http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/10/109838/2214136-divekick.png
A good way to satisfy this desire for time investment would be to create a character with plenty of unique tools where the application is not obvious. Lab time will be spent figuring out what situations each tool is suited for, and how to set up those situations. A bad way to do this is to make all the moves have just-frame timing, so that lab time is spent doing the same combo or setup repeatedly, over and over again until muscle memory takes over.
Here’s a quote I never heard anyone say: “I just spent five hours practising Zero’s lightning loop repeatedly, and the whole time I was doing that same sequence of button presses over and over it really felt like I was exploring him as a character and pushing him to his limits!”
and guess what allowed him to be able to do so well on sf4 to begin with, his execution, without it he wouldn’t have been able to pull the strategies that he used
so dont downplay the importance of one over the other
both are equally important
true, but you are oversimplifying what im trying to say, im not talking about having to expend 5 hours in training to learn how to do a combo, im talking about stuff like, if you want more damage you have to commit to a more risky stuff, where the risk is dropping the combo and losing your momentum, your position advantage or end open to a punishment
execution for the sake of making things hard is not good
but having some requirements that make you to commit to it, is not bad, slayer and ino are good example of it, both are characters that if you commit to the harder stuff allows you to use other options that can maximize the damage that you can get, and other strategy options
this approach can also help to explore other type of archetypes of characters that otherwise can end being very difficult to do
slayer is a mobile heavy hitter with good health and average mixup game, that it also has a plethora of good tools at his disposition, this archetype wouldnt be balanced with easy execution because the risk reward ration wouldnt be balanced
Differentiation for playstyle is say charge characters. A sonic boom motion makes you play a character differently than a fireball motion.
If you had an exactly 37 frame charge for sonic booms, and it wouldn’t go off if you waited longer or took less time, that’d be arbitrarily adding hard execution to the character, and would be the wrong way to go.
Divekick unfortunately doesn't have enough actual variation in moves and tactics, there's a happy medium :pOh we should be very afraid, that means nothing. Trolling can generate a lot of likes. If you think of it has some status there is something wrong with you.
For the thread
Execution is needed to execute the strategy if you think differently go back to sirlin forums, and never make a game.
But as I said, in that field, any executional advantages are null and void.
All it means is that the players in question are on a separate level from most other players. However, too much of this means that the game/genre runs the risk of going against this.
Oh, wait: Philosophy time.
takes out pipe, monocle, and cracks open a book of experimental physics while talking to you
What is Strategy? Is it not executing plans in the perceived optimum way? And what is Execution? Is it not to plan out, to strategize even, which move to use before using it? Why, it could be argued that they are intertwined, the two, one never existing without the other! Hurumph.
I’m hungry. gnaws on physics text
No he wasn’t “built around it”. They only turned him into “Jam 2.0 link edition” in accent core. In previous versions he a unique style, without hard execution. You know… when he could do regular chains like everyone else.
I think you folks are arguing over the semantics of the word execution at this point. There’s difference between nailing one frame links as part of a bread and butter and simply pressing down and fierce punch to anti air someone.
In this case, it’s more about stuff like being able to consistently hit 1-frame links, or being able to pull off walk up SPDs or similar.
That has to be a basic understanding, execution isn’t something you can turn off and on at will.
IT’s always a question of where the slider lies, and more importantly why a particular move/technique is at a particular level of difficulty.
both of course… I cant believe people are arguing over this…
lol wut, slayer has been always build around links and stuff, i recommend you to play the games again, because its obvious that it has been a long time since you touched them, slayer has been always a character with very limited chains and more focus on links
Why isn’t there room for both when learning a game? Why can’t the two play into each other (because they do both support each other)? Thinking in dualities (Oh, I’m an execution guy! I’m a strategy guy!) is limiting to personal growth when you mentally limit yourself to one aspect of playing. Though of course it’s necessary to recognize what your weaknesses are, both are important to playing a game.
Sometimes, just sometimes I think Hecatom and Tataki are the same person.
:3
I think the fundamental question being asked here is which should be emphasized more, especially for future fighting releases.
My central argument is that execution will naturally develop and get harder as the game matures, so you don’t need to put intentionally hard stuff in from the front. Let people figure out difficult things… its when designers try to force them when things get stupid.
the cactus is so noble right now
and who the fuck is talking about making the moves harder to do dumbfuck?
how many times do i need to repeat myself to you to gasp what im talking about, do i need to quote myself from every other thread for you
though what would be the point if you never read
…
so you think that i like to argue with myself o_O
man i must be really bored 
I feel like strategy is the most important when it comes to fighting games. You need an approach when it comes to match-ups.
However, Im a firm believer that they go hand in hand.