range so it CAN'T be thrown except with a Reversal
Throw. Old Zangief could throw people out of LOTS of stuff, but he'd be
the only one to do it now. In SFA2, with the decrease in throw ranges for
everyone, no one could throw mvoes. I'm talknig when people try to
over-head you too alte, you can throw them first and stuff like that. If
you could throw people out of every move like Gen's Roll, yes, we would
have a problem.
- J.C.
> >jk
> >--
> >0UY0T allen jamie klein S1HT0D yow! 3MT3LU0Y yan...@cmu.edu 0DYHW
--
J Chensor
> jche...@ucla.edu (J Chensor) wrote:
> > Forget that, that's what makes SF so GOOD when it comes to throws...
> >I HATE the fact that you can't throw people in VF out of their moves...
> >that BITES. SO MANY TIMES I've wanted to Low Throw a dumb jerk Low
> >Punching with Wolf... but just because he BARELY started the punch, I
> >can't throw him anymore. It's totally crap.
>
> > - J.C.
We gonna start the Thread O' Doom again?
> bullshit. Stop, breathe, and take a second and think what it would
> mean if you could do this. Okay, done? Good. Hopefully that
> suffices.
Let me think about it... hmm... that means, only Jeffry and Wolf
would be able to throw Low Punches... that means, they would kick butt...
hey, I LIKE IT! I don't see what's wrong with it? :-)
> That's why I like VF. I'm SF has plenty of this too, but
> the fact is, because you can't just grab people while waking up or
> uunder certain circumstances means you have to find an effective
> couunter.
SF is ALL of that. Throw is HARDLY a counter to ANYTHING. My point
is that, yes you canthrow someone, EVERYONE out of any animation frame so
long as it is a) touching the floor. b) not invincible.
This is NOT a problem, you see, since most people can't throw past a
hit. Even short ranged moves cannot be thrown. You could NOT possibly
throw Gen out of his roll unless you were getting up. You could NOT throw
Dhalsim out of his slide. Etc. What I mean by you can throw people no
matter what is that if I jumping Roundhosue and run up for a Throw and
Dhalsim STARTS to slide when I get there, I can still throw him. But you
cannot simply throw people in the middle of moves. I know if Jeffry and
Wolf could snag people WHILE their punch was pout would be too much... but
if he could at least snag them BEFORE it comes out, that would be fair.
> For your example: that's what the body blow is for. And
> it IS possible to throw someone after a low punch although it's rpetty
> insane and your opponent has to be pretty predictably spazzy on the
> low jabs. That's what they usually are though :)
After a Low Punch but not before. And the spazzy Low jabbers are the
toughest to throw IMO.
> .. and if you've
> been reading the posts about those GREAT "wheel of fortune" tapes,
> you can low punch interrupt an attack and then, depending on whther
> they're standing or crouching, getin a low grabb or standing one. It
> works. I tried it. It's vaguely difficult. But it works great for
> low attacks. And the VF throw system seems to me to be a lot better
> because you're always working for the throw positioning <they're so
> muuch more effective than SF>
Wait, you're saying that you can throw everything in SF but you can't
in VF2 and VF2's is more effective? Your logic doesn't follow (YES, I'm
feelin' the evil biting comments of the Thread O' Doom again!). SF Throws
are MUCH less effective so how could you complain that they throw
everything?
>... you don't generally wait for whiffs
> then punish with a throw in SF I assume . In VF it's a staple. And
> the art of timing throws between attacks, instead of just having an
> easy grab regardless of what button or combination of buttons the
> other guy pressed... well, obviously that's gotta add to the game, it
> doesn't just make it harder, it simply desimplifies something that
> strikes me as somewhat no brainer from SF. Of course, I've been
> brainwashed by the VF series for a while now, so...
Well, the whole point started out as saying that you CAN throw people
in any frame of animation in SF provided they aren't airborne and that
they aren't invincible. Is is POSSIBLE but 99.99% unlikely unless you
have Zangief's Old SPD. So basically, sticking with the original point,
it's NOT a bad thing nor a particularly useful thing.
> CreeD.
- J.C.
CreeD
>In article <4k7rhj$1f...@saba.info.ucla.edu>, Cr...@ucla.edu (CreeD) wrote:
>> jche...@ucla.edu (J Chensor) wrote:
>> > Forget that, that's what makes SF so GOOD when it comes to throws...
>> >I HATE the fact that you can't throw people in VF out of their moves...
>> >that BITES. SO MANY TIMES I've wanted to Low Throw a dumb jerk Low
>> >Punching with Wolf... but just because he BARELY started the punch, I
>> >can't throw him anymore. It's totally crap.
>>
>> > - J.C.
> We gonna start the Thread O' Doom again?
seems kinda pointless when VF3 is due this summer... but hell... for
this specific case, which do you think has the better throwing system?
My vote is VF2. Naturalmente.
>> bullshit. Stop, breathe, and take a second and think what it would
>> mean if you could do this. Okay, done? Good. Hopefully that
>> suffices.
> Let me think about it... hmm... that means, only Jeffry and Wolf
>would be able to throw Low Punches... that means, they would kick butt...
>hey, I LIKE IT! I don't see what's wrong with it? :-)
actually, it just means that anyone FACING jeff or wolf couldn't throw
low punches. basically, there's nothing to stop them from walking up
and just hitting d+P+G rapidly... But anyway, if we could throw
during low punches, it would obviously extend to high punches too,
which means that totally trashes PK or PKG as an offensive move, it
could only be used minor counter... blEAh. You'd be really safe just
doing d/f,d/f+P+K until the cows come home with wolf or jeff.. sure
you' mgith get sidekicked sometimes, but otherwise anything your
opponent threw out otherwise would get snagged, you'd duck under all
high attacks and grab through low attacks. Only midlevels would work.
I wouldn't want wolf or jeff any stronger than they already are.
They're 5 and 6 on my ranking list respectively. That's good. And
they're specifically good against some like number 2. Jacky and number
4. Kage.
>> That's why I like VF. I'm SF has plenty of this too, but
>> the fact is, because you can't just grab people while waking up or
>> uunder certain circumstances means you have to find an effective
>> couunter.
> SF is ALL of that. Throw is HARDLY a counter to ANYTHING. My point
>is that, yes you canthrow someone, EVERYONE out of any animation frame so
>long as it is a) touching the floor. b) not invincible.
> This is NOT a problem, you see, since most people can't throw past a
>hit. Even short ranged moves cannot be thrown. You could NOT possibly
>throw Gen out of his roll unless you were getting up.
IT HAPPENED.
>You could NOT throw
>Dhalsim out of his slide. Etc. What I mean by you can throw people no
>matter what is that if I jumping Roundhosue and run up for a Throw and
>Dhalsim STARTS to slide when I get there, I can still throw him. But you
>cannot simply throw people in the middle of moves. I know if Jeffry and
>Wolf could snag people WHILE their punch was pout would be too much... but
>if he could at least snag them BEFORE it comes out, that would be fair.
he can.. first frame of animation only :)
And if not, hey, it's a low punch. it might trade in your favor :)
>> For your example: that's what the body blow is for. And
>> it IS possible to throw someone after a low punch although it's rpetty
>> insane and your opponent has to be pretty predictably spazzy on the
>> low jabs. That's what they usually are though :)
> After a Low Punch but not before. And the spazzy Low jabbers are the
>toughest to throw IMO.
well, yes and no. I guess once you're at the level where you can do
it, it doesn't matter whether they spaz or time them... blehaAA.
Oh well, sidekick + pounce does more damage than d+P+G anyway.
>> .. and if you've
>> been reading the posts about those GREAT "wheel of fortune" tapes,
>> you can low punch interrupt an attack and then, depending on whther
>> they're standing or crouching, getin a low grabb or standing one. It
>> works. I tried it. It's vaguely difficult. But it works great for
>> low attacks. And the VF throw system seems to me to be a lot better
>> because you're always working for the throw positioning <they're so
>> muuch more effective than SF>
> Wait, you're saying that you can throw everything in SF but you can't
>in VF2 and VF2's is more effective? Your logic doesn't follow (YES, I'm
>feelin' the evil biting comments of the Thread O' Doom again!).
It follows perfectly to me!?? .... that's what I'm saying, yes, not
being able to throw everything beats being able to throw everything.
This is more "effective" in making a good game, not more effectrive as
in a more effective strategy damage wise or whatever. Although it
just happens that it is in VF2 and that if VF2 were like SF2 in the
throw dept. it'd be hell...
Come on thread of doom boy. Tell me what clever and tricky trick I'm
going to go for if my opponent is a quarter inch away from me when I
wake up and he's not doing something invincible or hopping? Wake up
throws beating anything, including lv.1 supers, is kinda absurd to me,
although I will concede that anyone THAT close to you while you wake
up is probably greedy or stupid for hanging within wakeup throw range.
Oh,. nifty bit I thought you'd like to know... 'gief's extended throw
range phenomenon is still intact. A friend of mine <chris> SPDed
someone from absurdly long range <after I think their SWEEP or
something... it might have even been a low attack, that's neat> ...
all three of us, me, chris, and his opponent, were all like "whaOh!@!"
...it's definitly in effect, so it's worth trying for the SPD motion
at odd moments and risking a whiff I think.
> SF Throws
>are MUCH less effective so how could you complain that they throw
>everything?
Just because they're still pretty no brainer and still DECENTLY
damaging as long as they aren't teched out of. You might not see them
DONE all the time, but if someone abuses the throws, it shows... I
mean, they're easy as hell to do, same motion for anyone, and of
course, unblockable with zero execution time. The only downside for
going for throws all the time is that your occasional strong or fierce
pucnh will come out instead, but as long as the thrower is within
throw range...
I saw chris snag someone with Adon's throw three times in a row today,
pretty humorous.. he was desperate and the timer was ticking down.
<did I say ticking?! huhuhuuh beavis> ..anyway. Mike, the guy who
works at the arcade and victim of this, SWORE he was getting a move
out but got tossed anyway. Interesting but doesn't prove anything.
But food for thought I guess, if someone has good foot speed and
constantly tries for throws, they will probably constantly get in and
get them.
>>... you don't generally wait for whiffs
>> then punish with a throw in SF I assume . In VF it's a staple. And
>> the art of timing throws between attacks, instead of just having an
>> easy grab regardless of what button or combination of buttons the
>> other guy pressed... well, obviously that's gotta add to the game, it
>> doesn't just make it harder, it simply desimplifies something that
>> strikes me as somewhat no brainer from SF. Of course, I've been
>> brainwashed by the VF series for a while now, so...
> Well, the whole point started out as saying that you CAN throw people
>in any frame of animation in SF provided they aren't airborne and that
>they aren't invincible. Is is POSSIBLE but 99.99% unlikely unless you
>have Zangief's Old SPD. So basically, sticking with the original point,
>it's NOT a bad thing nor a particularly useful thing.
but it wouldn't hurt to mess with it would it? :) .. woudl you
prefer old throw ranges back, as in SF2 classic dhalsim's, old SPD,
etc., over invincibility quotient?
>> CreeD.
> - J.C.
CreeD
>In article <4k7r4q$u...@saba.info.ucla.edu>, Cr...@ucla.edu (CreeD) wrote:
>> Allen J Klein <aj...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Excerpts from netnews.alt.games.sf2: 5-Apr-96 Re: SF2 Terminology by
>> >Cr...@ucla.edu
>> >> > Dude, this is SF, not VF. You can throw people no matter WhAT frame
>> >> >of animation they are in unless the frame is invincible. So you can throw
>> >> >people out of any frame. I've seen Sagat get grabbed out of the second
>> >> >frame of his Tiger Uppercut before.
>> >>
>> >> Ewwwwwwww.
>> >>
>> >> ...well, there's something that needs to be messed with, not for the
>> >> sake of realism, but for the sake of the gameplay.
>>
>> >What? It's fine the way it is. If you want VF, play VF.
>>
>> thanks, I do... no, I just think that it would add to the game.
>> <shrug>. It strikes me as odd that I can grabb people out of
>> anything. <not to mention grab them right off the floor> ... I mean,
>> if the example I made is typical, moves like gen's roll could always
>> be snagged with throws. Having to find a unique counter for it
>> instead of the throw would seem to me to add a little depth.
> If moves like Gen's roll could be snagged by throws, then it would be
>a problem. But let's face it, Gen's Roll has a BETTER hit range than
>everyone else's Throw range so it CAN'T be thrown except with a Reversal
>Throw.
did you see my original post? I saw it. Withouut being a wake up or
reversal, I saw someone just grab gen out of his roll... LATE in the
roll, just before the "poke". That was what prompted the original
question about being able to grab during execution. It didn't give a
reversal message for it. I think the hit range for it is pretty
minimal as compared to the distance the hit area is from the main part
of his body and that's why he gets snagged. <ditto for say, a tiger
upper>
> Old Zangief could throw people out of LOTS of stuff, but he'd be
>the only one to do it now. In SFA2, with the decrease in throw ranges for
>everyone, no one could throw mvoes. I'm talknig when people try to
>over-head you too alte, you can throw them first and stuff like that. If
>you could throw people out of every move like Gen's Roll, yes, we would
>have a problem.
> - J.C.
I think the problem is specific to gen's roll, but I noticed a
wake-up seems to beat damn near any standing attack <actually, not
Sakura's overhead> .. and I saw someone throw guile out of his kick
super TWICE.
Allen J Klein
Cr...@ucla.edu
>
> seems kinda pointless when VF3 is due this summer... but hell... for
> this specific case, which do you think has the better throwing system?
> My vote is VF2. Naturalmente.
Haven't you admitted that you don't know a whole lot about SF? The
ability to throw people out of non-invincible moves seemed like it was
news to you.
How can you possibly participate in a SF vs. VF debate when you are a SF
beginner? Puh-leeze!
CreeD
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.games.sf2: 9-Apr-96 Re: SF2 Terminology by
>Cr...@ucla.edu
>> > We gonna start the Thread O' Doom again?
>>
>> seems kinda pointless when VF3 is due this summer... but hell... for
>> this specific case, which do you think has the better throwing system?
>> My vote is VF2. Naturalmente.
>Haven't you admitted that you don't know a whole lot about SF? The
>ability to throw people out of non-invincible moves seemed like it was
>news to you.
>How can you possibly participate in a SF vs. VF debate when you are a SF
>beginner? Puh-leeze!
first of all, drop the condescending bullshit, because people on this
group often sound as if they feel the exact same way about you.
Anyway, I'm no beginner and I am familiar with it, I used to be DECENT
in hyper fighting and at that point I ditched the series. <due in part
to the fact that our arcade wouldn't carry them after that point...
crappy alladin's castle.> Anyway. Nothing on this group has been
mentioned that I'mm not familiar with, and I got most of my shit from
just playing arcade and SNES hyper fighting until my eyes dried up
practically... 'Kay!? I was not really aware that non specialty
grabs that were not wake-ups could toss people out of moves, probably
because I never even saw the move <attempted move> come out. I
thought the move took priority over the throw if both happened to be
done at the same time within throw range. Forgive me. It strikes me
as odd NOW, but then, a LOT of things in alpha and alpha two have
struck me as odd.
CreeD.
Brian Chan
>Haven't you admitted that you don't know a whole lot about SF? The
>ability to throw people out of non-invincible moves seemed like it was
>news to you.
>How can you possibly participate in a SF vs. VF debate when you are a SF
>beginner? Puh-leeze!
This coming from someone who thought you could interrupt block stun with
a jump.