I honestly believe that many people in this thread cant fathom half the stuff that is being brought up. Trying to explain to them what makes a good and challenging fighting game seems to be useless. Probably because they cant comprehend that the gameplay involves a lot more than they have ever tried or thought of. They just wouldnt understand how complex the older games can get. Everyone starts somewhere tho, so you have to take their posts with a pinch of salt. There is no point in debating with a group of idiots.
I cant help but contradict my last sentance. Somebody shoot me.
3rd Strike scraps most of the better aspects of older SF titles and tries to spoon feed you something completely different. That is why a large number of people dislike it. Because it plays nothing like SF. Its just plain random in comparison.
I hadn’t thought of it that way. I’ll concede that point, although technically you risk getting tossed in ‘executing’ a parry unless your tech skills are 100%.
I’m through with the “mind game” aspect of this thread for sure though. Peel away Jay’s frustration and sarcasm and he’s basically laid it out straight for anybody to see, old school or non. I still prefer 3S but probably because I’m more or less casual play-only at this point, there’s no refuting most of the points he made in the last few pages(as far as depth of strategy goes). “The dream is dead.”
I just want to throw something else in here. What is the general concensus on roll cancelling? The entire poking game scenario listed earlier, that is defeated by parrying, is also defeated by giving a single universal move to everyone that will beat out another poke, or go right through it. Yet, most people seem to agree that roll cancelling actually balances CvS2. Since you guys are having so much fun with parry, I thought you’d like to talk about roll cancel too.
edit: just read a little bit of the thread…It’s funny how so many people keep saying parrying is a skill :wtf:, that’s almost like saying super jumping is a skill. 3s = option select :tup:
Roll-cancel is based around the special move being used, not the cancel itself and roll-cancel isn’t abusable by every character . With blanka for instance, RC ball does not equal RC electricity. It’s entirely dependant on the move it’s being applied to.
RC is affected by roll duration making it slightly different, even amongst characters with similar moves.
3)There’s no universal RC move that everyone has access to.
Even a properly executed RC can be punished. There’s only one move I can think of in CVS2 that recovers prior to invincibility running out.
Your logic fails because RC isn’t the only, nor is it the first move to have invincibility.
i havent met anyone who has played turbo or even cvs2 who likes 3s with the blind devotion that new players do.
i’m argued with people about this on the xbox live forums and trust me there’s no point explaining the risk reward argument or the lack of character diversity argument if the only game they’ve played is 3s. they just dont get it.
a few weeks back i played ae (i never played turbo, i’m a cvs2 player) and was playing someone using ce guile and i was turbo ryu. i had a great time trying to either stay close enough to hop over sonic booms with lk hurricain or do shorts, or alternatively be far enough away to fireball sonic booms without being backfisted.
the constant struggle to stay outside of that middle range made the game so enjoyable and fresh. you just dont get that in 3s, it’s just high/low/throw everytime.
I guess I walked into this with my half baked answers to your questions. Hell my answers weren’t even 1/12th baked.
About the Archtypes. Twelve is more or less the distance poker, only with triangle jumps and an air dash. Makoto is basically the antithesis of a shoto, Yun/Yang/Ibuki are the fast total rushdown characters, Chun and Q are best played totally defensively, Ken and Duds are best played as a mixture of rush and defense, Elena is best played at mid range, Remy is arguably the O.G. Sagat of the game, albeit the extremely weak O.G. Sagat…and so on.
I don’t see what you’re getting at here, that everyone in 3s is played in the same way??
As for parry in general, I’ll leave it at this. Neither Super Turbo or Third Strike is particularly broken. You can argue till you’re blue in the face, trying to “prove” that parry is broken, but the fact remains it’s not. So then you can write 20 paragraphs about why you think it is, but the bottom line is it’s all opinion. You either love it or hate it. If you don’t like it then don’t play the game. Hell, I hate V-Ism in Alpha 3 and think it’s broken as fuck, but many don’t feel that it is and that’s why Alpha 3 has (had) a huge following and was played at tournament level (and probably still is). But I don’t touch that game cause I hate V-Ism (also why I don’t use Yun in 3s heh).
From this statement it is clear to me that you do not play Third Strike. If you miss a parry, the punishment is YOU EAT THEIR MOVE. You act like people sit there and constantly tap Forward, Down, Forward, Down, Forward, Down and it’s totally safe. The game doesn’t work this way. If Yun is rushing you down, you can’t just magically parry everything. You have to guess and if you guess wrong HE HITS YOU. Hence why you BLOCK. Blocking is a big part of 3s, blocking is more important than parry. You can’t just parry everything down in this game with minimal risk, it simply does not work this way.
Thanks RandomNigga for clearing things up. I didn’t quite get what Viscant was saying. I get it now.
But I think your analogy is a bit flawed. Parrying is harder than just aiming and pulling a trigger.
But I can see the flaws of the parry in high level play. A master SF player knows all what their opponent is capable of and what the actual player is capable of (which is a fraction of the total possibilities). So it seems if you are a high level SF player you could very easily become a parry master. A parry master would be unstoppable. Whether he earned the rewards through practice is up for debate.
Being a “parry master” is theoretically impossible. Why?? Because that would entail that he is psychic and could guess right in every situation. Noone can do that.
Now someone with flawless parry execution, that is a reality. Top Japanese players, once they’ve baited a parry, they are not going to screw it up, even under pressure. Obvious example is Daigo. Once you’ve baited that super it’s just a matter of correct parry timing after that. But none just blindly tries to parry down everything their opponent does, and if you did you would lose. Alot.
This is a great example of why people get frustrated in these types of discussions. No-one even tries to talk about the point raised. Instead people just slap down any old alternative to avoid the discussion entirely. The above is a perfect example of this. Parrying wrong, and thus eating a move (i.e. high vs low, or incorrect timing) has zero to do with the point Viscant made about parry risk. He didn’t talk about what you’ve said because, well frankly, it’s so obvious that you’d think it doesn’t even need to be said. It’s like “if you block low during an overhead, you’ll get hit”. Surely you want to discuss parry beyond something as simple as that?
What Viscant was actually talking about was the risk inherent in using parry as a substitute for alternatives in other games, like roll or reversal DPs. He made that pretty clear, so I don’t see how people cannot grasp that this is what he’s trying to discuss. Perhaps a simple example is needed? I can’t offer anything as detailed as Viscant, but let’s say you’re using Ken in 3S, and you’ve managed to get your opponent to the point where you know he’ll be going for a low poke. (This is hypothetical, but seems plausible IMO.) Your choices are (a) psychic DP it (ST style) or (b) low parry. Now, you’ve worked hard to get to this point, and you KNOW the only thing coming from this situation is a low poke. Of course, the opponent could always NOT do the low poke, but it’s that or nothing. So what is the risk-reward story for Ken? (BTW we’ll assume the Ken player can execute DP and low parry with 100% precision, which is a fair assumption.)
a) DP - hits the poke and all is well, or whiffs and gets punished for it.
b) Low parry - gets the parry and lands a nice fat combo, or taps down with no effect.
Now, how can you look at this and NOT see that it’s messed up? (a) is small damage, large risk, and (b) is zero risk with high reward potential. THIS is what I believe the problem is. (I’m scrubby, so this is very simplified, but I think it’s closer to the mark.) Maybe having parry means you can’t have mindgames advanced enough to even force someone into a “low poke/do nothing” situation against Ken, but I’m not trying to build a flawless example. I just want to hit the key point that people seem intent on avoiding. Talking about “but they could throw you/hit you high/etc, etc” is missing the point. Advanced mindgames imply that you can put someone into a position where they are reduced to the options you want them to make. It’s never as simple as “just throw” or “just go high/low” at high levels of play.
Also, using Yun as an example is again feeding the anti-parry line of argument. Yun counters parry. Yun is also top tier. Coincidence? I think not. If a character can take a part of the engine that has a significant impact on the flow of play (which parry does) and then bury it, that character is going to come out on top.
Please don’t keep talking about how “perfect parry = invincible” or anything like that. This is not the point at all. Perfect use of block and tech’ing makes you invincible. Perfect use of DP (or equivalent) makes you invincible. It’s a pointless defense to the issue of the risk/reward balance for parry, simply because it has nothing to do with it.
Ok, that is much better. I’m not a high level player either, but I see where you are coming from. I see what you’re saying, and I don’t disagree. To hit you’re theoretical for a second though, if Ken were in range for his c.MK, would he not also be in range for his HK? Therefor making low parry not 100% safe.
I watch alot of high level Third Strike play, and I’m telling you, parry is not the be all end all of this game like alot of people are making it out to be.
-edit- about the Ken situation. So lets say player A. decides to go low, just as player B. anticipated. Player A. calls him on it and cancels into super, nailing player B who intended to hit do a combo after the parry. So again not safe on another level.
yun is the exception, not the rule. there are other characters that can mess with more fundamental aspects of 2D fighters, but they are not in the top tier.
The reason why Yun is top tier is because of the inherent brokenness of Genei Jin mode. If Yun lands a full combo (targetXXkick, kick, palm + ender) it can do around 60-70% damage. But that’s not even the broken part about GJ. It’s that it gives Yun super priority, and the potential to cause high damage comobs at any time for absolutely no cost, besides the bar it takes to activate GJ. To add to that, the longer it takes for Yun to start a juggle, the more bar he will build because of the ender. I’m sure you’ve all seen it, where Yun does some block strings, ends up landing some little combo and a standard finisher, and he already has 30-40% bar. Then, right after, he lands some basic combo like j.rh, cr.mp, lunge punch, and he has bar again, with the super priority & high damage potential from anywhere.
Yun isn’t top tier because GJ counters parries. I parry out of GJ strings all the time, but only when it’s predictable. At all other times, I’ll block because the risk/reward ratio just isn’t worth it. If you miss a parry when Yun activates GJ, you’re going to eat a high damage combo, and if you miss a parry when GJ is coming to an end, you’re guaranteeing Yun free bar when GJ ends. GJ strings are hard enough to block to begin, and the less bar Yun has, the better off you are. Yun outside of GJ isn’t really a threat.
