Long Discussion: Why Alpha 3 Bites the Big One
Sean Hoyles
Food For Thought: Why Alpha 3 Bites the Big One
After many months of play and what I consider to be a fairly open mind,
I have finally come to the conclusion that Alpha 3 is a truly awful
game. While this has been said many, many times before by others, I
would at least like to take the time to explain exactly why I
personally think this is the case. Of course, I am not naive enough to
believe that any of Capcom's fighter games are evenly balanced in all
aspects of its game play and so I gave Alpha 3 a fair chance even when
I knew early on that certain characters were already dominating the
play. But I now feel that A3 actually commits an even greater sin
beyond destroying game balance. Its properties actually remove much of
the game's depth as well and, as a consequence, much of the fun factor
along with it. Playing a game which is not fun is not only pointless,
it's also stupid. So, in a way, this might very well be my swan song to
Alpha 3 (sorry Greg!), probably one of the most broken games Capcom has
ever had the shame to put in front of players. So, for the moment, let
me take the time to explain why I am so cynical about this game, if you
will.
Reason #1
Shabby Game Elements Implemented
A little of this is probably true of every SF game but in Alpha 3, it's
overkill. For a game that was being developed for such a considerably
long time, this one is just riddled with bugs and annoyances which not
only make no sense, they significantly influence much of the approach
to game play. Let's consider the following examples:
a) Ridiculous hit priorities - this is one of the worse items that I
can think of. Way too many moves in the game that not only trade but
often completely SNUFF other moves too effectively. Even moves which
have no business hitting at all given the circumstances (what my
brother calls an "ironic counter"). This is most obvious in the form of
anti-air counters that take out your jump attacks cleanly even though
they should not in any way being doing so. Guy's ducking Strong anti-
air is perhaps forgivable in this respect although it is extremely
annoying. However, others like Fei Long's ducking Fierce anti-air with
his head (?) and Ken/Ryu ducking Forward sweeps as anti-air are plain
foolish. Charlie's standing Fierce backhand which actually strikes
cleanly with his face is another rotten example. While this system of
anti-airing can be adjusted to over time, the whole thing just leads
players to be lazy IMO. Distancing and correct placement of moves takes
a backseat to just throwing highly successful moves on a regular basis.
One of the most notable examples of this is again Fei Long whose
ducking Fierce not only takes out jumpers reasonably well but ALSO
snuffs ground attackers very effectively to boot. This generally
promotes laziness in the player since they can largely confine
themselves to the use of a single button or two to achieve high levels
of success. Same goes for Zangief's standing and Jumping Fierces as
well. The players can't really be blamed for using these moves, of
course. After all, when such moves meet with high success, why would
you not use them? However, in almost every way, the priority system in
A3 discourages the finer points of timing and distancing and encourages
abuse of many normal moves.
b) Awful hit detection
Most prominent example I can think of? Akuma's Jab Dragon Punch which
cannot be swept or ground attacked the instant he touches ground.
Happens most often when Akuma is in V although I have seen it occur in
other ism's as well from time to time. Probably not a game-breaking
feature that can be abused to high heaven but it is annoying
nonetheless. This is but one example that I have experienced. I am
certain there are others.
c) Weird rules on some game aspects such as throwing
Remember in almost every other Street Fighter where the opponent on the
ground had throw priority? In Alpha 3, Capcom decided to do away with
this precedented rule and instead gives the priority to the standing
opponent (?). Maybe this wouldn't be so bad except that you can even
get thrown out of reversal attacks that take too many frames to animate
(such as Gen's Waterfall Kick). Not only is this completely ridiculous,
it takes a mighty chunk out of the usefulness of a wake up game
strategy. For many characters, reversing at all is not rewarding. Of
course, this also goes for many of the special attacks in A3 which I
feel have generally been diluted to pitiful levels (see next point).
d) Special Attacks and Supers Downgraded
Don't get me wrong, this doesn't go for all Supers and Special Attacks
but it is true of a good many of them. Even the almighty Dragon Punch
is not safe in this regard. Although it is reasonable as anti-air, try
using it to snuff an opponent's footsie attack. More often than not,
you will be nailed clean out of your dragon punch even if you read your
opponent perfectly. What's more, a simple ducking Jab will actually
work better as a counter against many moves than will many special
attacks. This is another gripe I have with the A3 game engine. It
simply doesn't reward more skillful maneuvers made by players (or at
least not as consistently as I would like). Reading many players'
moves and countering with specials and supers is just pointless. As
another example, try going through a fireball attack with a Super
Dragon Punch at any level using Akuma. Unless you are right up their
ass when you do it, you will not be rewarded very well for your effort.
Often times, one of two things will happen. Either you will be knocked
out of your Super before it goes through or you will pass through it,
get one hit, and then the opponent will be able to block again (in
previous Alphas, you could pretty consistently get all hits of a Super
DP once you passed through - with Akuma anyway). So now these previous
applications of Supers are all but useless. The only truly good use for
them now is in a combo situation and in a select few other setups.
Again, this limits the strategic possibilities for the A3 game and
detracts from the fun factor (for me, anyway).
And if you still don't believe me about the huge downgrading in special
attacks and supers, compare the success of DeeJay's Calipso Kick anti-
air in ST to that in A3. Big difference. Maybe I am griping a bit too
much here but I cannot really say that I appreciate a game where
ridiculous normals are given higher rewards than the Supers and Special
Attacks in the game. And, of course, VC's are better than all three of
these (more on this sinful innovation a little later on).
e) Not enough emphasis placed on consequences
I am pretty sure that the recovery of almost every type of move is
shorter in A3 than in previous SF (excluding the projectile attacks).
The normal attacks in particular are bad for this. It is now possible
for an opponent to throw a sweep attack which you read early and
actually have time to dragon punch you before your jump attack ever
reaches him or her. Furthermore, there should be no way in hell that an
opponent can arbitrarily throw repeated Fierce punches or kicks at you
and go unpunished as a result. But it is often quite easy to do so in
A3. T. Hawk's and Fei Long's duck Fierces are particular banes of mine
being very difficult to counter except from exact distances. These
moves have huge priority on the ground and recover fast enough that you
can cover up quickly afterward and often times anti-air any one who
tries to jump in on you. I think a little more consequence for throwing
out random moves needed to be put in place here. But apparently that
fine point was also left out of this game.
f) Juggling system is whack and not equally effective for all characters
The juggling system in A3 is just bizarre. I understand perfectly well
the conditions under which a juggle can take place. What I can't
understand is why it is often so goddam difficult to counter an
opponent below you after you flip out (this is probably again related
to the hit priorities thing). I have actually flipped several times and
thrown different moves at different times all in vein as the opponent
below me just counters me cleanly with the same move every time. It
almost makes me wonder whether flipping out is of any use at all. Add
to this the fact that the juggling mechanism is not equally beneficial
to all characters. Characters like Ken generally cannot gain as much
from this element of game play. Others like Rose can incorporate it to
high efficiency in their fighting strategies (Fierce Anti-Air, Soul
Catch ad nauseum).
g) Limited Options for Offense
This comes in a variety of forms. The overheads in A3 are all but
useless since they are so damn slow and are just asking to be
countered. Meaties are much more difficult to set up in A3 (given the
ability to flip out of many flooring attacks, among other things). Then
there's the huge risk involved in throwing projectiles and the limited
rewards in doing so (small damage, near nonexistent trapping
properties). And, of course, jumping in A3 is generally a bad idea
given a) the quick recovery on moves b) the weird hit priority system
at work c) the overly easy method of activation for antiair VC's
(meaning high probability of being countered by these characters), and
d) the huge risk of damage against certain characters (sometimes as
much as 50-60% off a single jump-in mistake). What does this ultimately
mean? Generally, A3 play is reduced to a) poking like a bitch b)
building meter any way you can, and c) picking Vism (see below for a
discussion of this dirty little A3 gimmick).
Reason #2
The Sin Known As Vism
The game was bad enough with all the quirks and bugs in the general
game engine. But Vism actually compounds the problem exponentially,
often times by exploiting the game engine flaws I have already
mentioned above.
First off, let me say that there appears to be somewhat of a
misconception among some players regarding the different Isms. Xism has
been regarded as a "simple" mode (by Capcom's own naming scheme) while
Vism has been given the distinction of being more "advanced." However,
there has been a tendency among some to also associate these labels
with the players themselves as opposed to the isms they describe (that
is, Vism players are more advanced than those in X and Z). Xism is only
simple in so far as it is based on the earlier and comparatively
"simpler" rules of the gaming engine for Super Turbo. In contrast, Vism
is more advanced in that there are generally more rules involved in how
the Ism (and in particular the VC's) are implemented. But this does not
by any stretch mean that Vism is more heavily associated with advanced
players (if it is, it is only because the advanced players correctly
recognize its overpowered nature and general usefulness in A3). In
fact, in many Vism matches, you will actually see nothing akin to
advanced or creative play at all. Often times, matches are reduced to
the same rote VC's being traded back and forth over and over again.
So why is Vism so bad? Here's a list of complaints that I can come up
with which, while not true of all V characters, apply to enough of them
for me to warrant it a substantial problem in the game:
1) Huge and Flexible Windows of Invulnerability
The V character is free from almost any form of punishment that an
opponent might make. Passing through ground attacks is one thing. But
dropping through anti-air attacks is what really kills it. This
invincibility window pretty much means that you can jump in at any time
and not worry about any form of anti-air hitting you if you activate at
the right time. In this way, not only is the opponent's anti-air
completely inefficient, he/she can actually be punished for even making
such an attempt. Capcom, in their half-hearted attempts to fix the
flaws from the arcade version, actually shortened the window on the
home version of A3 but not enough in my opinion. God only knows how bad
the problem would be in the arcades. I personally feel that if Capcom
had used common sense here, they probably should have removed the
window altogether to help compensate for the other overpowered
advantages of Vism (or at least removed the possibility of drop
throughs).
b) VC Block Damage and Guard Damage
VC's, in truth, should not be doing significant damage to either of
these. This was a foreseeable form of abuse which Capcom must have just
blatantly ignored altogether (the only way I can justify it) and it has
HUGE implications for game play. What it means is that you are actually
being punished heavily for blocking successfully. In X, you don't have
to worry as much about guard break; on the other hand, some VC's can
take as much as 40% of your life meter in the form of block damage (?)
so you are still no better off. This is just wrong and represents one
of the most highly abusable features in all of A3. But, unfortunately,
things just gets worse . . .
c) Easy Initiation of VC's
Say what you want, it is not hard to activate a VC, even on reaction.
Compare this to the difficulty in pulling a Super on the fly. Two
motions versus two buttons makes for a big difference. The result? VC's
can be activated anywhere at almost any time and with relative ease.
And the fact that this method of activation is so easy is extremely
detrimental to the game overall.
Want an example. Try this:
Guile in A3 is generally a piss character in X and Z but put him in V
and he becomes ten times the bastard he otherwise would be. Guile's
main problem in X and Z is that after recovering from a sonic boom he
is often ill-equipped to take out a jumper who has correctly guessed
his boom. He has no charge for his flash kick and normals will be
difficult to land assuming the jumper has placed himself at the proper
distance and timed an attack properly.
Now consider what happens if the Guile in question used is V. Following
his boom, the Guile player can instantly activate VC and quickly snuff
any attack the jumper does (due to his invulnerability on startup).
There is very little a jumper can do (except counter VC, bleh). Thanks
to VC, the Guile player no longer has to worry about base aspects of
game play such as charging, move placement, timing, and so on. Even if
an opponent guesses the boom very early, he/she will find it very
difficult to jump the boom and counter before eating the VC. If the
Guile player has enough time to get out a regular Jab then he also has
enough time to activate VC and counter the jumper for huge return. The
final result? For the most part, A and Z characters will not be able to
jump Guile's boom at all without suffering heavy consequences (Fierce
Punch - Flash Kick resulting in 50% or more damage if they do). The
window of opportunity between the boom and follow up VC just seems too
short. Thus, thanks to the wonder that is Vism, the Guile player is
free from the normal game engine requirements of timing, distancing,
and charging, and can literally shave off over half his opponent's life
off a single ill-planned jump. And how? Simply by pushing two buttons
simultaneously. To me, something seems really wrong here.
d) Too much damage for VC's
Not all of them are bad. But some are just goddam awful. And,
unfortunately, not hard to do either. Witness T. Hawk's rising Hawk
anti-air. Or Akuma's basic VC. And countless others. There really
should have been some limit, some upper threshold, placed on the damage
potential of these VC's to at least make them somewhat comparable with
that for the other Ism's. But, instead, there are 50% and 60% VC's in
the game that are too easy to set up and are seen way too often even in
low skill level A3 matches.
e) Not enough consequences for initiating a VC
Capcom decided that to make VC's "fair", they would have it so that you
could not block during the entire VC. As it turns out, this generally
doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference. Unblockable does not
necessarily imply punishable. During a VC, you are perfectly mobile
and free to go wherever you please (at least the CC's in A2 moved you
forward and kept you grounded although that led to other problems in
the form of Valle CC's). What's more, you are perfectly free to cancel
any move into any other move at any time during the course of your VC.
And, of course. you've also got the shadow character occasionally
backing you up to boot. The implication? It is often very hard, if not
impossible, for another character to punish you for a poorly set up VC.
As an example, consider a poorly placed Red Fireball that an opponent
successfully jumps during your Akuma VC. Can he punish you? Nope,
because all you simply have to do is cancel the fireball stance into a
Dragon Punch once he reaches you. Aside from the occasional Super (or
your own counter VC, bleh), not a lot of options available to you here.
f) V meter easy to build up
V meter takes much less time to build to a level and can be effectively
replenished using highly passive (read: turtle) tactics, such as whiff
throws. The result? VC's happening way too often (usually in the same
form every time) and meters being built up under sometimes extremely
questionable means. Given the potential of Vism, the least Capcom could
have done was make the meter take longer to build up. But, again, not
the case. I also find it funny how Capcom went to such lengths to cut
down on turtling (implementation of guard meter, etc.) and ended up not
solving this problem whatsoever. In fact, I probably see more of it now
than ever before. While the intention of the guard meter was in theory
well placed, I think in the end it only served to make the Vism
characters (and a handful of characters in other isms) more powerful.
As an example, would V-Vega really be worth a grain of salt if not for
the guard break potential of his VC? V-Ryu?
g) Ugly and Repetitive
Probably a more minor point and one which I have alluded to before.
Despite the great flexibility of the VC system, the large variation
expected in VC's (what I would assume was Capcom's intention for Vism
in the first place) is just not there. What you will usually see are
the same one or two VC's being pulled over and over simply because they
are the most damaging and the most highly effective. What's more, the
most damaging ones also tend to be the ugliest things you have ever
seen in your life (e.g., A Rising Hawk or Fireball, repeat ad nauseum).
Far from impressive particularly when you are the one who has to sit
through the 5 seconds or so it takes for the whole thing to run its
course.
g) The infinites
These are just being discovered now and it's not that surprising they
are in A3 when one considers that these are just another extension of
the overpowering flexibility of Vism. I have yet to have one of these
fully landed on me but they don't concern me very much since it looks
like my dabbling period with A3 will soon be over. While the fact that
infinites actually do exist in A3 is somewhat disappointing, it is not
overly so for me. In my opinion, the game was broken and well beyond
repair before these ever came on the scene. But if you are still
playing the game when these are fully fleshed out, be prepared for A3
to sink to the next inevitably low level.
Of course, many of you will just suggest that the best way to beat a V
character is to simply choose another V character. But this is really
besides the point IMO. Making a game with 3 modes of which only one is
really any good is very limiting and it really seems kinda' pointless
to waste time and memory on the other two if they don't generally hold
up in higher competition. And, in truth, I am not especially interested
in who wields the VC bullshit better in any case. If it came down to me
having to repeatedly choose Vism for the sake of counteracting Vism, I
would rather just give up playing A3 all together.
Final Summary
Capcom, as it so often has done in the past, has tried to implement a
new set of gaming features to captivate players without taking
sufficient time to troubleshoot the overly flexible systems. It was
true of CC's in A2, and it is again true of VC's in A3. Generally
speaking, the more flexible a system that Capcom has tried to implement
in a game, the more creativity it has generally allowed for (in terms
of combos and such). At the same time, however, game balance has
usually fallen in the other direction. Because there is so much more
flexibility and so many more options available in these systems, there
are usually more ways in which they can be exploited and abused in
actual game play. Witness the CC's in A2. Also witness the infinites in
the extremely flexible combo system of XMvs.SF. And, here we are again,
with SFA3. What's more, the variety offered by these new combo systems
is generally a moot point since, over time, most players will just
stick to a very small subset of these combos anyway (i.e., the most
successful ones). While the VC premise may have been a good one in
theory, it's just too overpowered compared to the remaining isms
(largely due to its flexibility of use) and, in truth, was never really
troubleshooted properly. I think if Capcom had kept SFA3 in development
for another year or two they maybe could have ironed out many of the
bugs in the game and removed some of the problems surrounding Vism
(better yet, just take them out altogether, if for nothing more than
their sheer ugliness).
I have heard from various sources that A3 died a quick death in many
arcades. And knowing what I know now, it's not hard to believe.
Ironically, I think that A3 is actually one of those rare games where
it may actually be less fun to play it at higher levels of game play
and expertise. The most I ever enjoyed A3 was during my first two
months with it when everyone played in blissful ignorance and didn't
know any better. Nowadays, it just seems like two V-Akuma's building
meter with whiff throws and throwing the same single two VC's at each
other until the end of the match. Fun indeed.
I'll go back to my old SF2 roots now, I think.
Sean Hoyles
P.S. This merely represents my own personal opinion of Alpha 3 and I in
no way expect it to be shared by everyone else. I WOULD like to hear
what other players think about A3 in comparison to other SF games of
the genre, though. Feel free to pass along your comments, folks. Or to
add to my list of A3 jeers. ; - )
--
Sean Hoyles
NF, Canada
My Social Research Web Site:
http://www.mystery.nf.net/fc/social/socialframe.htm
Home Page:
http://www.mystery.nf.net/fc/personal/index.htm
Ancient SFA2 Page:
http://www.mystery.nf.net/fc/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Nick K. Inabnit
game.
:^)
I agree with most everything you said. Great read. Well done!
-Nick
Nick K. Inabnit
a
>Capcom game that came out after SSF2T? :)
If it isn't horribly broken. (Basically, no.)
:^)
-Nick
EC
<lrfre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Now I don't have to type it for myself every time someone says A3 is a great
>> game.
>> :^)
>
>True but it won't help when people say things like "I think dat Zlpha 3 iz
>goood and u suck for saying itz bad. My friendz and i got da PSX version
>and its da BoMb. u ArE a JaBrOnIe". :)
>
>>
>> I agree with most everything you said. Great read. Well done!
>
>It's weird; I wasn't too fond of A3 in the arcade the first time I played
>it(came in, picked Dan, beat everyone there, then got up to Balrog/M. Bison
>on my first try; the game seemed too easy and boring especially since
>everyone there was picking ARK and doing the same old crap), but after the
>PSX version came out in on import I had a lot more fun with it, although the
>game certainly has its share of problems. Call me crazy, but I'd still
>rather play this one than a lot of the older fighters, though.
>
You're crazy.
>Lee
>
>>
>>
>> -Nick
>>
>>
______________________________________________________________
Posted via Uncensored-News.Com, http://www.uncensored-news.com
Only $8.95 A Month, - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Lee Freedman
I'm not adding any comments, but just wondering: Will you guys every like a
Capcom game that came out after SSF2T? :)
Lee
----------
In article <8ajcua$6sj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Sean Hoyles <sho...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> Note, this is a LONG read. Prepare yourself. -S.H.
(Snipped)
Lee Freedman
> game.
> :^)
True but it won't help when people say things like "I think dat Zlpha 3 iz
goood and u suck for saying itz bad. My friendz and i got da PSX version
and its da BoMb. u ArE a JaBrOnIe". :)
>
> I agree with most everything you said. Great read. Well done!
It's weird; I wasn't too fond of A3 in the arcade the first time I played
it(came in, picked Dan, beat everyone there, then got up to Balrog/M. Bison
on my first try; the game seemed too easy and boring especially since
everyone there was picking ARK and doing the same old crap), but after the
PSX version came out in on import I had a lot more fun with it, although the
game certainly has its share of problems. Call me crazy, but I'd still
rather play this one than a lot of the older fighters, though.
Lee
>
>
> -Nick
>
>
poc...@my-deja.com
paraphrase.
This is the LAMEST post I have ever read on this group. The writer
makes claims and after the explanation he disproves his claim and shows
only that he doesn't understand core fundamentals of a3's gameplay(not
to mention his defintions are off also).
Talks about how strategy and depth are missing and then brings up the
most simplistic and moronic strategies that would not work against any
decent player. In my original reply I broke everything down. A3 is the
most strategic sf in years where ranging, timing, reflexes, skill, 2
kinds of wake up games, effective normals, varying specials...etc
all come into play...I mean dude didn't even know that a strong dp from
ryu will nail any trip or low ground attack in the game. How did anyone
read it all, I don't know. With statements like "specials as counters
are useless." At the same time saying stupid shiet like specials are
weaker all WHILE saying a3 has lost depth. Gimme a break!? Not enough
reward for specials even. Lol. I could rip apart the flaws from this
post like confetti. But I would hope the glaring idiocy of this post is
noticeable enough for me NOT to have to redo my reply...damn browser:(
Anyway. Dude needs to go to a real tournament and see how the game is
played...he came up with this stuff afgter months of playing? OMG.
Seriously, I don't think I've ever read a post with more contradictory,
assinine, or ignorant claims. If anyone agreed I wonder if they ever
played the game either. LOL one move things like fei's low frc...LOL
too much comedy...this had to be a joke.
Apoc.
Mouko-The Fierce Tiger
>
A2! A2!
Peter "Mouko" Nguyen
~Xero-Crew~
Mouko on IRC
Xero...@aol.com or Miggity Mo...@aol.com
Scott Powell
alpha out. I know he didn't say that, but that's my opinion. And I love
third strike. One more thing lets here it for shoryuken.com, great
articles and very well written.
doc
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
>I actually wrote a whole reply to this and my browser went down. So ima
>paraphrase.
Whatever.
>This is the LAMEST post I have ever read on this group. The writer
>makes claims and after the explanation he disproves his claim and shows
>only that he doesn't understand core fundamentals of a3's gameplay(not
>to mention his defintions are off also).
>Talks about how strategy and depth are missing and then brings up the
>most simplistic and moronic strategies that would not work against any
>decent player. In my original reply I broke everything down. A3 is the
>most strategic sf in years where ranging, timing, reflexes, skill, 2
>kinds of wake up games, effective normals, varying specials...etc
>all come into play...
Please. Such high skill gameplay as read or react to an attack,
VC, do 35%. If you misread then just do a safe cover, no real punishment
there. A3 gameplay is extremely SpEdtastic when only one guy has meter,
because it so limits what the other guy can do. This is the exact same
alpha2 bullshit all over again except that in alpha2 for you to do a walk
thru CC it is at least 10x harder than VC, and it is over in 1 second
unlike a VC where he has forever to combo you and you get to sit there and
play with yourself... but oh wait! Alpha3 has countermashing, you get to
masturbate for a reason! RETARDED, even if it doesn't have much effect on
the game.
>I mean dude didn't even know that a strong dp from
>ryu will nail any trip or low ground attack in the game.
Yah yah yah, and you didn't know that the jab one does it too?
>read it all, I don't know. With statements like "specials as counters
>are useless." At the same time saying stupid shiet like specials are
>weaker all WHILE saying a3 has lost depth.
Where's the contradiction? Specials are crap, alpha3 has no
depth. Should crappy specials = good gameplay?
> Gimme a break!? Not enough reward for specials even.
Sagat fireball. Guile FK. Charlie FK. Gief SPD. Half of
Sodom's moves.
>Anyway. Dude needs to go to a real tournament and see how the game is
>played...
And you will find "Vism everywhere, and no one attacking until
they have V meter."
--
Shaun P. McIsaac "I have long wished that my computer would be as easy
(773) 834 - 6508 to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no
Team U of C longer know how to use my telephone." B. Stroustrep
Chocobo
> I actually wrote a whole reply to this and my browser went down. So ima
> paraphrase.
>
ugh, that sucks, hate when that happens...
> This is the LAMEST post I have ever read on this group. The writer
> makes claims and after the explanation he disproves his claim and shows
> only that he doesn't understand core fundamentals of a3's gameplay(not
> to mention his defintions are off also).
While not everything is explained perfectly, he does have a couple of
points.
> Talks about how strategy and depth are missing and then brings up the
> most simplistic and moronic strategies that would not work against any
> decent player. In my original reply I broke everything down. A3 is the
> most strategic sf in years where ranging, timing, reflexes, skill, 2
> kinds of wake up games, effective normals, varying specials...etc
> all come into play...I mean dude didn't even know that a strong dp from
> ryu will nail any trip or low ground attack in the game.
Well, I hate to ask you to do it again, but... could you just show me some
points to illustrate how A3 is so much more strategic than other SFs like
A2?
Also, below I'm going to point out some of the biggest flaws, and I would
really be interested in hearing how stuff like that doesn't make the game
worse than the others. Usually when I blab whatever about A3, most replies
are along the lines of "well A2 and MVC and whatever else all have stupid
stuff too"... instead I'd like to hear how A3 can be good, and why I might
be wrong about my points.
First up is the new throwing system... the two button thing is cool, but how
the throws work is totally different from any other SF. Some ticks seem
nearly inescapable. Some characters can be thrown for free as they get up
(Rolento for one). The only way to avoid these throws is to jump... yes,
jump out of any throw setup in the game, which defeats the whole purpose. I
suppose this could be called strategy since you can go "well he might think
I'll throw, so he'll jump up, I'll just sit and wait and VC him" or
something... in any case, I think it's dumb how that works. I also don't
care for the (apparent) one frame window for tech hits... so often I'll know
"here comes a throw" and I never get the tech. Isn't that the reason the
throw escapes exist? They don't work.
Crossups. It's simply inexcusable how Capcom set these up to work. Block
normally (press away from the position where the opponent started his jump)
for an early crossup, block opposite direction for a normally timed crossup
(the way crossups are blocked in every other SF), block normally for a deep
one. So basically, if someone crosses you up, it's pure luck as to whether
you get to block or not. You can say "don't get crossed up", but it's
difficult to avoid that ever happening along with having to worry about
getting hit by all kinds of other stuff. And one crossup can lead to 60%
damage or more. Also add in the fact the crossups are so much easier to do
in A3 than in any other SF.
Hitboxes. What's on the screen should represent the actual gameplay, and it
does not. It is simply gay when an attack overlaps and does not hit
(Blanka's low fierce), and when an attack is nowhere near close and it does
hit (Chun's low strong beating a crossup when she's even punching the wrong
way). It is dumb to have to learn "oh this punch only hits around the elbow,
and that kick hits directly above his head". I suppose you can get used to
it, but this is not a positive point.
VCs. These are worse than A2 CCs since they are much harder to avoid (and
YES a2 CCs are avoidable or beatable). There is simply no way to have a
strategy that's anti-VC and weak against something else instead. In almost
every match, there will be an assortment of 20% minimum block damage VCs and
around 50% damage VCs that land. Almost every single time the meter builds
up, you can bet that it will cause 20% damage at least. Yes there are
counter VCs but aside from that, VCs are almost never stopped. If someone
even does a quick DP it'll often still miss since the invincibility period
is so large. And also, jumpin VCs are much too useful if your character has
a midscreen. Usually, jumping is death, and if you jump it's almost
guaranteed that the other guy will do something. Just VC through it and do
50%.
Bugs and glitches. Maybe this doesn't happen to everyone but it definitely
happens to me and I'm not the only one. Whether they happen once every 5
fights or 50 fights it doesn't matter, because you should not ever lose a
fight because of something like this. These DO exist. I'll be starting up a
60% damage Mika VC and a move just whiffs. This costs me 60% and may cause
me to lose the fight. It doesn't matter if it's common or not, this should
never ever happen. Another common problem for me is having a normal attack
simply not come out. I think it may have something to do with pressing it at
the exact moment you go into block animation or something... seems to happen
the most against Zangief in my experience, I don't know why. He'll jump at
me, I'll go to do my almighty standing jab of infinite priority, and nothing
comes out, even if I press it multiple times. This is not a problem with the
button itself, it's part of every A3 I've ever played on. If the move came
out at all, if it came out late and showed me that I timed it wrong or the
button might be broken then I'd be fine with it... but nothing happens at
all. As you know, missing a chance to repel a Gief can easily cost you the
round. (ignore this section if you want, I already know that most people
just don't see this stuff)
Single moves that do everything. I guess maybe it's a personal preference,
but... one move should not be good for everything. Like Fei's low fierce for
instance... it's all you'll want for mid to long distance ground attacks and
it's good against most jumpins too. Or PSX Ken's stand fierce (good for
close and mid range on the ground, and great anti-air), or Zangief's jumping
fierce which beats 90% of the moves in the game cleanly. This isn't
necessarily a huge problem, but I just think it sucks... might as well be
playing with 3 or 4 buttons since so many moves have no use at all. It's not
SF to me if only a couple of moves are used for the whole fight. Now I'm not
saying that there are no characters who have moves with uses for different
situations... it's just a whole lot less than any other SF game. Look at ST,
so many normals have uses for different situations, and you need them all. X
Rolento can be 95% effective with stand jab, jump jab, low fierce, and maybe
the forward button. The game is shallow from what I see.
Retarded "this is not SF" strategies. Rolento going for GC with jabs, VCs
that are intended just to cause guard crush, Zangief splashing away on some
chars because there's not a damn thing they can do about it, stuff like
that.
And I wont even get into the whole crouch cancelling, infinite combos,
repeated jump fierce in a VC for 75% damage stuff. (Oops, looks like I just
did.)
Simply put, add all this together and you end up with one giant pile of
shit, with the flaws totally overshadowing the positive points. And despite
ALL that, it still has a high "fun factor" like MVC... I can only guess that
that is the reason why A3 still has fans.
Sean Hoyles
poc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I actually wrote a whole reply to this and my browser went down. So
ima
> paraphrase.
If you are using dejanews or something like that, this happens quite
often (usually when they log you out involuntarily). Try writing your
post in WordPerfect or something and then copy/paste it to the browser.
You'll save yourself future headaches this way.
>
> This is the LAMEST post I have ever read on this group.
You don't agree with what I said. Fine. If this is the lamest post
you have ever read on this particular group then I must have really
outdone myself.
The writer
> makes claims and after the explanation he disproves his claim and
shows
> only that he doesn't understand core fundamentals of a3's gameplay(not
> to mention his defintions are off also).
I know your original reply got toasted but could you at least give me
an example or two to back up what you are saying? How am I
demonstrating my ignorance of the "core fundamentals"? Which of my
definitions are off? Not asking for a huge breakdown or great lines of
prose or anything here. But I don't follow what you are saying in the
least. Please back it up.
> Talks about how strategy and depth are missing and then brings up the
> most simplistic and moronic strategies that would not work against any
> decent player.
Like what? Which of my strategies did you not agree with? Footsie
play? Jumping? What did I say that was so moronic?
And I still think that much of the strategy element in the game IS
reduced. I named many areas where I personally thought this is the
case, among them:
- reversing
- jumping
- overhead use
- projectile use
- even blocking correctly, for Christ's sake
>In my original reply I broke everything down.
I REALLY wish I could have seen this. Maybe I would be inclined to
agree with you more.
A3 is the
> most strategic sf in years
Sure, it has the most variation in terms of gimmicks and features. But
it does not have the most variation in strategy by a long shot.
Ironically, it is actually the variation in gimmicks and features which
KILLS the strategy in A3.
> where ranging
Ranging and positioning are of REDUCED importance in Alpha 3 if you can
effectively counter moves with your nose, neck, back of your head, ass,
etc. Whether your punch or kick actually connects directly is no
longer as relevant. In that respect, ranging and proper distancing has
little importance.
>timing, reflexes, skill,
All effectively removed, at least in the case of Vism. Consider an
opponent who jumps in on you. As they head towards you, you activate
your VC . At this point, you no longer have to time your DP or normal
attack correctly (thanks to VC invulnerability at startup).
Furthermore, there is little reflex involved in pressing two buttons at
once (anyone with a pulse can do it). And your opponent can often be
punished for over half of his life bar off this single jump in (usually
by the VC'er employing the same sequence of banal moves over and over
again). I don't consider any aspect of this skillful. Learning the VC
sequence itself is perhaps the hardest part. And even that is not
particularly difficult.
2
> kinds of wake up games,
>effective normals
You mean overly effective and often illogical normals.
> varying specials
I didn't say the specials and supers weren't varied. I said they were
diminished in potency and application. Sure, T-Hawk gets a new Super
in Zism. But have you ever seen it actually hit? Why is it's damage
so low even at level 3?
...etc
> all come into play...
I mean dude didn't even know that a strong dp from
> ryu will nail any trip or low ground attack in the game.
Jab Dping an attack is bad enough. Strong Dp is going to leave me open
twice as long. And ready to eat a Super or VC upon landing. If you've
got god-like foresight and can foresee an opponent's attack 100% of the
time, by all means, Strong DP away. But I don't have that kind of
awareness and openly admit it. If that means I suck, so be it.
How did anyone
> read it all, I don't know.
Ouch. So did you read the whole thing?
With statements like "specials as counters
> are useless."
I never outright said that. I said that they have been downgraded
considerably since their earlier forms. Which they have. I never said
that all specials are useless. I said that many of them are now
useless when applied under circumstances where they worked well in
previous games. Want other examples? Not only is Z-Ryu's Super
Fireball low damage and slow as hell, it can now be jumped with ease
and easily countered (limiting the usefulness of an in-your-face Super
Fireball tactic). I have also seen it snuffed cleanly at level 3 by a
stray Fierce attack from my opponent. Same goes for Akuma's Super air
fireball. I have also seen opponents pass through DeeJay's Level 3
Hyper Fist Super with a VC and snuff me cleanly. I have even tried to
counter with a Super DP against V-Akuma from two steps away only to be
stopped dead in my tracks by his VC shadow's fireball.
As a matter of fact, your specials COULD probably be considered near
useless when employed against a competent Vism player. The
invulnerability anywhere, anytime means that your special really ain't
worth a damn to you. They can just slip through most of them any time.
In such a case, your special actually works against you (?).
What has truly pissed me off here is that the supers are generally
diminished in potency and power particularly when placed next to the
power of Vism. It's almost to the point where the game is forcing you
to pick Vism to be any bit successful at all. If you don't like Vism,
the odds are more often than not stacked against you from the start.
At the same time saying stupid shiet like specials are
> weaker all WHILE saying a3 has lost depth.
I don't follow your point here. As far as I can tell, many of the
specials and supers ARE weaker and less useful (compared to normals and
VC's). And, partly because of this, A3 DOES lose its depth in game
play.
Gimme a break!? Not enough
> reward for specials even. Lol.
I base this on a comparison of effort versus reward.
For example, try just flashkicking a jumping opponent with Charlie.
They can often airblock this move and even when they don't, you will
often end up trading with whatever attack they were throwing at you.
Now compare this to countering a jumper with a ducking Strong punch (?)
which has a much better success rate. Now consider the effort required
to do these moves. Actually charging a move and timing the button press
for flashkick? Versus a single button press of Strong? If you have to
make an extra effort to execute a special move (flashkick, dragon
punch, etc.) the least they could do is make the rewards proportional
to the effort. Of course, you could come back at me again and say why
not duck Strong and then 2-in-1 into a Flash kick juggle. Fair enough
but it doesn't change the fact that the move on its own generally sucks
ass.
The same goes for supers vs. VC's. Consider the amount of effort
required to land a Super vs. the effort required to land a VC (i.e.,
several joystick motions versus a double button press). Yet, despite
the easier setup of a VC, a VC will often do more damage (actual,
block, and guard), requires less effort to execute, and can be
replenished much more quickly than a Z or X meter. WTF? If this isn't a
bias in favour of Vism, I don't know what is. I can't think of any
inherent weaknesses in Vism which would offset this bias either. So
maybe my cynicism regarding specials and supers is partly a reaction to
the overpowered properties of Vism. But the truth is that, in A3, many
specials and supers just don't hold up - either when compared to Vism
strengths or when compared to their previous incarnations in other SF
games.
I could rip apart the flaws from this
> post like confetti. But I would hope the glaring idiocy of this post
is
> noticeable enough for me NOT to have to redo my reply...damn browser:(
I wouldn't mind if you did rewrite. I'd personally like to see exactly
where and how you think I am going wrong in my approach. It might make
it easier to agree with what you are saying. As it stands, all I have
gotten out of your post is that you think I am a shitty player and a
shitty writer.
>
> Anyway. Dude needs to go to a real tournament and see how the game is
> played...he came up with this stuff afgter months of playing? OMG.
You read it wrong. I said I ENJOYED the game most during my first few
months of playing. I have been playing around with it since about
September of 1998 (not that long after it was released). And, in terms
of SF games, I have played nothing but A3 for the past year or so. So,
in terms of quantity, I have put in almost as much time as others.
Quality is a different story since where I live there are only a
handful of good SF players in the area. That's a limitation imposed by
geography and I will not apologize for that.
I live in Newfoundland, Canada, which is far from any location throwing
any form of tournament. That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on
the game.
I do have an acquaintance sending me a tape of the now way-old National
People's Tournament, though. So if I see anything there that changes
my mind regarding A3, I'll let you know.
But I wouldn't hold my breath.
> Seriously, I don't think I've ever read a post with more
contradictory,
> assinine, or ignorant claims.
Am I supposed to get anything out of this? What exactly did I say that
makes you feel this way? Flesh out your point.
If anyone agreed I wonder if they ever
> played the game either.
I've played enough to know that I don't like it very much . . . at
all. Obviously you do and I've struck a nerve. Maybe some of my
arguments ARE forced and are simply reflecting my general disdain for
the game. But I still stand behind many of my points. And you haven't
really refuted them (just voiced your disagreement).
LOL one move things like fei's low frc...
I didn't say that I couldn't win against Fei Long because of this move.
But the fact that it is so successful under so many different
circumstances means that you can use it and little else and still reap
huge benefits with such a narrow-minded strategy. There is no incentive
to progress beyond such a mindless tactic.
LOL
> too much comedy...this had to be a joke.
Really, I wish to God it was.
S.H.
>
> Apoc.
Sean Hoyles
"Lee Freedman" <lrfre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I'm not adding any comments, but just wondering: Will you guys every
like a
>
>
I don't want to leave you with the impression that I only like SSF2T
for the sake of it being SSF2T. In fact, I am only now really getting
into this game as an alternative to the A3 garbage I too often see. So
it's not all favoritism based on nostalgia.
Whether others agree or not, I feel the appeal of SSF2T is at least in
part due to its simplicity of play. The simpler rules of the game
engine (and the lack of crazy gimmicks and features to garner player
appeal) generally meant that there was less potential for abusive
tactics to show up in the game. There was of course shades of BS in
SF2 as well but not nearly to the degree that they have been present in
the later Alpha games. I think very rarely did an innovation in a SF2
game adversely affect the entire balance of the game. The same cannot
be said for Alpha 1 (chaining), Alpha 2 (CC's, alpha countering), and
Alpha 3 (VC's, guard break, etc.). Ditto for SF3(parry BS). Much of
the problem IMO has been that Capcom has implemented these highly
flexible systems but has not had the foresight (or maybe its desire) to
troubleshoot them properly. Given the flexibility of these new
systems, a creative individual WILL eventually find some effective
means of abusing it. This will then be emulated by scores of other
players once the success of these abuses becomes apparent. Before you
know it, these end up being the only aspects of the game focused on
(witness the mindless VC relay which dominates many a V-Akuma vs. V-
Akuma match). Somewhere along the way the whole point of fighting the
match is just lost.
In contrast, there has generally not been as abusable a feature in
games such as SSF2T that could be employed by a huge number of the SF
cast and with overriding degrees of success (Akuma being an
exception). I personally attribute this to its simpler playing rules.
It may lack the flash and variety of some of the later SF games, but at
least the basics of the fighting game were solid.
Actually, as far as the Alphas go, I had a great deal of fun with A2
which I found to be a solid game overall. Of course, where I was
playing it, few people ever used Alpha counters or CC's to any great
extent so I never really had to worry about this form of abuse to any
great extent. I think that if the Alpha counters did far less damage
and they removed CC's altogether, A2 would have been a much better game
worthy of the SF name (although I have heard tales of unbeatable
ducking Strongs which cause me to question whether this is a valid
claim to make).
S.H.
> ----------
> In article <8ajcua$6sj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Sean Hoyles <shoyles@my-
deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Note, this is a LONG read. Prepare yourself. -S.H.
>
> (Snipped)
poc...@my-deja.com
I realize lately that I may be coming off a bit rude lately:( For
those who don't know me; I'm just a tad sick of seeing posts that
appear not to have been thought out at all and just rambled on
emotions rather than knowing REALLY what one is talking about.
I apologize for my impatience and if you check my history you'll
notice I try to help more than insult unless I'm smack-talking for fun.
First off though...how do you expect anyone to post at length when you
throw 6 segments in one post that could have gotten the point across in
3. That was beyond long...still, I have yet to read the whole thing.
Because I seriously thought it a possible joke until I realized it ket
going. Rudeness aside. To someone who has played somewhere where he
has been his only real competition for 7 years until recently(me) but
still plays the games with fundamental understanding, it seems ludicrous
that one could come up with the conclusions that you have. Replying to
6 segments after your browser goes down again is boring when it already
seems that therre is a problem upstairs when viewing your post and the
conclusions you draw. BUT...seeing that you indeed would like to
discuss this issue I will appropriately do one segment a day for 6 days
replying to the original post and it's flaws. Though, in all
of my arrogance I consider myself to be LEET; I am open-minded and love
discussing sf with my peers. "Peers" meaning those who love SF also.
Seriously though. everything added, the original post comes off as an
insult to me. Not because you may dislike a3, but because your points
are so flawed they seem if out of emotion rather than mathematical or
strategic calculation of the games' workings and strategies.
I would like to apologize to you as it seems "I" was the one posting out
of frustration of my hour long reply being erased:/ I shouldn't have
posted until I was patient enough to rewrite a new repl. Again, I am
sorry.
This doesn't mean I will candy-coat my replies. You may hear a lot
of.."r u on crack!?" That's just my way of saying: "how did you come up
with this conclusion at all?" I like to be real and I like to tell it
like it is. I like to be clear in what I say. Sometimes candy-coating
takes the impact away and the impact is a core part of the message I'm
saying. There is a difference between "you are wrong" and "R u on
Crack!?" heheh just so you know. Howver I won't get to replying to
any replies until after I've replied in full to the original post.
I just can't type posts all day:P I will note forever that you repeat
past statements in this post that are kinda lame...you bring up jumping
in often. On ol skool sfs Jumping was a definate no no unless you knew
you could attack or land safely...etc. Perhaps part of your problem is
that you see jumping in as an effective strategy. Not that it can't
be...but certainly jumping is NOT strategic offense generally. Yet you
site jumping constantly, showing you feel the need to jump. Seriously,
the whole point is; it's not the strategy that's lacking...your posts,
including this little one, show that YOU(not the game) are missing
strategy. Even this post was too much to reply to knowing I will do
another post on this. Please slow down. I read this post and wonder
why you even site things such as charlie's flash kick being
air-blockable...dunno if you know it or not but the last national type
tourney we had on A3 Thao Duong's Aism Charlie took second to Valle.
See, you're not realizing that the specials now have more specific
properties and uses to them making them more finesseful and skillfull to
use properly...that's more depth. When you use the term "depth" it's
usually followed by something saying..."it's not easy like before".
That means BEFORE it was simplistic and NOW you have to think more. I
mean your reply to the strong dp thing...Makes me NOT wanna post. Look,
you stated that your dp was getting snuffed by low attacks...hello?
This means you were trying to dp and got snuffed by a low attack,
correct? Well, at THAT same time had you done a STRONG dp you would
have nailed the guy and sent him flying across the screen. I tell you
this and you reply about how you would be open? I don't see the
mentality here at ALL. If your dps are getting snuffed by low attacks
then even if they didn't your dp would MISS leaving you open ANYWAY.
LOOK, Ima lay out Ryu's dp uses for you, then I'm done for the day.
Jab dp:used deep or in a combo to set up a juggle...generally you make
them land on the super fireball afterward unless you SEE them flip out
as you're WATCHING their sprite so then you delay the super and they
land on it anyway...easily stuffable from range 2. Also this is thedp
used to go though fbs to avoid blockdamage. Also I use this to nail
mistimed cross-ups because it leaves them ontop of you're head not
knowing which way they will land so you know if they are intelligent
they will flip(or get juggled) and use their cross-up(since they can't
tell which side they will land on they want to be able to hit you in the
front or the back) So you can choose how to punish them with a nasty
juggle or another set-up...and at cross-up distance strong and frc dps
are trouble.
Strong Dp. His most useful dp. THIS is the DP you use LIKE a dp should
be used. This is your clutch counter. Whenever you know an attack is
coming, against grounded or airborn enemies, even against supers when
they light up...do this dp deep and Ryu will hit when his other dps
would fail. This is the only dp that starts at the ground low enough to
nail any short. When it connects you throw them off of your back and
clear across the screen...getting cornered with no super bar?...Look for
an oppurtunity and bust WHATEVER they stick out off. This dp would be
known as Ryu's "Clutch" dp.
Frc dp. His least necessary dp though great for extending range on far
jumpers who like to jump just outside of strong dp range...frc takes
care of this...otherwise they're landing into a fireball for more
blocked damage if they jump from farther...and any closer they get
nailed by a strong dp. Pretty much that's all I use this one for.
These are not all properties of his dps...just general info. Showing
you how to use his dps right. You can't just pick any dp and think it
should counter. A lil more thought needs to go into the uses of your
specials and how to implement them into your overall strategy.
Heheh...a lil deeper than most sfs.
And I didn't even use shotos until a3...still my main characters are far
from shotos...but I understand things like this. For everything you
state about a character it show you don't understand the character
really or how to counter the simplest things such as one button players.
And there is no way you have grasped the true concept of footsies yet
so your defintion of footsies is way off. Footsies alone will take care
of anyone randomly using one or two moves.
Look 4 my replies...however I won't read your replies until I'm
done...heheh one thing at a time:)
Apoc.
In article <8alnml$t8d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
news
better than it was in Alpha2. And the hit priorities are some better for
most chacters. ARK's low fd as antiair our crazy.As for feilong , they
needed to do something to help but even his low fierce was enough to make
him playable. If you were right about the throws there would only be tech.
hits, the throws in alpha are the best and most balanced in any series. As
for shoto dp being weaked all I hafta say is about damn time. Why hell you
crying about Akuma anyways like he's not overpowered enough. Certain
chacters are because they are weaker in others. For most characters but
certainly not all vism sucks bad. Anyone who gets by a vism character while
using a strong aism/xism just is not playing to there potential. As
Infinites Refuse to even learn them let alone use as do the people I play
against. And finally I'd like to Alpha dose have flays just like all sf
games. ut while owning SF2 SF2T SFA2 and SFA3 and spending hours and hours
playing crossovers and third strike alpha3 is my favorite game right now.
Sean Hoyles <sho...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ajcua$6sj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Chocobo
> Dude your wrong about Alpha3. It's a pretty good game. Hit detection is
> better than it was in Alpha2.
Please don't reply with long ass posts if you don't know what you're talking
about. It is accepted by everyone that the hit detection in A3 is messed up.
> For most characters but
> certainly not all vism sucks bad. Anyone who gets by a vism character while
> using a strong aism/xism just is not playing to there potential.
You are absolutely clueless. V-ism dominates the game. A3 is VC Fighter.
> As
> Infinites Refuse to even learn them let alone use as do the people I play
> against.
In other words, you don't play to win.
Nick K. Inabnit
>rather play this one than a lot of the older fighters, though.
CRAZY! You're CRAZY!!
:^)
-Nick
Chocobo
> First off, please note that to me if it doesn't affect a tournaments
> outcome any bug or annoyance is just a lil glitch. EVERY sf has had
> glitches. But no glitch is consistant enough like on ol skool where you
> could recreate the bs at will. Funny thouhg, when you can control it
> it's fun? Anyway, a bug that doesn't affect REAL tourney play is not
> even noteworthy imo. I go to and play in more tournies with pretty darn
> good comp that to say after this long A3 STILL hasn't had a glitch arise
> that caused a tourney upset or anything. It's just a lame point to
> make.
I have personally lost tournament matches because of bugs/glitches. No, a
semi-decent player ending up with 6th instead of 4th in some meaningless
east coast tournament with a $10 prize for 1st place does not matter greatly
in the history of the world, but the point is that it does indeed suck and
A3 is the only game that has it.
> Hit Detection:the collission point where an attack box and a hit box
> meet. We use this term lightly. Partly my fault on an early a3 post on
> horrible hit detection. It is apparent that capcom CHOSE moves to hit
> the way that they do for reasons. Why is aism Chun Li's far fierce
> different from x isms? They LOOK the same? Maybe capcom should've
> drawn new animations for how the moves actually hit? But if you play
> the game at any length you will no longer be fooled by the sprite and
> UNDERSTAND how the moves actually work making "hit detection" not a
> problem except for Chocobo glitches:P
Simply put, the moves on the screen should reflect the hitboxes. And there
is no excuse whatsoever for "chocobo glitches", which is not related to
hitboxes at all. Moves that work 99% of the time at the exact range where
they always work, just missing an opponent who's wide open. This actually
happened again yesterday, but I didn't have it taped... I VCed through a
Sodom rush with Mika and did a low forward and it just did not hit.
Shiranui Gen-An
"Kevin" <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote in message
news:38cfddc9....@news.seed.net.tw...
>
> I don't understand why you're actually trying to make A3 seem like a
> GOOD game....It's not the worst SF
It's not? What is then?
Chocobo
He said right below in his message that he thought 3S is worse, I'd
disagree on that though. SF The Movie on home systems is worse (arcade
version is better though), MSF is worse, and Alpha 1 is pretty far down
there... I wouldn't say A1 is worse but some people would. It is mostly a
matter of opinion after all... I only rate A3 above some of those games
not because the gameplay is any better... the gameplay in all of them is
total crap, it's not even worth comparing them. A3 does have a decent "fun
factor" at least.
Hunter
following HF which is a great game), however, the game was a good old
fashioned Street Fighter game (and personally, the last true SF game as
well). I found it to be a great solid game that I still like playing when I
want "classic" SF2 action.
- H
"Viscant" <vis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000314232738...@ng-de1.aol.com...
> >He said right below in his message that he thought 3S is worse, I'd
> >disagree on that though. SF The Movie on home systems is worse (arcade
> >version is better though), MSF is worse, and Alpha 1 is pretty far down
> >there... I wouldn't say A1 is worse but some people would. It is mostly a
> >matter of opinion after all... I only rate A3 above some of those games
> >not because the gameplay is any better... the gameplay in all of them is
> >total crap, it's not even worth comparing them. A3 does have a decent
"fun
> >factor" at least.
>
> Worst SF? Well, take MSF out of there. First off because it's not SF,
2nd off
> because it's not that bad.
> Probably the worst SFs would be the EX series, A1, the movie, and SSF2. I
> personally think A1 is the worst SF but that's because I live in San
Diego,
> where A1, MvC and 2i/3s are all that gets play around here.
>
> --Viscant, The Icy Rose
> "Who wants to be a millionaire?"
>
poc...@my-deja.com
spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) wrote:
> In article <8ak7oi$rcg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <poc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >I actually wrote a whole reply to this and my browser went down. So
ima
> >paraphrase.
>
>
> >This is the LAMEST post I have ever read on this group. The writer
> >makes claims and after the explanation he disproves his claim and
shows
> >only that he doesn't understand core fundamentals of a3's
gameplay(not
> >to mention his defintions are off also).
> >most simplistic and moronic strategies that would not work against
any
the
> >most strategic sf in years where ranging, timing, reflexes, skill, 2
> >kinds of wake up games, effective normals, varying specials...etc
>
> Please. Such high skill gameplay as read or react to an attack,
> VC, do 35%. If you misread then just do a safe cover, no real
punishment
> there. A3 gameplay is extremely SpEdtastic when only one guy has
meter,
> because it so limits what the other guy can do. This is the exact same
> alpha2 bullshit all over again except that in alpha2 for you to do a
walk
> thru CC it is at least 10x harder than VC, and it is over in 1 second
> unlike a VC where he has forever to combo you and you get to sit there
and
> play with yourself... but oh wait! Alpha3 has countermashing, you get
to
> masturbate for a reason! RETARDED, even if it doesn't have much effect
on
> the game.
>
> >ryu will nail any trip or low ground attack in the game.
>
>
> >are useless." At the same time saying stupid shiet like specials are
> >weaker all WHILE saying a3 has lost depth.
>
> depth. Should crappy specials = good gameplay?
>
>
> Sodom's moves.
>
>
> And you will find "Vism everywhere, and no one attacking until
> they have V meter."
guy. And you haven't a clue on how the record of tourney wins in any
ism. Aside from Choi and Valle no one else is skilled enough to even
place recently in Vism. Talking out of turn looks even lamer when
you're thinking similar thoughts and YOU show yourself to be speaking
out of ignorance AFTER I'm telling someone else they are doing the exact
thing. Seriously. Sit this one out and ask questions when I'm done:P
I apologize for throwing out random comments...it just sucked that my
browser went down and erased my shiet:( But nonetheless everything I
said was TRUE. Just look here for explanations. Not any 6 segment long
one though:P
Apoc.
poc...@my-deja.com
> Reason #1
>
> Shabby Game Elements Implemented
>
> A little of this is probably true of every SF game but in Alpha 3,
it's
> overkill. For a game that was being developed for such a considerably
> long time, this one is just riddled with bugs and annoyances which not
> only make no sense, they significantly influence much of the approach
> to game play. Let's consider the following examples:
First off, please note that to me if it doesn't affect a tournaments
outcome any bug or annoyance is just a lil glitch. EVERY sf has had
glitches. But no glitch is consistant enough like on ol skool where you
could recreate the bs at will. Funny thouhg, when you can control it
it's fun? Anyway, a bug that doesn't affect REAL tourney play is not
even noteworthy imo. I go to and play in more tournies with pretty darn
good comp that to say after this long A3 STILL hasn't had a glitch arise
that caused a tourney upset or anything. It's just a lame point to
make.
Hit Priority:the property of an attack which factors the strength of one
move over the strength of anothers. i.e. "Rose's low strong on a2 had
obscene priority. Basically if move A beats moves b,c and d 75% of the
time that move would have high priority
Hit Detection:the collission point where an attack box and a hit box
meet. We use this term lightly. Partly my fault on an early a3 post on
horrible hit detection. It is apparent that capcom CHOSE moves to hit
the way that they do for reasons. Why is aism Chun Li's far fierce
different from x isms? They LOOK the same? Maybe capcom should've
drawn new animations for how the moves actually hit? But if you play
the game at any length you will no longer be fooled by the sprite and
UNDERSTAND how the moves actually work making "hit detection" not a
problem except for Chocobo glitches:P
>
> a) Ridiculous hit priorities - this is one of the worse items that I
> can think of. Way too many moves in the game that not only trade but
> often completely SNUFF other moves too effectively.
You could stuff DPs on sfII-ST with normals. High priority moves
are in every sf...more annoying is the way A2 made low strong a
great move for every darn character:/ Regardless, you are siting an
issue that is in all sfs; you're not even singling a3 out yet.
Even moves which
> have no business hitting at all given the circumstances (what my
> brother calls an "ironic counter"). This is most obvious in the form
of
> anti-air counters that take out your jump attacks cleanly even though
> they should not in any way being doing so. Guy's ducking Strong anti-
> air is perhaps forgivable in this respect although it is extremely
> annoying. However, others like Fei Long's ducking Fierce anti-air with
> his head (?) and Ken/Ryu ducking Forward sweeps as anti-air are plain
> foolish. Charlie's standing Fierce backhand which actually strikes
> cleanly with his face is another rotten example. While this system of
> anti-airing can be adjusted to over time, the whole thing just leads
> players to be lazy IMO. Distancing and correct placement of moves
takes
> a backseat to just throwing highly successful moves on a regular
basis.
Your last statement is true among scrub play. May even have worked a
year ago. Has little to do with the game. Just shows that where this
strategy is useful players can't beat these tactics...not that they are
really useful tactics in real competition. And why are you jumping?
Let me explain something. A3 has a counter system new to the sf world.
There is a counter timing now for every move. So if move A has high
priority over moves b, c, and d, a WELL-timed move d will take out move
A cleanly. For example...Chun Li's low rh is a great ground move and as
flawless of an anti- air as I can think of...and I have no fear of Chun
li's low rh...because I know which moves that my characters use that
will hit it cleanly if it is counter-timed rather than just a trade.
> One of the most notable examples of this is again Fei Long whose
> ducking Fierce not only takes out jumpers reasonably well but ALSO
> snuffs ground attackers very effectively to boot. This generally
> promotes laziness in the player
I'll say a couple things on this. It only promotes laziness if the
player wins with this strategy..and any decent foot game, as blt
mentioned in his slapdown, will counter any high priority game...see on
A3 range ALSO affects priority as well astiming...I believe this to be
an intricasy of A3 that the common player still doesn't notice.
nonetheless...this will separate the men from the boys later on.
Example...Ryu and Charlie...both low strongs...almost same priority.
The only thing that makes one move beat the other is proper range
setting and counter-timing. I can make it look like my long strong can
beat yours outright everytime with either character vs. either
character. See most ppl don't even realize the exhistence of these
calculations when playing and think ppl are sticking out random high
priority moves like random parry attempts...maybe where you play...maybe
on EC even...but timing and range all effect low and high priority in
every exchange in the game. That is a thought process that is more
useful now than any other sf...requires more strategy in ranging more
than any other sf because of the "new" counter game.
And I am not discussing home version only things. That is ridiculous.
There is no way the new characters were even game tested. I guarantee
that if an upgrade ever sees the light of day the "new" characters on
the home versions will be tweaked significantly. It's pointless. I'm
talking the game used for tourneys...not the game you play at home
against your buds. I'm talking about the game where it counts for
competition. When they start having home version competitions then I'll
sit by and say that these characters were not playtested and were just
thrown in. I'll tell it like it is then too. But bear in mind thqt the
arcade version is very different from the home version.
That's all for today...bb tomorrow when I have more time.
Apoc
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
>In article <YEmz4.117$i3.2470@uchinews>,
>spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun Patrick Mcisaac) wrote:
>> And you will find "Vism everywhere, and no one attacking until
>> they have V meter."
>K...dude. YOU personally however sound more ridiculous than the first
>guy. And you haven't a clue on how the record of tourney wins in any
>ism. Aside from Choi and Valle no one else is skilled enough to even
>place recently in Vism.
Well, that quote was from Julien refering to Japan. So whatever,
we all suck too much to get away from X Dhalsim.
> Talking out of turn looks even lamer when
>you're thinking similar thoughts and YOU show yourself to be speaking
>out of ignorance AFTER I'm telling someone else they are doing the exact
>thing.
Apoc, you fool, the entire idea of the reiteration was the entire
point, aside from where I was challenging you to explain such
non-intuitive things as "Crappy specials = good game."
> Seriously. Sit this one out and ask questions when I'm done:P
Seriously. "Crappy specials = good game."
>I apologize for throwing out random comments...it just sucked that my
>browser went down and erased my shiet:( But nonetheless everything I
>said was TRUE. Just look here for explanations. Not any 6 segment long
>one though:P
Dude, that post took like 1 minute 4.05 seconds to read. That is not
long... if you want long... I'll send you a mid sized post from a few
select other newsgroups (ones where there are On Topic things to
discuss). Something in the 50+kB range.
Kevin
I don't understand why you're actually trying to make A3 seem like a
of the other ones....It's not as good as A2...and I wouldn't try to
pass it off as such...
I don't care how many explanations of how to counter VC's there
are....it still comes down to having meter to effectively counter
VC...and the game is basically charge up till you do....I'm not going
to site examples of US competition...Cause that's a waste of
time...You only have to go by Choi's and Valle's experiences in Japan
or against other japanese players..where the game is basically
strategic VC use..and how to counter.....Of course there's still solid
SF game play....But that's essentially what the game is about...And
we're not even going to go into what area has better A3 players..cause
we know....The two best A3 players in the states are not only
extremely solid in normal play..but they also know how to use VC's
very effectively and their counters...Everything else is
meaningless...and I really can't think of anyone that isn't going to
use V....and if you take, let's say, Thao's Sim...the reason he
doesn't use Vism is mainly because, he doesn't know how to nor does he
seem to like that play because he plays very old schoolish...and he
likes the high damage X super..but can you imagine how much harder it
would be if it were VSim? How many different options...how he
wouldn' thave problem of trying to counter VC's the same way?
A3 is a decent SF...it's better than 3S..although that's not saying
much..but I'm not gonna defend it and attempt to explain how it's a
good high level game..I think that's ridiculous..
Kevin
>
> Please. Such high skill gameplay as read or react to an attack,
>VC, do 35%. If you misread then just do a safe cover, no real punishment
>there. A3 gameplay is extremely SpEdtastic when only one guy has meter,
>because it so limits what the other guy can do. This is the exact same
>alpha2 bullshit all over again except that in alpha2 for you to do a walk
>thru CC it is at least 10x harder than VC, and it is over in 1 second
>unlike a VC where he has forever to combo you and you get to sit there and
>play with yourself... but oh wait! Alpha3 has countermashing, you get to
>masturbate for a reason! RETARDED, even if it doesn't have much effect on
>the game.
It's not nearly the same as A2...CC's are must more
counterable...although I do agree that the game does lend itself to
you charging up..but it's not as necessary as say, A3...
Misread VC probably means you got counter VC'd....I'm not
saying this is good..I think VC's ruin A3..
>
>>I mean dude didn't even know that a strong dp from
>>ryu will nail any trip or low ground attack in the game.
>
> Yah yah yah, and you didn't know that the jab one does it too?
Jab isn't nearly as effective and can get stuffed...Strong dp is the
best ground counter..jab is best air...they actually have different
invulnerability frames..
>>Anyway. Dude needs to go to a real tournament and see how the game is
>>played...
>
> And you will find "Vism everywhere, and no one attacking until
>they have V meter."
This is really only true in Japan....I'd pretty much claim
that just about anywhere in the US, you find more diversity...although
Vism is bs....Most of the US probably plays like VC's aren't really
counterable..just do them through attacks.....Then you get to, they
can be countered w/ certain moves (like dp) and Counter VC's..then you
get into the lame guessing game of trying to pass through their move
or counter vc or what...But if you think a US tournament would be like
the later....I doubt it....Only two players in the US I think are that
complex w/ Vism is Choi and Valle..everyone else is somewhere else
below that..which is why you'll find a bigger variety of ism's in a US
tourney...
Viscant
Kevin
I'd say any of the 3 series is worse....A1...
I don't even count EX and Movie as an SF..if I did..those would be
worse too :)..
I guess if I had to put what SF games are really good..I'd say
HF, ST, A2
WW
CE, Super, A3
III Series, A1...any others...
Not in that order..but if I had to tier it..somewhere around there...
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:14:12 -0500, Chocobo <cho...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>Shiranui Gen-An wrote:
>
>> "Kevin" <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:38cfddc9....@news.seed.net.tw...
>> >
>> > I don't understand why you're actually trying to make A3 seem like a
>> > GOOD game....It's not the worst SF
>>
>> It's not? What is then?
>
sol t kim
Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>I'd say any of the 3 series is worse....A1...
>
>I don't even count EX and Movie as an SF..if I did..those would be
>worse too :)..
>
>I guess if I had to put what SF games are really good..I'd say
>
>HF, ST, A2
>WW
>CE, Super, A3
>III Series, A1...any others...
this is not the way i'd put it. remember people, WW is not a good game!
fun, innovative, revolutionary, maybe, but not a good game. you put the
coin, pick guile, challenger comes in, curses, picks dhalsim. yeeeh.
i'd put it
#1 HF
#2 ST
#3 Super
#4 A2 (alpha! yeahh)
#5 A3 (well.....if you get used to it, it's not *THAT* horrible.)
#6 CE
#7 WW (for fun factor)
#8 SF3:2i (i still think this game's the best of three were it not for
akuma)
#9 SF3:3s
.
blahblahblah
.
#9999999 SF3:NG
i'm not including the movie or any Vs. of course.
>
>Not in that order..but if I had to tier it..somewhere around there...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:14:12 -0500, Chocobo <cho...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Shiranui Gen-An wrote:
>>
>>> "Kevin" <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:38cfddc9....@news.seed.net.tw...
>>> >
>>> > I don't understand why you're actually trying to make A3 seem like a
>>> > GOOD game....It's not the worst SF
>>>
>>> It's not? What is then?
>>
>>He said right below in his message that he thought 3S is worse, I'd
>>disagree on that though. SF The Movie on home systems is worse (arcade
>>version is better though), MSF is worse, and Alpha 1 is pretty far down
>>there... I wouldn't say A1 is worse but some people would. It is mostly a
>>matter of opinion after all... I only rate A3 above some of those games
>>not because the gameplay is any better... the gameplay in all of them is
>>total crap, it's not even worth comparing them. A3 does have a decent "fun
>>factor" at least.
>>
>>
>
--
Chocobo
> >He said right below in his message that he thought 3S is worse, I'd
> >disagree on that though. SF The Movie on home systems is worse (arcade
> >version is better though), MSF is worse, and Alpha 1 is pretty far down
> >there... I wouldn't say A1 is worse but some people would. It is mostly a
> >matter of opinion after all... I only rate A3 above some of those games
> >not because the gameplay is any better... the gameplay in all of them is
> >total crap, it's not even worth comparing them. A3 does have a decent "fun
> >factor" at least.
>
> Worst SF? Well, take MSF out of there. First off because it's not SF, 2nd off
> because it's not that bad.
It is that bad. It's a fun flashy game without the fun or the flash, a combo game
without combos (crazy Japanese stuff that's not possible in a real match doesn't
count). It's a very plain and simple game... which wouldn't be horrible by itself,
but add in the fact that it's full of stupid crap like Wolverine shadows+low
fierces for 100%, Hulk jumping RHs as a corner trap, and plenty more... it's boring
crap with almost no redeeming features.
>
> Probably the worst SFs would be the EX series, A1, the movie, and SSF2. I
> personally think A1 is the worst SF but that's because I live in San Diego,
> where A1, MvC and 2i/3s are all that gets play around here.
I forgot about the EX series, but they're not below Alpha 3... at least not below
EX1 anyway. I don't know much about the others.
poc...@my-deja.com
>
> Apoc, you fool, the entire idea of the reiteration was the entire
> point,
Yay! Let's clog the group by reiterating STUPID shit:/
aside from where I was challenging you to explain such
> non-intuitive things as "Crappy specials = good game."
they are not crappy specials. Shit like this dumbass shiet makes me
wonder how ppl became so lamely bold in here when they don't show DICK
to the rest of the sf community. Heheh, say what you will, I'm sure I
have a deeper insight into the game. At this point I should've just
answered a dumb question with a dumb answer. howz this..."Crappy
Specials don't make a good game. Crappy specials suck"
Of course note the sarcasm. Weak players. No wonder guys like you get
pounded on in tourneys. You want lame ass specials that are brainless.
A3 has incredible specials...just takes a lil more skill and knowledge
to make them as deadly as past sfs. And I KNOW. I play all sfs.
Highly competitively even. I don't just regurgitate years old shiet I
hear here or on irc.
I apologized for the way I came of in the first place. But you? Psssh.
Play me in a tourney someday:P
Sadly I'm beginning to see why ppl call this newsgroup dirt. I don't
even have much drive to keep posting. Everyone else REALLY knows what
they're talking about; I just think I do.
Kevin
WW had it's own type of play....
Guile was easily the best character..anyone that says sim was better
in WW, didn't play good comp in WW....and not talking about
glitches...I would assume strictly Tourney type play cause invisible
throw obviously is a fuck up....
WW had easy dizzies..high damage..redizzies..but the game itself had
it's own balance and forced you to know more than one character. As
easy as it was to dizzy someone...I don't think it played a major
factor in the game OTHER than, you couldn't do something stupid and
you coudln't afford to get comboed...
WW was all about, could you beat the other person's guile w/ another
character...if you could, you were probably better....it had it own
unique balance while at the same time, had some sort of balance in
that you always had a chance w/ any character...maybe that was cause
of the high damage and the good ticking game...But there's very few
SF's I'd call better....HF, ST and A2 cause they were great
games...Maybe Super is as good but it had it's own scewed up problem
w/ Sagat and the slowness (if it were faster, it'd probably ahve been
a better game...and yes, this is taken in context that it was slower
than HF which it shouldnt' have been). CE was just crap...
I don't know anyone that played WW that remembers it as anything but a
great game....
>>>He said right below in his message that he thought 3S is worse, I'd
>>>disagree on that though. SF The Movie on home systems is worse (arcade
>>>version is better though), MSF is worse, and Alpha 1 is pretty far down
>>>there... I wouldn't say A1 is worse but some people would. It is mostly a
>>>matter of opinion after all... I only rate A3 above some of those games
>>>not because the gameplay is any better... the gameplay in all of them is
>>>total crap, it's not even worth comparing them. A3 does have a decent "fun
>>>factor" at least.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>--
>
James M
fun game, the most fun ever really. (Not just of fighting games,
I mean the most fun game ever anywhere, period) It wasn't
the "best" in terms of balance or gameplay - if a new game came
out that played like WW it would be pretty sad, but if a new
game came out that had the fun and magic that WW had, well,
there goes a few hundred bucks or more.
But, minor incremental "improvements" like juggling or what have
you can never (re)-invent the genre like WW did. WW was the
first real fighting game, 100x better than Fatal Fury or SF1 or
Karate Champ or what have you. The standard 2d fighting game
peaked with WW. Kind of odd that it would peak with the first
game, but when you think about it thats the way video games tend
to work. Examples: (note, these are not really the "best", just
the most fun for their time)
Best Pac-Man style game: Pac-Man
Best console style RPG: Dragon Warrior 1/Final Fantasy 1
Best 16-bit console RPG: FF2
Best Fighting game: WW
Best 3d fighting game: Um, this is actually VF2 IMO, oh well
Best puzzle game: Tetris
Best text adventure: Zork? (Whatever the first infocom game was)
Best gun game: Duck hunt (yes, I'm serious)
Best platform game: Mario 1 (honorable mention: Mario 3)
Best racing game (2d): Pole position
Best racing game (3d): Virtua racing (not Hard Driving, sorry)
Best Computer style RPG: Bards Tale 1? Wizardry 1?
And so on. So, based on the historical record, dinosaurs were
killed in 12 million BC by a giant asteroid. I mean, don't
expect Guilty Gear 2 or SF4 to produce anything near the fun of
WW with its green electrical werewolf, jacknife kicks and "how
do I throw magic?"
James M
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
RedBastad
its kind doesn't mean its the best. I feel that Alpha 3 is the best fighting
game of all time, not just 2D, but overall. Sure I had a ton of fun with WW,
but it would bore me to death now. Its like saying Terminator 1 is a better
movie because without it there would be no Terminator 2, but in reality
Terminator 2 is a better movie because it has a better story. With Alpha 3 its
a better game because it has a better fighting system, and better graphics, as
well as more characters and 3 different ways to play with each character.
may picks for best games:
Best Console style RPG:Final Fantasy 3/6
Best Fighting game: SFA3
Best 3D fighter: Soul Calibur
Best Puzzle: Tetris
Best Gun Game: Silent Scope
Best Racing Game: Ridge Racer 4
Best Platform Game: Super Mario World 2
Thats just my opinion, so please don't bash me for it.
The Redbastard signing off.
James M
You claim A3 specials aren't crappy, and cite the fact that the
original poster didn't know about DP properties. That is true,
and those properties were true in A2 as well i might add
(although in A2 jab DP's were better against low attacks than in
A3, strong DPs were still the way to go)
BUT, other than the DP example...specials are still somewhat
useful, sure, but less useful than in any other game. I call
that crappy. Maybe you call that "worse, but still good."
Lets look at some characters other than Ken/Ryu/Akuma. And
furthermore, I don't count a special that is only good in
combos, in VCs or for juggles as a good special. In my mind, if
a special can be comboed for more damage, thats no different
than having the original attack just do more. I want specials
that can be used to position, 2-1 for block damage, suppress,
anti-something, etc. Lets take a look:
Cody: Rock Toss: Useful on a few characters only.
Ruffian Kick: Anti-air version is air blockable/ easily beaten.
Forward and short versions ok at exactly the right range only.
Even then, after blocked opponent gets initiative.
Bad Spray: ?? Who knows. Not me.
Knife Toss: I'm laughing.
Sakura: Pogo Bouncy Punch retardedness: Please
Spin kick: ditto
Fireball: Close only "projectile"
Cammy: Spiral arrow: opponent gets initiative if blocked, beaten
by "random jab", 2-in-1 off a low short or strong...sad. Forward
and roundhouse versions? "VC ME!!! Please!!!"
Cannon Spike: OK, has its uses
Air roll: Rarely useful against non alcohol impaired opponents
Spin Knuckle: VC ME AGAIN!
V-ism reversal: Umm...just cannon spike errr something. Whiffs
after reversing first hit of Akuma overhead...
Sagat: High/Low tiger: Kill me. Or, walk into my "projectile" to
mock me. Also goes by name of "should have built meter instead
of using this god-forsaken move"
TU: OK
Tiger Knee/Crush: Ok in very limited use, fairly VC-able.
Here I pause to note that you can't interrupt a special with
anything, making many specials fairly susceptible to VC. If you
do a low short you can interrupt with a super or special, but if
you actually perform a special you are at vc mercy. This kills
the effectiveness of a bunch of slow startup moves.
Adon: haven't seen much of him, i assume that jag knee (dp) is
the only one not *easily* vc'd
Blanka: Parabolic roll: christ!
Horizontal roll: Vaguely useful on a few chars
Charlie: FK: laugh, just use any normal
Boom: laugh, just use stand RH, better recovery, better damage
Honda: No idea, I assume VC bait x100
Birdie: DId he get any better? Ooh, my TAH goes through mid
attacks! Scary!
Dan: DP ok, rest sucko
Barlog: Don't know really.
etc, etc, etc. The bottom line is that anti-air DP type specials
are still fairly useful, everything else rather dodgy. Pick a
random character and see how useful their specials are. Some of
them are just so damn dumb. Karin hop halfway across the screen
overhead hit! Patiot circle! Knife toss! Mika punch butt thrust!
Spotted owl! Spotted owl!
For each useful, special, there is one that is either useless or
actually harmful. You say you have been playing since the
beginning (not something I doubt) - well, just look at how the
game plays now compared to then. Just a simple move frequency
analysis. I don't think that in HF most characters threw more
jabs and low strongs than specials, did they? Or played "wiggle
back and forth to properly distance your low strong"
Yes, there is skill in the aforemention wiggling game. There is
skill in knowing exactly how long the range on your attack is
(even though the graphics are unrelated) and where exactly to
stand so that your stand short stuffs their low forward. But,
that type of skill is quite frankly boring as hell.
In HF or ST you can lose because your opponent is all over you
and you don't know WTF to do. In A3, discounting VCs and such,
you lose because your opponent is all over the space 2 inches
away from you and out low-stronging you. Yes, this is an
exaggeration and simplification, but you get my drift. Bottom
line: watch a game of HF, watch a game of ST, watch a game of
A3, then tell me that specials are as good in A3, or even good
at all.
A3 is a game where half the characters need moves removed so you
don't fear getting them accidentally. As I mentioned before,
only SF3:NG comes close to the special move inanity of A3.
Instead of concentrating on how the strong DP beats some stuff,
think about all the moves that just plain fucking suck, and the
only reason to use them is to play some sort of demented brain
teaser type "can I find *some* obscure use for this?"
In honor of Cornell hockey, let me summarize as follows:
Hey Parabolic ball attack:
You're not a special move, you're a sieve
You're not a sieve, you're a vaccuum
You're not a vaccuum, you're a black hole
You're not a black hole,
You
just
suck!
In makes no sense, but its 4:00. Go Big Red.
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
James M <jsm16N...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
>to work. Examples: (note, these are not really the "best", just
>the most fun for their time)
>
>Best Pac-Man style game: Pac-Man
Psh, Ms Pac Man =)
>Best 16-bit console RPG: FF2
Heh, FF3. Chrono is up there (notice trend?)
>Best Computer style RPG: Bards Tale 1? Wizardry 1?
Wizardry is ass... just too hard, even with item 9, a map, and a hex
editor!
>And so on. So, based on the historical record, dinosaurs were
>killed in 12 million BC by a giant asteroid. I mean, don't
>expect Guilty Gear 2 or SF4 to produce anything near the fun of
>WW with its green electrical werewolf, jacknife kicks and "how
>do I throw magic?"
>
>James M
>
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
Sean Hoyles
poc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> I realize lately that I may be coming off a bit rude lately:( For
> those who don't know me; I'm just a tad sick of seeing posts that
> appear not to have been thought out at all and just rambled on
> emotions rather than knowing REALLY what one is talking about.
>
I'm sorry you felt that way about my initial post. That was not, as
you can imagine, my intention.
> I apologize for my impatience and if you check my history you'll
> notice I try to help more than insult unless I'm smack-talking for
fun.
Apology accepted.
>
> First off though...how do you expect anyone to post at length when you
> throw 6 segments in one post that could have gotten the point across
in
> 3.
I am wordy. I HAVE been since the 4th grade. If you check most of MY
posting history, you will see that I often discuss things at length.
And probably end up putting in more than needs to be there. If my lack
of brevity is annoying to you, then I apologize. Believe it or not, it
was just my way of trying to invoke some new discussion into this
growing dead space of a news group. Guess I got that. And then some.
>That was beyond long...still, I have yet to read the whole thing.
Don't feel compelled to read or reply to the whole thing. But if you
can read it and point out areas where you think I am out to lunch, I AM
open to the feedback.
> Because I seriously thought it a possible joke until I realized it ket
> going. Rudeness aside. To someone who has played somewhere where he
> has been his only real competition for 7 years until recently(me) but
> still plays the games with fundamental understanding, it seems
ludicrous
> that one could come up with the conclusions that you have. Replying to
> 6 segments after your browser goes down again is boring when it
already
> seems that therre is a problem upstairs when viewing your post and the
> conclusions you draw.
I can sympathize with your browser issue. It has happened to me more
times than I can count (and given the amount I write you can imagine my
frustration at the loss). That's why I always back up my messages in
another program.
But while I understand that writing the whole damn thing again is
boring, the original message you sent my way didn't do much at all to
better my cause (just let me know that I was the lamest poster ever).
The general theme of it was that I suck but it didn't elaborate on
exactly how I sucked. So if you can point out areas where you think I
am "on crack" by all means do so. I may be ignorant but I am also
receptive. If I have fucked up and can be shown in effective terms
that I have fucked up, I am not above admitting to that fact.
BUT...seeing that you indeed would like to
> discuss this issue I will appropriately do one segment a day for 6
days
> replying to the original post and it's flaws.
Thank you . . . I think. : p
Though, in all
> of my arrogance I consider myself to be LEET; I am open-minded and
love
> discussing sf with my peers. "Peers" meaning those who love SF also.
What you consider yourself to be is not much concern of mine. I have
never seen you play just as you haven't seen my capacity for play, such
as it is. BUT if I can learn something useful off of you or other LEET
players, I am all for it. I too am a SF Peer who loves the genre (been
playing since the early 90's). An ignorant one maybe, but a peer
nonetheless.
>
> Seriously though. everything added, the original post comes off as an
> insult to me. Not because you may dislike a3, but because your points
> are so flawed they seem if out of emotion rather than mathematical or
> strategic calculation of the games' workings and strategies.
>
Not my intention to insult. My original post was written somewhat out
of frustration (with A3 in general) so maybe some of my points were
inevitably biased by emotion. It just seems to me that A3 is so much
less solid than previous SF'ers. It's annoying to me. Maybe my friend
Greg is right. Maybe I am a bitter old fogey. I still think I am
partially right about the wierd striking properties and the dominance
of Vism, though. ; - )
> I would like to apologize to you as it seems "I" was the one posting
out
> of frustration of my hour long reply being erased:/ I shouldn't have
> posted until I was patient enough to rewrite a new repl. Again, I am
> sorry.
Not a big deal. While I will admit your original reply irked me
somewhat, I am over it. And pleased that you followed up with
something a bit more informative.
>
> This doesn't mean I will candy-coat my replies. You may hear a lot
> of.."r u on crack!?" That's just my way of saying: "how did you come
up
> with this conclusion at all?" I like to be real and I like to tell it
> like it is. I like to be clear in what I say. Sometimes candy-coating
> takes the impact away and the impact is a core part of the message I'm
> saying. There is a difference between "you are wrong" and "R u on
> Crack!?" heheh just so you know.
I wouldn't expect you to candy-coat it. If you think I am being
ignorant on something, educate me. I am all for being proven wrong if
the support can be found for it. What I don't like is to be told that
I am being a dumb-ass about something and then never told exactly how.
I come to this newsgroup to trade info and learn something new. Not to
be told how stupid I am without justification.
So fire away, I guess.
Howver I won't get to replying to
> any replies until after I've replied in full to the original post.
>
> I just can't type posts all day:P
Fair enough. I am probably wasting more time on this than I should too.
I will note forever that you repeat
> past statements in this post that are kinda lame...you bring up
jumping
> in often. On ol skool sfs Jumping was a definate no no unless you knew
> you could attack or land safely...etc.
True. But it seems to me that you can take out a jumper much more
easily in A3. And be punished significantly more for doing so.
Perhaps part of your problem is
> that you see jumping in as an effective strategy. Not that it can't
> be...but certainly jumping is NOT strategic offense generally. Yet you
> site jumping constantly, showing you feel the need to jump.
I am bitter about the fact that this avenue of attack (and this one in
particular) is so reduced in effectiveness. I AM doing considerably
less of this over time as I realize much of its futility. My jump ins
now are generally reserved for confusing crossups and drop throughs
(yes, I am embracing the BS of Vism too).
Seriously,
> the whole point is; it's not the strategy that's lacking...your posts,
> including this little one, show that YOU(not the game) are missing
> strategy. Even this post was too much to reply to knowing I will do
> another post on this. Please slow down.
Okay. I'll work on it.
I read this post and wonder
> why you even site things such as charlie's flash kick being
> air-blockable...dunno if you know it or not but the last national type
> tourney we had on A3 Thao Duong's Aism Charlie took second to Valle.
I heard that Thao's Charlie is really tight. Don't have any idea
regarding the specifics of his strategy, though. Again, geography is a
problem for me.
> See, you're not realizing that the specials now have more specific
> properties and uses to them making them more finesseful and skillfull
to
> use properly...that's more depth.
That's probably one of the best arguments I have heard you make thus
far on this topic. Almost makes me want to reconsider my argument.
Almost. ; - )
<snip info regarding Sean's ignorance of DP usage>
Thanks for the outline of DP uses. My DP argument never did come out
the way that I had intended it. I guess my main gripe here was that it
(and the specials in general) seems so much less efficient than in
previous SF games. Or, as you would say, I am bitter because it's not
"the way it used to be." If it came across as something more than
this, then I guess I didn't present my argument very well.
For everything you
> state about a character it show you don't understand the character
> really or how to counter the simplest things such as one button
players.
> And there is no way you have grasped the true concept of footsies yet
> so your defintion of footsies is way off. Footsies alone will take
care
> of anyone randomly using one or two moves.
I think people took my gripe with the one move thing further than I had
intended. Let me just say that I am NOT losing to single moves during
the course of my matches. But that is another story and argument which
I will have to address later (see my future response to blt's "A3
fallacies"). I've already said enough here and I know how you detest
long, meaningless posts. ; - )
I am interested in how you are going to explain away the issue of Vism
dominance, though.
>
> Look 4 my replies...however I won't read your replies until I'm
> done...heheh one thing at a time:)
To close, I just wanted to say that I appreciated this reply much more
than the previous one (even though they are pretty much saying the same
thing - that I am ass). At least here you have explained in more
detail how you think I am an ass. It may have taken you a bit more
writing but at least I learned something more. For that much, I am
appreciative.
Later.
dark_t...@my-deja.com
I agree with most of what you said. WW had cheesy stuff, but it the
felt good playing to the best of people's knowledge. The game made
alot of sense at your first playing of of it. Bottom line it was in
itself fun not cause you cheesed somebody off the game for alot of
wins.
>
> I'd say any of the 3 series is worse....A1...
The Three series needs two things much, much, more impressive, damaging
special moves ala Fatal Fury Real Bout and Parries need to be removed
or adjusted. For one thing the parries look like crap with no
imagination and they ruin things for skilled players who <gasp> want to
attack first.
Alpha 2 is decent game but I think chains needed to stay in the game to
make it fun. Truth chains were unbalanced <Ryu,Ken> but if they were
balanced out it would be alot more fun. Capcom should also think about
some costume changes and new taunts, SNK is light years ahead of Capcom
when comes to this.
I know no one liked SF the movie for the Saturn but I liked the idea of
Sagat having a hundred hand slap move.
>
sol t kim
>
>aside from where I was challenging you to explain such
>> non-intuitive things as "Crappy specials = good game."
>
>they are not crappy specials. Shit like this dumbass shiet makes me
>wonder how ppl became so lamely bold in here when they don't show DICK
>to the rest of the sf community. Heheh, say what you will, I'm sure I
>have a deeper insight into the game. At this point I should've just
>answered a dumb question with a dumb answer. howz this..."Crappy
>Specials don't make a good game. Crappy specials suck"
Hey Apoc, i know specials has lots of uses in games, but i think it is
true that in A3 the normal moves substitute lots of areas
where they traditionally relied upon specials, most noticably anti-air.
you have to admit now in A3 it's rare to find a special move that is good
on and of itself.
i donno, i still find A3 sort of slow poking oriented game boring...
--
sol t kim
really. as you said, the problem was choosing guile, and then coming off
with a way to beat his guile with your character. it becomes incredibly
dumb since guile is arguebly most overpowered character in SF after ST
akuma. against a great guile, you just don't have a chance. the game may
have been fun THEN, when people were more naive, but put two great players
today in WW and watch the match, the game degenerates in front of your
eyes. One jump in with anybody, dead. one right cr.jab. dead. one throw
with certain characters (z, sim). dead. let guile toss out a good sonic
boom. lose your position and block damage game. ugh.
In article <38d01d84....@news.seed.net.tw>,
Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
>
>WW had it's own type of play....
>
>>>I'd say any of the 3 series is worse....A1...
>>>
--
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
>> point,
>Yay! Let's clog the group by reiterating STUPID shit:/
And the response I wanted, and finally got, was the corrected
version. Constructive trolling, essentially.
>> aside from where I was challenging you to explain such
>> non-intuitive things as "Crappy specials = good game."
>they are not crappy specials.
>You want lame ass specials that are brainless.
Well, I'd like specials that:
A) work as advertised (no using anti air types as anti ground and vice
versa)
B) do something that you might not expect if you haven't played pre-Alpha
SFs, called block damage. (VCs don't count because even though block
damage on these moves is moving towards zero, the number of them you can
do in an OriCom is going to infinity)
C) have other reasonable characteristics (SPD, other command throws doing
high damage and setting up good ticks, having good range, other properties
as appropriate)
> A3 has incredible specials...just takes a lil more skill and knowledge
>to make them as deadly as past sfs.
It takes somewhere around 50-100 fireballs to kill you at long
range. A little more, indeed. Less than jab damage is not incredible,
period.
> And I KNOW. I play all sfs.
Gee, me too. Amazing how two people could come to different
conclusions.
>Highly competitively even. I don't just regurgitate years old shiet I
>hear here or on irc.
>I apologized for the way I came of in the first place. But you? Psssh.
> Play me in a tourney someday:P
Well, if I get this job at First Chicago, I'll be in Chicago for
SJG this summer. I'll put up $20 a game in A2 against any of the "leet"
people here. (Offer not valid in a mobile ten foot radius of A. Valle)
I'll even give Jinston 2 to 1 odds if it will shut him up.
Chocobo
> Well, if I get this job at First Chicago, I'll be in Chicago for
> SJG this summer. I'll put up $20 a game in A2 against any of the "leet"
> people here. (Offer not valid in a mobile ten foot radius of A. Valle)
> I'll even give Jinston 2 to 1 odds if it will shut him up.
Let me know if you'll be there, this could pay for a big part of my trip...
Ricardo A Lafaurie Jr.
>With Alpha 3 its
>a better game because it has a better fighting system,
Better than WW? Explain this, please.
>and better graphics,
This is just me, but I never liked the Alpha style that much.
>as
>well as more characters
Only about 5-7 of which are playable.
>and 3 different ways to play with each character.
Only one of them being of any real importance. (X-ism has its uses,
Z/A-ism really doesn't AFAIK).
poc...@my-deja.com
Chocobo <cho...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> poc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > First off, please note that to me if it doesn't affect a tournaments
> > outcome any bug or annoyance is just a lil glitch. EVERY sf has had
> > glitches. But no glitch is consistant enough like on ol skool where
you
> > could recreate the bs at will. Funny thouhg, when you can control it
> > it's fun? Anyway, a bug that doesn't affect REAL tourney play is not
> > even noteworthy imo. I go to and play in more tournies with pretty
darn
> > good comp that to say after this long A3 STILL hasn't had a glitch
arise
> > that caused a tourney upset or anything. It's just a lame point to
> > make.
>
No, a
> semi-decent player ending up with 6th instead of 4th in some
meaningless
> east coast tournament with a $10 prize for 1st place does not matter
greatly
> in the history of the world, but the point is that it does indeed suck
and
> A3 is the only game that has it.
>
> > Hit Detection:the collission point where an attack box and a hit box
> > meet. We use this term lightly. Partly my fault on an early a3 post
on
> > horrible hit detection. It is apparent that capcom CHOSE moves to
hit
> > the way that they do for reasons. Why is aism Chun Li's far fierce
> > different from x isms? They LOOK the same? Maybe capcom should've
> > drawn new animations for how the moves actually hit? But if you play
> > the game at any length you will no longer be fooled by the sprite
and
> > UNDERSTAND how the moves actually work making "hit detection" not a
> > problem except for Chocobo glitches:P
>
there
> is no excuse whatsoever for "chocobo glitches",
How the hell did you play sf in the first place? OMG. The hit boxes on
old school were weird too. There are plenty of sprite over sprite
misses from day one of sf. Granted, a3 has some strange looking stuff.
But that's why you learn it. So that you won't be decieved by the art.
And to be honest. Gief's splash looks like it SHOULD just flatten
everything like a pancake. Aism and Xism Chun have totally different
far fierces. They look like it hits the same but doesn't. In this case
it's more beneficial for the person who's played the game longer and
knows more...that's not a bad thng imo. How can anyone whine of hit
detection years after the game is out. If you don't recognize how
things should hit by now you've practiced the game all wrong. Capcom
prolly had a dilemna like this. They wanted moves to hit certain ways
but at the same time they wanted to maintain the character drawings from
ol skool. Remember when you had to hit Giefs kkk clothesline high and
couldn't sweep it on HF? Man I bet watching those sweeps go RIGHT
through Gief's legs pissed you off...oh wait! But you KNEW it was
supposed to work that way. When the game was new the hit detection was
scary...you actually had to LEARN how moves hit instead of just looking
at them. While this makes the learning curve longer, it is no detriment
to the game once you learn...and afterall...most of this comes from a
lack of knowledge in the first place.
poc...@my-deja.com
> To close, I just wanted to say that I appreciated this reply much more
> than the previous one (even though they are pretty much saying the
same
> thing - that I am ass). At least here you have explained in more
> detail how you think I am an ass. It may have taken you a bit more
> writing but at least I learned something more. For that much, I am
> appreciative.
>
> Later.
I in NO WAY think you are an ass. Quite the opposite. If anyone is an
ass it is MOST CERTAINLY me. My original post was waay outta line. I
acted like a troll and deserve to be slapped down for it:(
I don't even like myself when I reread it...even this last one. My only
excuse is that a lot of things are going on in the next few weeks in my
life and I'm running around like a chicken with my head cut off full of
stress. Long posts are really no big deal. Shoot, I'm known to talk at
length 90% of the time:) I am just being weak by letting my personal
stress into what should be a fun and informative newsgroup. See...my
problem is I see NO posts worth reading and then I see yours.
Definately worth the readin as it promotes real discussion among us. So
I try to reply...then the browser goes down:/ And really, lately, I
actually LOOK at my clock as I post replies...as if I don't have the
time to post? It's stress. And I apologize whole-heartedly for my
weak, rude, and completely uncalled for attitude.
I'll post more on the a3 issue later on. I hope this can turn into a
meaningful discussion and promise not to be an a**hole anymore.
Apoc.
Chocobo
> In article <38CEF2CF...@mindspring.com>,
> Chocobo <cho...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > poc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> But if you play
> > > the game at any length you will no longer be fooled by the sprite
> and
> > > UNDERSTAND how the moves actually work making "hit detection" not a
> > > problem except for Chocobo glitches:P
> >
> > Simply put, the moves on the screen should reflect the hitboxes. And
> there
> > is no excuse whatsoever for "chocobo glitches",
>
> How the hell did you play sf in the first place? OMG. The hit boxes on
> old school were weird too. There are plenty of sprite over sprite
> misses from day one of sf.
There really isn't much in other SFs, and it's everywhere in A3.
> Granted, a3 has some strange looking stuff.
> But that's why you learn it. So that you won't be decieved by the art.
Yeah, I know that you're supposed to just learn it. I was just saying, the
on screen stuff is supposed to go along with the actual hitboxes, that's the
way the game is supposed to be. This really isn't a major problem for me, I
just pointed it out as one of the smaller ones.
> And to be honest. Gief's splash looks like it SHOULD just flatten
> everything like a pancake. Aism and Xism Chun have totally different
> far fierces. They look like it hits the same but doesn't. In this case
> it's more beneficial for the person who's played the game longer and
> knows more...that's not a bad thng imo. How can anyone whine of hit
> detection years after the game is out.
Whether I've learned it or not, it's dumb that moves hit in the absolute
wrong places. Chun Li's hair ribbon smacking me is not a positive thing.
> If you don't recognize how
> things should hit by now you've practiced the game all wrong. Capcom
> prolly had a dilemna like this. They wanted moves to hit certain ways
> but at the same time they wanted to maintain the character drawings from
> ol skool.
They should have either changed the drawings or changed the way the moves
worked. It's not OK to go "let's give Zangief a sweep that hits from full
screen, but since we want to use the same animations it'll look like a
standing jab". What they did is the same thing, just to a lesser extent.
> Remember when you had to hit Giefs kkk clothesline high and
> couldn't sweep it on HF? Man I bet watching those sweeps go RIGHT
> through Gief's legs pissed you off...oh wait! But you KNEW it was
> supposed to work that way.
No, that was fine.
> When the game was new the hit detection was
> scary...you actually had to LEARN how moves hit instead of just looking
> at them. While this makes the learning curve longer, it is no detriment
> to the game once you learn...and afterall...most of this comes from a
> lack of knowledge in the first place.
I'm not saying that having to learn where the moves really do hit is such a
bad thing.
Ultima
[huge snip]
> How the hell did [Chocobo] play sf in the first place? OMG. The hit boxes on old school were weird too. There are plenty of sprite over sprite misses from day one of sf. Granted, a3 has some strange looking stuff. But that's why you learn it. So that you won't be decieved by the art. And to be honest. Gief's splash looks like it SHOULD just flatten everything like a pancake. Aism and Xism Chun have totally different far fierces. They look like it hits the same but doesn't. In this case it's more beneficial for the person who's played the game longer and knows more...that's not a bad thng imo.
In theory, no, it's not a bad thing. But with A3, there are unusually
high instances where you do a move that you believe will hit because
it's done so 99 times in the past, but for whatever reason it whiffs
this one time, and you get punished for it. It's seemingly random. It
doesn't happen too often - at least not to me; judging from Chocobo's
posts, I'd say he gets it every single round - but it shouldn't happen
any where NEAR as often as it does. The only real example I can think of
in old SFs of moves randomly whiffing were certain moves of and Vega
Dhalsim in WW to HF.
> How can anyone whine of hit detection years after the game is out. If you don't recognize how things should hit by now you've practiced the game all wrong. Capcom prolly had a dilemna like this. They wanted moves to hit certain ways but at the same time they wanted to maintain the character drawings from ol skool. Remember when you had to hit Giefs kkk clothesline high and couldn't sweep it on HF? Man I bet watching those sweeps go RIGHT through Gief's legs pissed you off...oh wait! But you KNEW it was supposed to work that way. When the game was new the hit detection was scary...you actually had to LEARN how moves hit instead of just looking at them. While this makes the learning curve longer, it is no detriment to the game once you learn...and afterall...most of this comes from a lack of knowledge in the first place.
Now, as Chocobo can attest, I'm probably one of A3's strongest defenders
(I haven't responded to this thread before now since I haven't had the
time), but I can't agree with this, Apoc. First of all, the Gief KKK
clothesline example is a bad one, since that clearly was designed to go
through low attacks. It's similar to how Balrog's TAP (a move I know
you're very familiar with) works: Balrog was invulnerable high when he
did the move but could be hit low. If you timed it right, Gief's KK
clothesline ALWAYS went through a low attack. No "goes though low
attacks 49 times, 50th time low attack hits" nonsense.
Secondly, I can't agree with your statement "When the game was new the
hit detection was scary...you actually had to LEARN how moves hit
instead of just looking at them." I don't remember the hit detection
being scary at all. Most of the moves hit where they looked like they
would hit. And if they didn't in WW, they altered it so that they did in
the upgrades (Ken/Ryu's Axe kick is a good example). If there were moves
that had weird hit detection, I can't recall any. Certainly nothing in
the league of Blanka's low fierce, Sodom's jumping fierce, Dee Jay's
jumping roundhouse, Vega's jumping forward, console (PSX/DC/SS)
Dhalsim's standing roundhouse, etc. And certainly no moves with ultimate
priority like Karin's s.fierce, Z's splash, Charlie's step roundhouse,
Sakura's s.forward, rolento's jabs, almost character's every jumping
jab/short, etc.
If we had never had any prior SF experience, A3's hit detection might
not seem so bad because we would have nothing to compare it to. But
since we *do* have prior SF experience, it's hard not to say that SFA3
has the worst hit detection of the bunch. Not even the BS-filled VS.
series has bad hit detection like SFA3 does. In many ways, SFA3 reminds
me of SS1 - bad hit detection and weird throwing system (though A3's is
a LOT better than SS1's). This doesn't mean I don't like A3, though.
It's probably my second favourite SF after HF. But that doesn't mean I
don't think bad hit detection and VCs (in that order) ruin it. Glitches
(i.e. stuff not related to the hit detection) are a distant third,
IMO...
--
Ultima - The Right Arm of Scrub Voltron
http://members.xoom.com/Ultima1 - The Street Fighter RPG Manifesto!
http://members.xoom.com/ShinUltima - U's Ultimate Rambling Page
"How do you "perfect" gameplay? That's like saying music has
been "perfected" over thousands of years. Fun is a matter of
taste." - Jeff Williams 25/10/99
If an arcade doesn't have a version of SF or SS in it, then it's not an
arcade
Nick K. Inabnit
done, Apoc.
-Nick
James M
Apoc, there is a big difference between having to learn the
exact range and priorities on moves and having moves where the
graphics are basically unrelated to the hit boxes.
Yes, there have always been moves that were a bit weird, and
*every* move requires some learning. Ken and Ryu have the same
jumping fierce in SF2, yets Ken's has much better range and
priority. OK. But, when playing SF2 I wouldn't see two
characters pressed up against each other close attacks whiffing,
or see 2 guys jup, hit attack, and neither get hit at all and
just land next to each other.
It's a matter of degrees, and in A3 it is way too extreme.
You refer to the learning curve as if this stupidity implied
more skill. Its not skill, its just dumb. Why is anyone supposed
to *want* to learn a game that is no fun, has bad graphics, bad
hit detection, useless chars and is in no way better than the
game it replaced?
James M
>How the hell did you play sf in the first place? OMG. The hit
boxes on
>old school were weird too. There are plenty of sprite over
sprite
>misses from day one of sf. Granted, a3 has some strange
looking stuff.
> But that's why you learn it. So that you won't be decieved by
the art.
> And to be honest. Gief's splash looks like it SHOULD just
flatten
>everything like a pancake. Aism and Xism Chun have totally
different
>far fierces. They look like it hits the same but doesn't. In
this case
>it's more beneficial for the person who's played the game
longer and
>knows more...that's not a bad thng imo. How can anyone whine
of hit
>detection years after the game is out. If you don't recognize
how
>things should hit by now you've practiced the game all wrong.
Capcom
>prolly had a dilemna like this. They wanted moves to hit
certain ways
>but at the same time they wanted to maintain the character
drawings from
>ol skool. Remember when you had to hit Giefs kkk clothesline
high and
>couldn't sweep it on HF? Man I bet watching those sweeps go
RIGHT
>through Gief's legs pissed you off...oh wait! But you KNEW it
was
>supposed to work that way. When the game was new the hit
detection was
>scary...you actually had to LEARN how moves hit instead of just
looking
>at them. While this makes the learning curve longer, it is no
detriment
>to the game once you learn...and afterall...most of this comes
from a
>lack of knowledge in the first place.
>
>Apoc
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>
>
tortoise
In article <scWz4.4017$34.7...@news.swbell.net>, "Nick
what is? If you're gonna pull out of a thread like that,
quoting at least a little bit helps the people who
haven't been following too closely.
You sparked my interest and now I gotta wade through that
thread to see what you're talking about :)
--
--
--
--
--
--
Matt
mgreer[at]artic.edu
"She sits alone, in the worry she's created."
Ultima
> To an extent, it was all about Guile...But if Guile was that
> overpowered, then you would've seen different tournament winners..or
> if the game was as degenerate as you claim, you would've seen more
> tournament winners...fact is, Tomo was virtually unbeatable at that
> game....Did Guile have an advantage? Of course...but I don't think
> Tomo won every coin toss.....
[snip]
Uhm, Sol was talking about WW (hence unbeatable Guile/Sim), not HF.
Nick K. Inabnit
>quoting at least a little bit helps the people who
>haven't been following too closely.
Here ya go:
--------Begin Apoc's message--------
> To close, I just wanted to say that I appreciated this reply much more
> than the previous one (even though they are pretty much saying the
same
> thing - that I am ass). At least here you have explained in more
> detail how you think I am an ass. It may have taken you a bit more
> writing but at least I learned something more. For that much, I am
> appreciative.
>
> Later.
I in NO WAY think you are an ass. Quite the opposite. If anyone is an
ass it is MOST CERTAINLY me. My original post was waay outta line. I
acted like a troll and deserve to be slapped down for it:(
I don't even like myself when I reread it...even this last one. My only
excuse is that a lot of things are going on in the next few weeks in my
life and I'm running around like a chicken with my head cut off full of
stress. Long posts are really no big deal. Shoot, I'm known to talk at
length 90% of the time:) I am just being weak by letting my personal
stress into what should be a fun and informative newsgroup. See...my
problem is I see NO posts worth reading and then I see yours.
Definately worth the readin as it promotes real discussion among us. So
I try to reply...then the browser goes down:/ And really, lately, I
actually LOOK at my clock as I post replies...as if I don't have the
time to post? It's stress. And I apologize whole-heartedly for my
weak, rude, and completely uncalled for attitude.
I'll post more on the a3 issue later on. I hope this can turn into a
meaningful discussion and promise not to be an a**hole anymore.
Apoc.
> --
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
I accept cash and checks, but if the check bounces, so do you. =)
poc...@my-deja.com
> anti-air counters that take out your jump attacks cleanly even though
> they should not in any way being doing so.
Jumping in on a3 is such that, like in ol skool sf, you should only
jump when strategically proper. Anytime you jump at a "wrong" time
you will be at a disadvantage. However, a well counter-timed
jumpin is extremely effective and can help you benefit from your
wrongly timed jump in. Still the jumper puts himself in an
unstrategic postion by jumping at the wrong time in the first
place. For example...if I play a shoto versus Sim...and I jump
over a jab fireball full-screen..I have NO fear of a long limb
hitting me. Because I'm preparing to counter-time my fierce and I
will land it cleany as a counter. Dhalsim has to think more to
keep me away...because I will counter-poke him on the ground too
hitting his moves. You'd think that ryu simply out-prioritizes
Sim. But Sim can mix-up and counter-time me. To learn how to do
this I do suggest picking Charlie and Ryu and only playing using
crouching strong. When you hit it may be a counter so prepare to
link another hit or whatever for the counter. But you'll notice
that to effectively win you have to LEARN how to counter-time the
strongs. It's much more than simple "this move beats that" type of
priorities. You need to learn things like the range of your jump in and
how it affects your move. For example. Jump with Ryu(I prefer to use
Ryu as an example character since he's universal somewhat) against
Karen's standing fierce anti-air. Try frc...then try forard...then try
forward from another range...eventually you will find that a well ranged
jumping forward will cleanly defeat the powerful anti-air many Karin
users use mindlessly. You may not be able to land into a great combo
but if you time a lvl 3 when you land it will still connect. Maximizing
you moves potential to counter is very strategic and necessary in
a3...not so much so in other sfs. So now when you go against Karin who
instinctively uses st.Fierce for anti-air..you know how to rape him for
huge damage now:) Also situations like this...heheh...CANNOT be
capitalized upon nearly as much in vism...too far for most characters to
land the necessary v...though some characters like Sakura could easily.
Still, aism is best for this sort of thing with most characters. The
ranges and properties compliment eachother on the ground also. Abd
properties and ranges can differ completely in each ism. Like X-rog
barely needs anything to rape x-sim because of his high priority moves
in that match...switch to aism sim...you won't be hitting as many limbs
with low strong wiht rog anymore...adjustment time.
Point is anti-airs can ALL be defeated. So choose your anti-airs wisely
also...if I know Guy is gonna go for a low strong anti-air then I will
jump for no reason cuz I know how to punish the hell outta that
move...but if he only uses strong 50% of the time, right there I should
think twice before jumping now and also my jumpin attack. That's why
aism sim is superior to xism. I can stuff the st.jab anti-air of
X-sim...so without a super I can jump in and gc at will somewhat. In
aism sim has so many more anti-airs at his disposal due to controllabel
limbs that make up for lack up the great x-super because I won't have
ONE move that will hit ALL of his anti-airs. So I have to make my jump
ins way less if I am trying to be strategic.
> Guy's ducking Strong anti-
> air is perhaps forgivable in this respect although it is extremely
> annoying. However, others like Fei Long's ducking Fierce anti-air with
> his head (?)
it's the home version...I don't think capcom even cared...but actually,
Fei's low frc on ol skool was just as damn deadly because there was no
trip guard...he hits a jumper with low frc they get hit as a landed
opponent and you can link the rekkakens now for a 40% anti-air without a
super...of course if you ranged your jumpins properly you never had to
worry though
and Ken/Ryu ducking Forward sweeps as anti-air are plain
> foolish.
It sure is...you can easily nail that with a dozen jump ins.
Charlie's standing Fierce backhand which actually strikes
> cleanly with his face is another rotten example.
Charlie needs to range his backfist for an anti-air...it's best at
farther ranges when they jump over a sonic boom or simply use a
jump as a mode of travel(not too bright usually) or simply to take a
high hit so you can land a free attack or two of your own...like push
your charlie forward with the backist, make the opponent hit you high,
then st.frc, sonic boom or super(free combo) and now you're in pursuit
as they decide if they should flip out or not...(another strategy vism
can't employ with at least charge characters...to get a far move you
have to lose your charge...less hits and less damage for v. Dig deeper
and you'll see a world of things not outright noticeable to the casula
eye. But even in the basics it's crazy strategic...heheh and I'm just
starting.
Apoc.
While this system of
> anti-airing can be adjusted to over time, the whole thing just leads
> players to be lazy IMO. Distancing and correct placement of moves
takes
> a backseat to just throwing highly successful moves on a regular
basis.
> One of the most notable examples of this is again Fei Long whose
> ducking Fierce not only takes out jumpers reasonably well but ALSO
> snuffs ground attackers very effectively to boot. This generally
> promotes laziness in the player since they can largely confine
> themselves to the use of a single button or two to achieve high levels
> of success. Same goes for Zangief's standing and Jumping Fierces as
> well. The players can't really be blamed for using these moves, of
> course. After all, when such moves meet with high success, why would
> you not use them? However, in almost every way, the priority system in
> A3 discourages the finer points of timing and distancing and
encourages
> abuse of many normal moves.
>
> b) Awful hit detection
>
>
> I am pretty sure that the recovery of almost every type of move is
> shorter in A3 than in previous SF (excluding the projectile attacks).
> The normal attacks in particular are bad for this. It is now possible
> for an opponent to throw a sweep attack which you read early and
> actually have time to dragon punch you before your jump attack ever
> reaches him or her. Furthermore, there should be no way in hell that
an
> opponent can arbitrarily throw repeated Fierce punches or kicks at you
> and go unpunished as a result. But it is often quite easy to do so in
> A3. T. Hawk's and Fei Long's duck Fierces are particular banes of mine
> being very difficult to counter except from exact distances. These
> moves have huge priority on the ground and recover fast enough that
you
> can cover up quickly afterward and often times anti-air any one who
> tries to jump in on you. I think a little more consequence for
throwing
> out random moves needed to be put in place here. But apparently that
> fine point was also left out of this game.
>
> f) Juggling system is whack and not equally effective for all
characters
>
> The juggling system in A3 is just bizarre. I understand perfectly well
> the conditions under which a juggle can take place. What I can't
> understand is why it is often so goddam difficult to counter an
> opponent below you after you flip out (this is probably again related
> to the hit priorities thing). I have actually flipped several times
and
> thrown different moves at different times all in vein as the opponent
> below me just counters me cleanly with the same move every time. It
> almost makes me wonder whether flipping out is of any use at all. Add
> to this the fact that the juggling mechanism is not equally beneficial
> to all characters. Characters like Ken generally cannot gain as much
> from this element of game play. Others like Rose can incorporate it to
> high efficiency in their fighting strategies (Fierce Anti-Air, Soul
> Catch ad nauseum).
>
> g) Limited Options for Offense
>
> This comes in a variety of forms. The overheads in A3 are all but
> useless since they are so damn slow and are just asking to be
> countered. Meaties are much more difficult to set up in A3 (given the
> ability to flip out of many flooring attacks, among other things).
Then
> there's the huge risk involved in throwing projectiles and the limited
> rewards in doing so (small damage, near nonexistent trapping
> properties). And, of course, jumping in A3 is generally a bad idea
> given a) the quick recovery on moves b) the weird hit priority system
> at work c) the overly easy method of activation for antiair VC's
> (meaning high probability of being countered by these characters), and
> d) the huge risk of damage against certain characters (sometimes as
> much as 50-60% off a single jump-in mistake). What does this
ultimately
> mean? Generally, A3 play is reduced to a) poking like a bitch b)
> building meter any way you can, and c) picking Vism (see below for a
> discussion of this dirty little A3 gimmick).
>
> Reason #2
>
> The Sin Known As Vism
>
> The game was bad enough with all the quirks and bugs in the general
> game engine. But Vism actually compounds the problem exponentially,
> often times by exploiting the game engine flaws I have already
> mentioned above.
>
> First off, let me say that there appears to be somewhat of a
> misconception among some players regarding the different Isms. Xism
has
> been regarded as a "simple" mode (by Capcom's own naming scheme) while
> Vism has been given the distinction of being more "advanced." However,
> there has been a tendency among some to also associate these labels
> with the players themselves as opposed to the isms they describe (that
> is, Vism players are more advanced than those in X and Z). Xism is
only
> simple in so far as it is based on the earlier and comparatively
> "simpler" rules of the gaming engine for Super Turbo. In contrast,
Vism
> is more advanced in that there are generally more rules involved in
how
> the Ism (and in particular the VC's) are implemented. But this does
not
> by any stretch mean that Vism is more heavily associated with advanced
> players (if it is, it is only because the advanced players correctly
> recognize its overpowered nature and general usefulness in A3). In
> fact, in many Vism matches, you will actually see nothing akin to
> advanced or creative play at all. Often times, matches are reduced to
> the same rote VC's being traded back and forth over and over again.
>
> So why is Vism so bad? Here's a list of complaints that I can come up
> with which, while not true of all V characters, apply to enough of
them
> for me to warrant it a substantial problem in the game:
>
> 1) Huge and Flexible Windows of Invulnerability
>
> The V character is free from almost any form of punishment that an
> opponent might make. Passing through ground attacks is one thing. But
> dropping through anti-air attacks is what really kills it. This
> invincibility window pretty much means that you can jump in at any
time
> and not worry about any form of anti-air hitting you if you activate
at
> the right time. In this way, not only is the opponent's anti-air
> completely inefficient, he/she can actually be punished for even
making
> such an attempt. Capcom, in their half-hearted attempts to fix the
> flaws from the arcade version, actually shortened the window on the
> home version of A3 but not enough in my opinion. God only knows how
bad
> the problem would be in the arcades. I personally feel that if Capcom
> had used common sense here, they probably should have removed the
> window altogether to help compensate for the other overpowered
> advantages of Vism (or at least removed the possibility of drop
> throughs).
>
> b) VC Block Damage and Guard Damage
>
> VC's, in truth, should not be doing significant damage to either of
> these. This was a foreseeable form of abuse which Capcom must have
just
> blatantly ignored altogether (the only way I can justify it) and it
has
> HUGE implications for game play. What it means is that you are
actually
> being punished heavily for blocking successfully. In X, you don't have
> to worry as much about guard break; on the other hand, some VC's can
> take as much as 40% of your life meter in the form of block damage (?)
> so you are still no better off. This is just wrong and represents one
> of the most highly abusable features in all of A3. But, unfortunately,
> things just gets worse . . .
>
> c) Easy Initiation of VC's
>
> Say what you want, it is not hard to activate a VC, even on reaction.
> Compare this to the difficulty in pulling a Super on the fly. Two
> motions versus two buttons makes for a big difference. The result?
VC's
> can be activated anywhere at almost any time and with relative ease.
> And the fact that this method of activation is so easy is extremely
> detrimental to the game overall.
>
> Want an example. Try this:
>
> Guile in A3 is generally a piss character in X and Z but put him in V
> and he becomes ten times the bastard he otherwise would be. Guile's
> main problem in X and Z is that after recovering from a sonic boom he
> is often ill-equipped to take out a jumper who has correctly guessed
> his boom. He has no charge for his flash kick and normals will be
> difficult to land assuming the jumper has placed himself at the proper
> distance and timed an attack properly.
>
> Now consider what happens if the Guile in question used is V.
Following
> his boom, the Guile player can instantly activate VC and quickly snuff
> any attack the jumper does (due to his invulnerability on startup).
> There is very little a jumper can do (except counter VC, bleh). Thanks
> to VC, the Guile player no longer has to worry about base aspects of
> game play such as charging, move placement, timing, and so on. Even if
> an opponent guesses the boom very early, he/she will find it very
> difficult to jump the boom and counter before eating the VC. If the
> Guile player has enough time to get out a regular Jab then he also has
> enough time to activate VC and counter the jumper for huge return. The
> final result? For the most part, A and Z characters will not be able
to
> jump Guile's boom at all without suffering heavy consequences (Fierce
> Punch - Flash Kick resulting in 50% or more damage if they do). The
> window of opportunity between the boom and follow up VC just seems too
> short. Thus, thanks to the wonder that is Vism, the Guile player is
> free from the normal game engine requirements of timing, distancing,
> and charging, and can literally shave off over half his opponent's
life
> off a single ill-planned jump. And how? Simply by pushing two buttons
> simultaneously. To me, something seems really wrong here.
>
> d) Too much damage for VC's
>
> Not all of them are bad. But some are just goddam awful. And,
> unfortunately, not hard to do either. Witness T. Hawk's rising Hawk
> anti-air. Or Akuma's basic VC. And countless others. There really
> should have been some limit, some upper threshold, placed on the
damage
> potential of these VC's to at least make them somewhat comparable with
> that for the other Ism's. But, instead, there are 50% and 60% VC's in
> the game that are too easy to set up and are seen way too often even
in
> low skill level A3 matches.
>
> e) Not enough consequences for initiating a VC
>
> Capcom decided that to make VC's "fair", they would have it so that
you
> could not block during the entire VC. As it turns out, this generally
> doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference. Unblockable does not
> necessarily imply punishable. During a VC, you are perfectly mobile
> and free to go wherever you please (at least the CC's in A2 moved you
> forward and kept you grounded although that led to other problems in
> the form of Valle CC's). What's more, you are perfectly free to cancel
> any move into any other move at any time during the course of your VC.
> And, of course. you've also got the shadow character occasionally
> backing you up to boot. The implication? It is often very hard, if not
> impossible, for another character to punish you for a poorly set up
VC.
> As an example, consider a poorly placed Red Fireball that an opponent
> successfully jumps during your Akuma VC. Can he punish you? Nope,
> because all you simply have to do is cancel the fireball stance into a
> Dragon Punch once he reaches you. Aside from the occasional Super (or
> your own counter VC, bleh), not a lot of options available to you
here.
>
> f) V meter easy to build up
>
> V meter takes much less time to build to a level and can be
effectively
> replenished using highly passive (read: turtle) tactics, such as whiff
> throws. The result? VC's happening way too often (usually in the same
> form every time) and meters being built up under sometimes extremely
> questionable means. Given the potential of Vism, the least Capcom
could
> have done was make the meter take longer to build up. But, again, not
> the case. I also find it funny how Capcom went to such lengths to cut
> down on turtling (implementation of guard meter, etc.) and ended up
not
> solving this problem whatsoever. In fact, I probably see more of it
now
> than ever before. While the intention of the guard meter was in theory
> well placed, I think in the end it only served to make the Vism
> characters (and a handful of characters in other isms) more powerful.
> As an example, would V-Vega really be worth a grain of salt if not for
> the guard break potential of his VC? V-Ryu?
>
> g) Ugly and Repetitive
>
> Probably a more minor point and one which I have alluded to before.
> Despite the great flexibility of the VC system, the large variation
> expected in VC's (what I would assume was Capcom's intention for Vism
> in the first place) is just not there. What you will usually see are
> the same one or two VC's being pulled over and over simply because
they
> are the most damaging and the most highly effective. What's more, the
> most damaging ones also tend to be the ugliest things you have ever
> seen in your life (e.g., A Rising Hawk or Fireball, repeat ad
nauseum).
> Far from impressive particularly when you are the one who has to sit
> through the 5 seconds or so it takes for the whole thing to run its
> course.
>
> g) The infinites
>
> These are just being discovered now and it's not that surprising they
> are in A3 when one considers that these are just another extension of
> the overpowering flexibility of Vism. I have yet to have one of these
> fully landed on me but they don't concern me very much since it looks
> like my dabbling period with A3 will soon be over. While the fact that
> infinites actually do exist in A3 is somewhat disappointing, it is not
> overly so for me. In my opinion, the game was broken and well beyond
> repair before these ever came on the scene. But if you are still
> playing the game when these are fully fleshed out, be prepared for A3
> to sink to the next inevitably low level.
>
> Of course, many of you will just suggest that the best way to beat a V
> character is to simply choose another V character. But this is really
> besides the point IMO. Making a game with 3 modes of which only one is
> really any good is very limiting and it really seems kinda' pointless
> to waste time and memory on the other two if they don't generally hold
> up in higher competition. And, in truth, I am not especially
interested
> in who wields the VC bullshit better in any case. If it came down to
me
> having to repeatedly choose Vism for the sake of counteracting Vism, I
> would rather just give up playing A3 all together.
>
> Final Summary
>
> Capcom, as it so often has done in the past, has tried to implement a
> new set of gaming features to captivate players without taking
> sufficient time to troubleshoot the overly flexible systems. It was
> true of CC's in A2, and it is again true of VC's in A3. Generally
> speaking, the more flexible a system that Capcom has tried to
implement
> in a game, the more creativity it has generally allowed for (in terms
> of combos and such). At the same time, however, game balance has
> usually fallen in the other direction. Because there is so much more
> flexibility and so many more options available in these systems, there
> are usually more ways in which they can be exploited and abused in
> actual game play. Witness the CC's in A2. Also witness the infinites
in
> the extremely flexible combo system of XMvs.SF. And, here we are
again,
> with SFA3. What's more, the variety offered by these new combo systems
> is generally a moot point since, over time, most players will just
> stick to a very small subset of these combos anyway (i.e., the most
> successful ones). While the VC premise may have been a good one in
> theory, it's just too overpowered compared to the remaining isms
> (largely due to its flexibility of use) and, in truth, was never
really
> troubleshooted properly. I think if Capcom had kept SFA3 in
development
> for another year or two they maybe could have ironed out many of the
> bugs in the game and removed some of the problems surrounding Vism
> (better yet, just take them out altogether, if for nothing more than
> their sheer ugliness).
>
> I have heard from various sources that A3 died a quick death in many
> arcades. And knowing what I know now, it's not hard to believe.
> Ironically, I think that A3 is actually one of those rare games where
> it may actually be less fun to play it at higher levels of game play
> and expertise. The most I ever enjoyed A3 was during my first two
> months with it when everyone played in blissful ignorance and didn't
> know any better. Nowadays, it just seems like two V-Akuma's building
> meter with whiff throws and throwing the same single two VC's at each
> other until the end of the match. Fun indeed.
>
> I'll go back to my old SF2 roots now, I think.
>
> Sean Hoyles
>
> P.S. This merely represents my own personal opinion of Alpha 3 and I
in
> no way expect it to be shared by everyone else. I WOULD like to hear
> what other players think about A3 in comparison to other SF games of
> the genre, though. Feel free to pass along your comments, folks. Or to
> add to my list of A3 jeers. ; - )
Kevin
To an extent, it was all about Guile...But if Guile was that
overpowered, then you would've seen different tournament winners..or
if the game was as degenerate as you claim, you would've seen more
tournament winners...fact is, Tomo was virtually unbeatable at that
game....Did Guile have an advantage? Of course...but I don't think
Tomo won every coin toss.....
I think Guile had an advantage in all matchups..I do not think he was
that overpowered..maybe the high damage, easy juggles and good ticks
made up for this....Guile, even though he was the best, was THE worst
thrower in the game.....no tick game at all (dont' even say jab sonic
boom throw)....
As far as jump ins..If you mean successful..of course..has nothing to
do w/ today..that's how it always was..it's a dizzy combo....
Crouch jab? Hardly...Most characters couldn't link anything off that
to dizzy and the ones that could combo off of it like a dp, you
probably knew you were going to hit..in otherwords, the other person
left themselves really open.....
Zangief...of course..but then again, he had a bitch ass time getting
in as well..
The players back then (high level) weren't naive..gimme a
break...maybe you and your friends didn't know how to play the
game..or maybe they did..but the game wouldnt' be any different now
than it was...cept people would suck at it more cause of lack of
practice at it.....
I have no idea what you're talking about w/ block damage
guile...there's no trap he has can keep someone pinned down the entire
game...
poc...@my-deja.com
Ultima <jas...@rit.edu> wrote:
> poc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> [huge snip]
>
> > How the hell did [Chocobo] play sf in the first place? OMG. The hit
boxes on old school were weird too. There are plenty of sprite over
sprite misses from day one of sf. Granted, a3 has some strange looking
stuff. But that's why you learn it. So that you won't be decieved by the
art. And to be honest. Gief's splash looks like it SHOULD just flatten
everything like a pancake. Aism and Xism Chun have totally different far
fierces. They look like it hits the same but doesn't. In this case it's
more beneficial for the person who's played the game longer and knows
more...that's not a bad thng imo.
>
> In theory, no, it's not a bad thing. But with A3, there are unusually
> high instances where you do a move that you believe will hit because
> it's done so 99 times in the past, but for whatever reason it whiffs
> this one time, and you get punished for it.
First of all...I play almost ONLY arcade a3...and this shiet is like
once every 1000 gfames..and I'm being nice. truth is I never see
it. So what can I say? it's not like I don't play the game and
don't see it...we're talking hours of play without these glitches...at
least I pointed out the common glitch that I saw. Please, by all
means site your common glitches...cuz all I hear is there is this
glitch and that and it happens "like" this. Over here on the wc the
game works fine. That's why there are tourneys on it still without
ppl complaining of glitches,
>It's seemingly random.
So random it doesn't even matter. Choc's been videotaping looking for
them...and they're hiding now. There are hour long tapes of glitches
from past sfs. So to me, a glitch discussion is pointless unless it
can be recreated at will. THat's all I can say...I just don't see it
so how can I really comment on something I haven't even seen exhist.
I really believe it is the players misunderstanding of hitboxes and
such. That's why I call them Chocobo glitches...because he's the only
one I hear about them with. perhaps the psx a3 is riddled with them? i
wouldn't know.
!? You mean when you played with it that it was clear? Cause it is not
clear by the animation that you should hit his head while his fists are
spinning instead of tripping him.
> It's similar to how Balrog's TAP (a move I know
> you're very familiar with) works: Balrog was invulnerable high when he
> did the move but could be hit low.
You must notbe talking about HF. Rog's tap on HF is invincible
completely eexcept directly ontop of his head...youcan't trip the
turnaround or hit him with a standing move. That does LOOK like it may
be a dodge..but LOOK on the next version it doesn't dodge at all!...so
you see? These were good examples, not bad ones. You can't tell how
the moves work at all by looking at them...Vega's st.jab on the american
CE hit crouching opponents...never again did it do that...not even in
the japanese Sf2dash(japanCE). So tell me...is the hitbox placed
correctly on the drwing when it hit crouching opponents or when it
missed?
If you timed it right, Gief's KK
> clothesline ALWAYS went through a low attack. No "goes though low
> attacks 49 times, 50th time low attack hits" nonsense.
only on HF. and everything I do I do consistently and am never
surprised that my move doesn't work...so again how can I comment? To me
this is lame...like 1 percent of the population that sees this and you
act as if affects the game. Funny how japan and america continue to
have tournaments on a game that can glitch out at anytime ON THE
BIGSCREEN in Japan even where the programmers could look shitty if a
glitch happened in a tourney on that screen!!! Somehow though, this
stuff doesn't happen in ANY noticeable tourneys...though i will take
choc's word for it that it happened in a minor one to him...but to me I
think he may have viewed it wrong. no other tournament occurrences.
So...I am talking COMPETITIVE sf. These glitches you speak of simply
don't happen in this game...maybe the game KNOWS when not to play with
you:P Maybe it KNOWS when it';s a REAL competition:P
>
> Secondly, I can't agree with your statement "When the game was new the
> hit detection was scary...you actually had to LEARN how moves hit
> instead of just looking at them." I don't remember the hit detection
> being scary at all.
I'm sorry, I should have specified that I was still speaking about a3
when it was new.
Most of the moves hit where they looked like they
> would hit. And if they didn't in WW, they altered it so that they did
in
> the upgrades (Ken/Ryu's Axe kick is a good example). If there were
moves
> that had weird hit detection, I can't recall any. Certainly nothing in
> the league of Blanka's low fierce, Sodom's jumping fierce, Dee Jay's
> jumping roundhouse, Vega's jumping forward, console (PSX/DC/SS)
> Dhalsim's standing roundhouse, etc. And certainly no moves with
ultimate
> priority like Karin's s.fierce, Z's splash, Charlie's step roundhouse,
> Sakura's s.forward, rolento's jabs, almost character's every jumping
> jab/short, etc.
OMG...honestly I am not going to do a faq on gay hit detection.
standing jabs hitting crouching opponents or cross-ups fromthe wrong
side? Did you play old school? And at least hit priority is not even
close to an end all answer on if that move will hit another on a3...just
about ANYTHING can be countered even if it can't be reversed.
>
> If we had never had any prior SF experience, A3's hit detection might
> not seem so bad because we would have nothing to compare it to. But
> since we *do* have prior SF experience, it's hard not to say that SFA3
> has the worst hit detection of the bunch.
Perhaps it does...seriously you are completely missing the glitches
on ol skool and the bad hit detections. So your experience is not
being remembered as well as you might think. And a3's hit detection
doesn't match the sprites perfectly...so they should change the
drwings? Cuz I'm telling you right now you don't want the moves to
hit JUST like the sprite looks like it should. And like I said...if
hit detection is the big complaint...I pioneered that complaint when
the game was new! Go check the archives. The whole A3 hit dtection
thing spawned from myself here also. But it's a childish argument
when arguing strategies of the game and game depth. If you can't get
over that then don't play...but it in NO WAY makes the game any worse
for the competitor.
Apoc.
> Not even the BS-filled VS.
> series has bad hit detection like SFA3 does. In many ways, SFA3
reminds
> me of SS1 - bad hit detection and weird throwing system (though A3's
is
> a LOT better than SS1's). This doesn't mean I don't like A3, though.
> It's probably my second favourite SF after HF. But that doesn't mean I
> don't think bad hit detection and VCs (in that order) ruin it.
Glitches
> (i.e. stuff not related to the hit detection) are a distant third,
> IMO...
>
> --
> Ultima - The Right Arm of Scrub Voltron
> http://members.xoom.com/Ultima1 - The Street Fighter RPG Manifesto!
> http://members.xoom.com/ShinUltima - U's Ultimate Rambling Page
>
> "How do you "perfect" gameplay? That's like saying music has
> been "perfected" over thousands of years. Fun is a matter of
> taste." - Jeff Williams 25/10/99
>
> If an arcade doesn't have a version of SF or SS in it, then it's not
an
> arcade
>
Kevin
>
>> How can anyone whine of hit detection years after the game is out. If you don't recognize how things should hit by now you've practiced the game all wrong. Capcom prolly had a dilemna like this. They wanted moves to hit certain ways but at the same time they wanted to maintain the character drawings from ol skool. Remember when you had to hit Giefs kkk clothesline high and couldn't sweep it on HF? Man I bet watching those sweeps go RIGHT through Gief's legs pissed you off...oh wait! But you KNEW it was supposed to work that way. When the game was new the hit detection was scary...you actually had to LEARN how moves hit instead of just looking at them. While this makes the learning curve longer, it is no detriment to the game once you learn...and afterall...most of this comes from a lack of knowledge in the first place.
>
>
>Now, as Chocobo can attest, I'm probably one of A3's strongest defenders
>(I haven't responded to this thread before now since I haven't had the
>time), but I can't agree with this, Apoc. First of all, the Gief KKK
>clothesline example is a bad one, since that clearly was designed to go
>through low attacks. It's similar to how Balrog's TAP (a move I know
>you're very familiar with) works: Balrog was invulnerable high when he
>did the move but could be hit low. If you timed it right, Gief's KK
>clothesline ALWAYS went through a low attack. No "goes though low
>attacks 49 times, 50th time low attack hits" nonsense.
Eh? TAP went through sweeps too.....although at least to a
limited extent....or it moved his feet back out of range..one of the
two..I think he was invulnerable for a lil bit though..
sol t kim
Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
excuse me.
>To an extent, it was all about Guile...But if Guile was that
>overpowered, then you would've seen different tournament winners..or
>if the game was as degenerate as you claim, you would've seen more
>tournament winners...fact is, Tomo was virtually unbeatable at that
>game....Did Guile have an advantage? Of course...but I don't think
>Tomo won every coin toss.....
Daigo won with A-Guy. if a player is far superior, of course he will win.
however:
>I think Guile had an advantage in all matchups..I do not think he was
>that overpowered..maybe the high damage, easy juggles and good ticks
>made up for this....Guile, even though he was the best, was THE worst
>thrower in the game.....no tick game at all (dont' even say jab sonic
>boom throw)....
he could put you into defensive mode almost immediately unless you were
playing Dhalsim. he has guessing game in his favor, and could play
excellent keepaway as well if he wished to.
>As far as jump ins..If you mean successful..of course..has nothing to
>do w/ today..that's how it always was..it's a dizzy combo....
no. a jump in in A3 or even SF3 will not land you a round 100% of times.
every WW had redizzies that worked reliably.
i don't understand "it has nothing to do w/today" sentence? what does it
mean?
>Crouch jab? Hardly...Most characters couldn't link anything off that
>to dizzy and the ones that could combo off of it like a dp, you
>probably knew you were going to hit..in otherwords, the other person
>left themselves really open.....
what? are we talking about a same game?
guile: cr.jabx5 = dizzy
cr.jabx5 +st. jabx3=redizzy
ryu/ken:cr.shortx5=dizzy
*then* jump in DP combo=redizzy. *or* if you are feeling frisky,
cr.short x8=redizzy.
Zangief:cr.jabx5 =dizzy
jump in cr.jabx5+st.jabx2+cr.roundhouse =redizzy
or cr.jab 90%unescapable tick SPD
Chun (somewhat unpredictable) cr.shortx3 +hundred kick=dizzy
*then* jumpin cr.forwardx2+st.fierce =redizzy
so in a game of 8 cast, you have 5 characters who kill you off cr.jab or
short, 4 of them with certainty. and this game has Dhalsim, who had
cr.short, yoga noogie tick of death.
>The players back then (high level) weren't naive..gimme a
>break...maybe you and your friends didn't know how to play the
>game..or maybe they did..but the game wouldnt' be any different now
>than it was...cept people would suck at it more cause of lack of
>practice at it.....
you misunderstood the word "naive". i didn't mean they sucked at it. but
it is true that they were not used to fighting game mechanisms as we are
today (anybody remember "unescapable guile ticks"?). see SF3 for instance,
with 39 hit double super comboes. if you saw stuff half as good back then,
you'd been wowed. three hit combo was great thing to do. well. nowdays,
you will probably see people who will exploit the gaps of the game lot
more than before. and we've seen enough abuses even back then.
did you know one of the big japanese SF related rings is anti-guile ring?
ha, they must suffer from trauma a lot, which is probably why guile and
his clone charlie gets worse in every SF that comes out.
>I have no idea what you're talking about w/ block damage
>guile...there's no trap he has can keep someone pinned down the entire
>game...
he doesn't need to. and nobody, maybe except Dhalsim, had a trap anyways.
Guile's SB is as safe as a move can get. toss it out as a part of your
pressure game, it's damn near unfair of a move as air-FB akuma.
--
Sean Hoyles
"Nick K. Inabnit" <ina...@swbell.net> wrote:
> This is probably the most mature thing I've ever seen on this NG. Well
> done, Apoc.
>
>
>
I would have to agree. Such a gesture of "coming clean" is a rarity,
particularly on this news group. And Apoc, here's to hoping that all
your stresses and frustrations are eventually resolved to your liking.
Real life is after all the ULTIMATE battle.
No one gets out alive. ; - )
Thanks for the cheerful follow up. Take it easy man.
S.H.
mondu_...@my-deja.com
post. However, I just had to reply to this one first.
> Dude your wrong about Alpha3. It's a pretty good game. Hit detection
is
> better than it was in Alpha2..
Huh ? SFZ3 has very, very, very bad hit detection. How long have you
been playing it?
For most characters
but
> certainly not all vism sucks bad.
Again, how long have you been playing ? The only characters I can think
of that truly sucks in V-ism is Blanka. And I'm pretty sure someone out
there will disagree even with that point.
Kevin
kim) wrote:
>In article <38d129e6....@news.seed.net.tw>,
>Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
>
>excuse me.
>
>>To an extent, it was all about Guile...But if Guile was that
>>overpowered, then you would've seen different tournament winners..or
>>if the game was as degenerate as you claim, you would've seen more
>>tournament winners...fact is, Tomo was virtually unbeatable at that
>>game....Did Guile have an advantage? Of course...but I don't think
>>Tomo won every coin toss.....
>
>Daigo won with A-Guy. if a player is far superior, of course he will win.
>however:
>
He wouldn't use A-Guy in a real tourney...but that really doesn't
matter..
>
>>I think Guile had an advantage in all matchups..I do not think he was
>>that overpowered..maybe the high damage, easy juggles and good ticks
>>made up for this....Guile, even though he was the best, was THE worst
>>thrower in the game.....no tick game at all (dont' even say jab sonic
>>boom throw)....
>
>he could put you into defensive mode almost immediately unless you were
>playing Dhalsim. he has guessing game in his favor, and could play
>excellent keepaway as well if he wished to.
What guessing game are you talking about? If you say throw
and low rh off of jab sonic boom....I have to laugh....That's a crappy
ass mix up and tick...for one, all anyone has to do is once Guile is
in X range, throw..and Guile will get throw if he tries to throw OR
hit you.....Even easier w/ characters w/ larger range...Guile is a
crap ass ticker...the worst in the game..
>
>>As far as jump ins..If you mean successful..of course..has nothing to
>>do w/ today..that's how it always was..it's a dizzy combo....
>
>no. a jump in in A3 or even SF3 will not land you a round 100% of times.
>every WW had redizzies that worked reliably.
>
>i don't understand "it has nothing to do w/today" sentence? what does it
>mean?
What I mean is..you got dizzied easy back then as
well....Today's player doesn't do it any better..
>
>>Crouch jab? Hardly...Most characters couldn't link anything off that
>>to dizzy and the ones that could combo off of it like a dp, you
>>probably knew you were going to hit..in otherwords, the other person
>>left themselves really open.....
>
>what? are we talking about a same game?
>
>guile: cr.jabx5 = dizzy
> cr.jabx5 +st. jabx3=redizzy
MOST characters....First problem w/ cr. jab is, it can be
blocked HIGH..so this sux as a strat...you low jab me when I get up,
you probably get thrown or in thet least, I block..this never hits...
>
>ryu/ken:cr.shortx5=dizzy
> *then* jump in DP combo=redizzy. *or* if you are feeling frisky,
> cr.short x8=redizzy.
Yes..they are one of the characters off of low short...low jab
has same problem as above.
>
>Zangief:cr.jabx5 =dizzy
> jump in cr.jabx5+st.jabx2+cr.roundhouse =redizzy
> or cr.jab 90%unescapable tick SPD
err...if he's in close he won already....and his dizzy is not
nearly that easy...
>
>Chun (somewhat unpredictable) cr.shortx3 +hundred kick=dizzy
> *then* jumpin cr.forwardx2+st.fierce =redizzy
What fucking game are YOU playing???????? None of these are
comboes..
>so in a game of 8 cast, you have 5 characters who kill you off cr.jab or
>short, 4 of them with certainty. and this game has Dhalsim, who had
>cr.short, yoga noogie tick of death.
Ken/Ryu is same character, Guile is ineffective...You could
get out of sim's ticks..You just had to know distances and how to take
hits...
Only character that really dizzies you off low short is
Ken/Ryu...Blanka can't, Honda can't, Zangief can't (I've never seen
him 5 low jabs...I think that's bs looking at your OTHER comboes) but
he can kill you..so that's 2...Sim can't.....Chun Can't...Guile can
but ineffective....
That's 3 out of 7...Or my bad...if you count Ken/Ryu as two
characters...4 out of 8...One of which isn't a dizzy...one of which
isn't effective.....Sorry..most characters do better off of links..
>
>>The players back then (high level) weren't naive..gimme a
>>break...maybe you and your friends didn't know how to play the
>>game..or maybe they did..but the game wouldnt' be any different now
>>than it was...cept people would suck at it more cause of lack of
>>practice at it.....
>
>you misunderstood the word "naive". i didn't mean they sucked at it. but
>it is true that they were not used to fighting game mechanisms as we are
>today (anybody remember "unescapable guile ticks"?). see SF3 for instance,
>with 39 hit double super comboes. if you saw stuff half as good back then,
>you'd been wowed. three hit combo was great thing to do. well. nowdays,
>you will probably see people who will exploit the gaps of the game lot
>more than before. and we've seen enough abuses even back then.
There's not unescapable Guile Tick....Invisible throw is a
glitch...that's not real play..we're not even gonna talk about
that...you couldn't use it in a tourney.....And if you wanna talk that
then might as well mention how Sim can just reset the game on
Guile...but who gives a crap...
>
>did you know one of the big japanese SF related rings is anti-guile ring?
>ha, they must suffer from trauma a lot, which is probably why guile and
>his clone charlie gets worse in every SF that comes out.
>
>
>>I have no idea what you're talking about w/ block damage
>>guile...there's no trap he has can keep someone pinned down the entire
>>game...
>
>he doesn't need to. and nobody, maybe except Dhalsim, had a trap anyways.
>Guile's SB is as safe as a move can get. toss it out as a part of your
>pressure game, it's damn near unfair of a move as air-FB akuma.
It was a safe move..there's very few things that were
better...Sim could slide..Guile could get hopped on...But no one's
saying it wasn't good..it was good in all the SF's though...its just
that his other moves that made it better were toned down..
It's not even in the same class as Air FB...
Sim didn't have a trap..I don't know what you're talking about..if you
mean reverse ticks....His ticks worked best on Chun and Guile..both of
which could still get out...You just needed to know at what distance
to take the hit..what distance it was possible to throw, what distance
it was possible to flashick or upsidedown kick out....
Kevin
I'm talking about WW...NOT HF.....
Where do you get HF from?
If Guile was unbeatable or as overpowered as he would have
claimed..then Tomo would've lost tournies..why? Because only ONE
Guile....So Coin toss would determine who got Guile (if they both
wanted)....So you would think if Guile was so unbeatable, that someone
else would've won..that didn't happen...NOt saying Guile wasn't the
best character..of course he was..he had an advantage over every
character in that game....And like I said before..maybe it was the
high damage, easier chances to dizzy and good ticks that made other
characters able to eek out some wins....But it certainly wasn't a game
where you couldn't get wins on a Guile w/ another character..and if
you were a better player, more than likely you did win...
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:35:25 -0500, Ultima <jas...@rit.edu> wrote:
>Kevin wrote:
>
>> To an extent, it was all about Guile...But if Guile was that
>> overpowered, then you would've seen different tournament winners..or
>> if the game was as degenerate as you claim, you would've seen more
>> tournament winners...fact is, Tomo was virtually unbeatable at that
>> game....Did Guile have an advantage? Of course...but I don't think
>> Tomo won every coin toss.....
>
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>I'm talking about WW...NOT HF.....
>
>Where do you get HF from?
>
>If Guile was unbeatable or as overpowered as he would have
>claimed..then Tomo would've lost tournies..why? Because only ONE
>Guile....So Coin toss would determine who got Guile (if they both
That's only true if they were playing a single game. You lose to
his Guile then next game you get to pick first.
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:01:53 GMT, sol...@midway.uchicago.edu (sol t
>kim) wrote:
>>>Crouch jab? Hardly...Most characters couldn't link anything off that
>>>to dizzy and the ones that could combo off of it like a dp, you
>>>probably knew you were going to hit..in otherwords, the other person
>>>left themselves really open.....
>>what? are we talking about a same game?
>>guile: cr.jabx5 = dizzy
>> cr.jabx5 +st. jabx3=redizzy
> MOST characters....First problem w/ cr. jab is, it can be
>blocked HIGH..so this sux as a strat...you low jab me when I get up,
>you probably get thrown or in thet least, I block..this never hits...
You can't reverse the jab in WW. Now I can either throw, jab, or
boom. And if you get silly and try to throw out a move or are out of
range dizzy -> death.
>>Zangief:cr.jabx5 =dizzy
>> jump in cr.jabx5+st.jabx2+cr.roundhouse =redizzy
>> or cr.jab 90%unescapable tick SPD
>
> err...if he's in close he won already....and his dizzy is not
>nearly that easy...
It's very easy, if you play WW gief.
>>Chun (somewhat unpredictable) cr.shortx3 +hundred kick=dizzy
>> *then* jumpin cr.forwardx2+st.fierce =redizzy
>
> What fucking game are YOU playing???????? None of these are
>comboes..
The second one is one of Chun's most common combos, so I doubt
that.
>>so in a game of 8 cast, you have 5 characters who kill you off cr.jab or
>>short, 4 of them with certainty. and this game has Dhalsim, who had
>>cr.short, yoga noogie tick of death.
> Ken/Ryu is same character, Guile is ineffective...You could
>get out of sim's ticks..You just had to know distances and how to take
>hits...
> Only character that really dizzies you off low short is
>Ken/Ryu...Blanka can't, Honda can't, Zangief can't (I've never seen
>him 5 low jabs...I think that's bs looking at your OTHER comboes) but
>he can kill you..so that's 2...Sim can't.....Chun Can't...Guile can
>but ineffective....
Blanka: Low short, low forward, roll, then a fierce, low forward,
low forward, ball, then repeat. 100%.
Gief: Low short, SPD, game over.
Chun: Low short, low forward, st. fierce, air fierce, low forward
x3.
Ryu/Ken: Low short xN.
Honda: Drawing a blank.
>>>I have no idea what you're talking about w/ block damage
>>>guile...there's no trap he has can keep someone pinned down the entire
>>>game...
>>he doesn't need to. and nobody, maybe except Dhalsim, had a trap anyways.
>>Guile's SB is as safe as a move can get. toss it out as a part of your
>>pressure game, it's damn near unfair of a move as air-FB akuma.
> It was a safe move..there's very few things that were
>better...Sim could slide..Guile could get hopped on...But no one's
Get hopped on by what? You SB, they jump, you do stand forward.
Even if the did stomp (hop?) you'd get to air throw or fierce for free.
Kevin
Yeap....Of course...
But if Guile was that overpowered then the winner of the coin toss
should win right? Let's say 3 out of 5.
If Guile won all matchups..then the winner of the coin toss should
win..but that wasn't true...So therefore, you had to beat their Guile
at least once...
In SINGLE player there's no such coin toss...so obviously I'm speaking
about tourney play..
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:32:48 GMT, spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun
Patrick Mcisaac) wrote:
>In article <38d28194....@news.seed.net.tw>,
>Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>I'm talking about WW...NOT HF.....
>>
>>Where do you get HF from?
>>
>>If Guile was unbeatable or as overpowered as he would have
>>claimed..then Tomo would've lost tournies..why? Because only ONE
>>Guile....So Coin toss would determine who got Guile (if they both
>
> That's only true if they were playing a single game. You lose to
>his Guile then next game you get to pick first.
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
>
>Yeap....Of course...
>
>But if Guile was that overpowered then the winner of the coin toss
>should win right? Let's say 3 out of 5.
>
>If Guile won all matchups..then the winner of the coin toss should
>win..but that wasn't true...So therefore, you had to beat their Guile
>at least once...
>
>In SINGLE player there's no such coin toss...so obviously I'm speaking
>about tourney play..
I said single game, not single player. So for a best of 7 you have:
coin flip, A wins.
Game: Winner: Char:
1 A Guile
2 B Guile
3 A Guile
4 B Guile
5 A Guile
6 B Guile
7 A Guile
... which happens if the A player's Guile is never "broken" like the serve
in tennis. It might not be 10-0 every match, but it's probably close to
8.5-1.5.. very hard to win.
Kevin
>>>>Crouch jab? Hardly...Most characters couldn't link anything off that
>>>>to dizzy and the ones that could combo off of it like a dp, you
>>>>probably knew you were going to hit..in otherwords, the other person
>>>>left themselves really open.....
>>>what? are we talking about a same game?
>>>guile: cr.jabx5 = dizzy
>>> cr.jabx5 +st. jabx3=redizzy
>> MOST characters....First problem w/ cr. jab is, it can be
>>blocked HIGH..so this sux as a strat...you low jab me when I get up,
>>you probably get thrown or in thet least, I block..this never hits...
>
>boom. And if you get silly and try to throw out a move or are out of
>range dizzy -> death.
>
jabbing..most of the time it won't work if the jab is timed
correctly..but it can happen..Secondly, if I hold BACK and press
strong or fierce, and you're doing jabs, I'll BLOCK or THROW..nothing
will come out....and if you jab again..oh well..I can stand up the
whole time..as well as look for the throw...and since I only have to
press a button (don't have to go from db), then I'll more than likely
get it..Guile is a shitty ass ticker..and btw, if you're too close
when you boom or low forward, you get sucked out of that too...
>
>>>Zangief:cr.jabx5 =dizzy
>>> jump in cr.jabx5+st.jabx2+cr.roundhouse =redizzy
>>> or cr.jab 90%unescapable tick SPD
>>
>> err...if he's in close he won already....and his dizzy is not
>>nearly that easy...
>
> It's very easy, if you play WW gief.
>
>>>Chun (somewhat unpredictable) cr.shortx3 +hundred kick=dizzy
>>> *then* jumpin cr.forwardx2+st.fierce =redizzy
>>
>> What fucking game are YOU playing???????? None of these are
>>comboes..
>
> The second one is one of Chun's most common combos, so I doubt
>that.
>
>>>so in a game of 8 cast, you have 5 characters who kill you off cr.jab or
>>>short, 4 of them with certainty. and this game has Dhalsim, who had
>>>cr.short, yoga noogie tick of death.
>
>> Ken/Ryu is same character, Guile is ineffective...You could
>>get out of sim's ticks..You just had to know distances and how to take
>>hits...
>
>> Only character that really dizzies you off low short is
>>Ken/Ryu...Blanka can't, Honda can't, Zangief can't (I've never seen
>>him 5 low jabs...I think that's bs looking at your OTHER comboes) but
>>he can kill you..so that's 2...Sim can't.....Chun Can't...Guile can
>>but ineffective....
>
> Blanka: Low short, low forward, roll, then a fierce, low forward,
>low forward, ball, then repeat. 100%.
> Gief: Low short, SPD, game over.
> Chun: Low short, low forward, st. fierce, air fierce, low forward
>x3.
> Ryu/Ken: Low short xN.
> Honda: Drawing a blank.
>
>>>>I have no idea what you're talking about w/ block damage
>>>>guile...there's no trap he has can keep someone pinned down the entire
>>>>game...
>>>he doesn't need to. and nobody, maybe except Dhalsim, had a trap anyways.
>>>Guile's SB is as safe as a move can get. toss it out as a part of your
>>>pressure game, it's damn near unfair of a move as air-FB akuma.
>> It was a safe move..there's very few things that were
>>better...Sim could slide..Guile could get hopped on...But no one's
>
> Get hopped on by what? You SB, they jump, you do stand forward.
>Even if the did stomp (hop?) you'd get to air throw or fierce for free.
Kevin
It's not nearly 8.5-1.5..gimme a break....That would only mean Tomo
would've lost a tourney..that didn't happen...
Guile had an advantage in every matchup..not nearly like you're
showing it....whether it be cause of high damage, easy dizzies or good
ticks..it wasn't nearly like this....Maybe where you're from..but that
don't mean jack..
>>If Guile won all matchups..then the winner of the coin toss should
>>win..but that wasn't true...So therefore, you had to beat their Guile
>>at least once...
>>
>>In SINGLE player there's no such coin toss...so obviously I'm speaking
>>about tourney play..
>
>I said single game, not single player. So for a best of 7 you have:
>
>coin flip, A wins.
>
>Game: Winner: Char:
>1 A Guile
>2 B Guile
>3 A Guile
>4 B Guile
>5 A Guile
>6 B Guile
>7 A Guile
>
>... which happens if the A player's Guile is never "broken" like the serve
>in tennis. It might not be 10-0 every match, but it's probably close to
>8.5-1.5.. very hard to win.
Shaun Patrick Mcisaac
Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
>> You can't reverse the jab in WW. Now I can either throw, jab, or
>>boom. And if you get silly and try to throw out a move or are out of
>>range dizzy -> death.
>>
> LoL...One...You can wake up throw Guile when they're
>jabbing..most of the time it won't work if the jab is timed
>correctly..but it can happen.
No, there are no reversals in WW.
>.Secondly, if I hold BACK and press
>strong or fierce, and you're doing jabs, I'll BLOCK or THROW..nothing
>will come out....and if you jab again..oh well..I can stand up the
>whole time..as well as look for the throw...and since I only have to
>press a button (don't have to go from db), then I'll more than likely
>get it..Guile is a shitty ass ticker..and btw, if you're too close
>when you boom or low forward, you get sucked out of that too...
Obviously, you have no idea how to implement this. Oh btw.. on
that low jab vs low short thing.. we are 1 short away from getting a dizzy
off a low short (no previous knockdowns, middle of match - otherwise this
does dizzy). The CPS1 chain (may not be present in SNES) would finish
this off.
Ultima
> I'm talking about WW...NOT HF.....
>
> Where do you get HF from?
You mentioned Tomo, whom I heard was unbeatable at HF (with Guile).
Never heard anything about him and WW.
> If Guile was unbeatable or as overpowered as he would have
> claimed..then Tomo would've lost tournies..why? Because only ONE
> Guile....So Coin toss would determine who got Guile (if they both
> wanted)....So you would think if Guile was so unbeatable, that someone
> else would've won..that didn't happen...NOt saying Guile wasn't the
> best character..of course he was..he had an advantage over every
> character in that game....
So Guile won every match-up, most of which by a considerable margin. He
was as close to unbeatable as it got back then...
> And like I said before..maybe it was the high damage, easier chances to dizzy and good ticks that made other characters able to eek out some wins....But it certainly wasn't a game where you couldn't get wins on a Guile w/ another character..
If the Guile player sucked, or if the Guile player lost concentration
(racking up 90+ wins - which wasn't unheard of - takes a lot out of you)
and made a mistake, sure he could be beaten. But this means nothing.
> and if you were a better player, more than likely you did win...
Maybe, but you either needed a *gross* mismatch in skill to beat Guile,
or Guile had to make a mistake. If Guile makes no mistakes (and he was
the easiest character to *not* make mistakes with), he wins.
poc...@my-deja.com
James M <jsm16N...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
>
> Apoc, there is a big difference between having to learn the
> exact range and priorities on moves and having moves where the
> graphics are basically unrelated to the hit boxes.
>
> Yes, there have always been moves that were a bit weird, and
> *every* move requires some learning. Ken and Ryu have the same
> jumping fierce in SF2, yets Ken's has much better range and
> priority. OK. But, when playing SF2 I wouldn't see two
> characters pressed up against each other close attacks whiffing,
> or see 2 guys jup, hit attack, and neither get hit at all and
> just land next to each other.
>
> It's a matter of degrees, and in A3 it is way too extreme.
>
> You refer to the learning curve as if this stupidity implied
> more skill. Its not skill, its just dumb. Why is anyone supposed
> to *want* to learn a game that is no fun, has bad graphics, bad
> game it replaced?
LOL...I know infinitely more ppl that find a3 more fun than a2...that's
a matter of opinion there. Bad graphics? I think a3 is great looking!
I like the animation of the 3 series better but the art of a3 is sweet
imo. useless characters? Don't be ridiculous...there are more useful
characters and isms than ever before...and in no way better? See,
that's why you may *want* to learn. So you can know what you're talking
about. Even simply scratching the surface of a3 makes your last
statement look ignorant.
I realize you may be lazy...I am too. But come on? As far as I can
see...across the board a2 is less popular than a3 and St at the
moment...wonder why? and regardless of the learning curve a3 is well
beyond a2 as far as skill requirement. But even skillful players still
lose to the strategic and skillful...seems like that's how it should
work. And I really can talk. I've trounced just about every vism
player with not only a or x ism but also with lower tier characters.
See, on SOME sf games things don't OVERALL work like they should...a1
one had ok hit detection...what a moron's game that was. No offense
intended...just telling it like it is...a1 is a less-skillfull and
strategic sf. Things don't even work like they should on that game imo.
I know ppl that could win on that game that can't on ANY other sf. Cuz
it is easier. I also know ppl that can't play a3 simply because there
is no cc. you wanna talk useless characters? Take a2 characters and do
the valle cc...most other characters have to cc back...now you're
meterless. Now look at all of the characters meterless. LOL weak ass
balance...the super bar balances the game? That's like parrying
balancing everyone...at least you ALWAYS have a parry. Play no ism
characters on a3 & you still get some insanely strategic matches. A2
has half of the normals(bet your glad to have all those other moves and
controllable limbs off of your mind to make deciding you moves as simple
as "high priorty first") ccs take waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less skill to
implement and use than a vc...even a blocked vc takes more skill than a
cc. AC do huge damage simply for blocking and are an offensive
technique in a2...they changed them because they were STUPIDLY
implemented in a2. You have lvl one on a2 you can block and do free
damage, run away, do it again...simply by blocking moves...AND you have
a choice between acs to better guarantee your free block and hits:/
can't exactly turtle like a biotch with every character in the
game...like recent previous sfs. A3 benefits the initiator and the
fighter over the turtle better than any recent sf. And it should.
Turtling to win is infinitely less skillfull than attacking to win...so
the one sticking their neck out to win deserves the advantage. I don't
like wasting time rambling like this so I prolly won't reply to another
post of yours on the basis that I don't feel like I should teach you how
to think. I'm all for having opinions...but I could mathematically lay
out how a3 is a better sf than a2 but I'm way too lazy...and it just
seems to me that if anyone bothered to get to understanding the game
it's obvious enough not for me to have to waste my time on ppl that
wouldn't spend theirs learning so they weren't just idling replying with
ignorant sounding remarks.
I apologize I won't be posting for a few days due to the fact that I'll
be in California for the ST/A3/3s tournaments at shgl this weekend.
Apoc.
Vidness
They screwed around with Rolento.
It may be a stupid reason, but heck, it's MY reason.
"I am power made flesh! Fell how weak you truly are!" -Vidness
Chocobo
> I realize you may be lazy...I am too. But come on? As far as I can
> see...across the board a2 is less popular than a3 and St at the
> moment...wonder why?
It's because A3 has more characters and is flashier. A3 has more people who
hate the game than A2 does, and popularity means nothing anyway.
> See, on SOME sf games things don't OVERALL work like they should...a1
> one had ok hit detection...what a moron's game that was. No offense
> intended...just telling it like it is...a1 is a less-skillfull and
> strategic sf.
Well, that's true. Each flaw of A3 doesn't break the game by itself, it
takes a combined efforts of many, many flaws. If A3 had good hit detection,
it would still not be good at all.
> the super bar balances the game? That's like parrying
> balancing everyone...at least you ALWAYS have a parry. Play no ism
> characters on a3 & you still get some insanely strategic matches.
That would be a good point, if it really worked like that. But usually any
time you don't pick V-ism you're just handicapping yourself, not trying to
win using a different strategy. Most all matches will be Vism matches and
you've got the same "super bar balances the game" crap, except there's only
one way to super. A2 at least had the occasional non-CC use of meter.
> A2
> has half of the normals(bet your glad to have all those other moves and
> controllable limbs off of your mind to make deciding you moves as simple
> as "high priorty first")
I started to say "well those are only something you can choose if you're in
Vism"... but why wouldn't you be in Vism? Finally, a good point on an aspect
of A3 that is actually better than A2.
> ccs take waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less skill to
> implement and use than a vc...even a blocked vc takes more skill than a
> cc.
How does a blocked VC take so much more skill than landing a CC?
I'd still like to know how the stupid throw system, unblockable crossups,
misplaced hitboxes, retarded "strategies" like jabbing for GC, and crouch
cancel/infinite type stuff don't add up to a bad game.
James M
wrote:[clip]
>LOL...I know infinitely more ppl that find a3 more fun than
a2...that's
>a matter of opinion there. Bad graphics? I think a3 is great
looking!
> I like the animation of the 3 series better but the art of a3
is sweet
>imo.
Are we playing the same game? The backgrounds in A3 are
*terrible* compared to A2. Barren, low color flat wastelands.
The new moves that characters got are drawn in a slightly
different style than the old moves.
useless characters? Don't be ridiculous...there are more useful
>characters and isms than ever before...and in no way better?
Well, there never were ism's until A3, and there are more
characters, so there are bound to be some useful ones. But, the
vast majority of character and ism combinations are worthless.
See,
>that's why you may *want* to learn. So you can know what
you're talking
>about. Even simply scratching the surface of a3 makes your
last
>statement look ignorant.
Ignorant? There are what, 30 characters x 4 isms = 120
characters. How many of those are useful? How many characters
are good in even 1 out of the isms? Plus, many of the ism are
*strictly* better than the others. For most characters there is
one ism (usually V) that is so much better than the others,
meaning that 3/4 of ism-character combos are useless. THere are
only a few characters who are arguable different but equal in
different isms.
>
>I realize you may be lazy...I am too. But come on? As far as
I can
>see...across the board a2 is less popular than a3 and ST at the
>moment...wonder why?
Gee, because A2 and ST are older? Isn't it *always* the case
that newer games are more popular? Hey everyone, A3 is more
popular than HF. What does that tell us? Nothing! A3 may be more
popular, but how many people really think it is better than A2,
or ST!?!? A3 better than ST, hah hah, please...
And I really can talk. I've trounced just about every vism
>player with not only a or x ism but also with lower tier
characters.
So, what you are saying is that you are better than these
people. It is true that the clearly better player will win in
most situations. That is the nature of fighting games. THe
problem is two players who are about equal, one chooses V-Sakura
and one chooses A-Birdie. Skill prevails where the skill levels
are different, but when they are about the same, isms prevail.
>See, on SOME sf games things don't OVERALL work like they
should...a1
>one had ok hit detection...what a moron's game that was. No
offense
>intended...just telling it like it is...a1 is a less-skillfull
and
>strategic sf. Things don't even work like they should on that
game imo.
> I know ppl that could win on that game that can't on ANY other
sf. Cuz
>it is easier.
I agree that A1 was crap, but I never saw any people winning on
it who didn't deserve to. Once you "learned" to avoid chain into
super, and to deal with the low slides, overhead mix-ups, not to
do an attack that allows the opponent to roll up first...after
all that "learning" the best player would win. THe best player
ALWAYS wins if they are clearly superior.
I also know ppl that can't play a3 simply because there
>is no cc. you wanna talk useless characters? Take a2
characters and do
>the valle cc...most other characters have to cc back...now
you're
>meterless. Now look at all of the characters meterless. LOL
weak ass
>balance...the super bar balances the game?
I've never been an advocate of saying CC's balance the game.
But, I don't think the balance in A2 is all that bad. Both
players without supers, there is a smallish top tier, then
everyone else can compete roughly equally. If you pick two
random characters, chances are the matchup is roughly even. You
just have to hope one of the random guys isn't Chun or Ryu. (we
are talking no meter here)
[clip]
A2
>has half of the normals(bet your glad to have all those other
moves and
>controllable limbs off of your mind to make deciding you moves
as simple
>as "high priorty first")
Please. What a pathetic insult. DO you really think that moves
like Sagat close strong add *anything* to the game? THe problem
with the A3 close and far moves is that every close strong is an
elbow swipe (well, not really, but it seems like it sometimes)
and they just aren't very useful much of the time, and only in V
can you control it. For example, the Shotokan axe-kick rules,
but only in V can you throw it out anytime.
I would appreciate more useful moves, not just a bunch of moves
that are worthless. For Sagat, his close strong and fierce are
worse than if they had just kept his good standing forward. More
moves CAN be a plus, but in this case it really isn't most of
the time.
I guess a game like Tekken must be the most "skillful," or maybe
DOA 2, with all those moves to choose from, huh?
[clip]
>cc. AC do huge damage simply for blocking and are an offensive
>technique in a2...they changed them because they were STUPIDLY
>implemented in a2. You have lvl one on a2 you can block and do
free
>damage, run away,
If you have level 1, if you AC you can eat a super or special.
Its good, but hardly "free."
[clip]
>Turtling to win is infinitely less skillfull than attacking to
win...so
>the one sticking their neck out to win deserves the advantage.
I don't
>like wasting time rambling like this so I prolly won't reply to
another
>post of yours on the basis that I don't feel like I should
teach you how
>to think.
Oh, please patronize me some more. You never give a fucking
inch. You really think A3 hit detection is no different from
SF2, or that the A3 graphics are better than A2? I suppose the
earth is flat as well, and I just can't see it because I haven't
benefitted from your wonderful instruction.
Teach me how to think...what a joke. So far the only point
you've made that had any backing at all was that strong DP beats
low attacks, something never in question by me.
James M
Kevin
Patrick Mcisaac) wrote:
>In article <38d29ff6....@news.seed.net.tw>,
>Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
>>> You can't reverse the jab in WW. Now I can either throw, jab, or
>>>boom. And if you get silly and try to throw out a move or are out of
>>>range dizzy -> death.
>>>
>> LoL...One...You can wake up throw Guile when they're
>>jabbing..most of the time it won't work if the jab is timed
>>correctly..but it can happen.
>
> No, there are no reversals in WW.
>
You've obviously never played the game...You can jab as I get
up...THere's a chance to get thrown..this is a fact...This even
happened on Shoto low shorts, etc....How often? Not very..it wasn't
worth it..and most likely, a well timed hit won't allow it..but I've
seen it enough times to know it does happen..
>>.Secondly, if I hold BACK and press
>>strong or fierce, and you're doing jabs, I'll BLOCK or THROW..nothing
>>will come out....and if you jab again..oh well..I can stand up the
>>whole time..as well as look for the throw...and since I only have to
>>press a button (don't have to go from db), then I'll more than likely
>>get it..Guile is a shitty ass ticker..and btw, if you're too close
>>when you boom or low forward, you get sucked out of that too...
>
> Obviously, you have no idea how to implement this. Oh btw.. on
>that low jab vs low short thing.. we are 1 short away from getting a dizzy
>off a low short (no previous knockdowns, middle of match - otherwise this
>does dizzy). The CPS1 chain (may not be present in SNES) would finish
>this off.
This is not true..knockdowns were, many times. off of a
throw....and if you mean low short into standing fierce w/ Guile or
similar things....I know Guile can do this, I don't think any other
characters can...Guile can do low jab into standing fierce as well w/o
the short+fierce trick.....Low short standing fierce in any case,
would not dizzy..takes more than that...unless there was a previous
hit early on.....
And I'd never talk SNES..that's ridiculous
Kevin
>Kevin wrote:
>
>> I'm talking about WW...NOT HF.....
>>
>> Where do you get HF from?
>
>You mentioned Tomo, whom I heard was unbeatable at HF (with Guile).
>Never heard anything about him and WW.
>
He was far more unbeatable in WW...IMO...
>> If Guile was unbeatable or as overpowered as he would have
>> claimed..then Tomo would've lost tournies..why? Because only ONE
>> Guile....So Coin toss would determine who got Guile (if they both
>> wanted)....So you would think if Guile was so unbeatable, that someone
>> else would've won..that didn't happen...NOt saying Guile wasn't the
>> best character..of course he was..he had an advantage over every
>> character in that game....
>
>So Guile won every match-up, most of which by a considerable margin. He
>was as close to unbeatable as it got back then...
Not really...cause like I said, if he was unbeatable, you
would've seen a differnet winner out of the probably 50+ WW tournies
Tomo won at that time..and you didn't....I think Guile had the
advantage in every match up..I think he was the best character....But
whether it's from the high damage, easy dizzies or good ticks, it
wasn't THAT difficult to get wins...If the Guile player was better
than you, then most likely, you didn't get any..but if it was
close...it was a good match...but in Guile's favor..in every
situation..
>
>> And like I said before..maybe it was the high damage, easier chances to dizzy and good ticks that made other characters able to eek out some wins....But it certainly wasn't a game where you couldn't get wins on a Guile w/ another character..
>
>If the Guile player sucked, or if the Guile player lost concentration
>(racking up 90+ wins - which wasn't unheard of - takes a lot out of you)
>and made a mistake, sure he could be beaten. But this means nothing.
We won't use Invisible throw as a viable tool..since this is
only Tourney situations...and glitches are just that..glitches...If
Ken/Ryu had that glitch, they'd still be the "worst" character in the
game (tourney wise) although they'd be "unbeatable" because of it...
And 90 wins...I think that was rare...I think the player was
porbably considerably better than the rest of hte people playing..or
the rest of the people weren't that good...where they didn't know what
to do against Guile...
>
>> and if you were a better player, more than likely you did win...
>
>Maybe, but you either needed a *gross* mismatch in skill to beat Guile,
>or Guile had to make a mistake. If Guile makes no mistakes (and he was
>the easiest character to *not* make mistakes with), he wins.
>
Nope....Because the winners of all the match ups (not just w/
Tomo) weren't decided on the coin toss..in otherwords, someone did
beat someone's Guile...at least at some point in the Match...The
better player almost always won (same as it is now), the coin toss
didn't determine who won...If Guile was as overpowered as you say,
then we would've seen more randomness (since all the players were
good)..but since we didn't...I think this totally goes against
that....
Again..Not saying Guile wasn't the best...For SURE he was the
best.....But whether it's the high damage or whatever..the other
characters still had decent chances...
I, as well as other players back then, I've seen get 50+ wins in WW w/
characters OTHER than Guile..against some fairly decent
competition..but the fact of the matter is, if you were the better
player, more than likely, you could beat the other person's
Guile...Was it hard? Sure....But you didn't need a gross mismatch in
skill....that's laughable..
Ultima
> >In article <2511aefe...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com>,
> >James M <jsm16N...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> [clip]
> >LOL...I know infinitely more ppl that find a3 more fun than
> a2...that's a matter of opinion there. Bad graphics? I think a3 is great looking! I like the animation of the 3 series better but the art of a3 is sweet imo.
> Are we playing the same game? The backgrounds in A3 are
> *terrible* compared to A2. Barren, low color flat wastelands.
> The new moves that characters got are drawn in a slightly
> different style than the old moves.
The backgrounds are worse, but that's about it. The character graphics,
even with the slightly different style for the new moves, are about the
same (i.e. pretty good). I don't see how you can call A3's graphics
worse than A2's - SF3:2I's backgrounds are better than SF3:NG (IMO), but
I wouldn't say that 2I's graphics are better because of that. Or rather,
I don't equate "bad backgrounds" with "bad graphics". That's just me
though...
As another example, I think SS2 has the best graphics out of all the
SSs. Not only because it has the best backgrounds, but because I think
it has the brightest colours, best drawn characters and most beautiful
effects. If SS2 had worse backgrounds than the others, its graphics
would still be the best...
> useless characters? Don't be ridiculous...there are more useful
> >characters and isms than ever before...and in no way better?
>
> Well, there never were ism's until A3, and there are more
> characters, so there are bound to be some useful ones. But, the
> vast majority of character and ism combinations are worthless.
Compared to the other Alphas, A3 has a MUCH larger cast of useful
characters. But then, the number of characters is greater, so it works
out the same.
[snip]
> >I realize you may be lazy...I am too. But come on? As far as
> I can see...across the board a2 is less popular than a3 and ST at the
> >moment...wonder why?
>
> Gee, because A2 and ST are older? Isn't it *always* the case
> that newer games are more popular?
Not necessarily. I remember everyone here looking at Super at said "WTF
is this garbage?" and went right back to HF. Okay, so myabe me played it
for about a week first, but we did go back.. :p
> Hey everyone, A3 is more
> popular than HF. What does that tell us? Nothing! A3 may be more
> popular, but how many people really think it is better than A2,
> or ST!?!? A3 better than ST, hah hah, please...
Apoc never said A3 was better than ST. In fact, he didn't even say that
A3 was more popular than ST. He said that A3 and ST are more popular thn
A2. C'mon James, you know better than that. Read more carefully next
time...
And BTW, I think A3 is better than A2. Even with the flaws...
[snip]
James M
wrote:
>James M wrote:
>
>> In article <8au40n$1at$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, poc...@my-deja.com
>> wrote:
>
>> >In article <2511aefe...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com>,
>> >James M <jsm16N...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
[clip]
>The backgrounds are worse, but that's about it. The character
graphics,
>even with the slightly different style for the new moves, are
about the
>same (i.e. pretty good). I don't see how you can call A3's
graphics
>worse than A2's
What are yout talking about? The backgrounds are worse, the
select screen is worse, and the characters look the same. So,
worse + worse + same = worse. Call me crazy, but it seems like
if some graphics are worse and the rest no better, we end up
with something strictly worse. In fact, the only things that
look as good as in A2 are the frames they kept from A2. So yes,
A3 is worse graphically than A2.
[clip]
>As another example, I think SS2 has the best graphics out of
all the
>SSs. Not only because it has the best backgrounds, but because
I think
>it has the brightest colours, best drawn characters and most
beautiful
>effects. If SS2 had worse backgrounds than the others, its
graphics
>would still be the best...
Yeah, but does A3 have brighter colors, better drawn characters,
and better effects? No. What exactly in A3 is better than A2,
graphically?
> [clip]
>Compared to the other Alphas, A3 has a MUCH larger cast of
useful
>characters. But then, the number of characters is greater, so
it works
>out the same.
>
[clip]
>Apoc never said A3 was better than ST. In fact, he didn't even
say that
>A3 was more popular than ST. He said that A3 and ST are more
popular thn
>A2. C'mon James, you know better than that. Read more carefully
next
>time...
Oops, my mistake. I stand corrected. But, I wouod note that A3
is supposed to replace A2, and not ST. ST is from an entirely
different series of games. If you want a good analogy, look at
TTT and T3. Is TTT really any better? Yet it is loads more
popular. The newer game is always more popular unless it is
really much worse in comparison.
ANd by popular, do we mean people playing it, or talking about
it? Don't forget that in many arcades A3 replaced the A2 board,
so nobody can play A2 anymore at those places, A3 wins by
default.
In general, popularity is rather silly to measure anything by.
>And BTW, I think A3 is better than A2. Even with the flaws...
The bottom line for me is this: WHen I play A3, I am instantly
bored. I was bored from day 1. When at an arcade with A3 and A2
I'd rather play A2 against the computer after a few matches of
A3. A3, for me, is about as fun as skee-ball.
Ultima
> >> In article <8au40n$1at$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, poc...@my-deja.com
> >> wrote:
> >> >In article <2511aefe...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com>,
> >> >James M <jsm16N...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> [clip]
> >The backgrounds are worse, but that's about it. The character
> graphics, >even with the slightly different style for the new moves, are about the same (i.e. pretty good). I don't see how you can call A3's
> graphics >worse than A2's
> What are yout talking about? The backgrounds are worse,
Right.
> the select screen is worse,
I don't agree. There's nothing wrong with the select screen to me...
> and the characters look the same. So, worse + worse + same = worse.
Call me crazy, but it seems like if some graphics are worse and the rest
no better, we end up with something strictly worse. In fact, the only
things that look as good as in A2 are the frames they kept from A2. So
yes, A3 is worse graphically than A2.
*Shrug* While you may disagree, I don't associate "Worse bacgrounds"
(which are the only things I definitely agree to be worse in A3) with
"worse graphics". You snipped by SF3 example: 3S has worse backgrounds
than 2I, but that doesn't mean that 3S has worse graphics. Maybe it's
just me...
> [clip]
>
> >As another example, I think SS2 has the best graphics out of
> all the SSs. Not only because it has the best backgrounds, but because
> I think it has the brightest colours, best drawn characters and most
> beautiful effects. If SS2 had worse backgrounds than the others, its
> graphics would still be the best...
> Yeah, but does A3 have brighter colors, better drawn characters,
> and better effects? No. What exactly in A3 is better than A2,
> graphically?
I never said A3 was better. I said it wasn't worse (overall). It could
just be me though...
> [clip]
>
> >Apoc never said A3 was better than ST. In fact, he didn't even
> say that A3 was more popular than ST. He said that A3 and ST are more
> popular than A2. C'mon James, you know better than that. Read more carefully next time...
>
> Oops, my mistake. I stand corrected. But, I wouod note that A3
> is supposed to replace A2, and not ST. ST is from an entirely
> different series of games. If you want a good analogy, look at
> TTT and T3. Is TTT really any better? Yet it is loads more
> popular. The newer game is always more popular unless it is
> really much worse in comparison.
>
> ANd by popular, do we mean people playing it, or talking about
> it? Don't forget that in many arcades A3 replaced the A2 board,
> so nobody can play A2 anymore at those places, A3 wins by
> default.
So people were playing A2 right up until A3 appeared?
> In general, popularity is rather silly to measure anything by.
Agreed.
> >And BTW, I think A3 is better than A2. Even with the flaws...
> The bottom line for me is this: WHen I play A3, I am instantly
> bored. I was bored from day 1. When at an arcade with A3 and A2
> I'd rather play A2 against the computer after a few matches of
> A3. A3, for me, is about as fun as skee-ball.
Well, when I play A2 these days, I'm instantly bored. I wasn't bored
until day 1; in fact I rather liked it at first. But when I saw the
abusable stuff in a tournament and how *easy* it was to do and started
incorporating it into my play, all the fun got sucked right out of it.
I'd rather play A3 against the CPU (cheating bastard that it is) than A2
against anyone (well, for long periods of time anyway). Oh well...
And what's skee-ball..?
James M
wrote:
[clip]
>So people were playing A2 right up until A3 appeared?
>
>> In general, popularity is rather silly to measure anything by.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> >And BTW, I think A3 is better than A2. Even with the flaws...
>
>> The bottom line for me is this: WHen I play A3, I am instantly
>> bored. I was bored from day 1. When at an arcade with A3 and
A2
>> I'd rather play A2 against the computer after a few matches of
>> A3. A3, for me, is about as fun as skee-ball.
>
>Well, when I play A2 these days, I'm instantly bored. I wasn't
bored
>until day 1; in fact I rather liked it at first. But when I saw
the
>abusable stuff in a tournament and how *easy* it was to do and
started
>incorporating it into my play, all the fun got sucked right out
of it.
>I'd rather play A3 against the CPU (cheating bastard that it
is) than A2
>against anyone (well, for long periods of time anyway). Oh
well...
>
>And what's skee-ball..?
Skee-ball, ski-ball? That game where you roll balls up a ramp
and try to get them to jump onto holes, smaller hole = more
points. Skeet-ball? Whatever.
Chocobo
> Well, when I play A2 these days, I'm instantly bored. I wasn't bored
> until day 1; in fact I rather liked it at first. But when I saw the
> abusable stuff in a tournament and how *easy* it was to do and started
> incorporating it into my play, all the fun got sucked right out of it.
Why did you give up on the game immediately, instead of trying to find a counter for it? I don't see why you'd give up on A2, and not A3. I assume
you've seen how *easy* is it to do the VCs. If that's the way you look at things, I'm surprised you didn't give up on A3 after seeing/hearing about
early X Ken and X Honda stuff... there was no easy counter, so they must be total BS, right?
sol t kim
>kim) wrote:
>
>>Daigo won with A-Guy. if a player is far superior, of course he will win.
>>however:
>>
>
>He wouldn't use A-Guy in a real tourney...but that really doesn't
>matter..
it does matter. if you are loads better than others, you beat them no
matter what. you bring up tomo, i bring up daigo. fair?
tomo used guile in real tourneys whenever he had chance to as well.
> What I mean is..you got dizzied easy back then as
>well....Today's player doesn't do it any better..
more of them know it better, more of them can do it better. we are talking
about WW here.
>>>Crouch jab? Hardly...Most characters couldn't link anything off that
>>>to dizzy and the ones that could combo off of it like a dp, you
>>>probably knew you were going to hit..in otherwords, the other person
>>>left themselves really open.....
> err...if he's in close he won already....and his dizzy is not
>nearly that easy...
it's not hard
>>
>>Chun (somewhat unpredictable) cr.shortx3 +hundred kick=dizzy
>> *then* jumpin cr.forwardx2+st.fierce =redizzy
>
> What fucking game are YOU playing???????? None of these are
>comboes..
thank you for your overall condenscending attitude you have been
displaying in this post.
i suggest you go and actually play the game.
chun redizzy is well known, and it works. as matter of fact, i think
that's her only redizzy in WW.
>
>>so in a game of 8 cast, you have 5 characters who kill you off cr.jab or
>>short, 4 of them with certainty. and this game has Dhalsim, who had
>>cr.short, yoga noogie tick of death.
>
> Ken/Ryu is same character
they had seperate seletion screen, and different properties in couple
moves such as standing fierce and throw. small point, but you made a wrong
point.
> Only character that really dizzies you off low short is
>Ken/Ryu...Blanka can't, Honda can't, Zangief can't (I've never seen
>him 5 low jabs...I think that's bs looking at your OTHER comboes)
such wonderful attitude. but you are wrong.
anyway, the point has been made. you said in the previous post
>>>Crouch jab? Hardly...Most characters couldn't link anything off that
>>>to dizzy
and they can. ineffectivity of jab chains (as opposed to links) is a
stupid counterpoint. if they block, links don't work either.
>>>The players back then (high level) weren't naive..gimme a
>>>break...maybe you and your friends didn't know how to play the
>>>game
repetitively being condenscending. really.
>>>than it was...cept people would suck at it more cause of lack of
>>>practice at it.....
no way. tons of people still play it. it doesn't feel much different from
ST and there are tons of people good at it.
>>you misunderstood the word "naive". i didn't mean they sucked at it. but
>>it is true that they were not used to fighting game mechanisms as we are
>>today (anybody remember "unescapable guile ticks"?). see SF3 for instance,
>>with 39 hit double super comboes. if you saw stuff half as good back then,
>>you'd been wowed. three hit combo was great thing to do. well. nowdays,
>>you will probably see people who will exploit the gaps of the game lot
>>more than before. and we've seen enough abuses even back then.
>
> There's not unescapable Guile Tick....
That was sarcasm. read it over. if you don't understand it, here is the
background: some people back then thought guile's jab into throw was
unescapable, and so banned ticks in tourneys. Ha. and you are trying to
tell me people knew as much about the game back then as they do now?
you are trying to tell me people learned nothing new from 8+ years of SF
playing since then?
> It was a safe move..there's very few things that were
>better...Sim could slide..Guile could get hopped on...But no one's
>saying it wasn't good..it was good in all the SF's though...its just
>that his other moves that made it better were toned down..
SB has been toned down from WW in everygame after WW.
> It's not even in the same class as Air FB...
>
>Sim didn't have a trap..I don't know what you're talking about..if you
>mean reverse ticks....His ticks worked best on Chun and Guile..both of
>which could still get out...You just needed to know at what distance
>to take the hit..what distance it was possible to throw, what distance
>it was possible to flashick or upsidedown kick out....
at right distance, his fireball/airdefense trap was very tough. i'm not
talking about ticking throw, of which you seem to be obsessed of, although
that was pretty good as well.
as i said, go play the game. when's the last time you played WW?
--
sol t kim
Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:25:16 GMT, spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun
>Patrick Mcisaac) wrote:
>
> You've obviously never played the game...
LOL. we had arcade machine downstairs for months. shaun and I played the
game, alright.
You can jab as I get
>up...THere's a chance to get thrown..this is a fact...This even
>happened on Shoto low shorts, etc....How often? Not very..it wasn't
>worth it..and most likely, a well timed hit won't allow it..but I've
>seen it enough times to know it does happen..
you can, yes.
it wasn't worth trying, yes.
so what's your point?
>> Obviously, you have no idea how to implement this. Oh btw.. on
>>that low jab vs low short thing.. we are 1 short away from getting a dizzy
>>off a low short (no previous knockdowns, middle of match - otherwise this
>>does dizzy). The CPS1 chain (may not be present in SNES) would finish
>>this off.
>
> This is not true..knockdowns were, many times. off of a
>throw....and if you mean low short into standing fierce w/ Guile or
>similar things....I know Guile can do this, I don't think any other
>characters can...Guile can do low jab into standing fierce as well w/o
>the short+fierce trick.....Low short standing fierce in any case,
>would not dizzy..takes more than that...unless there was a previous
>hit early on.....
that was the point. cr.shortx3+st.fierce (CPS1chain)=dizzy.
BTW, just for your information, everycharacter could do
cr.short+st.fierce, which is why A3 no-ism (maybe even X) characters can
do it as well.
> And I'd never talk SNES..that's ridiculous
i think it's pretty good conversion...what's wrong with it?
--
Nick K. Inabnit
I don't see the relevance of the whole graphics argument. I'd like to think
that we're more intelligent than the majority of video game players and the
video game media, both of whom seem to think that great graphics = great
game.
Up 'n Down and Tetris have some of the worst graphics I've ever seen, but I
still love 'em to death.
-Nick
James M
His moves got worse, but the SB itself also got a lot worse. In
WW you can move almost immediatly after you release it. In all
the later versions the recovery did get worse by an obvious
amount. In later versions if you walk up behind a sonic boom you
don't really catch up to it until after you have walked an
entire screen distance, but in WW you can walk up behind a SB
from almost any range.
Ultima
<cho...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Ultima wrote:
Damn lousy newsreader is getting worse at picking up posts..
Anyway:
>> Well, when I play A2 these days, I'm instantly bored. I wasn't
bored until day 1; in fact I rather liked it at first. But when I
saw the abusable stuff in a tournament and how *easy* it was to
do and started incorporating it into my play, all the fun got
sucked right out of it.
>Why did you give up on the game immediately, instead of trying
to find a counter for it?
I didn't have anyone to fight against, actually. All I had was
the Saturn version and no one to play against. Plus, the play at
ECC3 was so mind-numbingly dull and repetitive that I couldn't be
bothered to get better at the game. I didn't want to have to
learn 4 characters that I didn't care about and forget about the
rest of the cast. And even in casual play, I didn't have any fun
with the game any more, so I stopped playing.
You see Choc, a game may be full of BS and it may not be, but if
it's not fun either way, then it doesn't matter. A2 is full of BS
and it bores me to tears. A3 is full of BS and I like playing it.
That's all it is...
> I don't see why you'd give up on A2, and not A3. I assume
>you've seen how *easy* is it to do the VCs.
I still don't see it actually. Not compared to CCs. I can do most
CCs. I still mess up a lot of VCs, though I probably don't
practise as much as I could/should.
> If that's the way you look at things, I'm surprised you didn't
give up on A3 after seeing/hearing about early X Ken and X Honda
stuff... there was no easy counter, so they must be total BS,
right?
What rubbish. Initial reports seldom have any bearing on what how
the game will play even after a few months, far less more
that a year after the game comes out. Had we known then what we
know now, X-Ken and X-Honda would not even have been glanced at.
Well, maybe X-Honda would still be, as his beta form was
incredible strong...
And what do you mean by "easy counter"? "No easy counter" does
not equal "total BS". I don't no where you got that from. And if
you're referring to how I think about CCs, I've still yet to hear
you state how each and every single character in A2 without a DP
is supposed to counter a CC at sweep range, standing up. Aside
from counter-CC, that is...
--
U
Kevin
kim) wrote:
>In article <38d3e85f....@news.seed.net.tw>,
>Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:25:16 GMT, spmc...@midway.uchicago.edu (Shaun
>>Patrick Mcisaac) wrote:
>>
>> You've obviously never played the game...
>
>LOL. we had arcade machine downstairs for months. shaun and I played the
>game, alright.
That explains it...no good comp...
>
>You can jab as I get
>>up...THere's a chance to get thrown..this is a fact...This even
>>happened on Shoto low shorts, etc....How often? Not very..it wasn't
>>worth it..and most likely, a well timed hit won't allow it..but I've
>>seen it enough times to know it does happen..
>
>you can, yes.
>it wasn't worth trying, yes.
>so what's your point?
Well, if you read what he said earlier, his claim was at wake
up, you could not throw a low jabbing Guile..which is false..and it's
ALWAYS worth it on a low jabbing character cause you can stand up and
do it....Against a low SHORT, it's probably not worth it.....Read it
in context before you blurt out shit...You just verified what I said
was true..and your friend was not...again..no good comp.
>
>>> Obviously, you have no idea how to implement this. Oh btw.. on
>>>that low jab vs low short thing.. we are 1 short away from getting a dizzy
>>>off a low short (no previous knockdowns, middle of match - otherwise this
>>>does dizzy). The CPS1 chain (may not be present in SNES) would finish
>>>this off.
>>
>> This is not true..knockdowns were, many times. off of a
>>throw....and if you mean low short into standing fierce w/ Guile or
>>similar things....I know Guile can do this, I don't think any other
>>characters can...Guile can do low jab into standing fierce as well w/o
>>the short+fierce trick.....Low short standing fierce in any case,
>>would not dizzy..takes more than that...unless there was a previous
>>hit early on.....
>
>that was the point. cr.shortx3+st.fierce (CPS1chain)=dizzy.
Never seen Guile pull this off...not in real life..maybe it's
my OG inexperience..that only TODAY's player can pull this off..
>BTW, just for your information, everycharacter could do
>cr.short+st.fierce, which is why A3 no-ism (maybe even X) characters can
>do it as well.
>
>> And I'd never talk SNES..that's ridiculous
>
>i think it's pretty good conversion...what's wrong with it?
>--
Saying..I'd never use SNES as an example for anything....Like
people use PSX examples for A3 as reasons why it's good/bad...the port
isn't perfect..who cares...
Kevin
kim) wrote:
>In article <38d277fa....@news.seed.net.tw>,
>Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:01:53 GMT, sol...@midway.uchicago.edu (sol t
>>kim) wrote:
>>
>>>Daigo won with A-Guy. if a player is far superior, of course he will win.
>>>however:
>>>
>>
>>He wouldn't use A-Guy in a real tourney...but that really doesn't
>>matter..
>
>it does matter. if you are loads better than others, you beat them no
>matter what. you bring up tomo, i bring up daigo. fair?
No..because in a real tourney, he wouldn't use AGuy..and he'd
lose if he did....Speaking of which, he lost his game to Graham Wolfe
yet I'd never say Wolfe was better than Daigo..I don't think it was
even close..
>
>tomo used guile in real tourneys whenever he had chance to as well.
Everyone did...and I know..I played against him..
>> What I mean is..you got dizzied easy back then as
>>well....Today's player doesn't do it any better..
>
>more of them know it better, more of them can do it better. we are talking
>about WW here.
Tourney players were just as effective getting dizzies back
then..there's not much of a change...since most of the dizzies were
fairly easy to get...a for sure off of a jump in...
>>>>Crouch jab? Hardly...Most characters couldn't link anything off that
>>>>to dizzy and the ones that could combo off of it like a dp, you
>>>>probably knew you were going to hit..in otherwords, the other person
>>>>left themselves really open.....
>
>> err...if he's in close he won already....and his dizzy is not
>>nearly that easy...
>
>it's not hard
Never saw people even try...and the few that did...I've never
seen someone pull of 5xlow jabs w/ Gief in WW..maybe cause everyone
just SPD'd.....Same reason I've never seen Ryu low short x 8..only
seen the CPU pull it off....But this is near useless in this
game..maybe for show..not for go..
>
>>>
>>>Chun (somewhat unpredictable) cr.shortx3 +hundred kick=dizzy
>>> *then* jumpin cr.forwardx2+st.fierce =redizzy
>>
>> What fucking game are YOU playing???????? None of these are
>>comboes..
>
>thank you for your overall condenscending attitude you have been
>displaying in this post.
>
>i suggest you go and actually play the game.
>
>chun redizzy is well known, and it works. as matter of fact, i think
>that's her only redizzy in WW.
Bullshit....Those are not combos...I played the best in WW at
the time....I've never seen this EVER.....Neither of those...Well
known my ass...Maybe you're right..maybe today's players know the game
better..cause this shit is just not a combo as far as I'm
concerned...maybe I'm wrong...but as far as I understood the game,
this would not work....
Jumpin low forward x 2 into standing fierce....I'd have to
have it done in the arcade machine on me to believe it..otherwise, I
think it's bs...Or at least, I want it told to me by someone more
reliable than you....
>
>>
>>>so in a game of 8 cast, you have 5 characters who kill you off cr.jab or
>>>short, 4 of them with certainty. and this game has Dhalsim, who had
>>>cr.short, yoga noogie tick of death.
>>
>> Ken/Ryu is same character
>
>they had seperate seletion screen, and different properties in couple
>moves such as standing fierce and throw. small point, but you made a wrong
>point.
Eh?? Their standing fierce was DIFFERENT? WTF? IN WW? The
only difference was their throws....Ok..either I'm just too old..or
this is flat out wrong....
>
>> Only character that really dizzies you off low short is
>>Ken/Ryu...Blanka can't, Honda can't, Zangief can't (I've never seen
>>him 5 low jabs...I think that's bs looking at your OTHER comboes)
>
>such wonderful attitude. but you are wrong.
>
>anyway, the point has been made. you said in the previous post
>
>>>>Crouch jab? Hardly...Most characters couldn't link anything off that
>>>>to dizzy
>
>and they can. ineffectivity of jab chains (as opposed to links) is a
>stupid counterpoint. if they block, links don't work either.
>
>>>>The players back then (high level) weren't naive..gimme a
>>>>break...maybe you and your friends didn't know how to play the
>>>>game
>
>repetitively being condenscending. really.
Of course I am...
>
>>>>than it was...cept people would suck at it more cause of lack of
>>>>practice at it.....
>
>no way. tons of people still play it. it doesn't feel much different from
>ST and there are tons of people good at it.
It feels a lot different than ST..it's a different engine for
one....and if you don't think it feels different either A: All games
feel nearly the same to you or B: You don't know the games very
well...There was feel difference in every SF...So either you don't
feel it in any of them..or you didn't play enough to get a feel for
it...
>>>>you misunderstood the word "naive". i didn't mean they sucked at it. but
>>>it is true that they were not used to fighting game mechanisms as we are
>>>today (anybody remember "unescapable guile ticks"?). see SF3 for instance,
>>>with 39 hit double super comboes. if you saw stuff half as good back then,
>>>you'd been wowed. three hit combo was great thing to do. well. nowdays,
>>>you will probably see people who will exploit the gaps of the game lot
>>>more than before. and we've seen enough abuses even back then.
>>
>> There's not unescapable Guile Tick....
>
>That was sarcasm. read it over. if you don't understand it, here is the
>background: some people back then thought guile's jab into throw was
>unescapable, and so banned ticks in tourneys. Ha. and you are trying to
>tell me people knew as much about the game back then as they do now?
>
Umm...Maybe in scrub tourneys it was banned..but not in any
good tourneys w/ real players.....There were tons of tourneys in
SoCal....World's Finest, Pakman and UCLA....The only shit that was
banned was glitches like Handcuffs and Invisible throw...and
resets....The closest thing to a stupid ban I saw in a "real" tourney
was the one in SD where Redizzies were banned...
Maybe the people where you played didn't know the game very
well..but certainly not any real players..and that's what we're really
talking about right?
>you are trying to tell me people learned nothing new from 8+ years of SF
>playing since then?
>
>> It was a safe move..there's very few things that were
>>better...Sim could slide..Guile could get hopped on...But no one's
>>saying it wasn't good..it was good in all the SF's though...its just
>>that his other moves that made it better were toned down..
>
>SB has been toned down from WW in everygame after WW.
Eh? It hasn't been his SB that's changed..it's been his moves
that compliment it....Maybe there's a SLIGHT more lag after a sonic
boom (it's hard for me to tell.maybe cause of game speed..but if you
said his recovery was slightly greater..I'd believe it..but it's not
changed THAT much..if any)...It's been the moves that follow it that
have weakened....What made the SB so good was Low fierce, standing RH,
standing (neutral) forward (close) standing forward neutral (far),
jump straight up short....low forward...the fact that you could pull
out moves and retract them and your limbs like jabs didn't get hit...
All these made his SB much stronger because it didn't allow
people to jump at you.....So maybe somewhere in there, they changed
the recovery to slightly more..but not EVERY SF after WW.....His SB is
basically the same it's always been..it's his other moves that have
been toned..
>
>> It's not even in the same class as Air FB...
>>
>>Sim didn't have a trap..I don't know what you're talking about..if you
>>mean reverse ticks....His ticks worked best on Chun and Guile..both of
>>which could still get out...You just needed to know at what distance
>>to take the hit..what distance it was possible to throw, what distance
>>it was possible to flashick or upsidedown kick out....
>
>at right distance, his fireball/airdefense trap was very tough. i'm not
>talking about ticking throw, of which you seem to be obsessed of, although
>that was pretty good as well.
No...his fireball "trap" was nowhere near a trap..first
thing....He couldn't fireball Chun or Blanka.....He could fireball
Honda very very carefully..but I wouldn't call it a trap...He could
fireball at Guile but it was matched w/ Sonic Booms....Guile also had
jump jab at Sim as well...It worked probably best against Ken/Ryu..and
Gief.....But essentially, Sim never really needed fireball w/
normals...people wouldn't jump over a fireball knowing they were gonna
get hit..only scrubs did....Sim was best just poking the shit out of
someone....and then throwing the occasional fireball..more so to do
block damage than anything else..
>
>as i said, go play the game. when's the last time you played WW?
Last year...And you're right..I haven't been playing it recently..but
just by your posts, I can tell your competition was mediocre at best
in WW....Banning throws in tourneys? Give me a break...not saying
that was YOUR attitude..but the fact that it existing in your playing
grounds only proves how crappy the comp was...I think you would
agree...
Kevin
>>
>> You refer to the learning curve as if this stupidity implied
>> more skill. Its not skill, its just dumb. Why is anyone supposed
>> to *want* to learn a game that is no fun, has bad graphics, bad
>> hit detection, useless chars and is in no way better than the
>> game it replaced?
>
>a matter of opinion there. Bad graphics? I think a3 is great looking!
> I like the animation of the 3 series better but the art of a3 is sweet
>characters and isms than ever before...and in no way better? See,
>that's why you may *want* to learn. So you can know what you're talking
>about. Even simply scratching the surface of a3 makes your last
>statement look ignorant.
You do? I don't..most people seem to agree A2 is more
fun...and a better game.....Some people like A3 better because the
game style lends to their style of play...
>
>I realize you may be lazy...I am too. But come on? As far as I can
>see...across the board a2 is less popular than a3 and St at the
>moment...wonder why? and regardless of the learning curve a3 is well
>beyond a2 as far as skill requirement. But even skillful players still
>lose to the strategic and skillful...seems like that's how it should
>work. And I really can talk. I've trounced just about every vism
>player with not only a or x ism but also with lower tier characters.
Ummm..A3 is one of latest SF's...why are you comparing it to
games that have been out for years?
If you mean the game has new lame features to learn..then
yes...the learning curve is higher..doesn't make it a better game...
>See, on SOME sf games things don't OVERALL work like they should...a1
>one had ok hit detection...what a moron's game that was. No offense
>intended...just telling it like it is...a1 is a less-skillfull and
>strategic sf. Things don't even work like they should on that game imo.
> I know ppl that could win on that game that can't on ANY other sf. Cuz
>it is easier. I also know ppl that can't play a3 simply because there
>is no cc. you wanna talk useless characters? Take a2 characters and do
>the valle cc...most other characters have to cc back...now you're
>meterless. Now look at all of the characters meterless. LOL weak ass
>balance...the super bar balances the game? That's like parrying
>balancing everyone...at least you ALWAYS have a parry. Play no ism
>characters on a3 & you still get some insanely strategic matches. A2
>has half of the normals(bet your glad to have all those other moves and
>controllable limbs off of your mind to make deciding you moves as simple
>as "high priorty first") ccs take waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less skill to
>implement and use than a vc...even a blocked vc takes more skill than a
>cc. AC do huge damage simply for blocking and are an offensive
>technique in a2...they changed them because they were STUPIDLY
>implemented in a2. You have lvl one on a2 you can block and do free
>damage, run away, do it again...simply by blocking moves...AND you have
>a choice between acs to better guarantee your free block and hits:/
>can't exactly turtle like a biotch with every character in the
>game...like recent previous sfs. A3 benefits the initiator and the
>fighter over the turtle better than any recent sf. And it should.
>Turtling to win is infinitely less skillfull than attacking to win...so
>the one sticking their neck out to win deserves the advantage. I don't
>like wasting time rambling like this so I prolly won't reply to another
>post of yours on the basis that I don't feel like I should teach you how
>to think. I'm all for having opinions...but I could mathematically lay
>out how a3 is a better sf than a2 but I'm way too lazy...and it just
>seems to me that if anyone bothered to get to understanding the game
>it's obvious enough not for me to have to waste my time on ppl that
>wouldn't spend theirs learning so they weren't just idling replying with
>ignorant sounding remarks.
>
Your CC examples are out of inexperience...just as you state
people are talking about A3 and VC's...CC's aren't nearly as hard to
stop as VC's...that's just a fact...VC's you can just do, start up
isn't as fast (aka, people can block them right away) yet they go
through EVERYTHING..and not only taht, if they block it, it can be
just as bad....and don't gimme this you can always get out of
it....That's totally...false...
Most people don't think a2 was that bad w/ AC's...why would
you even complain about AC's if you're gonna complain about CC's?
You could MATHEMATICALLY LAY OUT HOW A3 is better than A2?
Give me a break..
The fact of the matter is....Vism is King in A3..even Choi's
description of high level play in Japan is all revolved around Vism
and VC's...Who cares what ends up getting played in teh states..the
Japanese are at a higher level...Its just like, who cares if Eddy is
the best to scrubs in Tekken....
Kevin
I have to agree w/ Choco on this...
If you see VC's and don't know how to counter them..then they eat you
alive..even more so than CC's because VC's go through your shit...and
punish you even if blocked.....
At least w/ CC's, you can block them and they're much easier to
counter just w/ regulars...you don't have to worry about sticking out
a low forward only to see them VC and walk through it...
I think I've been saying this from the beginning...that VC's are far
more abusive than CC's ever were....I think most people who know both
games agree...What people don't like about CC's is that if they aren't
blocking at activation, in a certain range they will get hit....What
they dont' realize is it's relatively easy to stuff a CC...also, you
can counter CC..dp, etc...which isn't easy..but it's at least an
option....
The thing is, w/ VC's..if you choose to block it, most likely you take
a good amount of damage ANYWAYS....poking to stop a VC just doesnt'
happen because they have such huge invulnerability, they go through
moves, supers..anything....One thing that IS easier is, it's easier to
counter VC and dp a VC...than it is a CC...
One thing people like about VC's is they take "more skill"..but all it
is is a combo..how hard is it to learn? Are any of them really THAT
difficult to perform w/ some practice? It still doesn't change the
fact that at high or higher levels of play, you have extreme
abuse....and if you say "well scrubs can CC and do more damage"..sure
they can..but so what? if you're dying to them cause of CC's, you're
probably not as good at A2 than you think...
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 01:01:17 -0500, Chocobo <cho...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>Ultima wrote:
>
>> Well, when I play A2 these days, I'm instantly bored. I wasn't bored
>> until day 1; in fact I rather liked it at first. But when I saw the
>> abusable stuff in a tournament and how *easy* it was to do and started
>> incorporating it into my play, all the fun got sucked right out of it.
>
>Why did you give up on the game immediately, instead of trying to find a counter for it? I don't see why you'd give up on A2, and not A3. I assume
>you've seen how *easy* is it to do the VCs. If that's the way you look at things, I'm surprised you didn't give up on A3 after seeing/hearing about
Vidness
and it was cancled by a sonic boom...
*sigh* Those were the days...
-Power made flesh
James M <jsm16N...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:0686da02...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com...
> Just about Guile SB:
>
> His moves got worse, but the SB itself also got a lot worse. In
> WW you can move almost immediatly after you release it. In all
> the later versions the recovery did get worse by an obvious
> amount. In later versions if you walk up behind a sonic boom you
> don't really catch up to it until after you have walked an
> entire screen distance, but in WW you can walk up behind a SB
> from almost any range.
>
> James M
>
sol t kim
Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:08:00 GMT, sol...@midway.uchicago.edu (sol t
>kim) wrote:
>
>>LOL. we had arcade machine downstairs for months. shaun and I played the
>>game, alright.
>
> That explains it...no good comp...
how do you know how good of a player we are?
>>You can jab as I get
>>>up...THere's a chance to get thrown..this is a fact...This even
>>>happened on Shoto low shorts, etc....How often? Not very..it wasn't
>>>worth it..and most likely, a well timed hit won't allow it..but I've
>>>seen it enough times to know it does happen..
>>
>>you can, yes.
>>it wasn't worth trying, yes.
>>so what's your point?
>
> Well, if you read what he said earlier, his claim was at wake
>up, you could not throw a low jabbing Guile..which is false..
no, he said reversals don't exist in WW, which is true. i don't think he
expressed what was on his mind sufficiently.
and it's
>ALWAYS worth it on a low jabbing character cause you can stand up and
>do it....Against a low SHORT, it's probably not worth it.....Read it
>in context before you blurt out shit...You just verified what I said
>was true..and your friend was not...again..no good comp.
again, the condenscending stuff. wake up throws against opponent ticking
at right distance is almost never worth it. failure to throw likely caused
death.
>>> And I'd never talk SNES..that's ridiculous
>>
>>i think it's pretty good conversion...what's wrong with it?
>>--
> Saying..I'd never use SNES as an example for anything....Like
>people use PSX examples for A3 as reasons why it's good/bad...the port
>isn't perfect..who cares...
that's not the point. we are listing comboes here, as the flow of the
posts turned out, and the all the comboes work. again, SNES is pretty good
conversion, near arcade perfect, which A3 playstation isn't.
--
sol t kim
well, just got your email, let's try to turn this into a constructive
thread...
>just SPD'd.....Same reason I've never seen Ryu low short x 8..only
>seen the CPU pull it off....But this is near useless in this
>game..maybe for show..not for go..
you don't need to do 8, you just need 5 for a dizzy...once you dizzy, you
jump in for an easy redizzy.
> Jumpin low forward x 2 into standing fierce....I'd have to
>have it done in the arcade machine on me to believe it..otherwise, I
>think it's bs...Or at least, I want it told to me by someone more
>reliable than you....
well, it works for me.
>>they had seperate seletion screen, and different properties in couple
>>moves such as standing fierce and throw. small point, but you made a wrong
>>point.
>
> Eh?? Their standing fierce was DIFFERENT? WTF? IN WW? The
>only difference was their throws....Ok..either I'm just too old..or
>this is flat out wrong....
perhaps it really makes no difference. i read that they had different
hitting properties.
>
> It feels a lot different than ST..it's a different engine for
>one....and if you don't think it feels different either A: All games
>feel nearly the same to you or B: You don't know the games very
>well...There was feel difference in every SF...So either you don't
>feel it in any of them..or you didn't play enough to get a feel for
>it...
or perhaps i play wide variants of SF. ST and WW feels very similiar
compared to SF3 or A3. but they may be too much obvious of an assumsion.
you have to draw line somewhere.
> Umm...Maybe in scrub tourneys it was banned..but not in any
>good tourneys w/ real players.....There were tons of tourneys in
>SoCal....World's Finest, Pakman and UCLA....The only shit that was
>banned was glitches like Handcuffs and Invisible throw...and
>resets....The closest thing to a stupid ban I saw in a "real" tourney
>was the one in SD where Redizzies were banned...
> Maybe the people where you played didn't know the game very
>well..but certainly not any real players..and that's what we're really
>talking about right?
yes. i remember certain international tourneys banning tick throws, etc.
perhaps it was the very first big WW. there was lots of difference between
early WW and late WW period i suppose.
>
> Eh? It hasn't been his SB that's changed..it's been his moves
>that compliment it....Maybe there's a SLIGHT more lag after a sonic
>boom (it's hard for me to tell.maybe cause of game speed..but if you
>said his recovery was slightly greater..I'd believe it..but it's not
>changed THAT much..if any)...It's been the moves that follow it that
>have weakened....What made the SB so good was Low fierce, standing RH,
>standing (neutral) forward (close) standing forward neutral (far),
>jump straight up short....low forward...the fact that you could pull
>out moves and retract them and your limbs like jabs didn't get hit...
>
> All these made his SB much stronger because it didn't allow
>people to jump at you.....So maybe somewhere in there, they changed
>the recovery to slightly more..but not EVERY SF after WW.....His SB is
>basically the same it's always been..it's his other moves that have
>been toned..
>
well, everything guile had has been toned down, so your arguement holds
some valid points. however, as other posts pointed out, SB did get
weakened through later versions. the damage and stun damage has been
reduced as well, and other characters gained other means of dealing with
it, so it was weakened in a relative term as well.
> No...his fireball "trap" was nowhere near a trap..first
>thing....He couldn't fireball Chun or Blanka.....He could fireball
>Honda very very carefully..but I wouldn't call it a trap...He could
>fireball at Guile but it was matched w/ Sonic Booms....Guile also had
>jump jab at Sim as well...It worked probably best against Ken/Ryu..and
>Gief.....But essentially, Sim never really needed fireball w/
>normals...people wouldn't jump over a fireball knowing they were gonna
>get hit..only scrubs did....Sim was best just poking the shit out of
>someone....and then throwing the occasional fireball..more so to do
>block damage than anything else..
i never said his trap was air tight. the arguement was that nobody really
had much of a trap in WW, someone being even remotely close to having one
being Dhal.
>Last year...And you're right..I haven't been playing it recently..but
>just by your posts, I can tell your competition was mediocre at best
>in WW....Banning throws in tourneys?
just for clearification, this has nothing to do with my own competition.
this is a fact that i picked up. uh...WW has been out for 8 years, uh...my
competition changes.
Give me a break...not saying
>that was YOUR attitude..but the fact that it existing in your playing
>grounds only proves how crappy the comp was...I think you would
>agree...
again, the fact some tourneys banned it has nothing to do with my playing
grounds.
--
Kevin
kim) wrote:
>In article <38d665b...@news.seed.net.tw>,
>Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:08:00 GMT, sol...@midway.uchicago.edu (sol t
>>kim) wrote:
>>
>>>LOL. we had arcade machine downstairs for months. shaun and I played the
>>>game, alright.
>>
>> That explains it...no good comp...
>
>how do you know how good of a player we are?
From people that have played..let's say..Shaun...but as far as
WW...just using your Banned throws in tourneys as an example..but it
doesn't really matter.
>>>You can jab as I get
>>>>up...THere's a chance to get thrown..this is a fact...This even
>>>>happened on Shoto low shorts, etc....How often? Not very..it wasn't
>>>>worth it..and most likely, a well timed hit won't allow it..but I've
>>>>seen it enough times to know it does happen..
>>>
>>>you can, yes.
>>>it wasn't worth trying, yes.
>>>so what's your point?
>>
>> Well, if you read what he said earlier, his claim was at wake
>>up, you could not throw a low jabbing Guile..which is false..
>
>no, he said reversals don't exist in WW, which is true. i don't think he
>expressed what was on his mind sufficiently.
He was referring to, you can't throw them if they jab you as
you get up..and that is false....Of course there's no reversal in
WW..which is why jump attacks after knock downs were very much the
majority...
>
>and it's
>>ALWAYS worth it on a low jabbing character cause you can stand up and
>>do it....Against a low SHORT, it's probably not worth it.....Read it
>>in context before you blurt out shit...You just verified what I said
>>was true..and your friend was not...again..no good comp.
>
>again, the condenscending stuff. wake up throws against opponent ticking
>at right distance is almost never worth it. failure to throw likely caused
>death.
Yeap...Never said it was....Against low jabs...like
Guile's..it's always worth it..against any low jab, it's always worth
it...mainly because, there's no downside to it....The only times you
migth do somethign else would be this...
Guile v. Sim...noogie..sim goes really close low jab into
noogie...Guile can't flashkick this if he blocks..he has two windows
of escape...throw when he lands from noogie (not likely) or take the
jab and flashkick......
Of course, attempting to throw on a shoto or something
similar..probably wasn't a good idea..but then again, most ticks
didn't start off from the ground cause it allowed charge ups and
easier escapes....at least, not in WW...
>
>>>> And I'd never talk SNES..that's ridiculous
>>>
>>>i think it's pretty good conversion...what's wrong with it?
>>>--
>> Saying..I'd never use SNES as an example for anything....Like
>>people use PSX examples for A3 as reasons why it's good/bad...the port
>>isn't perfect..who cares...
>
>that's not the point. we are listing comboes here, as the flow of the
>posts turned out, and the all the comboes work. again, SNES is pretty good
>conversion, near arcade perfect, which A3 playstation isn't.
Eh? SNES WW was nowhere near perfect...feel was different..some moves
were changed...Did I think it was great...sure did...But I wouldn't
use that as an example..
Kevin
kim) wrote:
>In article <38d666b6...@news.seed.net.tw>,
>
>well, just got your email, let's try to turn this into a constructive
>thread...
>
>>just SPD'd.....Same reason I've never seen Ryu low short x 8..only
>>seen the CPU pull it off....But this is near useless in this
>>game..maybe for show..not for go..
>
>you don't need to do 8, you just need 5 for a dizzy...once you dizzy, you
>jump in for an easy redizzy.
Well..I'm talking about 8 for redizzy that you listed..which I
have never seen done......
>
>> Jumpin low forward x 2 into standing fierce....I'd have to
>>have it done in the arcade machine on me to believe it..otherwise, I
>>think it's bs...Or at least, I want it told to me by someone more
>>reliable than you....
>
>well, it works for me.
Against what? CPU? I don't think anyone has ever thought of
this as a combo......is it possible I'm wrong? Sure...but I'd have to
do it myself or again, from someone I'd consider more reliable...
>
>>>they had seperate seletion screen, and different properties in couple
>>>moves such as standing fierce and throw. small point, but you made a wrong
>>>point.
>>
>> Eh?? Their standing fierce was DIFFERENT? WTF? IN WW? The
>>only difference was their throws....Ok..either I'm just too old..or
>>this is flat out wrong....
>
>perhaps it really makes no difference. i read that they had different
>hitting properties.
You READ or you know? I mean..cause I played many many people
in that game..and they had no different properties....They didn't
change Ken/Ryu till CE...The different throws were the only difference
b/t the two..but w/ taht exception, they were the same....they felt
and played exactly the same..
>>
>> It feels a lot different than ST..it's a different engine for
>>one....and if you don't think it feels different either A: All games
>>feel nearly the same to you or B: You don't know the games very
>>well...There was feel difference in every SF...So either you don't
>>feel it in any of them..or you didn't play enough to get a feel for
>>it...
>
>or perhaps i play wide variants of SF. ST and WW feels very similiar
>compared to SF3 or A3. but they may be too much obvious of an assumsion.
>you have to draw line somewhere.
No..because I don't know anyone that plays all of them that feels
they're all the same..sure, they have that "SF" feel for hte most
part..but the moves are a lot different....distancing
changes..."priority" changes....Recovery, etc....Not saying you can't
go back to those games and pick up very quickly....But there's a lot
of lil things you forget....exact distances, etc..that you used to
know..that now are just sorta cloudy.....
>
>> Umm...Maybe in scrub tourneys it was banned..but not in any
>>good tourneys w/ real players.....There were tons of tourneys in
>>SoCal....World's Finest, Pakman and UCLA....The only shit that was
>>banned was glitches like Handcuffs and Invisible throw...and
>>resets....The closest thing to a stupid ban I saw in a "real" tourney
>>was the one in SD where Redizzies were banned...
>> Maybe the people where you played didn't know the game very
>>well..but certainly not any real players..and that's what we're really
>>talking about right?
>
>yes. i remember certain international tourneys banning tick throws, etc.
>perhaps it was the very first big WW. there was lots of difference between
>early WW and late WW period i suppose.
I dunno about International tourneys..I just know about the
tourneys they had in SoCal...There were the very very few "banned"
throws except for Zangief..I think I knew of one...it was a total
scrubfest.......The rest were basically everything goes..except for
stuff that's just not really a part of the game...invisible throw,
handcuffs, resets....Pre all of the glitches there were still
tourneys.....
>>
>> Eh? It hasn't been his SB that's changed..it's been his moves
>>that compliment it....Maybe there's a SLIGHT more lag after a sonic
>>boom (it's hard for me to tell.maybe cause of game speed..but if you
>>said his recovery was slightly greater..I'd believe it..but it's not
>>changed THAT much..if any)...It's been the moves that follow it that
>>have weakened....What made the SB so good was Low fierce, standing RH,
>>standing (neutral) forward (close) standing forward neutral (far),
>>jump straight up short....low forward...the fact that you could pull
>>out moves and retract them and your limbs like jabs didn't get hit...
>>
>> All these made his SB much stronger because it didn't allow
>>people to jump at you.....So maybe somewhere in there, they changed
>>the recovery to slightly more..but not EVERY SF after WW.....His SB is
>>basically the same it's always been..it's his other moves that have
>>been toned..
>>
>
>well, everything guile had has been toned down, so your arguement holds
>some valid points. however, as other posts pointed out, SB did get
>weakened through later versions. the damage and stun damage has been
>reduced as well, and other characters gained other means of dealing with
>it, so it was weakened in a relative term as well.
Well...Damage has been toned down..that's more an effect of
the game itself..more than toning down of Guile....
>
>> No...his fireball "trap" was nowhere near a trap..first
>>thing....He couldn't fireball Chun or Blanka.....He could fireball
>>Honda very very carefully..but I wouldn't call it a trap...He could
>>fireball at Guile but it was matched w/ Sonic Booms....Guile also had
>>jump jab at Sim as well...It worked probably best against Ken/Ryu..and
>>Gief.....But essentially, Sim never really needed fireball w/
>>normals...people wouldn't jump over a fireball knowing they were gonna
>>get hit..only scrubs did....Sim was best just poking the shit out of
>>someone....and then throwing the occasional fireball..more so to do
>>block damage than anything else..
>
>i never said his trap was air tight. the arguement was that nobody really
>had much of a trap in WW, someone being even remotely close to having one
>being Dhal.
Well..Ken/Ryu had the best "trap"....Fireballs were still
good..dp as anti air still did well......Unfortunately for the Shotos,
they just sucked overall....consequently, I also thought they were one
of the most fun to play (not for fireball or dp though)...Guile had
good pressure as well....I'd actually consider both of these more of a
trap than Sim's..although if you have to come up w/ some sort of
example...I guess I can't complain..
>
>>Last year...And you're right..I haven't been playing it recently..but
>>just by your posts, I can tell your competition was mediocre at best
>>in WW....Banning throws in tourneys?
>
>just for clearification, this has nothing to do with my own competition.
>this is a fact that i picked up. uh...WW has been out for 8 years, uh...my
>competition changes.
>Give me a break...not saying
>>that was YOUR attitude..but the fact that it existing in your playing
>>grounds only proves how crappy the comp was...I think you would
>>agree...
>
>again, the fact some tourneys banned it has nothing to do with my playing
>grounds.
Your playing grounds = Chicago though right?
Kevin
I dunno about this...I mean...I would agree..the SB recovery got a bit
worse...I don't think it was that much worse....I mean, how else could
they do all those crazy ass combos in those movies then? In post WW?
:P
Chocobo
> In article <38D46D2D...@mindspring.com>, Chocobo
> <cho...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Ultima wrote:
>
> > I don't see why you'd give up on A2, and not A3. I assume
> >you've seen how *easy* is it to do the VCs.
>
> I still don't see it actually. Not compared to CCs. I can do most
> CCs. I still mess up a lot of VCs, though I probably don't
> practise as much as I could/should.
What do you mean, you mess up the controller motions? If so, then forget about
this. As always, I'm talking about how the game works at high skill levels,
where the ability to do the controller motions is not a problem. Just as there's
no point to talk about how the game works for button mashers (in which case A2
CCs aren't a problem), I think it's equally pointless to talk about how the game
plays for anything less than the highest skill level. If you don't see that VCs
are just as unstoppable (and more, since you're not allowed to block them
either) then you are missing something pretty important. I don't mean for this
to sound insulting, it's just true.
> > If that's the way you look at things, I'm surprised you didn't
> give up on A3 after seeing/hearing about early X Ken and X Honda
> stuff... there was no easy counter, so they must be total BS,
> right?
>
> What rubbish. Initial reports seldom have any bearing on what how
> the game will play even after a few months, far less more
> that a year after the game comes out.
True enough.
> Had we known then what we
> know now, X-Ken and X-Honda would not even have been glanced at.
> Well, maybe X-Honda would still be, as his beta form was
> incredible strong...
Well, we know now that Vism is incredibly overpowered and much more useful than
CCs ever were, so why is this discussion taking place?
> And what do you mean by "easy counter"?
I mean a way to stop the attack that is not extremely difficult.
> "No easy counter" does
> not equal "total BS". I don't no where you got that from. And if
> you're referring to how I think about CCs,
That's exactly what I was referring to. You seem to think that CCs are so BS
because it's apparently impossible to stop them. Nevermind that VCs are worse.
> I've still yet to hear
> you state how each and every single character in A2 without a DP
> is supposed to counter a CC at sweep range, standing up. Aside
> from counter-CC, that is...
I've typed up a list of what moves will work before... most characters have a
move that will stop the CC, and probably all have a super that will. It's not
easy to do, but some CCs will be stopped that way. Remember, you can also avoid
CCs by not standing up whenever possible, and with moves like Rose's low strong
which make it more difficult to time the CC so it'll work. I don't see why
counter-CC isn't "allowed" or whatever... because of them, CCs in general are
less useful. You can't just walk up and CC anytime, thinking "either I'll get
40% damage or just lose my meter". It's really "either I'll get 40% damage, or
just lose my meter, or lose my meter and 40% life". You can't blindly CC, you
have to be able to choose the right spot for them. Yes, there are generally too
many "right spots", but this does add some element of skill to them.
Scott Bradburn
news:38d67a24...@news.seed.net.tw...
> At least w/ CC's, you can block them and they're much easier to
> counter just w/ regulars...you don't have to worry about sticking out
> a low forward only to see them VC and walk through it...
That's not entirely true. As a long time A2 Sakura player, I don't know
how many times I've seen people CC flash and go right through my fully
extended low forward or low roundhouse. But it's far more likely to see
the CC go through those moves than to see it get stuffed. It may be a
Sakura problem, however. I don't recall seeing it a lot against other
characters.
sol t kim
Kevin <ke...@vividnet.com> wrote:
>>you don't need to do 8, you just need 5 for a dizzy...once you dizzy, you
>>jump in for an easy redizzy.
>
> Well..I'm talking about 8 for redizzy that you listed..which I
>have never seen done......
no. i said 8 jabs for redizzy for guile, which wasn't hard. (5 jabs
crouching, 3jabs standing up). you can go check in deja, i never said 8
shorts for shotos.
> Against what? CPU? I don't think anyone has ever thought of
>this as a combo......is it possible I'm wrong? Sure...but I'd have to
>do it myself or again, from someone I'd consider more reliable...
i've done it againt humans a few times, although they may have forgotten
to block, something unlikely....maybe it's one of those weird WW comboes
that only works in very specific situation. donno, some WW comboes
fluctuated, even against same character and same distancing.
>>> Eh?? Their standing fierce was DIFFERENT? WTF? IN WW? The
>>>only difference was their throws....Ok..either I'm just too old..or
>>>this is flat out wrong....
>>
>>perhaps it really makes no difference. i read that they had different
>>hitting properties.
>
> You READ or you know? I mean..cause I played many many people
>in that game..and they had no different properties....They didn't
>change Ken/Ryu till CE...The different throws were the only difference
>b/t the two..but w/ taht exception, they were the same....they felt
>and played exactly the same..
after reading it, it felt like it was true. who knows.
>>or perhaps i play wide variants of SF. ST and WW feels very similiar
>>compared to SF3 or A3. but they may be too much obvious of an assumsion.
>>you have to draw line somewhere.
>
>No..because I don't know anyone that plays all of them that feels
>they're all the same..sure, they have that "SF" feel for hte most
>part..but the moves are a lot different....distancing
>changes..."priority" changes....Recovery, etc....Not saying you can't
>go back to those games and pick up very quickly....But there's a lot
>of lil things you forget....exact distances, etc..that you used to
>know..that now are just sorta cloudy.....
i said similiar, not the same. in relative terms, they do feel similiar
although they obviously differ in many ways. besides, whoever plays ST has
not played WW?
>>yes. i remember certain international tourneys banning tick throws, etc.
>>perhaps it was the very first big WW. there was lots of difference between
>>early WW and late WW period i suppose.
>
> I dunno about International tourneys..I just know about the
>tourneys they had in SoCal...There were the very very few "banned"
>throws except for Zangief..I think I knew of one...it was a total
>scrubfest.......The rest were basically everything goes..except for
>stuff that's just not really a part of the game...invisible throw,
>handcuffs, resets....Pre all of the glitches there were still
>tourneys.....
so we agree back then people tended to ban silly stuff. the arguement is
not whether throws were unfair, the arguement is that many people thought
so back then. now we know better, which was the original point.
>>>
>>> All these made his SB much stronger because it didn't allow
>>>people to jump at you.....So maybe somewhere in there, they changed
>>>the recovery to slightly more..but not EVERY SF after WW.....His SB is
>>>basically the same it's always been..it's his other moves that have
>>>been toned..
>>>
>>
>>well, everything guile had has been toned down, so your arguement holds
>>some valid points. however, as other posts pointed out, SB did get
>>weakened through later versions. the damage and stun damage has been
>>reduced as well, and other characters gained other means of dealing with
>>it, so it was weakened in a relative term as well.
>
> Well...Damage has been toned down..that's more an effect of
>the game itself..more than toning down of Guile....
depends on the games you are refering to, but SB has been toned down
overall in a sense of the game. it's like akuma's air FB from ST to A2.
many factors play the role (air block, etc), but we can agree that AF has
been tones down considerably since ST. same goes for SB.
>>> No...his fireball "trap" was nowhere near a trap..first
>>>thing....He couldn't fireball Chun or Blanka.....He could fireball
>>>Honda very very carefully..but I wouldn't call it a trap...He could
>>>fireball at Guile but it was matched w/ Sonic Booms....Guile also had
>>>jump jab at Sim as well...It worked probably best against Ken/Ryu..and
>>>Gief.....But essentially, Sim never really needed fireball w/
>>>normals...people wouldn't jump over a fireball knowing they were gonna
>>>get hit..only scrubs did....Sim was best just poking the shit out of
>>>someone....and then throwing the occasional fireball..more so to do
>>>block damage than anything else..
>>
>>i never said his trap was air tight. the arguement was that nobody really
>>had much of a trap in WW, someone being even remotely close to having one
>>being Dhal.
>
> Well..Ken/Ryu had the best "trap"....Fireballs were still
>good..dp as anti air still did well......Unfortunately for the Shotos,
>they just sucked overall....consequently, I also thought they were one
>of the most fun to play (not for fireball or dp though)...Guile had
>good pressure as well....I'd actually consider both of these more of a
>trap than Sim's..although if you have to come up w/ some sort of
>example...I guess I can't complain..
i remember you previously arguing that guile had no trapping game
whatsoever. well, whatever.
>Your playing grounds = Chicago though right?
well, now it is.
8 years ago, it was Korea
5 years ago, Tenessee.
now it's Chicago.
WW was big in Korea, but i never picked up tourney facts and other stuff
until i subscribed to this NG.
--
poc...@my-deja.com
James M <jsm16N...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> In article <8au40n$1at$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, poc...@my-deja.com
> wrote:
> >In article <2511aefe...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com>,
> >James M <jsm16N...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> [clip]
>
> a2...that's
> >a matter of opinion there. Bad graphics? I think a3 is great
> looking!
> > I like the animation of the 3 series better but the art of a3
> is sweet
> >imo.
>
> *terrible* compared to A2. Barren, low color flat wastelands.
> The new moves that characters got are drawn in a slightly
> different style than the old moves.
I like them, yet...I think I tried making it clear that was an opinion
issue.
>
> useless characters? Don't be ridiculous...there are more useful
> >characters and isms than ever before...and in no way better?
>
> Well, there never were ism's until A3,
Hmmm. Maybe he doesn't realize he doesn't know what he's talking
about? Isms, as they are called now, have existed since Super
Turbo...ya know hwere you can pick 2 versions of your character.
Then agqain in the next game, SFA1 if you had autoblock on.
Autoblock had attributes besides the autoblock making the character
play completely differently(note to moron: think before you reply to
that)
> and there are more
> characters, so there are bound to be some useful ones. But, the
> vast majority of character and ism combinations are worthless.
what a frickin' moron:/
>
> See,
> >that's why you may *want* to learn. So you can know what
> you're talking
> >about. Even simply scratching the surface of a3 makes your
> last
> >statement look ignorant.
>
> Ignorant? There are what, 30 characters x 4 isms = 120
> characters. How many of those are useful? How many characters
> are good in even 1 out of the isms? Plus, many of the ism are
> *strictly* better than the others. For most characters there is
> one ism (usually V) that is so much better than the others,
> meaning that 3/4 of ism-character combos are useless. THere are
> only a few characters who are arguable different but equal in
> different isms.
Name 3 random characters and let's see how long a list I can make of
counter characters. There are more viable options vs. any given
character then there has ever been b4. The fact that you're a troll
infesting this newsgroup with useless hot air and that that tiny brain
of yours can't REALLY comprehend sf to realize this is not a good enough
excuse for me to bother reading your uninformative posts that are filled
with random spouting anymore:/ Makes me not even wanna read the
competent posts.
>
> >
> >I realize you may be lazy...I am too. But come on? As far as
> I can
> >see...across the board a2 is less popular than a3 and ST at the
> >moment...wonder why?
>
> Gee, because A2 and ST are older?
No...pay attention. ST is older than a2 and is waaaaaaaaaaay more
popular. so this next point you make...is just another mindless rant...
> Isn't it *always* the case
> that newer games are more popular? Hey everyone, A3 is more
> popular than HF. What does that tell us? Nothing! A3 may be more
> popular, but how many people really think it is better than A2,
> or ST!?!? A3 better than ST, hah hah, please...
> And I really can talk. I've trounced just about every vism
> >player with not only a or x ism but also with lower tier
> characters.
>
> So, what you are saying is that you are better than these
> people.
No, quite the contrary...if that were true the point would be less
meaningful. So, no. That is not what I am saying. If you'd like to
know what I am saying...READ what I wrote. So this...rant rant rant:/
> It is true that the clearly better player will win in
> most situations. That is the nature of fighting games. THe
> problem is two players who are about equal, one chooses V-Sakura
> and one chooses A-Birdie. Skill prevails where the skill levels
> are different, but when they are about the same, isms prevail.
You are such an arrogant numbskull. V-sak vs A-Birdie. First of all
I'm sure you know little about the match. And you chose the stupidest
match to illustrate a point on Vism against other isms. I believe
V-akuma is known as one of the better characters in the game...I can
think of 10 good counter picks outside of vism...can you think of ANY?
Of course not. You know JACK about the game. The only characters that
you could name would simply be yoy yacking up the stuff you get in this
group or on irc. Why do you bother posting pointless arguments with no
substance? I seriously think you must be here simply to troll around.
>
> >See, on SOME sf games things don't OVERALL work like they
> should...a1
> >one had ok hit detection...what a moron's game that was. No
> offense
> >intended...just telling it like it is...a1 is a less-skillfull
> and
> >strategic sf. Things don't even work like they should on that
> game imo.
> > I know ppl that could win on that game that can't on ANY other
> sf. Cuz
> >it is easier.
>
> I agree that A1 was crap, but I never saw any people winning on
> it who didn't deserve to. Once you "learned" to avoid chain into
> super, and to deal with the low slides, overhead mix-ups, not to
> do an attack that allows the opponent to roll up first...after
> all that "learning" the best player would win. THe best player
> ALWAYS wins if they are clearly superior.
The best player always wins if they are completely superior? lol what
if the best player is only minorly superior...lol seriously? Do you
read anything you post? Does the best player not always win if his
opponent is clearly superior? And no...the best player does not always
win. Don't avoid the point. On A1 scrubs could win. Period. It's an
accepted fact! Why would you argue with that? You MUST just be
trolling.
>
> I also know ppl that can't play a3 simply because there
> >is no cc. you wanna talk useless characters? Take a2
> characters and do
> >the valle cc...most other characters have to cc back...now
> you're
> >meterless. Now look at all of the characters meterless. LOL
> weak ass
> >balance...the super bar balances the game?
>
> I've never been an advocate of saying CC's balance the game.
> But, I don't think the balance in A2 is all that bad. Both
> players without supers, there is a smallish top tier, then
> everyone else can compete roughly equally. If you pick two
> random characters, chances are the matchup is roughly even. You
> just have to hope one of the random guys isn't Chun or Ryu. (we
> are talking no meter here)
...sigh...
>
> [clip]
>
> A2
> >has half of the normals(bet your glad to have all those other
> moves and
> >controllable limbs off of your mind to make deciding you moves
> as simple
> >as "high priorty first")
>
> Please. What a pathetic insult. DO you really think that moves
> like Sagat close strong add *anything* to the game?
Of course it does you idiot. Maybe if you understood the game you
get it. You really think other moves are just extra animation?
> THe problem
> with the A3 close and far moves is that every close strong is an
> elbow swipe (well, not really, but it seems like it sometimes)
> and they just aren't very useful much of the time, and only in V
Omg...Why do you bother talking when you obviously have got a clue about
the game? only in v...k
> can you control it. For example, the Shotokan axe-kick rules,
> but only in V can you throw it out anytime.
> I would appreciate more useful moves, not just a bunch of moves
> that are worthless. For Sagat, his close strong and fierce are
> worse than if they had just kept his good standing forward. More
> moves CAN be a plus, but in this case it really isn't most of
> the time.
So I guess you think sagat isn't any good? Or wait...he's not good
outside of vism? miss the old stand forward huh? Can't play him
without it? :( He's played quite differently now by people that can
play the game...but then..you wouldn't know
>
> I guess a game like Tekken must be the most "skillful," or maybe
> DOA 2, with all those moves to choose from, huh?
If you hadn't already looked like a dope by implying that proximity
moves are worthless I might say something else... as is I'm just going
to call you a moron again...moron.
> [clip]
> >cc. AC do huge damage simply for blocking and are an offensive
> >technique in a2...they changed them because they were STUPIDLY
> >implemented in a2. You have lvl one on a2 you can block and do
> free
> >damage, run away,
>
> If you have level 1, if you AC you can eat a super or special.
> Its good, but hardly "free."
...this is where I think..."no, don't totally rip him to shreds...he
must've not realize the stupid things that were just flying out of his
mouth" Hardly for free? I'm not even gonna justify. Love that
strategy though...rotfl...in case you didn't...nope...I'm not even
gonna:/
>
> [clip]
>
> >Turtling to win is infinitely less skillfull than attacking to
> win...so
> >the one sticking their neck out to win deserves the advantage.
> I don't
> >like wasting time rambling like this so I prolly won't reply to
> another
> >post of yours on the basis that I don't feel like I should
> teach you how
> >to think.
>
> Oh, please patronize me some more. You never give a fucking
> inch. You really think A3 hit detection is no different from
> SF2, or that the A3 graphics are better than A2? I suppose the
> earth is flat as well, and I just can't see it because I haven't
> benefitted from your wonderful instruction.
k...lemme help you out here. The graphics are the same...the sprites
are the same. If you have a problem with the drawings pick another
thread to talk.
>
> Teach me how to think...what a joke. So far the only point
> you've made that had any backing at all was that strong DP beats
> low attacks, something never in question by me.
and THAT is why you're a troll. The only point I've made? That wasn't
even a point! omg. You do need to be taught how to think if you'd like
to be good at sf. Period. Thank you for clearly showing me that I need
to take a break from being in this newsgroup. One of these days I'd
love to see the likes of you show up at a tourney and display the
superior thought processes that they have hidden from us all. I don't
just idly ramble in a newsgroup. I'm a REAL sf player. Not one of
those "closet" sfers. Tell you what...when you enter a real tounrament
and even get mentioned as a good player I'll read post by you.
Otherwise I see NO proof WHATSOEVER that tells me you are anything but a
troll who argues to argue. I don't just talk about how the games work
like MANY ppl. And I've done arguing in here for now...I just don't
have the time to waste. Maybe some other time when ppl want to listen.
Go on and spout your crap...right a faq...talk about who's a good
character and who's a bad one...but really...you have NO firsthand proof
of any of this crap. Cuz you're a "paper-only" player. You can try and
make yourself look good on paper...but when it comes to playing against
real players you know JACK. No wonder you've been trounced for years by
others in this newsgroup. Now I know why they take pleasure in it.
Because there is no way they could've taken you seriously. Fun
talking...but that's all it is...you're nothing serious
See ya guys around...this is why the newgroup sucks...good players leave
because they get tired of wasting their breathe on trolls that like to
act like they know what they're talking about.