About Creativity

[Dusk Thanatos]

You need to recognize that there are always different "solutions" to a situation. Some of them are safer and less awe-inspiring than others. Throwing your opponent's DP-bait blocking is pretty ballsy and gives a good reward, but pressing 2A or even just blocking yourself are safer answers that're also acceptable. The throw nets the most reward, but also has the most cost, so it has a serious WOW factor. But just blocking is a good answer too, especially if you're not 100% sure your opponent is gonna DP bait.

That's where the whole judgment deal that SKD is talking about comes in. Which most effectively answers your assessment of the situation? How good do you feel your read on the opponent is? You check against those sorts of things, choose an answer, and act accordingly.

[Linear04]

kusoru

that is all

[zeth07]

You need to recognize that there are always different "solutions" to a situation. Some of them are safer and less awe-inspiring than others. Throwing your opponent's DP-bait blocking is pretty ballsy and gives a good reward, but pressing 2A or even just blocking yourself are safer answers that're also acceptable. The throw nets the most reward, but also has the most cost, so it has a serious WOW factor. But just blocking is a good answer too, especially if you're not 100% sure your opponent is gonna DP bait.

That's where the whole judgment deal that SKD is talking about comes in. Which most effectively answers your assessment of the situation? How good do you feel your read on the opponent is? You check against those sorts of things, choose an answer, and act accordingly.

My point was just that "playing logically" and then using "unconventional solutions" don't really go hand in hand in my opinion in the way he used them. It's like opposite sides of the coin. You are either going to use "good judgment" and the safe option or you're going to take risk for a better reward. Of course there's different solutions, but what I would call playing logically, isn't using something that puts yourself in more danger, you're just gambling on the risk/reward factor and hoping you make the right read. Playing logically would be to take the safest option possible that puts yourself in the best possible situation to win the match. There's always a chance you'll guess right with some crazy move, but it doesn't mean it was the smartest thing to do, which is what my point is based on what he said.

But again, I guess it's just differing opinions of what something means.

[Dusk Thanatos]

My point was just that "playing logically" and then using "unconventional solutions" don't really go hand in hand in my opinion in the way he used them. It's like opposite sides of the coin. You are either going to use "good judgment" and the safe option or you're going to take risk for a better reward. Of course there's different solutions, but what I would call playing logically, isn't using something that puts yourself in more danger, you're just gambling on the risk/reward factor and hoping you make the right read. Playing logically would be to take the safest option possible that puts yourself in the best possible situation to win the match. There's always a chance you'll guess right with some crazy move, but it doesn't mean it was the smartest thing to do, which is what my point is based on what he said.

But again, I guess it's just differing opinions of what something means.

If you have a good read, though, wouldn't it be logical to take the option with a higher reward?

[Sophisticat]

Ok, time to make a big write-up.

I'll first answer a couple things here.

The thing is, the set of all of the actions you can make in a fighting game is the set of all the actions allowed by the game. There isn't anything to "made up," per se -- it's more like things are discovered.

Even the most ingenious moves performed inside a game were always moves available to be performed. That's why I see playing fighters more as choosing one of the right actions for a situation, and less as creative acts of making strategies, tricks, and deceptions.

Well, of course they were available? You are limited by the system, after all.

Creativity doesn't just mean making stuff up -- it can also mean simply using the conventional in new ways.

You are correct that a lot has to do with judgement, but it can also be a creative decision. More about this in my upcoming post.

kusoru

that is all

This man knows.

If you have a good read, though, wouldn't it be logical to take the option with a higher reward?

What if it's bait?

[Spirit Juice]

kusoru

that is all

When was the last time Kusoru's Sol won a tournament, qualified for SBO, or bodied a top player? Never. While I think Kusoru's style of play is hilarious, he is literally random and a shining example of how to not play Sol.

[Sophisticat]

Bit of extra stuff...

This.

If you're trying to dig so deep as to say really good players seperate themselves through 'creativity'... you're trying way too hard to break down BB (or fighting games in general).

That's not the case. This "creativity" is just a subset of what I think makes for an edge in good players.

What makes a top player is the edge he has over his competition. This could come in many forms, some of which sG (and I in my post prior to yours) mentioned.

When was the last time Kusoru's Sol won a tournament, qualified for SBO, or bodied a top player? Never. While I think Kusoru's style of play is hilarious, he is literally random and a shining example of how to not play Sol.

I doubt he would. He plays way too wild and random play implies not having a set plan.

It's a pretty good style to take your opponent off-guard, though.

[superscience890]

If you have a good read, though, wouldn't it be logical to take the option with a higher reward?

Indeed, it would be logical to take the option with a higher reward, but you need to look at the risk that's associated with that higher reward. Like say, you're waking up and you read that they're going to try and bait your DP with a block. You could counter this with various things, like say backdash away from pressure, just block and nothing really happens, go in and begin your pressure with say a 2a, or DP anyways and rapid it to start your pressure. The thing is what happens if you're wrong? If say they're actually just going to hit you with a normal, in the case that you backdash, you might be able to get away without having to deal with their pressure. If you block, you block their move, but are put under pressure. But if you 2a, you get counter hit and depending on who you're against and where you are on the screen, this could be really scary, or mediocre. But either way, you can be put into the exact same situation again where you're forced to try and read your opponent. If you DP and rapid it to begin pressure, this could work, unless they bait your DP outside of range which then they get a free counter hit combo which they can hit you as hard as they can.

This is only one of the possibilities of course, and there's alot of other things that could have happened like it's possible they would catch your backdash with a move and hit you anyways and they get to hit you and get oki, but yea. Essentially there's the whole entire idea of what happens if your read is wrong that you need to keep in mind when you choose your counter option to a read.

[zeth07]

If you have a good read, though, wouldn't it be logical to take the option with a higher reward?

I don't want this to devolve into theory fighter stuff too much mainly because there's so many variables and scenarios that we can apply that to.

To me the idea of what's logical even with a good read would be doing whatever puts you in the most beneficial position to win the match and the least amount of risk to lose the match. What if your good read was wrong since there's obviously a chance of that? Are you going to lose the match because you took the biggest risk for the highest reward? Or are you going to do something that will either win you the match / keeping you at an advantage or instead of outright losing just reset it back to neutral or maybe have less health than you did before instead of them blowing you the fuck up cause you took a big gamble?

I'm not saying there's a right or wrong answer. I'm just saying what I think is "logical". I'm sure you can think of some sports examples this can apply to.

[Dusk Thanatos]

What if it's bait?

It's a question of how much you trust your read, of course.

And there's no shame in being wrong with your reads. It happens all the damn time.

I don't want this to devolve into theory fighter stuff too much mainly because there's so many variables and scenarios that we can apply that to.

To me the idea of what's logical even with a good read would be doing whatever puts you in the most beneficial position to win the match and the least amount of risk to lose the match. What if your good read was wrong since there's obviously a chance of that? Are you going to lose the match because you took the biggest risk for the highest reward? Or are you going to do something that will either win you the match / keeping you at an advantage or instead of outright losing just reset it back to neutral or maybe have less health than you did before instead of them blowing you the fuck up cause you took a big gamble?

I'm not saying there's a right or wrong answer. I'm just saying what I think is "logical". I'm sure you can think of some sports examples this can apply to.

You stopped making a good argument when you stopped counting the variables.

What if I have a lot of life? I can afford to make that ballsy read. Or what if I'm going to lose unless I take back the advantage as soon as possible with a really bold move, because there's not much time on the clock? Good decision-making revolves around those variables.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Dusk Thanatos

[zeth07]

It's a question of how much you trust your read, of course.

And there's no shame in being wrong with your reads. It happens all the damn time.

You stopped making a good argument when you stopped counting the variables.

What if I have a lot of life? I can afford to make that ballsy read. Or what if I'm going to lose unless I take back the advantage as soon as possible with a really bold move, because there's not much time on the clock? Good decision-making revolves around those variables.

But that was my point entirely, those variables do exist which is why I wasn't trying to get into that part of the discussion lol.

[Dusk Thanatos]

Well, I guess, I may as well ask this -- if you don't mind.

Do you think there's a situation where making a strong read is a good choice?

[zeth07]

Well, I guess, I may as well ask this -- if you don't mind.

Do you think there's a situation where making a strong read is a good choice?

Of course, the example you just said is fine because that might be what's necessary to win. But we were talking about what was logical, and your other example isn't what I would consider a good choice.

If you have a huge life lead, the logical thing to do imo wouldn't be to take some huge risk that could turn the match around in the other person's favor just because you feel like being ballsy. Ballsy doesn't equal logical imo even if you can afford to do so in that example.

[LuminAbyss]

Being ballsy is never logical unless the risk you are about to take is your only real option to win/turn the match in your favor. Cases like these are rare, though, but it does happen.

[Sophisticat]

Alright, so this post addresses a lot of stuff I want to talk about.

Disclaimer: This post is a bit skewed towards the theoretical, so take with a grain of salt. I hope the point will come across, though.

Blargh, my laptop's keyboard also somehow died a couple minutes ago, and I had to hook-up a USB keyboard, so I'll post this as-is for now. Should be good enough.

-----

Without further ado, sG's post:

There are a finite amount of things you can do in FGs (or games in general actually where you cannot change the fundamental options and the number of them in the game). It's not an art-form, human creativity cannot shine through like it can in other things. Yes, you can be innovative and have your tricks but generally they wind up just being tricks. There will always be optimal options, optimal ways to play a match-up, etc.

Don't get me wrong, having creativity is great and is also a sign of being flexible, but if your playstyle and tricks aren't granting you victory, you need to change it or improve it. Optimizing your play and knowledge is the best and most effective way to do so. The best edge to have over your opponent is to be adaptable, and to learn fast, not creativity, imo.

Okay, let's start with optimality. The implication is that there is always one decision or set of decisions that is above all the others in a given situation. This is somewhat true in some instances (i.e. Lambda preventing entry by throwing swords around as I play Hakumen... frikkin' annoying).

However, there are a number of fallacies with this:

1) Players are humans, not robots. No human is 100% optimal.

2) It implies the optimal decision is obvious.

3) If players were optimal, then everyone would play the same and there would be no variance of style since there is only one way to play. There is a right way of playing, for sure, but it doesn't have to be optimal in order to win.

4) No judgement would be required in optimal play because you are always doing the right thing at all times. Unless you have 10,000+ hours of play time under your belt, this is an unlikely case.

The implication of the above is that there might be optimal, mechanical decisions such as combo selection, but taken as a whole, we come to the idea that fighting games have to do with a selection of "best of" decisions rather than any one single option that is better than the rest. Since we deal with an imperfect, mutable environment, this brings us to...

Risk vs. reward

With no one best option, you have to weigh the risk of available options. This risk is also not always apparent, but I've generally noticed that people say "this is the best option in this case" (I do the same, guilty as charged). Let's deconstruct this.

Your risk is generally:

1) Being baited.

2) The recovery/startup/hitbox on the move.

Now here's an example of a straightforward risk/reward decision:

- I play Hakumen vs. a Ragna. I decide to jump in, and the risk/reward here is in favour of the Ragna going for 6a.

Thing is, I know this. So what we really have in practice is this:

- Let's say I jump in on Ragna as Hakumen. He does 6a. I anticipated it, and do j.D. He got baited.

- What if he did 5a instead if he anticipated I would do j.D to make me react? I got baited (assuming 5a is out of j.D's hitbox). The recovery on j.D kills me.

- Then what if I anticipated that he anticipated... And so on.

My point: there is no optimal decision in this case, but you do have to make a decision, even if it's just blocking. So, considering the above, even the risk/reward profile is mutable through judgement and decisions. Which move to use is not always obvious in some cases. I can only conclude one axiom: The true risk/reward of any situation is the one you create.

(And also: don't autopilot.)

And how do you create such a situation? We come to...

Player Psychology

(I assume a tourney play situation for this section. Casual play doesn't have the same kind of emotional involvement)

Given the assumption of perfect play (i.e. no mistakes) on both ends, what is it that would make you get in a hit? There are three ways that I know of:

1) Baiting moves.

2) Capitalizing on failed risk taking. (In other words, you CH'd your opponent. This can be as simple as throwing out your 2a 2f before his)

3) Causing mistakes in your opponent.

We have discussed that play is mutable and not optimal. This means there are certain uncertainties in play and this is where you will find holes to poke through. I have found that the area where this is best present is in your opponent's expectations and anticipations since only a very few have gdlk reactions to everything.

So, knowing this, this is where you lay the foundation for your master plan that will carry you through the match, and also maybe a little bit of creativity. Have you noticed any patterns that make your opponent jittery? Does he have trouble reacting to overheads? Or are you going to have to create such a situation from scratch?

First, you have to know what your opponent expects of you. If he expects you to do X in situation Y, then that, for him, is his high-probability optimal move.

Let's make up a simple (*cough* netplay, but assume tourney nerves) scenario:

Most players expect Hakumen to do j.2c when airdashing at them, and most will do standard fare anti-air moves. They are confident in their expectation of success in a favourable outcome. I, knowing this, can then shatter their confidence in this move by going for j.D or Hotaru or something. They get unnerved, and start trying out new moves on the spot. But since I laid out a plan right from the start just for this situation can then press the advantage and not allow them time to recover.

What I mean here is that I took their expectation of a situation and turned it on them. In this case, what was high-probability for him, turned out to be high-probability for me!

I believe the same happened in the Evo2k11 Spark v. LK grand final as I mentioned in a previous post.

I could make up other scenarios, but not much point. So:

Axiom #2: Don't hold any expectations, and follow your plan.

(And also: don't autopilot)

The Competitive Edge

From all this, what do we finally come to? The edge: the one weapon a player has that allows him to win against another, skilled player. As sG mentioned, being flexible and adaptable has a lot to do with this. I agree.

But the real point I want to make here is that since there is no such thing as optimal play, and since player psychology and your decisions towards thus are the most important factors determining success, then what matters is not your style, but rather how you create advantageous situations for yourself using this style.

This creation of advantageous situations is your edge. You could simply be a very solid player, you could have the power of yomi, superior analytical skills, or you might have gdlk reactions. But the point is that this edge is what allows you to create an opening for you to press an advantage.

Finally, to guard against this edge, you must...

Axiom #3: Be adaptable. This is probably the one thing everyone needs to have to make it in FGs.

(And also: don't autopilot)

I also could go on about the winner's mentality, but I'll leave that for another time.

Whew. I think this is going to create another shitstorm, though I hope not since I'm a bit worn out, lol.

Anyway, I think there's a lot of stuff missing, but the main points are there so it's good enough!

[Romeyurhomey]

Being creative is just being able to play better and outwit your opponent. This isn't fashion design 101 it's BB lol.

Done =P.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Romeyurhomey

[Sophisticat]

^ Hush you. :P

But you're right. I think I should add that the context for my srs bzns posts are with the idea that you would do this for a living or want to place high in tourneys like Evo, hence why I emphasize the psychology so much. If you're just doing casuals, then that aspect naturally isn't as prevalent.

Meh, maybe I'm thinking too much into it, but I really do think that this is an underappreciated area of discussion in FGs. >_>

[Nakkiel]

I probably could have worded my post a little better, optimal doesn't necessarily mean infallible, just your strongest option(s) at that point in time. Having multiple strong options (and factoring in human error along with anticipating the answer to your options) is what allows matches to be so different from eachother. I agree that there are many uncertainties during matches, people handle this differently and that's the main difference in people's playstyles. (How do I handle neutral game? How will I risk getting out of pressure?)

You can be creative. New setups, tricks, gimmicks, they're all creative things and have their uses, I agree. There IS only so much you can do, but due to the vast amount of options most characters and players can create keep most humans being able to read them all the time. My biggest point is that, there is a reason creativity is an underappreciated area of discussion due to the fact that improving on your fundamentals, game knowledge and playing more solid with less mistakes is far more likely to grant you victory. Obviously the point of exception here is creativity that actually shows long-term practicality.

[skd]

i havent really had the time to read all the posts but

how do you react to a whiffed move during pressure?

chance to get out of pressure?

Upback?

Mash? unban akira shiro

Parry?

Which is the best choice?!

Split second decisions are important, and what if i dont see all the same things you do? What if i make a different choice? Its all based on what you think is worth the reward. Was me running up and throwing (which could have cost me the match) in any way logical? To my reasoning at that moment and what i gathered from the situation, it was logical. Was it pretty unconventional? Not in that context, though it could be.

To someone else, in that situation they would maybe think "oh, they are going to back tech" and go up for an airthrow, and the opponent would have gotten out of pressure.

[Eshi]

You stopped making a good argument when you stopped counting the variables.

What if I have a lot of life? I can afford to make that ballsy read. Or what if I'm going to lose unless I take back the advantage as soon as possible with a really bold move, because there's not much time on the clock? Good decision-making revolves around those variables.

In general its best not to take big risks when you have a big life lead because it increases the chance of losing your advantage. "I can afford it" is bad reasoning because it gives away your ability to force your opponent to approach and have to take their own big risks to catch up, when you only need one quick hitconfirm to win.

[Sophisticat]

^ Somewhat. The time to take risks is when an opportunity arises, or you properly set up a situation in which you can take a risk. I do not believe hp should have much to do with it.

Let's say you're low on hp. Players tend to become afraid here, and self-fulfilling prophecy makes it so they lose as a result. Players who can do remarkable comebacks kept their cool and decided to push back because they had nothing to lose (should they not have taken risks and played safe?).

Imo, playing with hp bars turned off can be good training for the psychology of this situation. Forget about hp: just stick to your plan.

I probably could have worded my post a little better, optimal doesn't necessarily mean infallible, just your strongest option(s) at that point in time. Having multiple strong options (and factoring in human error along with anticipating the answer to your options) is what allows matches to be so different from eachother. I agree that there are many uncertainties during matches, people handle this differently and that's the main difference in people's playstyles. (How do I handle neutral game? How will I risk getting out of pressure?)

You can be creative. New setups, tricks, gimmicks, they're all creative things and have their uses, I agree. There IS only so much you can do, but due to the vast amount of options most characters and players can create keep most humans being able to read them all the time. My biggest point is that, there is a reason creativity is an underappreciated area of discussion due to the fact that improving on your fundamentals, game knowledge and playing more solid with less mistakes is far more likely to grant you victory. Obviously the point of exception here is creativity that actually shows long-term practicality.

Precisely. I can agree with this.

As people step their game up, though, I think this is something they'll think about more.

-----

As an aside, I really like how Valk plays in general. It's a very fluid and dynamic style that lends itself to some interesting on-the-spot decisions. His unpredictability is one of his best features (and being S+ tier in this game or so it seems). He's probably the most flexible of all characters at this time, too.

Example with the latest A-Cho: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wAotLAm-z0

[Honnou]

In truth you do not need to block to win in a fighting game.

Now you all know the truth behind Akira-Shiro's play style

Never Block!

Never Win!

Nice style.