1582

Throw techs and crouch tech, are present in 3S as well, and throws are still strong in that game.
If you give people enough options to crack crouch teching open, it’s not a problem.

1583

Much of what I have said, the meat and potatoes really, has been my own ‘preference’ with respect to SF. In other words, irrespective of the logical distinctions I have made between ideas, which no one has challenged here as being invalid, everything else has basically just been directed to what sort of game I think would be fun.

“Truth” here, if you mean it in some sort of objective-non-preferential way, really doesn’t apply. So I don’t even know what you’re saying here. Glad you “agreed” with my post and all, but agreement in this case just means that you share at least ‘part’ of my preference.

Unless of course you want to disagree with any logical distinctions I have made, or you think exact facts I have stated are false.

Funny, I don’t recall, nor is there anything in my prior posts that says anything about me saying there is “no higher skill than picking bison” whatever that means. I also never said anything about Alpha being the best SF. I never said which SF I thought was the best. I just said Alpha was the first one I took seriously, and indeed I did like some of the mechanics. For your information, my favorite SF of all time was a tossup between SFEX series and CvSNK2. I enjoyed the alpha series, sure, and it will always be near and dear to my heart, but I by no means thought it was the greatest. I never said that. When did I ‘ever’ say the game should be exclusively footsies for that matter? I seem to recall talking about zoning ‘and’ rushdown, and explicitly said that ‘all’ elements of the game should be incorporated, and that the ideal, in my opinion, is a variety! Meaning that all of these aspects of the game are balanced and no ‘one’ is dominant. That’s the exact ‘opposite’ of what you’re are attributing to me, and it’s a blatant misrepresentation of what I said, point blank.

Again, this pretty much falls by the wayside because you’re not really engaging anything I have actually said.

Yeah, not the game I envision either.

Yeah, sure, if that gives you the advantage. I don’t see what point you are actually trying to make here which I happen to disagree with.

Yeah, that’s cause Ultra, by nerving vortex, reveals the underlying defensive mechanics of SF4. The reason I seem to agree with me is because SF4 is primarily defense heavy i.e lame. I said this already in prior posts, so I don’t know why it’s such a shocker. Everything I have said has been fully consistent with that fact. It’s not just footies either, that’s the problem, but just that everything tends to tip towards defense, especially character design. I mean think about how Akuma plays in 3’s and compare him to now. he went from being a rushdown animal to a sniper and wakeup ninja. So yeah, I agree, it’s boring. You honestly think I enjoy having to win matches based on time? I was at a tournament in philly this winter, Winter Brawl. I ran like 3 and 2 or something and got taken out by my own teammate. I complained to Min about that btw, cause that was wak putting us in the same pools. Anyways, I won like all my matches laming out. Was laughing about that with Zeus. But hey, it’s how they made the game. Play to win, right? They got ‘outplayed’ and should have ‘adapted.’ All that is true, but nonetheless it’s not fun.

You really don’t see what it is I’m saying I see, but hopefully these clarifications will help you understand.

In this case I can’t say you misunderstand anything I said, because I simply never elaborated on how this would be accomplished. Let me clarify though. By saying something is used for a purpose in a game, that means that when that aspect of the game is designed, it’s function caters, that is makes advantageous, as a tool, the action which would fulfill that purpose if one intended to us it that way. What often happens with games is that players use things in ways developers never intended.

You’re way off though generally. Making throws be more of a tool for the punishment of turtles could be accomplished a number of ways, like not allowing them to be used during block strings, but making them eat jabs let’s say. I actually don’t use tic throws on people with Bison much, and believe me I ‘whore’ throws like there is no tomorrow. But I usually hover just outside of throw range with pressure and when they aren’t expecting, aka, just sitting there and blocking, that’s when they get thrown. It works just fine, and if they think I will throw and press tech, I can use a counter hit setup. I don’t even need the tic throw most of the time. So I don’t see why it’s necessity that throws should be needed as tic throws. If you have sufficient skill, you can destroy people who just block. and by reducing the tech window by having faster startup frames on throws and some of the other suggestions in this thread, I would be actually down for them being ‘more’ aggressive, provided they are not the tic throws. I personally just think that tic throws destroy the fluidity of the game.

I don’t know what “argument” I gave exactly that you are referring to. But you clearly have a misunderstanding about what I think would be ideal. If your blocking, and not ready to tech, and someone throws you, then you get thrown. That’s just a possibility if someone plays that option. OF course someone could go for throws all the time, but the point is they would have to get close and also the other player just be blocking, which if your being aggressive isn’t really going to happen is it.

Again, it’s not really just about bison though. bison has classically always have shitty AA options. Bison is just a horribly designed character in 4, much like just about every other character. And by “horrible” I just mean bad design. This has nothing to do with tiers per se.

I’m finding it hard to understand why your posts switches back and forth between ‘apparently’ seeing what I’m saying to totally running off on tangents of stuff I never even said. It’s honestly baffling.

1584

Funny how he says we’re unfairly accusing him of being scrubby, when he’s the one using the arbitrary construct of “throws as a tool for punishing turtles”.

First thing first, as far as I can recall, it’s never really been confirmed/stated that this is the purpose of throws. Most of this is conjecture by players back in the day when they started breaking the game down.

More importantly, the fact that tic throw setups remain in the game after more than 2 decades shows that the devs never had a problem with it.

Something like this already exists, you actually cannot throw somebody during blockstun, so you can blame IV’s hilariously low blockstun for this.

That said, this won’t stop anyone from trying to learn their blockstun frames and timing their throws correctly.

Moving on however…

Again back to your first problem, as you’ve stated this is your preference. The problem is that this isn’t everyone’s preference. There are people and characters who will want to aggresively go in for a throw (and not just grapplers). Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it bad for the game.

1585

Yup. Kara throws helped greatly there, along with the fact that you could very easily just parry crouchtechs with either type of parry. UOH goes over c.LPs in some cases. Also, throwing is one of the easiest ways to punish someone for trying to parry you. And that’s not even mentioning the other offensive tools a lot of characters had, all of which help make throws stronger because there are more ways to open people up.

I have no idea why or how this would promote variety, because frankly, that’s not relevant as to why I want this system. I want it because it makes defense riskier, which again promotes and rewards offense. It would get rid of crouch tech specifically, but it would probably not change most other defensive options. Some people are still going to mash jabs if you don’t frame trap them.

1586

Jabs will be mashed anyway. The big issue in IV with them is that it’s easier to get them out due to the low blockstun and that they lead to significant things due to the combo system favoring BnBs from lights.

1587

@d3v

If you want to deny that you were essentially calling me a scrub and offer some clarification to differentiate yourself from someone who would be doing than then fine, but if it quacks like a duck, then it usually is. If it fact that is not your intention, and wish to provide evidence for that, then I will be more than happy to stand corrected. However, until that time, I will continue to call spade a spade.

Now, it may very well be, that my gripes with throws in SF4, as compared to other Sf games may be due to certain technical variables, such that ‘tic throws’ may not be inherently the problem but perhaps, for example, tic throws tendered in accordance with other mechanics. That may very well be.

The point is, it’s not that I have a problem with “offense” or throws generally, as you have clearly, based on your prior posts, mistakenly assumed. after all, as you have noticed yourself, I play bison, who is a throw whore, so evidently it’s not “throws” or “offense” I have a problem with. That should have tipped you off hermeneutically speaking, to the fact that your interpretation of my posts was off.

In any event, you continue to fail to grasp what I am saying. Your past post distinguishes throws as “punishment tools” which you attribute to being my sole position, and throws as people or characters who “aggressively go for throws (not just grapplers).” You see, if you took everything I have said into consideration and bothered to see the big picture, you would see that what I am aiming at is actually an “aggressive” game. In other words, let’s say for extreme purposes that the only way to get thrown was if you were blocking, but not during blocking a block string. Like due to the overall mechanics, you basically had to get in close and throw them, meaning throws weren’t used as part of mixups. Again, this is an extreme case, and not necessarily what I would find ideal. In such a game, where throws were limited basically to grabbing either blocking opponents or just stationary opponents (and of course punishment on recovery frames of whiffed or blocked moves), we might also add that throws have very fast startup and perhaps either can’t be teched at all, are really hard to tech, or you suffer a penalty anyway.

If that was the case, throws would still be “aggressive” in that one’s intent the whole fight might be in part to look for a throw opportunity. And if someone slips up, and either stops pressing buttons, or whiffs get’s blocked on an unsafe move, or just stands still, one could be thrown. This would encourage a would be potential turtle to be proactive and be offensive, basically to ‘wake up’ and look alive, instead of just sleeping and laming out. To think in other words, and by interacting proactively, force ‘more’ situations where guesswork is required, starting with zoning, footsies, frame traps, etc (all the various games at the various ranges and transitions between them). What would ‘seem’ to be essential here, is that throws would need to be really strong insofar as if someone got up on you, and you weren’t doing anything, you basically would get punished and there would be little you could do about it.

As for the issue of throws being the intended purpose of the developers to punish turtling. It’s true this is all speculative until we get a developer in front of us, but that’s the general ‘speculative’ consensus based on ‘reason.’ It’s a theory in other words, and I am fully justified in that theory in that it is the prevailing theory to date. It doesn’t mean it’s correct, but it’s the best educated guess.

It’s not really important though, what the truth of the matter is, because it creates a springboard for discussion, namely in this case, about game design. which brings me to what you said about preferences.

Yes it is my preference, but I think, for very good reason, based on your continual failure to see what I’m saying (no offense but it is what it is), what I want isn’t a non-aggresive game. I want an aggressive game. But “aggressive” can take place in many ways. What ‘type’ of aggressive game do I want, is the question. I don’t want a game that’s based on reaction and lameness despite your continual insinuations and explicate comments that I do via your imposition of this scrub value which has frankly nothing to do with the topic of this thread, nor with anything I have said in it.

Fact is, do want an aggressive game, and I do like the throw mechanic. I just don’t like the way they did it in this game. And yes, that may be due, ultimately, to mechanics that are not inherent to throws, but how throws interact with other mechanics i.e. blockstun values or w/e. The point here is the overall big picture I am talking about. That’s what you’re not seeing in anything I have been saying, presumably, because you can’t get past the “you been outplayed” play to win philosophy. That has it’s place and time, but this ain’t it bruh.

1588

Your ability to reason circularly is truly astounding.

You point has no evidence to it as to WHY your way is better. Your point is all about your opinion with no evidence.

We have already provided evidence that streetfighter has ALWAYS been heavily throw centric and that most people like that throw centricity because 20 years later people still want strong throws and in fact many people want STRONGER throws than what sf4 provides.

Your argument basically boils down to “block string throws are random because throws are random” trying to use the conclusion to prove your premise is circular logic by definition.

There is no reason to discuss this further with you if you can not or do not provide any actual evidence about why your premise is correct, or could be.

You’ve stated fallacious things that have already been debunked such as streetfighter 2 never being a throw centric game. And you’ve expressed opinions that throws have no place as a part of blockstrings, without providing a reason WHY.

Other than the OPINION that blockstring throws are “random” (they aren’t) and that therefor they are unfun to play against/to hard to play against/impossible to accurately predict… Or whatever it is you mean by your previous statements.

It’s already been proven that you cannot be thrown while in blockstun. And in fact, if you really want to know, sf4 in particular doesn’t allow you to be thrown for 2 frames AFTER fully recovering from either hitstun or blockstun.

Anyways, as I said, there is no reason to argue with you any further. You seem to think that the conclusions that you have come up with in your own mind, serve as evidence that the conclusions themselves are correct.

This is like saying the Apple is green, therefor Apples are green. There is no actual evidence in your statement, unless one takes the first statement as evidence. But it is not evidence. It is just a statement. Apples can be red. And throws aren’t necessarily bad just because you don’t like them when done as ticks.

Oh and your statement that throws are dumb when done as blockstrings, is literally the oldest cry of the scrub that there is… Complaining about tick throws… That’s so '90’s dude.

Calling a spade a spade?

And a link so you can see your circular reasoning for what it is, though I doubt you will:

1589

I’m not denying, I am calling you a scrub.

You’re taking my words and twisting them, yet you fail to understand what I mean by “aggressively go for throws”.

This isn’t what I have in mind when I think “aggressively go for throws”. Because at the end of the day, the person going for a throw is still reacting. They’re reacting to the fact that their opponent “slips up, and either stops pressing buttons, or whiffs get’s blocked on an unsafe move, or just stands still”.

Aggressively going for throws as I see it implies actually trying to set up and force a throw, either via mixups or tick throws. Heck, throws enable mixups simply because not every character has a high low (let alone a left right) mixup. In other words, they enable offense and aggresive play, especially in a game where throw techs exist. Take for example 3rd Strike, one of the things that enables certain characters to rush down is SGGK, which is an option select between throw or super depending on whether or not the opponent attacks (parry, counter , cancel into super) or blocks (kara throw). Actually, it doesn’t even have to be from the OS, just the threat of super, or getting counter hit into it (thanks to the priority system which means lighter attacks are beat out by stronger ones regardless of the hitboxes) can be used to force a throw.

Now this can apply to any game, while it doesn’t have to be as extreme as SGGK, the principle is the same - trick your opponent into blocking even just for a few frames so that you can throw them. It doesn’t have to be via an option as powerful as SGGK, you can do this, as previously mentioned, via tick throws or via mixups.

There’s also one more thing I’d like to point out. The only effective solution that I can see to taking out tick throws (and possibly mixups) actually does hurt the throw game alot, even for those who just punish blocking. That would be to give characters frames of throw invulnerability coming out of blockstun (remember, you cannot be thrown while in blockstun). This is the point at which tick throws and throw mixups happen after all. However, this also does hurt people just trying to punish with throws as well because it increases the time that they have to wait before you can punish with a throw. That small amount of time makes the throw attempt more reactable, either via a tech, or even just a poke.

1590

@Dime_x

Circular reasoning? Let’s see exactly how that works, shall we?

Evidently, you have either not been reading my posts, or you don’t understand what logic is. The irony is that in you trying to ‘argue’ allegedly, for your position, you are completely off the topic of this thread. This thread is about the mechanics that ‘you’ want to see in the game.

Your appeal to consensus, whether it is true that most players do enjoy a throw centric game, is completely irrelevant here, because the thread centers on what ‘you’ meaning each individual participating in this thread ‘want’ to see in the game. Any appeal to consensus would violate that individualized question. Again, the thread is about what the opinion of each subjective individual wishes to see in the game, as opposed to some sort of democratic vote or something like that. So your under fallacious conditions to even be appealing to a consensus.

With respect to your statement of fact that SF has always been throw centric; I can’t comment on ST, as I have already made clear in this thread. However, I have played the other SF games, all of them in fact, and that wasn’t my experience. Throws have always been part of the game, sure, and played a regular roll in gameplay, but throw centric?

If you want to make a claim like that fine, but you are going to need to provide some sort of objective and scientifically based evidence for your claim. I don’t know of any statistical data that would demonstrate. Perhaps you have an argument based on the mechanics of all SF games that universally and unavoidably leads to the consequence that throws are a dominant strategy over all other strategies. But my guess is you are only left with your ‘opinion’ which may or may not match those of others in the community of players with respect to those games.

With respect to your argument that the majority of players enjoy a throw centric game. It is a necessary premise of your argument that the majority of SF players enjoy a throw centric game, that in fact all past SF games are throw centric. This is evidenced by your own statements i.e the past 20 years and all. So until you can show some sort of evidence which isn’t strictly opinion, or an appeal to a consensus of opinion, you’re not making any sort of ‘objective’ argument. It’s like the problem with tier lists. Yes it’s based on educated opinion, and that shouldn’t just be discounted just because it is opinion. But speculation does in fact differ from determinative reasons. That’s the difference between speculation and actual knowledge. You seem to not know the difference between those two. At least you haven’t presented any evidence that you comprehend that difference, thus why you are ‘arguing’ without actually supporting your own pressies with anything other than opinion, which is ironically, what you are accusing me of.

But a further irony is that I have fully admitted that all of what I am saying is based on my opinion, that is my preference. That is, all of what I am saying is based on how I want to see the game, how I think the game would be most fun. An opinion, I might add, is spot on with the topic. And you’re are saying my “logic” is circular and throwing wiki definitions. Btw my bruh, if you want to site official sources for things like logic, don’t use wiki. Use something like Stanford. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/#CirDef Just for educational purposes, wiki isn’t reliable per se.

Moving on,

allow me to briefly respond to some of your comments to highlight exactly why you are totally off in your ‘reasoning.’ Hopefully you will get it and cease this pointless exercise by understanding that you are, like two of the other ivdiduals here, essentially attacking a straw man without even knowing it. Btw, that’s another logical fallacy, one which you are totally guilty of. I’ll let you look that one up, but don’t use wiki.

Yes, as it shouldn’t have any. It’s a preference, and preferences are just that…

Your trying to argue foolishly against opinion with your own, but don’t realize that’s what you’re doing.

Actually no you haven’t. You have neither given any objective argument as to why Sf has always been a throw centric game, and you haven’t given any sort of pole which represents a large enough size of the FGC to make any legitimate claim about the consensus of all, or the majority, of the players in the community, both now and in the past (20 years remember), as to whether or not they enjoy a throw centric game or not.

Yeah, not even remotely what I’m saying. This is why you guys who keep coming at me with this value, need to check your emotions at the door, for they are overloading your neocortex.

As if anyone could even argue for the ‘correctness’ or a preference. You serious on this one bruh?

Actually I did admit my knowledge of Sf2 is limited beyond the basics, and I said this many times. So you’re clearly mistaken about the facts, as well as blatantly misrepresenting my posts.

See, you still don’t seem to get it. Notice you even admit you don’t know what I mean by my previous statements, yet just a few sentences ago, you vehemently proclaimed what my opinion actually is, in your opinion.

Also, ultimately ‘all’ of this comes down to opinion in the end. As I said, it’s about what ‘you’ want to see in the game!

Yes we can discuss factual issues, and reason about mechanics and stuff like that. But all of that is for the ‘purpose’ of sharing and discussing our preferences.

Now, of course we might try and be ‘persuasive’ in trying to ‘convince’ others that our preference should be adopted by them, but notice that’s a far cry from what you’re talking about. What you’re talking about, doesn’t really make sense, because you have confused preferential opinion with correctness.

That’s fine, but you’re obviously trying to split hairs to obfuscate the point. As I said to the other guy, it does’t matter the exact specifics of the mechanics per se for why the game plays how it does, to simply acknowledge it’s playing a certain way. As I said before, Capcom doesn’t ‘balance’ the game entirely for strategic equality among characters (5.5 universally on all MUs). Rather their ‘primary’ concern is to make a game with certain ‘feel’ that is an overall picture as to how the game plays. That’s very general, and while the specifics help build that up, ultimately the specifics aren’t the point. So I get your distinction but it really has gone way over your head what I’m getting at. And if you don’t think Capcom does that, btw, you can go ask Combofiend when you seem him yourself. I heard that directly from him, and he works there, so that’s right out the horses mouth.

And you seem to actually in fact not understand what an argument actually is.

Just to be clear, and argument is merely the relationship between statements which serve as premises, which validly infer a conclusion. An example of one would be

All SF players are gamers
Dime_x is a SF player
Therefore, Dime_X is a gamer.

Notice the entailment is such that conclusion is unavoidable. Btw that little way to write out the argument is called a logical “syllogism.” It originates with the philosopher Aristotle. Here is a link from a reputable source. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

Yet another lesson in logic for you.

First you’re completely wrong once again that scrubs complain about tic throws insofar as your statement disingenuously obfuscates the fact that scrubs by definition complain about absolutely anything and everything that beats him. That’s the whole point of scrubbiness!! It’s the fact that ‘anything’ that beats them, they cry about. It doesn’t matter what it is. If it’s throws, then they’re cheap. If it’s DP’s then they’re cheap. It doesn’t matter. So you’re totally off as if scrubs only and universally complain about tic throws. Anyone can look to their own experience to see that’s obviously refuted. It’s as easy as looking about the window.

Here is a definition of a scrub from Urban Dictionary as applied to its video game usage.

*A scrub is a now generalized term used as a synonym for a “noob” or “newb,” which is someone who is bad at a video game or activity in general.

Most of the definitions here, surprisingly, have nothing to do with the actual term. The original definition is related to a person who makes a mistake in a video game, which is such a bad mistake that it is clearly wrong, yet they persist in making it. The term derives from Street Fighter II, to describe some players that were so bad that they would mash their hands across the control pad, an act known as “scrubbing,” because it relates to scrubbing a car or other object with a sponge. Thus they were deemed “scrubbers,” or “scrubs” for short. Over time this term expanded throughout the gaming world, and then the real world, and lost its original meaning.*

Source http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scrub

Notice how your ‘argument’ totally falls apart because you aren’t using the correct definition.

Now, you might try to slip out here, and say that you ‘meant’ the term in a different sort of way. Notice the definition cites the history of the term as expanding away from it’s original meaning. That’s fine if you meant it differently, but then I really don’t see how what you’re saying relates to anything I have said. So it’s pretty much a lost cause to pursue that line any further.

Now, with that said, I don’t know what “that’s so 90’s dude” actually means in terms of an argument, so I’m just going to move on.

With that in mind, in trying to communicate with the ‘sprit’ of what I think you are trying to say, my retort is that there is a difference between dealing with something as a strategy, and accepting it as part of the game, and having a preference for it.

I like SF enough to where I’ll play it, and I fully believe in using whatever is in the game to win, because…that’s the objective (play to win). I don’t need a value lesson in that philosophy for I already subscribe to it.

But you seem to fail to understand the difference between a dislike for a certain mechanic or aspect of a game, and in-game attitude. Like for instance, we all might get salty at times when we lose, and we know that’s just us getting frustrated. But there is a radical difference between that for example, and having a preference towards a certain game mechanic. The reason is that there is a total and grand canyon size difference between what you enjoy, and you getting upset by losing.

Hence why what you are saying has no logical connection to what I’m saying. You’re literally ‘arguing’ a straw man, and you haven’t even done that, as demonstrated by the fallacies you have committed, which I have highlighted in detail above.

1591

The problem is when suggesting that making a change based on “what you enjoy” ends up negatively affecting the game.

The majority of people arguing against you are those who are bringing stuff up based on their own experience as well as shared experience and knowledge of the games.

Just watch this footage here of Super Turbo where Boxer goes for the tick throw loop at 1:30, he also goes for tick throws in other matches whenever he’s in range for them. Almost everytime his low forward gets blocked, he goes for a throw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdd7WGhOx5Q

The only way to beat Boxer’s tick throws in ST is to do a reversal, conditioning players not to do reversal (or to reversal because you’ve been tick throwing them) is an important part of playing this match up.

Other games with similar enough engines also have something similar, although slightly toned down.

While they’re not a big part of her game, A2 Chun still can go for tick throw setups. More importantly, with her fast walk speed, she doesn’t need it as much as she can just walk in and throw once she’s scared her opponent from poking using her own good pokes. All she needs to do is stay at the tip of her cr. MK range, which usually beats out most other pokes in the game, and then instead of going for it for the umteenth time in a row, walk forward and throw.

3rd Strike on the other hand is a slightly different beast thanks to kara throws, SGGK, and other tech. With how the game revolves around meter options, using the threat of meter is a way for certain characters to rush in and pressure with kara throws. Heck, Chun gets alot of mileage with this both with the SGGK option select (both Nuki and MOV abuse this alot) and without it.

That said, any character who can should be using SGGK when they have the meter (and the appropriate SA) for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E48ilAdH88U
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QgCy1aXyivE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=52EwIBrWzHY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=52EwIBrWzHY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1FOfmMGnysc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CoW8xlkqE3M
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fya2BZGMkLo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=smIbvNDZw5Y
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZAu9gW_gp9c
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jrj34n4vo4w
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-Gro2CX0ztw

1592

@exogen

The evidence is that streetfighter is the most popular fighting game on the planet after all these years, and that while being throw centric. That’s all the evidence I need and there is no appeal to consensus here.

As I said I would not continue to argue with you if you do not have actual evidence of what you say. I read about 1/4 of what you said up top, saw that it was wrong and that it was you arguing against circular reasoning and taking this discussion to a completely different place.

I’m not going to bother reading all that shit. You have been debunked. You have admitted that you want things your way because of preference in the face of overwhelming support for what it is that you don’t like.

There is no reason to continue arguing unless you have actual evidence as to what you are saying. As I said. My evidence is streetfighter living on in spite of a ridiculously good throw game that has always been there, whether you know it/want to admit it, or not.

1593

@d3v Thanks for posting the videos on ST. Yes, I saw the tic throw.

That’s entirely relative though, for how do we ‘know’ players will or will not enjoy it? I mean maybe we can appeal to a general consensus, if we have one, but how do we even know players are educated enough about their own opinions to even make that determination? I think that’s part of your point in saying that it ends up effecting the game negatively. I have seen this happen in games many times, where they have done things like taken away certain limitations and basically just made the game simple and stupid, which ruined the game.

But that’s why I think we need to be careful here not to turn what I’m saying into that, because as I said already, I am going for an overall picture here, and while throws is an example of something I would like to see done differently (not eliminated or nerfed to the point of uselessness!), it is just one component part of what I’m saying.

Sure, what else would they have to work off of? As I have pointed out, no one has yet to make any ‘objective’ arguments, so yeah, it’s opinion vs. opinion, which is based on experience and their own accumulated knowledge.

I want to revisit your quote now to make my final point in light of what I have now said.

And now my retort to you is, what else would the game be made for?

Did you read my post? I clearly explained why this argument, even if it were valid, which it isn’t, first needs to establish that it is throw centric in the first place. You have yet to provide an objective argument as to why it is fundamentally throw centric. And recall I’m not talking about ST merely, but ‘all’ SF games.

Well if you’re not going to bother to read my posts in their entirety as I have taken the time to read your’s, then we simply aren’t operating on a level of mutual respect, so then I don’t see the point in talking to you either. Makes sense doesn’t it?

Yeah…a fact I admitted from the very begging of all my posts ever, both directly and indirectly. Anyone with half a brain can see that. But you’re so busy with this scrub prejudice that you can’t even see the blinding and obvious that that this entire topic is ALL about opinions…

Which btw contradicts the very idea of making an “argument.” You seem to not understand the difference between sharing opinions and preferences, vs. arguments about matters of fact.

I can’t help you because your entire position is motivated by bigotry. You can say it’s my “preference,” but you fail to see the silliness of criticizing that fact. So for instance, someone is a “scrub” if they don’t like checkers over chess? Their a scrub if they don’t prefer Mario brothers of Sonic the hedge hog? Seriously, you fail to see the obvious and blinding contradiction here.

quote=“Dime_x;10249257”]
There is no reason to continue arguing unless you have actual evidence as to what you are saying. As I said. My evidence is streetfighter living on in spite of a ridiculously good throw game that has always been there, whether you know it/want to admit it, or not.
[/quote]

And what evidence would I actually give? That’s the dumbest thing you have said yet. But what’s even more stupid is that you would actually presume as if YOU could give evidence which isn’t equally as subjective.

But you a probably just piggy backing off something in my last post and didn’t bother to read it as you said, so how can I really expect you to respond coherently.

@d3v I apogees but I missed this post of your’s before. Allow me to respond.

Ok, I can’t imagine why. In a thread deliberately devoted to talking about the game mechanics each individual person wants to see, you are actually calling me a scrub for doing just that…

And the only apparent reason is that I have a difference of preference with respect to throws in SF4.

So basically, I’m a scrub cause I don’t like a certain mechanic, and then I’m in the wrong for talking about that dislike on a thread dedicated to talking about such things. wow.

Also, you don’t see the obvious hypocrisy here? For the same reason you are calling me a scrub for not liking the current throw system, you in the same breadth clearly don’t like what I am proposing. And you don’t see how by your own rational you would have to be a scrub too?

You seriously don’t see the bigotry going on here?

Am I now.

I agree insofar as that’s a possibility of the sort of in game decision a player might make in a a situation where the only player stops attacking. But if they basically just walk up and throw them, how does the other play know they won’t walk up and reversal them or stop short and do a normal? See, you’re assuming certain variables are constant while discounting other possibilities. So

And how exactly does what I am suggesting, in the general make them “unaggressive?” Meaning how ‘generally speaking’ are throws ‘not’ offensive with what I am talking about. If by “aggressive” you really just mean the way you prefer it is now, then you’re just begging the question. If “aggressive” is to mean anything more general than that, then your point collapses.

Remember, the person going for the throw with what I’m talking about, still runs a risk. This instance actually happens right now in SF4 series. I often have people in the corner with bison and play corner games. I might soft knock them down. On wakeup, I move back slightly. Now depending on what they do, I might just hover right there poking them, using SK, etc. Basically just staying safe and trying to get them to mess up. At some times though, I will be right there and trick them to whiff, or just make them think I’m not going to do anything and be right outside throw range, right at the edge. Then I will walk forward slightly and throw them. If they guessed I would do this, say because I did it last round, they might DP let’s say. Suppose I’m playing against a Ryu and he has meeter and revenge gauge and he are both down to like 200 health. Obviously he could win the round potentially. So that would seem to refute your idea that what I am saying is purely an implementation of throws that is ‘reactive’ in kind.

But see, you wouldn’t be taking out all mixups though, just by nerfing tic throws, and any mixups that depended on them.

In addressing your solution, I don’t know if that would work either, but it’s an interesting design question.

Perhaps by varying the the number of frames inflicted depending on the aggressor’s normal or special, to allow for an adequate delay. Not sure if I like that solution either.

1594

You can’t just add or remove frames of recovery. Any move that is safe enough, will allow for ticking

The only way to truly remove tick throws is to add throw invul out of blockstun, however, with that you are creating a situation where there is no mixup because there is no offensive option other than to poke. This itself is an unintended nerf to offense because it actually limits the attackers options to either try to continue poking and keep them in a blockstring, or to just back off. At this point, all the defender needs to do is just hold down back. Unless the attacker has a safe, comboable standing overhead (a rarity in SF), the defender now has no reason to do anything else, because they know that they won’t be thrown - at least not without prior warning. Heck, you could say that it would make defense, and reversals brain dead. Now all you’d need to do would be to mash out a strike invul move and it would either carry on the throw invul properties or, not really need them since the attacked isn’t going to throw anyway.

Long story short, you’ve just made defense strong again, something we don’t want for SFV.

1595

@d3v

I didn’t say adding ‘recovery frames.’ I was talking about adding throw invulnerability to existing frames. that might be where the variation I was referring to might come into play.

And remember, this is ‘your’ solution, which doesn’t preclude other possibilities. Indeed, at least one other solution has already been suggested in this thread.

It would probably be good to think of all the possible options and compare them until the desired picture emerged. Obviously we know you like the game how it is, so we are just speculating at this point as if you and I saw eye-to-eye on our preferences. That’s all. Just two people having a civilized conversation about what would bring them joy in a game. No name calling or bigotry involved.

Yes, I would agree it does nerf ‘offense’ in that way, but the whole point of ‘balance’ is to compensate somewhere else. I already said, you could make throws now have faster startup, and/or slightly better range, and make them harder to tech, or make techs still incur some sort of punishment. You could make throws one button again, or take more life, etc. There’s lots of stuff you can do, even within the throw game itself to compensate for that nerf. So yeah, it’s a nerf, I agree, but that’s why you buff it elsewhere to compensate. You seem to be thinking of changing that one aspect and leaving ‘everything’ else the same. I’m not suggesting that to be clear, and have already stated that already in my previous posts.

And just to point out, that ‘we’ don’t want it to be defensive, but that is because ‘we’ agree in our preferences. By your rational for calling me a scrub, if I was to prefer defense let’s say, which I don’t, but if I did, then you would be a scrub just because you disagree with my preference in that case. See how that works. It’s nothing but bigotry hands down.

1596

What is there to add? You already cannot be thrown out of blockstun frames.

1597

@d3v You would add what you said to add in your prior posts, namely the one where you brought up this very solution. You said

Now, perhaps I’m not seeing what your describing here, so a clarification may be in order, but I understand you to mean that if I was in block stun for instance, while you were performing a string, there would be throw intolerability added to the frames that I was in block stun and coming out of it for, this would mean that if you then went for a throw, the throw would whiff because I would be invulnerable. Is that what you’re saying, or am I way off?

I’m saying, what if we increased or reduced the number of frames of invulnerability which are applied to the block stun frames and/or frames coming out of the stun (if there are fames coming out of it which I think there are)?

We might vary this based on an equation that takes distance into account and how much stun is applied, etc.

i’m asking would that make a difference, why or why not?

1598

I already pointed out how such a solution could negatively affect the game.

And I’m sure some of the other players here could come up with other reasons.

1599

why is everybody up in arms about throws? Throws are there to beat blocking, otherwise people could block all day with little repercussion. Mind you east coast still blocks all day and will lame you out for reasons other than blocking.

If you wanna see what the world is like without throws, play the original KI.

Once again, whats the issue?

Edit: The high/low situation for breaking block would need overheads that people can get combos from; this would kind of turn everybody’s up close game very similar. The same thing would then happen if we let chip damage become the defacto way of preventing somebody from blocking. To some extent, this would require all characters to have a safe way to deal chip damage or they wouldn’t be able to catch up on a life lead. Tick throws let you change the rhythm of your throws so that you can choose to be predictable or unpredictable. All this is important because this is the way basic offense works in street fighter. I mean all of them have this very basic gameplay to them; its not all of the gameplay but its core to this series. The one game that didn’t really have this was A3, but that game was crazy shit.

1600

@d3v

Yes, I understand you said, that and was directly responding to that when I asked if you think varying the amount of frames to which there is throw invulnerability would make a difference?

Now let’s say it doesn’t, although I don’t understand yet why it wouldn’t. But let’s say it doesn’t matter if you did that or not.

As I said, you would just buff throws, or other things in the game, in other regards to compensate for that.

As I also said, I’m not suggesting to just nerf throws and then leave them like that without changing anything else. Remember, it’s the big picture here that I’m interested, not one mechanic per se in and of itself. It’s the ensemble of the mechanics that matters, and that’s why it’s the ensemble of the mechanics in the current build that I’m looking at, as opposed to one mechanic per se. Tic throws is something I’m addressing which is being addressed for the purpose of talking about how we might change the overall picture of the game. That involves taking the changes into consideration. It’s a balancing act, but we need to start someone where, thus the need for brainstorming and trouble shooting by trying to analyze the consequences of various proposed changes. Some might be dead ends, but some may not be. We’ll have to see.

I think this former statement from me, sums up the bigger picture of what I dislike about the game.

I see tic throws as being at very least a contributing factor in the game’s current build. It’s like saying that I am well aware that throws have been in the game since day one, and with the exception of ST, I played the other games plenty, but never found any dislike for the systems of the past. This one I dislike. I’m trying to narrow it down as to exactly what it is I don’t like about it.

It isn’t that I have to “guess” as I think you can see by this point that I’m not in the category of people you were previously trying to slot me in, for you always had to guess with throws. I think I have said enough to make that point.

But it’s the ‘way’ they did it this time that I dislike.

Naeras had some good ideas.

Just as a reminder here, that there are many possible combinations that might be effective. This is food for thought.

1601

Omg I can’t believe it just ate my post.

Anyway, what I was saying was that there is a difference between tweaking a mechanic, which may require adjustments be made for counterbalancing purposes, and the overall picture that the ensemble of those mechanics creates.

this statement from me, sums up what I dislike overall, but I see the tic throw mechanic as it is currently rendered, as contributing to that in some way. Throws have always been in Sf games, and although I can’t really speak on ST extensively, I can speak on the other SF games. I have always been a throw whore, and never have a problem with them. Nor do I have a problem with “guessing.” I think I have made that point clear. but clearly you also understand @d3v that “randomness” and things of this sort, can be defined in other ways than just the absolutely general notion of “guessing.” Probabilities for instance, punishment reward, speed, etc, all play a roll here.

My beef with the tic throw system plays into this overall preference towards SF4 being overall not ideal in my opinion.

So, maybe varying the number of invulnerability frames makes a difference and maybe it doesn’t. If it does, then that’s an option to think about. If not, then as I said, there are plenty of other already known ways to counter balance that change, as well as possible ways that are currently unknown.