Strategy vs Execution: Where do you stand?

[xes]

No I think it is the consensus. Everyone else are just stating what they prefer really…

I think the consensus is that they both matter, but then there’s a disagreement about where the focus should be at higher levels.

There’s absolutely no consensus though on what the convo morphed into, which is the old ‘should games be designed with high execution in mind’ conundrum.

 
On the original point, I made a chart!
 
http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/createagraph/default.aspx?ID=a27dac1ea8b44df98d008dd2164f27df
 
To explain all the graph points:
 
[LIST=1]
[*]For a true beginner getting your basic execution down is paramount.  Strategy can wait until you know how to block and do your moves
[*]As a casual player execution is still the best way to improve, you won't be able to progress in most games without being able to to basic combos, reversals, etc.  Still at this point strategy is more important, it starts, for instance, to be really important to get around basic zoning or things like repeated walk-up throw.
[*]A competent or serious player is kind of the vertex.  You should have your basic combos mastered, so improving execution is both harder, and less important.  Strategy/knowledge/decisionmaking becomes substantially more important at this point, because now that you have a basic level of damage now you really need to be getting better at your reads and such, or you're gonna get stonewalled.
[*]Competitive players pretty much need to have their advanced combos and confirms down, as well as things like parries or FADCs.  Given that you should really know that at this point, further improving your skills is a lot less important, in a lot of games, plenty of tournament players get by at this level of execution and a better mental game.  The mental aspect continues to gain in importance as the reward for making an opportunity happen and the penalty for getting opened up increases
[*]Expert (or 'top' if you will) players really should know optimal or near-optimal combos/confirms/etc for the characters they're planning to play (still there are exceptions, naturally it just gets harder or harder).  This is the point of limited returns I was talking about earlier, where further improving execution becomes substantially less important and substantially more difficult.  Further mental improvment becomes paramount at this point because it's often the only real way to improve.
[/LIST]
**NOTES**
[LIST]
[*]Neither value is ever at zero, this is intentional.  There's always room for improvement
[*]At all skill levels having more of one kind of skill compensates for having less of the other (example would be Jwong playing characters he doesn't know terribly well, as in the DP random MM).  It's the same pattern though, more execution skill covers for lacking mental game much more in the low skill levels, and the reverse is true at the high levels
[*]You could easily split the graph into a very large number of skill types.  I stuck to the main 2 for simplicity's sake.
[*]That graph thing is pretty cool, make your own!
[/LIST]

[Synraii]

Actually, why in SCV do throws take damage when you have to guess correctly AND react correctly so you won’t be in - frames. Oh btw they can kill you…yeah great design choice.

You ever play SF2 bro?

In SCV, a throw being ducked is a half bar punish and an easy one at that.You risk a lot just by throwing, the chip is a good idea, Id personally increase throw chip damage if I had my way in that game, the risk/reward is skewed for most of the cast.

So you’re invalidating all the monkey’s time and effort learning how to execute because you don’t think its impressive?

Yes, absolutely.
The smarter player should win.

I could sit down with Marvel and learn the swaggiest combos with every character given enough time, it would never make me evo champ though.

[MikeBreezy92]

You ever play SF2 bro?

In SCV, a throw being ducked is a half bar punish and an easy one at that.You risk a lot just by throwing, the chip is a good idea, Id personally increase throw chip damage if I had my way in that game, the risk/reward is skewed for most of the cast.

Chip is not a good idea if the throws are already good anyways. Ducking throws isn’t always a good option anyways.

[Synraii]

Chip is not a good idea if the throws are already good anyways. Ducking throws isn’t always a good option anyways.

Do you want me to write the risk/reward down for you on them?

Average Character throw damage: 40-65*
Throw speed: i17
Evasion: None
Chip damage: 10% of throw’s damage, 5% if the opponent is at 10%> health, so between 4 and 7 points, 2 and 4 if you’re at 10%>.

Character health: 240

Input a throw:
Guess right (they stand): go to next part.
Guess wrong (they duck): Combo of choice, around 100 damage.

Guess right: Throw connects, 45-60 damage + okizeme
Guess wrong: 2-7 damage, varying frame disadvantage… On a slow, non evasive high.

To score what is low damage in this game, you have to effectively guess right twice to get it. Guess right once to be put on the back foot, having risked a lot for minute damage and guess wrong, you are one wrong move from a KO, literally.
Until now, the throw system has had its risk/reward balanced by the similair damage risk of previous calibur games, courtesy of its much lower damage potential across the board generally. In SCV, damage output has been SIGNIFICANTLY increased, throws generally have not and the chip damage does not compensate. As it stands, what many characters would use as core mixup traditionally has effectively been nerfed due to the engine, with a superficial tradeoff. And throws that kill on chip? Throwing is normally betting the opponent will stand while guarding, when 2-4 damage would kill a low poke is faster, more damaging and safer, so I hardly see how this breaks the game. If I had to guess, I’d guess you were a tekken player. Out of interest, am I right?

By all means try to lecture me on the SCV engine though, lol.

*Notable exceptions for front throw damage include aPat and Asta etc, in which case, they can deal similair damage to what they risk, but this should not be a minority thing, lol.

[Shin_Akuma]

No, what you said was that higher execution requirements don’t water down strategy. They obviously do. If they didn’t then you wouldn’t have to juggle both at all. For execution to become more important, every non-execution thing must become less important. If your stand is that you don’t want either execution nor strategy to be all-important, that’s fine. If your stand is that higher execution requirements don’t reduce the importance of strategy, that’s wrong.

Can you prove this with evidence? What you’re implying is pretty ridiculous.

When it comes the highest levels, Execution is imperative in ST. One single mistake and you could get TOD’d. You CANNOT afford to fuck up in ST.

With that said, I think strategy still plays a significant role. And no, I don’t think that ST’s Execution requirements reduce the Strategy aspect of the game. If anything ST’s high Execution requirements adds to the game itself.

High Execution can be seen as another form of mindgames. Think of it like being mindfucked. It adds to the player’s strategy.

(skip to 8:30)
[media=youtube]kF7WBJ4iCOg[/media]

Strategy and High Execution can co-exist. To say that one reduces the other is just stupid.

[Femto_1]

You ever play SF2 bro?

In SCV, a throw being ducked is a half bar punish and an easy one at that.You risk a lot just by throwing, the chip is a good idea, Id personally increase throw chip damage if I had my way in that game, the risk/reward is skewed for most of the cast.

In 3D it’s a dumbass idea, since you can close the distance and create high, mid, low mixups/puzzles A LOT EASIER than in 2D games where you can create puzzles against your opponent to figure out in the distance game to keep them out, so for in SCV’s case it’s a bad design.

Your not looking at the biggger picture or the differences in 2D and 3D fighters, you’re not the only one.

[Nini_Heart]

There are people who don’t like Street Fighter specifically. They only play because they like Guile. I know lots of people like that. They play games with Guile in it, and skip games where he’s absent. Now if a game had Guile in it but had a sufficiently high execution barrier, those people wouldn’t switch to another character. They just won’t play the game.

No. If they’re not complete losers, they’ll grind it hard. I don’t understand why you assume that everyone is as adverse to putting in work as you are.

[ukyo_rulz]

Can you prove this with evidence? What you’re implying is pretty ridiculous.

In a game with zero execution requirements (ie. Chess) strategy determines the winner 100% of the time. When you add an execution requirement strategy no longer determines the winner 100% of the time (ie. fighting games). The more important one aspect is, the less important every other aspect is. You can’t have a game that’s 75% character selection, 75% strategy and 75% execution. That’s just dumb.

No. If they’re not complete losers, they’ll grind it hard. I don’t understand why you assume that everyone is as adverse to putting in work as you are.

Don’t talk like you know me because you have no idea what you’re talking about. If everyone was as averse to putting in work as I was, the FGC would be in much better shape. I won’t bother to repost everything I do for the FGC in general or for the SG community in particular, but suffice it to say I do a lot more than your average gamer, or even your average SRK poster.

The fact that you think anyone who is unwilling to “grind it hard” is a loser demonstrates that you’re nothing but an elitist moron with your head shoved so far up the ass of the hardcore FGC that you’ve completely lost sight of how the greater community of gamers operates. Newsflash -> not everyone wants to be a hardcore fighting game player, or even a hardcore gamer. That doesn’t make them losers. Losers are what you called the FGC during the dark ages when barely any games were coming out at all, and they played whatever games they had for ten years because they didn’t have a choice.

This seems as good a time as any to repost this quote:

Not everyone is a hardcore tournament player. Seventy percent are just your average player who wants to beat their brother, or their friend, or whoever…

We do get a lot of backlash from hardcore or high level players, but if they stepped into my shoes as a game developer and think of what’s good overall for the whole series, maybe they’ll start to realise that it isn’t such a bad thing.

[Shin_Akuma]

In a game with zero execution requirements (ie. Chess) strategy determines the winner 100% of the time. When you add an execution requirement strategy no longer determines the winner 100% of the time (ie. fighting games). The more important one aspect is, the less important every other aspect is. You can’t have a game that’s 75% character selection, 75% strategy and 75% execution. That’s just dumb.

Fighting games should strive for a 50/50 balance between Strategy and Execution. Seems like what you want is a game that is 70% Strategy and 30% Execution. Or at least for Strategy to outweigh Execution, given your position on the whole subject.

Fighting games should not favour one aspect over the other. (ie - it should be 50/50 instead of 70/30 - like most recent fighting games)

Look at ST and HDR. ST falls closer to that magical 50/50 mark, as opposed to HDR, which is more 70% Strategy and 30% Execution - given that HDR has simpler motions.

[shuntsurigi]

The fact that you think anyone who is unwilling to “grind it hard” is a loser demonstrates that you’re nothing but an elitist moron with your head shoved so far up the ass of the hardcore FGC that you’ve completely lost sight of how the greater community of gamers operates. Newsflash -> not everyone wants to be a hardcore fighting game player, or even a hardcore gamer. That doesn’t make them losers. Losers are what you called the FGC during the dark ages when barely any games were coming out at all, and they played whatever games they had for ten years because they didn’t have a choice.

There’s no way for me to “grind it hard”. I have 2 jobs, a daughter, etc. So I play VF because I feel rewarded even if I only manage to play a few minutes everyday. When I was a kid I loved 2D games and could play them for hours (SF, SNK games) but nowadays I only play them out of nostalgia because I cannot put in the time to play them well.

[ukyo_rulz]

Fighting games should strive for a 50/50 balance between Strategy and Execution.

What would a game with a 50/50 split of strategy and execution look like to you? Do you feel that current games offer that 50/50 split? Older games?

Seems like what you want is a game that is 70% Strategy and 30% Execution. Or at least for Strategy to outweigh Execution, given your position on the whole subject.

What I want is for fighting games to continue being relevant and getting made, and for the FGC to grow. Not just the hardcore segment, but the more casual segment of it. I spent ten years waiting for MVC3, and I don’t want to wait another ten years for SG2. Some people might have been happy back in the SFIII/CVS2/MVC2 days, when the FGC was a small group of hardcore players and they weren’t a big enough market to justify making games for them. I was not happy back then. I like things better now with more players and new games coming out every few months.

[Terry_Bogarde]

imo, at beginner level its strategy. At expert level, its the 2 of them side by side. look at daigo vs Xiaohai. daigo baited a frame trap via a dp fadc(great strategy). he then got his counter hit but failed to finish the combo(execution)… seconds later he’s EVO was over.

also daigo vs infiltration. infil had great strategy in predicting fireballs, fadc through them to punish. The punish can be blocked if execution is mistimed, which would have allowed daigo to get away with throwing fireballs and possibly win. However infil’s execution was on point and he punished every single one. so he had a great strategy, but his execution saw it through.

[Nini_Heart]

Don’t talk like you know me because you have no idea what you’re talking about. If everyone was as averse to putting in work as I was, the FGC would be in much better shape. I won’t bother to repost everything I do for the FGC in general or for the SG community in particular, but suffice it to say I do a lot more than your average gamer, or even your average SRK poster.

The fact that you think anyone who is unwilling to “grind it hard” is a loser demonstrates that you’re nothing but an elitist moron with your head shoved so far up the ass of the hardcore FGC that you’ve completely lost sight of how the greater community of gamers operates. Newsflash -> not everyone wants to be a hardcore fighting game player, or even a hardcore gamer. That doesn’t make them losers. Losers are what you called the FGC during the dark ages when barely any games were coming out at all, and they played whatever games they had for ten years because they didn’t have a choice.

This seems as good a time as any to repost this quote:

I don’t know, nor do I care what you did for the community. That is neither here nor there. I am talking about this mentality that you seem to have that people are not ready to practice in order to compete.

Yes, anyone who is unwilling to put in work to become better is a loser. Unwilling != unable. Unwilling means you basically have no motivation to get better. Everybody has real life issues that prevent them from grinding and practicing. Shit, I didn’t have a console for 3 whole months and had no access to the games I play outside of biweekly tournaments. I don’t bash the people who can’t play, but still have the drive to get better. I bash those who basically sit and complain that X is too hard when all it would take was for them to practice instead of complaining.

Not everyone wants to be a hardcore fighting game player? Sure, no problem. Just DON’T FUCKING COMPLAIN about something that isn’t meant to appeal to you. These people are not even complaining about an execution barrier, it’s you putting words in their mouth.

I’m sorry but your arguments are laughable. “I know people who wouldn’t play guile if his execution requirements were higher”. Okay. I know people who would play Guile if his execution requirements were higher. Where does this bring us? Absolutely nowhere.

I am not losing sight of the greater community of gamers. You are. You are basically selling out by forgoing the hardcore market. Devs have been doing great in keeping the two balanced out. A lot of recent games have entry level characters, simple modes, tutorials and shit all tailored for the casuals and beginners, while keeping their games deep enough to be fun and interesting on a competitive level. Right now they are blending both remarkably and I commend them for that. Unless what you are asking is basically a game where how good you are doesn’t matter and someone who plays his little sister has about as much chance of winning a tournament as a seasoned tournament player, I don’t see the issue with most of the new gen FGs in terms of being casual friendly.

About your Harada quote, I fully understand appealing to casuals. But, that is neither her nor there in the context of this debate. This is execution vs strategy, not whether game devs should dumb down games for the casual fanbase, or Ukyo’s vision and hopes for the future of the FGC. Even if they do, the end result will always be the same. Just look at Brawl.

In a game with zero execution requirements (ie. Chess) strategy determines the winner 100% of the time. When you add an execution requirement strategy no longer determines the winner 100% of the time (ie. fighting games). The more important one aspect is, the less important every other aspect is. You can’t have a game that’s 75% character selection, 75% strategy and 75% execution. That’s just dumb.

This is true. Which is why you have a diversity of options in the hobbies you choose. If you want to play a game where execution is not a factor, play Chess.
Also, I will ask you is it a bad thing that strategy is not the only determining factor?

Fighting games are fighting games, and the execution is part of what makes them unique. They choose to add another element. Some might say this detracts, most would say this adds a challenge as you need more diverse skills in order to be good, and allows people with different abilities to compete equally.The most important aspect is still strategy. It doesn’t matter how good your execution is if you can’t get a hit in. However, you also have the ability to capitalize better off your good decisions through execution. The two compliment each other, it’s that simple.

[ilitirit]

Just want to remind people that there is more to fighting games than just execution and strategy (and no, I’m not implying that anyone said otherwise). There’s also prediction, reaction, and game + matchup knowledge.

[Shin_Akuma]

What would a game with a 50/50 split of strategy and execution look like to you? Do you feel that current games offer that 50/50 split? Older games?

No game is truly a 50/50 but I think ST comes closer to that mark than most games. The old games in general are closer to that 50/50 mark, IMO.

The newer (Capcom) games focus less on Execution and more on Strategy. So it feels like 70/30, instead of 50/50 (ie - ST/HDR). Really, none of the old games were hard to play. They were all accessible at the lowest levels of competitive play (casuals). So I don’t see why Capcom had to simplify the controls. If it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it.

What I want is for fighting games to continue being relevant and getting made, and for the FGC to grow. Not just the hardcore segment, but the more casual segment of it. I spent ten years waiting for MVC3, and I don’t want to wait another ten years for SG2. Some people might have been happy back in the SFIII/CVS2/MVC2 days, when the FGC was a small group of hardcore players and they weren’t a big enough market to justify making games for them. I was not happy back then. I like things better now with more players and new games coming out every few months.

See, I’m the complete opposite. Quality > Quantity. I care more about good games being made, more than the amount of people playing them. I see no point in having a big playerbase if the games that are being made aren’t fun to play.

[Reruns]

Fighting games are fighting games, and the execution is part of what makes them unique.

Why do you believe that execution makes fighting games unique?

[NoUDont]

I really like links and don’t care for chain combos. so I guess I can’t be against execution. but to me it’s not really strategy vs execution, it’s strategy vs long ass combos. and in that case it doesn’t really matter how hard or easy the combos are. ofcourse I woun’t be as annoyed, when I get combo’d to death by a super complicated combo, as I would be if someone just had to mash 1 button to kill me, but nonetheless it feels like it’s robbing me of the fight.
I want to be able to fight back and I want my opponent to be able to fight back too(otherwise I woun’t be better than him, maybe just more lucky). if some of my options require higher execution, fine, all part of risk/reward. but if it’s mandatory, because I have to do a long combo, I don’t think it’s helping the strategy.

so I guess I see execution more as part of the strategy, as long as execution isn’t the strategy. execution should be a rewarding option, not the only way to play.
vote goes to strategy.

[ukyo_rulz]

I don’t know, nor do I care what you did for the community. That is neither here nor there. I am talking about this mentality that you seem to have that people are not ready to practice in order to compete.

People want to practice playing the game. Learning the strategy, figuring out how to beat their opponent. People like that. Grinding in practice mode, not so much:

Not only that, but Tekken 6 almost four million copies worldwide, so there’s a lot of people there who haven’t played Tekken before. We did have practice mode but practice mode isn’t something that people will pick up and play themselves, It’s more for advanced players and such.
The people we wanted to play the most didn’t pick it up.

Yes, anyone who is unwilling to put in work to become better is a loser. Unwilling != unable. Unwilling means you basically have no motivation to get better. Everybody has real life issues that prevent them from grinding and practicing. Shit, I didn’t have a console for 3 whole months and had no access to the games I play outside of biweekly tournaments. I don’t bash the people who can’t play, but still have the drive to get better. I bash those who basically sit and complain that X is too hard when all it would take was for them to practice instead of complaining.

The distinction between unwilling and unable is meaningless to me, because in both cases the player doesn’t end up buying the game. That’s what I care about: people buying the game and playing it. I want fighting games to remain relevant so that they keep getting made.

Not everyone wants to be a hardcore fighting game player? Sure, no problem. Just DON’T FUCKING COMPLAIN about something that isn’t meant to appeal to you. These people are not even complaining about an execution barrier, it’s you putting words in their mouth.

I already linked to examples of actual threads started by people having trouble with the execution barrier, but if you won’t take my word for it maybe you’ll believe Seth (emphasis mine):

The market is crowded – not because there [are] so many fighters relative to other games, but because most fighters tend to require such a large time investment from theirplayers. If the games are very hard to learn, but also need that time investment to shine, they have to compete with each other or even cannibalize their own player bases from previous installments. Thatfragments the player base across titles, and the fewer players playing any particular game mean that your skills (that investment) are less admired or valuable. That’s a dangerous time for the genre, because it risks collapsing under its own weight

I’m sorry but your arguments are laughable. “I know people who wouldn’t play guile if his execution requirements were higher”. Okay. I know people who would play Guile if his execution requirements were higher. Where does this bring us? Absolutely nowhere.

It brings us to a simple question: are there more people who would play Guile with lower execution requirements or higher? Hint: tournament brackets aren’t bursting at the seams with Viper players.

I am not losing sight of the greater community of gamers. You are. You are basically selling out by forgoing the hardcore market.

In the ten years that the hardcore market supported MVC2, Guilty Gear and SFIII few fighting games were getting made. Basically only Tekken flourished (maybe because it was the most casual-friendly?). SF4 comes out, gets mainstream support, and suddenly MVC3 gets made. Now the hardcore community is healthier than ever!

So it seems to me that when games cater to the hardcore market, the FG landscape contracts and everyone loses out. When more casual players join in the party, the industry expands and more games get made. By supporting games that garner more mainstream support, I am supporting a rising tide that lifts all boats, casual and hardcore alike.

Unless what you are asking is basically a game where how good you are doesn’t matter and someone who plays his little sister has about as much chance of winning a tournament as a seasoned tournament player, I don’t see the issue with most of the new gen FGs in terms of being casual friendly.

I’ve already stated numerous times what I want: A game that rewards playing the game and requires minimum time grinding out shit in training mode. The more time spent playing vs grinding, the better.

But, that is neither her nor there in the context of this debate. This is execution vs strategy, not whether game devs should dumb down games for the casual fanbase, or Ukyo’s vision and hopes for the future of the FGC.

So shut up about the hardcore community. If you want to bring in the “hardcore vs casual” dynamic I can discuss that with you. If you want to keep it to the “merits of the game” I can do that too. But it seems you want to mention the effect on the hardcore community when it suits you, but when I mention the effect on casual gamers you cry foul.

Also, I will ask you is it a bad thing that strategy is not the only determining factor?

I don’t think it’s a bad thing that strategy is not the only determining factor. I do think it’s bad when strategy is not the main determining factor, or when the execution barrier gets so high that it turns prospective players off from playing the game.

The most important aspect is still strategy.

Great! It took a while for you to come around but now that you agree with my point all is well.

See, I’m the complete opposite. Quality > Quantity. I care more about good games being made, more than the amount of people playing them. I see no point in having a big playerbase if the games that are being made aren’t fun to play.

Fair enough. I used to think the same, but after the 10,000th game of Storm/Sent/CapCom vs Mags/Storm/Psylocke I changed my mind. I hope you never have to.

Edit: Merged double-post.

[Fulaani]

What I want is for fighting games to continue being relevant and getting made, and for the FGC to grow. Not just the hardcore segment, but the more casual segment of it. I spent ten years waiting for MVC3, and I don’t want to wait another ten years for SG2. Some people might have been happy back in the SFIII/CVS2/MVC2 days, when the FGC was a small group of hardcore players and they weren’t a big enough market to justify making games for them. I was not happy back then. I like things better now with more players and new games coming out every few months.

Did you really spend 10 years waiting for MCV2? So that when MVC2 was in it’s prime you were the guy who already wanted to move on?

Maybe you weren’t happy because you couldn’t compete and now that there’s a new game every few months you can at least feel good the first month or so because now there’s a whole legion of scrubs to beat up on.

[j_mONSTERFACE]

ive decided that learning to read is too slow of a grind

imma wait till Shakespeare comes as an injectable