HDR had that issue but it was patched out. I’m not sure if it was present on the PS3 version.
@JohnGrimm you’re still misinterpreting the issue.
Now you’re equating SOCD’s existing at all to a game being exploitable by them.
SSF4 handles SOCD’s in a favorable way.
I believe BlazBlue handles SOCD’s in a way we don’t want (different behavior on different sides of the screen), but it doesn’t cause an unfair exploit.
Marvel 3 causes an exploit when handling SOCD’s.
Obviously you can SEND an SOCD to any game, I’m asking which games actually cause exploits when sent such inputs. Like you said, SSFIV handles SOCD’s in a favorable way, it doesn’t accept them. I just want to know which games, when sent an SOCD, allow you to abuse the input system.
SSF4 does accept SOCD’s, or have you forgotten the test results in the second post?
You walk forward (not left or right, forward), regardless of placement on the screen, and you don’t block.
All games “accept” SOCD’s. It’s a matter of how the software interprets them.
The closest thing you’ll get to a game “not accepting” SOCD input is how Mike_Z says Skullgirls will handle them, by forcing the direction to go neutral.
I’m already pretty sure it will be banned. But I am naturally being salty as I have ordered one and will be switching to it. I imagine someone using ambiguous mixups as a primary tactic, and him demand the other guy be dq’ed because he is playing on hitbox. Regardless of whether he is exploiting SOCD or not, or if he is completely owning the guy despite him abusing SOCD.
The second I show an interest in hitbox, this stuff comes up. sadface.
Bro man dude, that’s not my point. SSFIV technically accepts SOCD’s, but you can’t hold both directions, it forces one direction over the other. All I’m asking is which other games allow you to physically hold BOTH directions. That’s all I’m saying. As of now the only game I know of on the PS3 that allows those shenanigans is MvC3.
JohnGrimm, I understand that much, but being that I’m applying the scientific method to this process, and as such putting my science cred on the line, you have to understand that we can’t go around using fuzzy language like that. It’s bad science. It allows people to get confused about what’s actually happening.
If people go around thinking SOCD’s (and the ability to do them) themselves are ban-worthy outright, then following that train of thought can lead to saying fight boards/ABC’s should be ban-worthy.
We have to make it absolutely clear that it’s how the game interprets SOCD’s that can make things problematic.
When SSF4 receives SOCD input, it does not cause an unfair exploit, and causes universal behavior regardless of player’s position on the screen.
(According to Mike_Z) When Skullgirls receives SOCD input, it does not cause an unfair exploit, and causes universal behavior regardless of player’s position on the screen.
When BlazBlue receives SOCD input, it does not cause an exploit, but causes differing behavior dependent on player’s position on the screen.
When MvC3 receives SOCD input, it causes an unfair exploit.
None of the above can be summed up as “<Game> does or does not accept SOCD’s.” without allowing someone to be confused about the situation. Because of that, saying a game does or doesn’t accept SOCD input is not the kind of language you want to use.
I miss the days of IRC when the only time I had to make sure to use the proper vernacular was when I was telling Justice and Crown to kindly eat a bag of dicks. Regardless, you know what I meant.
lol
You aren’t the only one using the term that way. And when people use it incorrectly, people are mislead. Which is why Amp was quick to correct you.
Well it’s a lot easier to use it incorrectly amongst people who know what the situation is. I’d rather use it incorrectly in 2 minutes than have to sit down for 10 and figure out how to word it properly, since there isn’t any terminology to describe a game that technically accepts SOCD’s, but doesn’t cause both inputs to be active at the same time that creates dummy blocking or other such input exploits.
I know what you mean, and probably most people know what you mean, but for the one person who won’t know what you mean, we need to not use language that may or may not confuse him.
It’s just the nature of science, dude. It’s one of the first rules I learned about the more serious science and research associated with it. Most terms (like “theory” “law” and “hypothesis”) have to be very strictly defined and their usage restricted to within those definitions.
Well then come up with a term that describes a game that doesn’t allow input exploits so I can say that instead. I’m a salesman, not a scientist.
I don’t think science is supposed to be convenient to those who don’t quickly grasp it.
I grasp the ideas behind it, I didn’t go to school just for lunch. I’m just asking for a more convenient wording.
<Game> does or does not cause an unfair exploit when it receives SOCD input.
Or, if that’s too verbose: “SOCD’s are not <unfair/broken/etc> in <game>.”
You could say SOCD-safe.
That works.
Ok, so NOW, besides MvC3, which games on the PS3 AREN’T SOCD safe?
Did we test HD:R and MvC2 on controllers that send d-pad as seperate bits? I know they patched being able to use the d-pad and left-stick data streams at the same time, but…I dunno.
XBOX 360 HDR is still SOCD unsafe with walk-forward sonic boom, so I’d think issues with the PS3 version is likely to.