Thanks for setting that straight for us, guy.
I’m 60% certain that the DP OS tech doesn’t work in SF4.
The DP will always outpriorise the throw…
Peace,
G.
Throw out-prioritises DP
Throw-tech out-prioritises DP
Throws/techs are among the highest priority moves in the game.
Ending on DF means no throw, and so the tech will only come out if the opponent tries to throw.
Try it out in training mode. Let the dummy do neutral jump, then f, d, df + lk + lp on landing. See what happens if you block, see what happens when you try to throw.
If this is legit, I am certain I can find a seriously good use for this somehow…
Time to hit the lab…
Peace,
G.
Good read. I’m having trouble what you’re trying to point out though. Are you saying that that the term “Frame Trap” isn’t a correct way to describe what me and G77 were talking about earlier in this thread?
To me, it sounds like you’re breaking down the term “Frame Trap” into it’s individual word: “Frame” and “Trap”. For example, a character performs a move and it whiffs (start-up/active/recovery “Frame”). Therefore, you are “trapped” in that animation making you vulnerable to getting hit either from a CH (start-up) or a regular hit (active/recovery). If so, it’s definitely more relevant in 3D fighting games because you can side dash vertical attacks/crouch horizontal attacks, but it’s not emphasized as much in 2D fighting games.
Here’s my analysis/questions of your message:
- So if the gap is bigger than the opponent’s fastest normal that can hit at that distance, it’s not a Frame Trap?
- Blanka’s LP Electricity is +5 on block and his Sweep has 6F start-up only allowing 1F gap so opponent’s 3F/4F move wouldn’t beat Blanka’s Sweep. Blanka’s Sweep will CH opponent’s 3F move. Even if it’s not enough range, it would depend on how well both players know the block stun of the move and how well he conditioned his opponent.
- Shotos have 3F (ex: C.LK/C.LP) crouch tech options. Did you mean characters like Abel with 5F C.LP/C.LK crouch techs?
- What do you consider a “true frame trap”?
- Didn’t you say if the gap is smaller than the opponent’s faster normal, it’s a frame trap?
- I disagree. Rose’s ST.MK has a high chance of “Hit Box Frame Trap” against Low Normals because of it’s airborne property and it can also CH Frame Trap against any Normals because it has fast start-up (6F). Viper’s L. Burning Kick, on the other hand, also has airborne property but because of it’s slow start-up (23F) it doesn’t usually CH/hit the opponent’s crouch tech. Why do you think they’re not a Frame Trap?
- I already gave my reasoning on why C.LK/C.LP > delay SRK is an invincible Frame Trap earlier in this topic. What’s your reasoning that you think it’s not a Frame Trap?
- We actually talked about this recently about moves with “Priority” vs moves that are “good” (ex: Honda’s ST.HP). I’d consider as same as Rose’s ST.MK/Viper’s Reversal L.Burning Kick topic because airborne property (property of moves’ hitbox) beats opponent’s option (crouch tech), so I would consider this a Frame Trap if it’s used during a block string. Frame Traps aren’t only Counter Hits; that’s just what it’s emphasized earlier in this thread.
- So are you saying there is no such thing as Early Crouch Tech Frame Trap/Late Crouch Tech Frame Trap, but only True Frame Trap that’s a “sequence of 2 moves separated by a gap that is smaller than the opponent’s fastest normal move that can hit at that distance.” If so, what do you call counter hitting “option select tech” and how do you explain it?
- 3+ way Okizeme definitely describes Akuma’s set-ups better than “Vortex” but it’s too hard for beginners to remember foreign/mathematical terms like “3+ way Okizeme”, and it’s too complicated to verbalize it in everyday conversation. Language, and everything in general, evolve over time for the sake of simplicity. People don’t “just accept it”; they willingly use it because it’s easier. (Random note: that’s how Apple became successful).
In SF4, I consider Frame Trap a block string that can hit/counter hit opponent’s defensive tactic.
LMK what you think.
Random note: It’s 3:30 AM! This is why I stopped posting on SRK lol.
I actually didn’t know Ken’s cr.lk is 3f. Ryu’s and Gouki’s are 4f.
Because they beat moves by virtue of their hitboxes, not because of their startup. “Airborne” moves can still be throwable if they have throwable hitboxes.
Delayed SRKs beat normals because of their invincible frames, not their startup. Frame Traps have all to do with the startup of moves, not their hitboxes. Also, intentionally delaying a move is not a frame trap, the delayed startup is an inherent property of the move - it’s some thing that the player does.
I just call those crouch tech punishers and counter-hit setups. The idea behind a frame trap is something that’s supposed to be repeatable consistently by different players. If you say “delayed SRK”, how many frames do you mean? 2? 3? You can’t really tell. The gap between the move and the SRK will always depend on the player input. However, if you link the moves, then the gap depends on the startup property of the move. The nice thing about the rigid definition of frame traps was that it allows you to extract them automatically from the frame data. eg. Here’s a list I did for Blanka a while back:
I basically just fed the frame data into a program and it spat out a list of theoretical frame traps. So then all you need to do is test it for distance, safety on block etc and voila.
I’m talking about people like myself, who’ve already grown accustomed to the traditional lingo. There are still people who are opposed to the idea of simplifying the idea of complex, loopable Okizeme to “Vortex”. Frame Traps, Okizeme and Abare were well understood way before SFIV. It really isn’t a big deal to call a delayed crouch tech punisher a frame trap in SFIV, but if you were talking to someone who plays another game, they might misunderstand you. Even in games like SC and Tekken people still sometimes refer to certain things as “not a 100% frame trap”, or they’ll say “so and so will frame trap his down 4”, but it still imparts some extra information about the moves involved.
I don’t really want to get in a big discussion about evolving terminology (too late I guess lol).
I just noticed the earlier exchange between G77 and ImagineVC about what frame traps are and I thought I’d try to add some more to the discussion. From an SFIV perspective, it’s OK to call everything you mentioned a Frame Trap even though it doesn’t fit in 100% with the original definition of the word. I mean, many players call certain pressure strings in this game “block strings” even though the opponent can uppercut you between the moves lol.
I had no idea Ryu/Akuma’s C.LK is 4F. Thx for the info. But even so, +5 on block > 6F Sweep has only 1F Gap. Even if the opponent used a 4F crouch tech that reached Blanka’s vulnerable hitbox, it’ll still get CH by Blanka’s Sweep since there’s only 2F gap.
I just realized you said Rose’s ST.MK; I was talking about Rose’s CL.MK. Rose’s ST.MK is not airborne so it’s throwable. Airborne moves are called “airborne” because they can’t be hit by low attacks and they do not have a throwable hitbox (ex: Rose’s CL.MK, Viper’s Burning Kick).
If you’re trying to be more descriptive, than shouldn’t you be calling Rose’s ST.MK a “Low Crush” instead of “virtue of the hitbox”? It’s a 3D FG terminology but it’s not as relevant in SF4 because it’s a 2D FG and there aren’t many characters that have these kind of Normals (for obvious reasons: too good in a 2D platform especially when the main defensive tactic is a crouch tech low attack).
I see your point. But delayed SRK’s can also counter hit an opponent’s fastest-reaching crouch tech and that’d be a Frame Trap according to your definition.
As we all know, SRK’s are better for Frame Traps than regular Normals because of it’s invincibility. Not only can it CH opponent’s fastest reaching Normal, it can also hit the opponent’s active frame Normal (not CH) because it’s invincible. The term “Invincible Frame Trap” describes both possible situation so there’s no need to differentiate “Frame Trap” and “delayed SRK”.
It’s simple that way.
I see why you’re trying to define “Frame Trap” as a singular meaning now. But unfortunately, “rigid definition of frame trap” would be meaningless because it won’t work against crouch techs (late crouch tech). That is why I differentiated early crouch tech and late crouch with examples to give a general idea of what it looks like/how the timing feels like.
But this is SF4.
Why does it matter that we’re not using the terms to it’s 100% original definition?
This thread was started so that newcomers can have a basic understanding of a Frame Trap for Ken in SF4. If someone else comes here and claims that we’re wrong, it’ll just cause more confusion. It’s nice that you want to add to the conversation but I think you could’ve took a better approach.
When I wrote the Frame Trap explanation last year a lot of people’s argument was that they can just “mash DP”. But if you’ve put a lot of time into this game, you should know that you can actually perform a Frame Trap and bait Reversals at the same time. And if you’ve gotten past that stage, you can see the real mind game in SF4. It might not be as exciting as 3rd Strike as the previous generation loves to boast, but SF4 is not brain-dead as a lot of people like to dismiss.
Personally, I think our terminology describes the situation better in SF4 but everyone is entitled to their own preferences.
i agree with your point. though i also agree with illiterates. still… this is sf4 as you stated and there doesnt necessarily need to be a perfectly correct “cohesion” of terms between that game and others since the mechanics are different.
still, his knowledge is good if at least for a reference aspect… its always good to know where the original term comes from and what it explains. i also “get” what he means by people that dislike the term vortex and would rather a more convoluted term such as “multiple path okizeme mixup that can loop back into itself when successful”
or we could just say vortex and let that be that.
terms are ever changing like he said, and his example of “abare” is spot on imho as iirc it comes from VF and means “attacking from a disadvantage” whereas in marvel it is used more as “random non standard damage” and how well the character does in those types of situations… ie how much damage they can get off of “random” damage such as any chun random damage starter is only going to go for 300 MAYBE 400 k, whereas a character such as wolvie can get 600 or more depending on xf cancel almost all the time… so his “abare” is much better.
anywho great thread. personally ive found frame gaps of 8-10 frames to be best for hitting delayed crouch tech. also, in case its been forgotten or if it wasnt in joons original frame trap thread… there are 2 frames where the opponent cant be thrown after recovering from block/hitstun… so the theoretical cr.lp,cr.mk “frame trap” with ken will almost NEVER hit when done frame tight cause the frame that the cr.mk hits on isnt even a throwable frame. it will only hit if opponent is spamming a reversal that requires a high block or if they are holding up to try and jump out.
-dime
Lol, I think I said this twice already.
I think it causes more confusion when newcomers from other games read your definition. My point is that there already is a known definition of the term. If you’re going to redefine or broaden the definition to include invincible, airborne (I was referring to Rose’s close st.mk, btw) or delayed moves, then it should be stated in the first post. And for people who’ve never played those games before, I don’t think calling these techniques frame traps simplifies anything. It just gives people more terms to learn.
Back in the Vanilla days there was a discussion in FGD about how weak SFIV throws are and the topic of frame traps came up. Turns out many people who didn’t play 3D Namco games didn’t know what the term meant. Even James Chen asked about it. Interestingly enough, someone mentioned the delayed SRK tactic and he was told that it wasn’t a frame trap for the same reasons I mentioned here. Pretty soon after that, commentators started talking about frame traps on stream even though they were perfectly fine with saying “crouch tech bait” or “counter-hit setups” for months already. It did actually confuse me, because I knew some of those things couldn’t be frame traps because the properties of the moves didn’t really allow for that. Afterwards I realized that they were just calling anything with a gap in the middle a frame trap, which is the same calling things block strings when they clearly aren’t. I see commentators calling stuff like (Ryu/Akuma) cr.mp, step forward, cr.mp frame traps, but is it really that, or are they just two distinct moves with something in the middle to create the illusion of a tick-throw attempt?
These days though I’ve basically just accepted that the SFIV community’s idea of a frame trap is any series of attacks with big enough gaps between them so as to punish crouch tech attempts.
Can I try and straighten up my own thinking then, while this discussion is still active.
Am I right in thinking then:
If I’m fighting against a character with a fastest move of 3f, then any gap in my block string larger than 2 frames is not actually considered a frame trap (not taking range into account right now).
Also, gaps that are done by manually hesitating rather than physically created by the start-up of the move are also not considered frame traps.
If my understanding is correct, it would be fairly obvious to understand why the terms meaning has evolved because true frame traps would be fairly uncommon and very match-up specific because it would solely depend on the tool set of your opponent as to whether or not the gap in a string would be considered a frame trap or not.
I’d like to say at this point that I still stand by my initial post as a fairly decent and not inaccurate description of the whole process of “frame trapping” in SF4.
Thoughts?
Peace,
G.
What happened in the past was that there were players who used to incorporate true frame traps in their game and they called them that. When other players heard the term, they automatically assumed it try to beat crouch tech, and they thought it was a better name and it sorta made sense because frame data was involved at some level. Was their interpretation incorrect? Yes, but as long as people in the community are willing this new meaning of the term, there’s no problem.
Frame traps are dependent on your opponent’s toolset (it’s always been like that) but they’re not that uncommon, even when you disregard stuff like crouch tech. Guile can frame trap off his lp sonic boom. Chars who are + on block after a blocked FADC can use it. You can do it on hit in some cases eg. Ken EX Tatsu. You can trick the opponent into attempting to punish a move that’s generally unsafe by doing it meaty and then following up with another move that will beat his. Then there’s using them after jump ins (you can actually figure out proper frame traps off jump-ins if you use stuff like safe jump setups which always hit on the last frame). There’s more to frame traps in SFIV than just beating crouch tech.
lol damn Dime, it’s been a long time. I agree with you that ilitirit’s knowledge is a good reference of the original term. I just don’t liked his approach where he just tells us we’re wrong.
I can see the possible confusion if newcomers are coming from other games. But can you see why we call certain moves invincible, airborne, low crush, and etc.?
It’s to simplify the terms. Words like invincible and airborne are every day terminology. You don’t have to come from 3D FG or even play FG at all; you’ll know what that means. And that’s why we use it. But if you use “real” FG terms like “3+ way Okizeme” or “Abare”, most newcomers will lose interest and most likely won’t even attempt to learn it.
We’re only trying to simplify foreign/complicated terms like “3+ way Okizeme” and “abare”. So with that in mind, you don’t think using the term “Invincible Frame Trap” is more descriptive and as simple as “delayed SRK”?
Let’s break them down:
Invincible Frame Trap:
- Invincible: a move with invincibility able to CH or hit opponent’s defensive tactic
- Frame Trap: “any series of attacks with big enough gaps between them so as to punish crouch tech attempts” (according to what you think our definition of a Frame Trap is)
- So a person with a basic knowledge of what a Frame Trap is will understand that the person doing a block string (again, according to our definition) performed an invincible move to CH or hit opponent’s defensive tactic
Delayed SRK:
- Delayed: paused
- SRK: invincible move
- Paused when, and SRK where? Even though it’s simple like “Invincible Frame Trap”, it doesn’t describe when/where the delayed SRK is happening.
Conclusion: if both terminology is simple, why not use more descriptive and universally accepted term (in SF4)?
Your terms, “crouch tech punishers/CH setups”, are more descriptive but it’s longer.
Our term, “frame trap”, is shorter and universally accepted in SF4.
Clearly, most people will use “frame trap” than “crouch tech punishers/CH setups”.
I’d like to replace “crouch tech attempts” with “defensive tactics” because reversals can be Frame Trapped too (since crouch tech is included in the defensive tactic terminology).
According to the “real” definition of a Frame Trap, what you described above is not a frame trap.
Exactly. And it would also take into account of human error because Normals don’t get reversals.
“There are 2 frames where the opponent cant be thrown after recovering from block/hitstun… so the theoretical cr.lp,cr.mk “frame trap” with ken will almost NEVER hit when done frame tight cause the frame that the cr.mk hits on isnt even a throwable frame.” - Dime
A “real” Frame Trap, according to the original definition, would obviously not work in SF4 mechanic.
Normals have to be timed manually. Humans are not robots; people make mistakes. We can’t always/consistently follow up with a Normal on the 1st frame possible (ex: +2 on block and follow up with a 4F move consistently leaving only 2F gap causing CH on opponent’s 3F move). That is why “True Frame Trap” is not relevant in SF4 and the term “Frame Trap” evolved to describe anything that beats opponent’s defensive tactics.
All that is already understood and incorporated into the term “Frame Trap”. As I mentioned before, Frame Trap is not just beating out crouch tech options. It’s CH/hitting the opponent’s defensive tactic whether it’d be crouch tech, reversals, etc.
I’m not saying that it’s right, I’m just saying that I can understand why the terms meaning has expanded.
All these techniques, frame traps, CH set-ups etc, all kinda fall into the same “family” for want of a better word and they all rely on you giving the opponent the false impression that a gap in your offence is a safe place to insert their own attack.
I’m genuinely thankful to have learned some deeper meaning about the entire concept, but I still feel happy to put all the things we’re talking about into 1 simple concept and for the sake of creating some new term (which would then need to be explained in itself), I’m comfortable with using the term “frame trap” as it summuses the principal fairly well.
Peace,
G.
Yall trippin.when u say frame trap everyone knows what ur talking bout.now when it comes to any other game these terms and actions mite change.but this is the ssf4 thread and everyone else has been fine with the term frame trap