Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Senxo

The Fighter Mentality

Recommended Posts

>Make an argument with no solid points

>Someone disagrees and points out flaws in statement.

>Exaggerate everything, ignore everything, attack them verbally.

>VICTORY!

Yeah... you're original statement was that you need more reflex and instincts and less strategy and practice with non-fighter games. I'm still calling bullshit on that. If you want to discuss go ahead but I already gave my 2 cents about starcraft, and you didn't even bother with that.

And I'll still also call bullshit on not needing a healthy amount of reflex and instincts in a fighter game.

I was never talking anything other than fighters.

I didn't exaggerate anything you said:

Infact I'll go ahead and say that you don't need strategy at all.

And about practice? yeah everytime you play its called "practice", drilling is a form of practice... yes, but drilling a combo when you already know it flat is useless. You're basically saying "If you don't play this game you're not going to get better", which is a tautological statement that sounds retarded. And unless you're just spamming buttons (which doesn't count as practice), well.

You made the exaggerations yourself.

Strategy is more important than reaction. I'll say it. To use strategy is to employ the use of things like: controlling space, mixups, meter management, setups and a hell of a lot more that applies to the use of different mechanics that exist within different fighting games. Strategy is what leads to higher levels of play. Yeah being able to react to stuff is important. But knowing how to react to what the opponent is doing and in what way is even more important. Knowing how to force the opponent to second guess himself and control how he reacts is also important and another part of strategy.

Hell, if fighting games were entirely mindless reacting, the so called mindgames wouldn't even exist. Something like walk up>throw would NEVER even happen in fighting games because really the opponent would just hit the guy walking up to him out of reaction.

Suggesting there is no strategy in fighting games is the same as saying that people don't think while playing, and that is just not true.

Also, practice is important at getting good at all things in life.

"If you don't play this game you're not going to get better"

This statement is not retarded, it is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me if I'm wrong here again, but in this quote.

fighters require endless amounts of practice. Where other games rely more on instict and reflexes, fighters are about being able to react in the correct way within a seconds worth of time.

Now judging by the poster, you clearly didn't talk about other games, but this guy did, and thats what I was referring to.

The statement that "where other games rely more on instinct[sic] and reflexes" is referring to other games right? Or maybe I'm delusional and assumed that "games" meant actual other games instead of straight fighter genre. Which wouldn't make an ounce of sense because the part right after? Yeah, it compares the "other games" to fighters. Wouldn't make sense to compare fighters and then differentiate it with fighter.

---

Also, yeah I agree now that what I said earlier was stupid (it was in my last post). I didn't know what "strategy" exactly encompassed because I lumped it with basic playing. But hey, I get bouts of retardation sometimes.

themoreyouknow.jpg

Experience is the only thing you get after you need it.

Also, practice is important at getting good at all things in life.

"If you don't play this game you're not going to get better"

This statement is not retarded, it is true.

Now I never said the truth of the statement was retarded, just the statement itself (subtle difference, but its there). It simply doesn't need to be stated. Otherwise we'd be saying things like "If you don't breathe you'll suffocate" and "If you don't eat you'll starve" and get applauded for it. Just because its true, doesn't make it any less redundant, unnecessary, and condescending. Think about it.

But I digress, this is getting off topic.

And to steer this back, I always play to win unless I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay... you just totally flipped whatever I just said and tried to make me look stupid by posting an extremely exaggerated version of my post. Good job.

Let me put this in perspective for you, in starcraft when you scout that proxy gateway, you know zealots are coming to rape you asap, however you still have time to react if you scouted properly. If you scout an 8pool, well you have time to react. And by "time" I mean a minute or so. This minute buffer really stops reflex from being important because as long as you're reasonable with the response, its not going to matter.

In a fighting game, you have quite literally fractions of a second to respond. Take hellsfang, supers, sledge, noel's drive..." etc. to react to. Thats reflex. Backdashing a Chain Revolver into a 360a is reflex. Its independent from strategy, its synonymous with practice.

Infact I'll go ahead and say that you don't need strategy at all. Theres no "high ground" or "cover". Theres just you and the opponent and the wall of perception. You don't go and say "oh he's doing the orwellian opening I have all the time in the world to choose my move". And if you think countering something with something else is strategy... well you're right. But you're wrong in assuming the game relies "heavily" on it. Yeah, you should always x the y when z, but if that doesn't change, I hardly call that strategy, but more of a counter, and knowing a counter is just practice.

Without reflex and timing, you will never pull off that counter-super because the opponent surprised you with something that wasn't in your "strategy". And about practice? yeah everytime you play its called "practice", drilling is a form of practice... yes, but drilling a combo when you already know it flat is useless. You're basically saying "If you don't play this game you're not going to get better", which is a tautological statement that sounds retarded. And unless you're just spamming buttons (which doesn't count as practice), well.

Interesting you bring up starcraft, where actions-per-minute are one of the strongest indications that separate newbies from pros. Who gives a damn about strategy when you can control 2 different groups of stacked mutalisks and take out turrets / marines / medics with them? Who gives a damn about strategy when you've got Slayer-Boxer's M&M Skill, and have 12 marines and 4 medics take out 3 lurkers at a chokepoint, a few sunken colonies, 2 groups of Zerglings, 2 more lurkers, and a ton of drones while building up a backup army and teching to Science Vessels?

Where's the "strategy" in using your scouting probe / scv / drone to prevent your opponent's 2nd Hatchery? Where is the strategy in this video? Hint, it has about 3x more apm than this beginner-level version.

</exaggeration> I know there is strategy in starcraft, but there is a huge emphasis on twitch control, perhaps even at the same level as fighting games (which is why pros refuse to play online: too laggy. They play only on low-latency LAN). Training your reactions in Starcraft, and perfecting the timing of your builds and attacks is important. Losing a single mutalisk due to poor timing vs a Turret can mean a completely wasted Muta-Harassment attempt. On the other hand, mastering the twitch control to land two coordinated strikes from ten stacked +1 Mutas will take out a turret before it hits you twice: this is a "twitch skill" that almost completely overrides strategy. It essentially allows a group of 10+ mutalisks to take out a turret before it even has a chance to shoot at you.

Reacting to Psi-storms, and regrouping 4 groups of Zerglings / mutas to avoid the Psi Storm? Thats not strategy, thats straight up reaction: a reaction that will save you thousands of minerals and gas, and a huge chunk of your army.

Jeez man, Starcraft Pros practice 14-hours a day to master this twitch crap. And the basic strategy behind Starcraft is simple:

* Conservative Builds beat Rushes

* Rushes beat early expansion

* Early Expansion beat Conservative Builds

Beyond that, its timing and practice. Its not like you are going to pull off a sucessful vulture / muta harassment using strategy alone. Its not like strategy alone makes the Mines / Tanks / Turrets setup vs Protoss so powerful... or the suicide Zealot-drop counter-strategy possible. All of these setups take raw twitch skill to execute.

Anyway, I find it strange that you mention Starcraft, where APM is so important... Are you using the right hand stance? Can you spam the keyboard like a pro?

----------

Going back to strategy in fighting games... I often give up a (non-oki) combo to get out of the corner. Its just too damn dangerous to sit around in the corner, in any fighting game. There's your high ground: pinning your opponent in the corner, and preventing him from moving forward. Try it out sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mentioned hatch blocking. Yes you move your probe and block it from building yes its very simple. But thats like saying "wheres the strategy in Inferno Divider!?". You're right, what strategy? Its a strategy that falls under the line of "trick". You anticipate it and then deny it, and cantrip if you will.

And as for APM? That all falls under execution, and you know without proper execution in any game you will fail. Sure SC requires an intense amount of it, but it doesn't mean its strategy is any less, because face it, if both people have a legitimate strategy (and in this RTS of 12 years you know theres a lot of it), and one basically outplays the other because they can control better, can you say its the fault of the game? If you answered yes, I would refer you to chess.

You also broke down SC into "basic" strategies, yes... you basically reworded the rock, paper, scissors template that applies to every game. In blazblue, pure offense will lose to traps, traps will lose to pure defense, and pure defense will lose to pure offensive. Theres your basic strategy.

We could spend a lot of time and break down what traps are. And we could break down what the early expo demands in terms of strategy. An over simplification.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong in routing your forces so they don't die. It takes a lot more than holding back+ A&B in BB, but thats just the nature of the game and I don't think thats a bad thing. All twitch? Maybe, but you can't sit there and tell me IB -> GETB isn't twitch, and that it won't save you a game, and I'm not gonna sit here and even pretend to say that starcraft isn't twitch orientated because you're right on all accounts that the requirement for execution in SC is very high.

Also look at it from a metaphysical standpoint. If starcraft really was all just execution and no strategy, it would have died a long time ago because it would be labeled as a poor game equivalent to whack a mole. But no, its varied structure that doesn't pidgeon hole it into 4 bnb setups is what allowed it to be strategy, and just because the strategy requires levels of execution doesn't knock it off as bad.

Think of the M&M build like a combo in BB, you set it up and you execute it. If the person reads you right then they can set up to counter it. If they don't read it or fail to build appropriate counters, well they lose if they don't do execution just perfect because of soft counters(we're assuming equal skill levels). If they build the appropriate counter, they still have to execute it right to stop it because it isn't just "hurr durr I send units".

Beyond that, its timing and practice. Its not like you are going to pull off a sucessful vulture / muta harassmentcombo/proper pressure string using strategy alone. Its not like strategy alone makes the Mines / Tanks / TurretsArakune vs ProtossTager so powerful... or the suicide Zealot-drop counter-strategystanding 720 possible. All of these setups take raw twitch skill to executeproper execution.

Yeah, no. Strategy is the fundamental thought and reasoning behinds games. Having a tough level of execution doesn't dumb down strategy or completely override it (I don't know if this was your point, that the execution shoves away stratagem, but thats what I got out of your post). When you have more buildable units, techs, and buildings in an rts than you do moves in a fighter, can you claim that it requires less strategy? When you say that it requires more twitch/execution because of that fact, does it make it a bad game, or a more challenging one, or simply a game where execution comes with the territory?

Your videos of the marines attacking that lurker isn't anything special or new. Speaking of "Nu", dodging a projectile attack with close timing and proper manuvering and then counter attacking within a certain time frame? Sounds... familiar. (P.S. theres no reason why there would ever be just one marine attacking one lurker, or just having lurkers unsupported within a reasonable time frame(unless the support is already dead))

The way I see it is if we assign arbitrary values to strategy and execution (impossible but just for sake of comparison), BB might be Strategy: 10, Execution: 14 and Starcraft would be Strategy: 12, Execution: 26 or something. I mean we choose games because we love them, not because they're better than other games on an arbitrary level. And I love fighters, BB got me hooked, and I really don't care for starcraft. But I really try not to bias it because no matter how you stack it, the quality of a game thats been elevated to national past time must be pretty good on all accounts of intellectual and physical prowess.

Edit: and this whole time just to establish the fact that starcraft does indeed require more execution than fighters to be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your videos of the marines attacking that lurker isn't anything special or new.

Just noting: The video wasn't for you. I assume that the other readers however don't know starcraft at the same level as you or me, and probably would be surprised that a "strategy" game has such a high execution requirement. And my point was not to demonstrate proper starcraft strategy, but instead demonstrate how twitch skills can dominate strategy. Even in starcraft, straight up practice and execution are fundamental to getting better.

The way I see it is if we assign arbitrary values to strategy and execution (impossible but just for sake of comparison), BB might be Strategy: 10, Execution: 14 and Starcraft would be Strategy: 12, Execution: 26 or something.

Well, if this is your final point, I can't really disagree with you there, at least for BB:CT (I haven't played BB:CS). The lower execution barrier however is seen as an advantage from my eyes... because at least at the lower levels, it becomes significantly easier to focus on strategy instead of execution. IMO, good games are played at the strategy level, and not at the execution level.

There's a certain level of execution you have to get to in Starcraft before you even stand a chance against a typical D rank ICCUP player... and that execution barrier is massive. (I like your 26 vs 14 for Starcraft execution vs BlazBlue execution). Until then, strategy doesn't matter, because your opponent will simply beat you out on raw APM alone. (Much like going into a BB game without knowing any combos)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it takes longer to achieve a competitive set of skills in starcraft, but thats just time and practice. And you're a pretty intelligent fellow, I know that you probably won't argue that taking a longer time to develop a set of physical skills to get to "end game" makes the game any less strategic. Its like learning the rules, the more complex the rule set, the more time spent learning the rules than formulating strategies, but once you have it all down it becomes a rewarding game to play. Just because Blazblue is more accessible from an execution standpoint doesn't make it more accessible from a strategic standpoint. And beginners of both games all end up spending a lot of time to get good.

Also the arbitrary numbers for strategy might be horribly off, but I just threw them out there. If starcraft already has names for openings and gambits just like chess, I would imagine the strategy number to be way higher. I don't claim to be very good at BB nor SC so I don't really know just how complex strategies get at end game to judge properly, I can only derive that a (good) RTS will involve a lot more strat than an equally good fighter game.

I also just made the correlation of hatch blocking to chess. "You moved your pawn up to deny my bishop a check, what kind of strategy is that? Just moving your guy up to prevent something. Thats not strategy thats just moving a piece around."

Edit: The thing here is that if you understand a fast 2nd hatch expo is a detriment to your victory, then you already know the strategy behind the 2nd hatch, which is experience and knowledge of that stratagem, and in short, blocking it is the strategy - it may be moving a piece around which is simple, but the knowledge of the situation far outplays execution in this scenario (imagine you're gonna do a long ass combo with Litchi, so what does the person do to stop you? poke you before you make your first move, its stupid and lame but man tell me if that doesn't work). If you didn't understand the danger of that strat, you wouldn't have hatch blocked in the first place -> thus lack of strategic forethought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be sure to not go in with the mentality of winning or losing through the whole match, because you will spend to much time thinking about winning or losing and not spending enough time doing actually good in the match. Of course you need some "I'm gonna win this!" mentality to perform well, and thinking "I'm so gonna lose this.." will actually highly increase your chances of losing. So just stay focused and in the moment on the match you're playing.

Also remember to have fun and to relax in a tough situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its practice and play that determines winners. Mentality only plays a role if you're a person unaccustomed to playing in competitive situations. A lot of my friends who play this game have a hard time executing or finding ways to execute knowledge they've accumulated in training mode in actual matches, or even learning a whole new combo on the fly.

Practice enables you to do the combos see the openings and get to the point where you execute them without thinking about executing them, and play gets you to use the combos in matches while blocking enemy combos in matches.

To the SC strategy argument, I'll argue that the strategy involved in SC versus the strategy involved in blazblue is like comparing strategy in war (or a battle in a war) to strategy in boxing and that is a compliment to both games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its about your own performance and outwitting the other performer.

I don't think this excessive to to win is very healthy mentality, or at least its hard to manage. Some player aren't in competition just to win but to gain some experience in a social event on contests.

I'm confident developer don't share such mindset or they would be designing fighter differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Practice so that everything you do in game requires no mental resources.

Observe so that you can understand your opponents tendencies.

React using the observations to know what to look for and when.

Everything else is creating expectations in your opponents head and playing with that. If you're too busy focused on the combo or the mixup or whatever, you'll lose sight of what's really behind the match and if all your mental resources are tied up on DOING something you'll never have your eyes open to whats going on behind the match.

Saying there's no strategy in fighting games must come from low level play because there very much is. Reaction is also important but if you lack strategy, all the reaction in the world won't save you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

um friendship effort and VICTORY??

Anyways me -.- dunno whenever I play gg I play to get acknowledged as a pretty decent player. makes me feel good

Pride in your victorys but not cocky and arrogant. You are not the only player who gets better, when you face really good people, thats another person you should strive to beat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't actually believe that being competitive in attempt to obtain well-versed experience for winning at all costs is a benefit, with the exception of personal gain, like getting paid for it or winning it. I don't see the sense of achievement other than that. Beating someone just to say that you beat someone (I think everyone should be looked at as just another player) is shallow to me without some sort of valuable reward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't actually believe that being competitive in attempt to obtain well-versed experience for winning at all costs is a benefit, with the exception of personal gain, like getting paid for it or winning it. I don't see the sense of achievement other than that. Beating someone just to say that you beat someone (I think everyone should be looked at as just another player) is shallow to me without some sort of valuable reward.

Mhm. Playing only to get a valuable reward - totally not shallow brah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mhm. Playing only to get a valuable reward - totally not shallow brah!

Yeah but everyone is different. What is rewarding or valuable to one person may be the complete opposite for another. There really is no right or wrong answer. The only thing right is finding that thing that makes you do your best.

True story.

Everyone is shallow in their own way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really are few things in life that work in absolutes, saying things like 'strategy is more important than execution' or vice versa isn't very useful. The more accurate (and boring) answer would be something like "a mixture of strategy and execution is required to excel in XXX, the exact composition of which varies and is difficult to determine empirically."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pseudo-intellectualism on a fighting game forum, now there's a first. Not to completely dismiss Mizzet's otherwise painfully mundane observation put forth in such carefully wrought phrases such as "exact composition" and "difficult to determine empirically" and Infectellect's attempt at imitating his favorite philosophers and speaking to the human condition - there are some grains of truth in your posts, but Christ, you guys make it sound as if we're discussing existentialism or Kantian theories of perception. Can't entirely fault you gentlemen though, this thread seems to invite everyone to engage in some pseudo-intellectual philosophizing of their own.

Oh wait, that was what this thread was all about to begin with wasn't it? My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo-intellectualism on a fighting game forum, now there's a first. Not to completely dismiss Mizzet's otherwise painfully mundane observation put forth in such carefully wrought phrases such as "exact composition" and "difficult to determine empirically" and Infectellect's attempt at imitating his favorite philosophers and speaking to the human condition - there are some grains of truth in your posts, but Christ, you guys make it sound as if we're discussing existentialism or Kantian theories of perception. Can't entirely fault you gentlemen though, this thread seems to invite everyone to engage in some pseudo-intellectual philosophizing of their own.

Oh wait, that was what this thread was all about to begin with wasn't it? My bad.

But hey, by you simply responding, you're on the same level... Doing the saaaaaaaaaaame thing. Does it really matter which medium is used as communication? This forum puts people together that would otherwise never interact with one another.

Yeah dude, I mean if we get on the topic of what inspires people to do well then that opens up all kinds of doors.

You give me more credit than I deserve, favorite philisophers, buhahaha. I just say how I feel my mango.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But hey, by you simply responding, you're on the same level... Doing the saaaaaaaaaaame thing.

Wrong. And I hope the 8 or 7 extra "a's in "same" was a bizarre typo on your part instead of some attempt to emphasize my hypocrisy because my kid brother in the 2nd grade does the same thing when he tries to accuse me of hypocrisy. Hate to put you on the same level as that glue-sniffer.

Seriously though, you missed my point. You guys sound like a pair of geeks who just discovered your first Nietzsche book and are now attempting to speak in a manner which adequately conveys the lofty intellectual heights you think you've ascended to. In other words, you two sound like pretentious 'tards.

Yeah dude, I mean if we get on the topic of what inspires people to do well then that opens up all kinds of doors.

Just had a mental image of a white guy with dreadlock implants sitting on a beanbag talking about gateway drugs and how drugs are the key to reaching different planes of consciousness.

You give me more credit than I deserve, favorite philisophers, buhahaha. I just say how I feel my mango.

That wasn't meant to be a compliment sweetheart. But yes, I would most certainly like to feel your mango.

To be on topic even if only a little bit, I think anyone serious about playing fighting games competitively should strive for continuous improvement. Always looking for new things to improve has kept me motivated and interested in playing fighting games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×