Are you good enough to make top-player theories work?
A problem I have with the accepted wisdom that’s applied to CVS team formation is that the majority of players (who are average) are holding themselves up to tactics/standards set by top players. Standards that average players cannot reach/sustain.
For an example, take a look at your average player trying to anchor with c-sagat. No one will fault him for taking this path, because great tourney players like john choi, justin wong and kim have demonstrated it works.
Anyways, going back to average joe anchoring with c-sagat. More often than not, I see c-sagat die to any a-blanka, k-cammy, and k-sagat anchors. These anchors are simply easier to play and amoungst average level comp, average c-sagat has it rough. (On a similar note, I’d say C-Guile and C-Chun have the same kind of problem)
My thoughts aren’t really complete here. I just think that there’s a separation that’s not recognized. Players aiming for the top should definitely emulate top player habits/theory. Players that love the game, but have no aspirations for greatness, should realize that what’s best in “top player world” may differ from what’s best in “average comp world”.
… just rambling because my c-guile and c-sagat suck =P
I don’t consider myself a top player, but as far as the c-sagat thing goes, I think it all depends on a) your team, and b) your skills. c-sagat is a good anchor generally, but if your c-sagat doesn’t do well against other anchors, and your c-yama/geese/cammy/whatever does… then you should put that character as your anchor. to me it’s just common sense. do what works for you. the problem is, when ppl post theories on SRK, especially if it’s a top player, anyone who is less experienced than that person tends to take it as gospel. they’re just theories, and in most cases they’re good advice to follow (because they’re coming from someone with experience), but people have to remember that what works for one person may not work for you. everyone is different and people need to find out what works for them.
I consider my self as an average-average player^^ Using c sagat i have trouble dealing with rc characters and blankas. Because my exec sucks sometimes, i am not able to pull DP and reverse dp every time. The theory is easy: Basically, if they jump DP, rc, super and so on. But when you have the blanka mixing up in front of you i can tell how difficult it can be to react in time. In high level play you don’t see blanka abusing jumps so much, while in lower levels you will see blanka jumping MORE often^^
It also took me time to figure why people could beat my sonic boom strings and why they couldn’t beat the same done by nakanishi^^ And i still don’t understand everything
Trying to emulate is not a bad option i guess (but it’s not the ONLY option of course), but you have to know why it works, and now when i watch vids, i try to see the “unseen” part… I mean, “what could have happen if player didn’t do that” or “why he didn’t pull one move where i would have pulled it” and so on…
So the danger could be just watching that stuff like an action movie^^
Because vids don’t always show skills… Top players and average can do same combos after all^^
But the paradox is if you were that top replaying the same match, you wouldn’t be able to do that.
It’s not only in cvs2 that this problem occurs. In other games like Counterstrike, WoW or WC3, strats used by above average and pro players cannot be successfully emulated by newcomers or your average player.
I think the whole battery, meter user, anchor thing works correctly when you have a grasp over every character you play so that you can successfully execute your strategy. However, if your anchor isn’t your strongest character, you kind of flop out.
Even though it’s only opinion based as well, I think anchoring characters with low hp as not the best idea, especially if you’re new. Your anchor should be a character that you can dish it out with, and use your meter correctly with. Having more life just means you have that much more time to win with.
I could never understand people who play a team like k-cammy/sagat/r2hibiki. It just seems to me like rage’d sagat would be so much more dangerous and would be a better anchor than hibiki. (if you’re looking to counter certain characters, then I guess it’s ok).
Eh, I just revisited buktooth’s old faq and I guess it’s not a huge difference in hp between sagat and hibiki. Only 800 in fact which is only a ~5% increase. I guess I can see it.
I consider Sagat a great anchor due to the fact that he can deal significant damage off random hits (s.HP, c.HP, j.HK, etc), so if you’re patient enough you can make comebacks and win your bad match-ups. However, he gets outzoned by other top tiers, which prevents him from ever getting in and causing big damage (c.MK/c.HP don’t combo into super from max range, which totally sucks).
Thats’s why I use Cammy as anchor (make them whiff something, far s.HK xx lvl 3 Super, then run away for the rest of the match).
IMO people having Sagat as anchor and not geting results is usually lack of patience or lack of knowledge of the game (mainly footsies), two characteristics that you can clearly see in players like Justin Wong & John Choi.
just want to re-emphasize this. people make way too big a deal out of characters that have “no life” compared to other characters. in all but the most extreme situations, the difference in life between one character and another is equivalent to like one sagat fierce. its really not something i even consider when evaluating a character’s potential
akuma and secret characters are an exception, of course
someone who puts hibiki(r2) over sagat (like me :wgrin:) they should know they do better with hibiki. sagat is the better anchor on paper but not always the best choice for some people in reality.
It’s also a mentality thing. There’s nothing wrong with asking for advice or following it, but consider that many really good players got to be that good by figuring things out for themselves and understanding the choices they and their opponents make. Just doing something you’ve seeen in a video or building your game around something some guy on a forum said as well as choosing characters because people say they’re good obviously doesn’t give you as deep an understanding of the game as doing things on your own does. That’s what I think is a big difference between average and good players.
You shouldn’t strive to be LIKE someone else. Take something from their style and add it to your own. Copies are never as good as the original. Is that as corny as it sounds? Don’t say anything, let me have this.
as we all know, higher hp characters get scaling on their life bars a lot earlier than lower life characters. i think this maitres a big difference in certain cases like getting hit by fierce xx high tiger super against K- Sagat.
Anyway, in general, I think the difference between top players and average has very little to do with character selection, or tactics, or really much of anything to do with the game. It’s more about general thought process and attitude.
TOP players seem to act with a conviction that lesser players don’t have. They do things for a purpose, wihout hesitation and doubt. Practically, this allows for better timing and execution, but it also ensures that, win or lose, lessons are learned because they did what the fuck they wanted to do.
There is a threshold that players have to cross, and it’s a different test for every player. I feel like I’m currently trying to rise a level or two out of the average realm. It’s just a problem with the way I’m thinking.
I, personally, have a problem with certain player types. I tend to do much better against more cerebral players than against the really technical types. I tend to overthink opponents, and it’s not even because I don’t recognize the difference in players, I just find it hard to do what it takes to beat those guys. Around here, BMore Chun is probably the best at handling players like that, because he’ll just sit there and press one fucking button for a 3/5 set, if that’s all it takes to win. I can’t fucking do that. I can’t play on the premise that people are that stupid (even though it’s been proven). That’s a problem in my mentality.
Then there’s the issue of experience. I think that plays into the actual topic a little more.
A lot of what top players think is (obviously) based on their particular (often more extensive) experience with the game. For me… I don’t have that. I played CvS2 in '01/'02, stopped, and started again Summer '06, stopped, and started again Spring of '07. Around here, we’ve got a player base of less than ten people that play even monthly, so my knowledge-base has huge holes. Like… I play against A-Are a lot… P-Groove a lot… some C-Groove here and there… and that’s about it. I lose to the most average of K-Grooves in tournaments, and anything else I don’t see (like in Ohio, both my losses featured Rolento just raping my entire team, and my opponent’s other characters doing very little… I haven’t played a proficient Rolento since Eddie Lee in '01…).
A lot of players are like this, and it sucks that there aren’t enough players left to fix that. Instead, players turn to others’ advice to try to patch the holes, but there’s no real replacement for experience.
That sums it all up right there imo. If you don’t play a huge amount of different players, it takes a lot longer to get better. I’ll play one or two people who visit the arcade a lot, and be comfortable against them. Then somebody new with a different style will come around and give me a ton of trouble cause I’m just not used to them.
Like today, got spanked over and over by an N-Groove player (ryu, rock, honda wtf?) who was pretty good, but far from spectacular. I’m just not comfortable playing any N-groove players, or rocks or hondas even.
I have that problem but since I love the game far too much, I’m perfectly happy to pick up a character for a week or so and learn as much I can about them. You’ll feel a lot better that you figured it out for yourself.
I agree with havoc. 60 stun fucking sucks to have for your R2 anchor. I tried anchoring K-cammy for a while but got pissed everytime I’d get hit by one sagat mixup and get dizzy.
the difference imo between sagat and one of those low life characters isn’t so much the vitality that the character has but the amount of damage that they do per hit. the difference may only be 800 but compare sagat’s fierce to hibiki’s and you have a completely different story.
i think personally the difference between being average and great outside of the obvious stuff(skill, reaction time, desire to get better etc etc) is competition when you look at ricky, choi, leezy, buk, combo? they all live on the west coast and get together and fight not saying they do it every weekend but they make each other want to get better and collect footage so that they are able to get better. so the old saying holds true in cvs2 you’re only as good as your competition.
If you get beat by people you should be beating, you should lower your overall ability (minus execution cuz you’ll always need that) to theirs…but keep yours slightly higher. Or maybe moderately higher. Just not too much. In any case, that should help not falling for roll -> super or run xx c.forward xx super. It is much easier to predict your opponent when you…BECOME…your opponent. (but better)
I think every match depends on these 3 factors:
knowledge
execution
reaction
overall experience is basically a refinement of all 3 of these, making it one with time.
Some are blessed with the time they need and the competition, but there’s no excuse for trying to win and not putting in the effort to build those traits at a minimum.
If you’re going in blind you have at least execution and should have at least minimal knowledge required to not overexert yourself, say attacking recklessly when the opponent is sitting on full meter.
Reaction can be improved by trying to setup specific situations that benefit your character, and these situations can be generic vs a whole cast, or specifically tailored vs a select few. Often times it will be a mix of both; a character will have one generic gameplan modified vs difficult matchups.
Thing is you can’t have execution and good reaction without at least some knowledge, and experience seems to be the prime ingredient for making great players in my opinion. The reason why the average will remain such.
I myself have no problem with that because I’m not too bad for “average.”
i think the most important things that make great players great are (in least to most important):
execution
reaction
THINKING.
execution and reaction are givens…reactions let you counter things, combined with execution lets you get big damage everytime someone makes a mistake…though if your reaction and thinking is good, execution won’t matter as much as you can just do alot of damage with basic punishers.
i’m by no means any sort of a “great” player, but I notice that most of the time i lose matches because i’m on auto pilot when i’m playing. When i’m thinking, i tend to do alot better.
What kind of stuff should you be thinking about? Any number of things. spacing to provoke your opponent to whiff something you can punish or keep the pressure on your opponent. Thinking ahead about how someone is going to react so you don’t need to rely on your reactions to escape/punish.
I think that great players have all these things in mind while playing and are excellent at keeping track of all of it. I guess knowledge kinda comes into play cause you need to know your match ups and know what you can/can’t do…but thinking is the key part imo.
You got a point, wonder how I missed that. Must’ve put lobbed it in there with experience. The thing is all of the above is tied together. The thinking becomes more minimal and more “reationary” like reading body language in a fight and seein a punch come before it’s even thrown.
Oh wait, you’re saying thinking as in moving into position to do such things. My fault.
Perhaps experience in thinking is the key ingredient in making great players.
