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.
exogen wrote: »
I think part of my gripe is the extreme poles which violently fluctuate in SF4 series. If we aren’t being totally lame, were being offensive in a way which become repetitive and overbearing like vortex and similar mechanics. What you don’t see enough of, is the evil keel of the footsie or the zoning game, or a rushdown that isn’t mindless.
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.
@Pertho I don’t have any issue with the existence of throws in the game, and I don’t think anyone else here does either. My gripe with throws specifically, are how they are implemented. I don’t like how they did tic throws, and would prefer a different system. It’s not “aggressive” throws that bothers me, because there is more than one way to implement aggression with respect to throws. Throws are by definition offensive given that they are an unblockable move.
This idea though that throws need to be part of mixup block strings seems to me to be just a preference towards that, because inherently there is nothing about throws which is defensive at all.
Btw guys, sorry for the multiple posts. I don’t know what happened, I tried to post I would hit the “post comment” button and it kept not registering my comments. It would just disappear as if I never hit the button and not show anything. Now I come back and they got registered. Maybe there was a server problem idk. smh. I had messaged D3v about this. So no intent to spam there, just to clear things up.
Yeah that’s an über simplification. I wish it were that simple. It is that simple to me, make no mistake.
but some people felt it essential for them to attack me and call me and slander my character and call me a “scrub” and claim I am committing logical fallacies they themselves need to check themselves on, and completely misrepresent what I was saying, when what I was saying was totally on topic with this thread. I felt it was important, given the ad hominem and other character assassinations that were being leveled against me, to delineate the truth, from the bullshit.
There are no “shitty” opinions. Just opinions. What you mean by “shitty” here is just that a few people didn’t agree with it. If by “shitty” you just mean “don’t agree with” then that’s just retarded. I don’t care if it’s the internet or in person. Someone tries some injustice like that, then I’m going to call THEM on it.
And the irony here is that aside from tic throws, no one seems to disagree with my overall gripes with the game. So if we wanted to have an opinion pissing contest, it would appear that everyone is in agreement at the general level.
What can I say though, you’re right about one thing. You can’t debate with Neanderthals.
Honestly, this whole brouhaha with tick throws has dominated the whole thread. Might as well just make a new thread in FGD about why you think tick throws are bad design.
I haven’t read the entire thread, but we have been only talking about the tic throws for like a page or two. So I don’t know if other people have been talking about it going back to the beginning but if there are many others who don’t like tic throws in SF4, then that would be evidence that people don’t actually like the current system.
In general though, SF4 is all about those two extremes of lameness or a repetitive and mindless offense.
You ever play Guilty Gear or Super Turbo? Too many of the things in this sub forum aren’t turning into what is good design for a Street Fighter, instead they are all secretly bitching about some place where SF4 fucked up. Some of you guys really need to dig deep and stop acting like we are telling you shit don’t work for shits and giggles.
I’m glad you guys spent time with this game but a good chunk of people here have spent time with hella games. Even then you have to keep in mind that there are only so many things you can change in an SF game before it stops having that street fighter feeling.
Also there are lots of shitty opinions. Anything that isn’t well thought out is a shitty opinion. You could have an opinion that is controversial yet come from a completely proper point of view. Unfortunately the people here don’t want to reconsider shit; including the fact that there are other ways to fix a problem other than their solution.
And yet Sf4 has mechanics that you don’t see in any other SF games like FADC’s off of DPs. That’s a mechanic which I have never liked because I felt it destroys the inherent trade offs that keep the game playing a certain way, thus a certain “feel” or “picture.” Now we could make ‘objective’ arguments let’s say in measuring if FADC, given the other mechanics let’s say, in some MU, is inherently balanced in terms of risk and reward. It would be very complex, if we can do it at all, but we could at least try to make an argument about if this or that move is played vs. other options, and subsequently what one’s odds are in the MU i.e. 5.5 or w/e and specifically how FADC changes those odds. One method might be to calculate the odds based on the current setup, and then take away the FADC mechanic as if it wasn’t an option, and compare the numbers.
As for “shitty opinions.” I don’t recognize such subjective terms when they are touted at objective fact. That sort of thing tends to be something that is deployed when there is an attempt made to use the imposition of some value to control another people by using peer pressure to force them to change their opinion i.e. by calling names you make people feel bad so they are more likely to agree with you. Is that an adult thing to do, or is that a childish way to throw a tantrum because someone doesn’t share the same likes or dislikes and they are being vocal about it in a place designated for that purpose of talking about what you ‘do’ want to see.
See what I find so ironic is that a few people wanted to try in vein to jump on me, but all the while failed to actually bother to ask what I ‘did’ want to see in the game, because they couldn’t get beyond the fact that I didn’t like something ‘they’ liked in the game, because they were to narrow minded not to slot me in with some category of people they had already prejudged me to belong to (prejudice by definition). The irony of course being that some of my ‘main’ opinions, at least one of them agreed with. If they could have got beyond their bigotry, they would have immediately seen that. So let’s not act like it’s ‘me’ who’s scrubbing out on this forum. Nah dog, the shoe is on the other foot with that one.
A much better strategy might be to show the reason for why changing a mechanic isn’t ideally in everyone’s best interest. To do that you have to identify what people’s interests actually are.
For example. It’s a fact that people at least tend to prefer games which are accessible. Thus it is wise for game designers to make games that are as such, as opposed to those which have a steep learning curve. Now there is a market of course for those who don’t like accessible games as well, but the percentage isn’t as high.
You might be able to make an argument let’s say, challenging the premise that it is a fact that people prefer accessible games. The way you would make such an argument wouldn’t be to contradict people’s opinions, or even statistics, but to show that in light of those opinions and statistics, that people do in fact want or enjoy games with a higher learning curve. You would probably have to appeal to human psychology and argue along those lines, but as you said, at least it would be a ‘proper’ point of view insofar as it would be ‘backed’ by something.
Unless someone can make an argument about what our universal preferences are, or unless for the purposes of discussion with respect to the participants involved, everyone can come to a consensus, how is it honestly possible to make an ‘argument’ as to a mechanic being ‘good’ or bad?
At some point you’re going to have to assume a certain ideal fun factor. If you go touting that as gospel, you’re ultimately being question begging, and to criticize other’s for sharing a difference of opinion, is bigotry.
So, yeah, I’m all for ‘arguments,’ and believe me, I damn sure know what an argument is, whereas others around here, clearly don’t.
But let’s not get opinion, facts, and arguments all twisted up to be the same thing is all I’m saying.
Exactly how is anything in this point unreasonable?
Two points that radically undercut what you are saying here, which I have already stated more than once.
I’m actually open to all sorts of ideas, including keeping tic throws in the game. My beef is ‘ultimately’ with the ‘overall’ way the game plays. So assuming it doesn’t play ideal, and assuming there is a more ideal way that we all might agree on, talking about the ways that might play out is something which is up for grabs in my book, unlike what you presume here.
btw, yes I played those games, although not as much on ST. I ran Slayer main, kay, and Potemkin.
I totally agree with your point that if you change a game so much that you detract from the original essence, then it ends up destroying the game. But that’s exactly what my beefs around SF4 center on. Characters, mechanics, just don’t feel like SF in part…Yet…you can’t seem to recognize that we actually see eye to eye on that point cause we might disagree on one point, which I already said I am not absolutely committed too.
Except of course, I AM willing to reconsider my shit, and I never said anything to contrary. Pointing out something ‘is’ an opinion, isn’t the same as saying one is unwilling to change their opinion is it?
Throwing needs to be strong so that there is punishment for losing the neutral game. If you’re blocking and the opponent is at frame advantage, you lost the neutral game.
That’s the most simple way to explain it.
Most pre sf4 players think that throws are weak because the game gives you passive defensive options to not be thrown, in crouch tech and mashed 3f normals. In addition to throws having less range than other sf games and the threat of walk up throw being mostly non existent because of universally slow walk speed.
And they’re right imo. The way the game rewards and punishes neutral decision making is one of Sf4s many fundamental flaws. But this conversation traces back further into the games design.
For instance, why does a game have characters with bad anti airs like sf4 Bison in an engine that rewards jumping going up against a cast of characters that change jump arcs?
This is what I’m talking about as part of “aggressively going for throws.” While players who’s only experience is SFIV might disagree, anyone who’s played any of the older games understands just how non-existent walk up throws feel in SFIV.
In the older games, throw wasn’t just there to “punish turtles”, but was a viable threat from beyond point blank range. For example, A2 Chun could sit just outside her cr.mk range (which is just outside of most other characters crouching poke range) and still effectively just suddenly walk in and throw. Even 3S which had slightly slower walkspeeds than older games like A2 or ST (because of dash) still had very threatening dash up throws thanks to a combination of a longer throw range, kara throws, option selects and weaker defensive options against them.
This is why you have players with experience with older games getting in a tizzy when you make suggestions that boil down to “nerf throws”.
Yeah sf4 is super flawed. It’s still special to me as my first competitive fighter, but having tried more fighters i can see that it isn’t the way things normally work
With respect to throws, @“HNIC Mike” I agreed with your analysis, and think it captures my sentiments.
I want to point out that I, being a pre-SF4 player agree actually that throws are “weak” insofar as for example, the state you are left in post-tech as being at a neutral position. This does ‘not’ reward the attacker, and in a way punishes them.
And as I have said, I too, want the game to be “aggressive” as well.
But I am just saying I think there are far ‘better’ ways to do throws, or at least do the mechanics that relate to throws, so as to change the throw game.
In fact, I am honestly for making throws ‘more’ aggressive. If ‘some’ on this form could get beyond their bigotry, they might just realize that.
Personally, the idea of throws having more range, and even being one button appeals to me. Being able to tech only after you have been thrown, and/or still losing damage, like in ST, appeals to me.
The real question is, what kind of game do most of us want to see? And if we can answer that, than maybe we can work together to think of what the ‘ideal’ mechanics would be to serve that end.
Before I address a couple of things which I shouldn’t have to, SF4 throws being weak is entirely dependent on the character. Some throws were way too good because they lead to all sorts of set ups. While landing the throw may seem like a hassle, the reward for those characters was better than in previous street fighters.
Nah, worst offender is Akuma. The dude got nerfed all the way from Vanilla to USF4 and stayed top tier. I’ve often held the idea that any character could be top tier with the right set of tweaks but holy nuts, is that moveset just too good for SF4? I don’t know there’s ever been an instance of a character getting hit by that many drive bys and still going around murdering people.
Well apparently Akuma wasn’t top tier in the initial Ultra release, however this caused a malfunction in the code, so after the patch they buffed him back up to top tier…cause Akuma.
@Pertho well let’s be careful not to let a word like “weak” slip and slide in and out of multiple contexts, and not distinguish what contexts we are speaking in when we make those statements.
In comparison to prior games, the aspect of throws where tech returns you a more neutral state, devoid of any life-bar point penalty, is weaker, as comparison to games like for instance, ST, where you still lose some life, even if you tech the throw. It is weaker because if you tech you lose no life, hence it makes throws less advantageous as compared to a game were you lose some life no matter what, even if you tech, or, say, in a game where you can’t even tech the throw.
There might be other ways in which throws might be thought of to be ‘stronger’ perhaps, as compared to previous games, although I can’t think of any reasons off the top of my head.
Opinion time:
Parries with a cool down meter and longer execution window.
Standing 720’s with a larger buffer window[wishful thinking like 20 frames]
Life bar numbers as an extra option besides rounds, like 3 bars instead of 2 outta 3 rounds as a toggle.
Instead of dizzy, fatigue mode.[miss an ultra?tired character. Hyper mode wears off?Tired character. Do the same move too much? stats decrease on that move and if you do other stuff it goes back to original stats like each time I do a makoto/hugo slap I’d like it to lose it’s stats if I abuse it too much as an example]