Fighting Games Weekly | 4/20-26 | Beowulf Wrasslin', Mewtwo Smashin', Netkode Krashin

Juicebox_FGC said:
Character select screen.

If I'm the best Dhalsim in the world and you're an average Yun, the game practically encourages you to not give a fuck about any of the decisions I make. Our skill gap is irrelevant. The game is completely different if it's Dhalsim vs Bison, Dhalsim vs Ryu, etc.

In order to make this not happen, they have two choices:

1) better character balance (lol)

2) Have more universal movement and close range options that allow tactics to be covered in multiple ways, encouraging a more thoughtful approach. (aka turn it into KOF)
Click to expand...

very interesting... (ignoring option 1 since that's not happening)

so universal normal's for certain options (well i guess every option), poking, close range checking, anti-air (a la KOF's LP); no character specific "super jumps" and different speed and arc's of jumps?
 
[QUOTE="God's Beard!";161224987]One of the things that attracted me to KOFXIII was the pace of play and movement being similar to Jojo's, but I really missed the craziness from all the extra game systems.[/QUOTE]
Haven't played enough KoF (and mostly 2002 UM with some 98), but yeah, the pacing is fucking great. I want something that flows like GG or VSav regarding combos, scaling and similar stuff but with KoF/JJBA match pacing. And tons of characters with unique movement options.

You feel the build up like it's a scene from an action flick or something when play KoF, it feels amazing.

Specifically about JJBA, having at least a couple of your specials not being executed by your character not only is great from the player's freedom perspective but it's great from a visual solution standpoint. There's zero reason to not give make characters that can do Stand attacks without actually having stands. Elemental statues/clones, multiple limbs, tag partner (like the MK X duo), it just adds so much without resorting to generic fireballs/energy waves.
 
Zissou said:
It's cool that Ogawa is coming, but I wonder how interesting it's gonna be to watch him annihilate everybody, haha
Click to expand...

As a member of FGC-GAF I am genetically pre-disposed to love blowups, so...very.

Even though I don't play his game I want to see him stomp a hole in everyone.
 
Zissou said:
Many many players requested FT3 marvel. It wasn't just parroting Yipes. It also doesn't change my mind or address my point about marvel being more consistent than sf4 despite having fewer 'rounds.'
Click to expand...

Putting the word rounds in quotations already makes it not worth responding to. They aren't equivalent. It's just an attempt to cover the fact that the win condition for game of Marvel is worth less than a game in SF4.

Marvel 3 players wanted to change tournament standard, when other team games had no need to. Are we going to start doing 3/5 KOF13, CVS2, based on your definition of a round? Will Skullgirls tournaments have to change how many games to play with the ratio system? What is a round supposed to be in Smash?

The only commonality these games have is the objective of winning a single game, since they're arcade games by design. Losing a single game is what requires the loser to put another quarter in the machine. A round is only a game element of that objective, designed to cater to that game alone. That's why you can adjust round count. Can you adjust your 'round' count in Marvel 3?
 
I think sf4 been out too long and now people are seeing through it. When people are talking about random 90% of them have no goddamn idea what they are talking about. You can get 2 identical rolls and people will say "Oh it's not random" It is exactly random. :E
 
QisTopTier said:
It feels like someone is stabbing me in the lower back right now. :l I think I need stronger pain killers
Click to expand...

That's pride, fucking with you.

WarRock said:
Haven't played enough KoF (and mostly 2002 UM with some 98), but yeah, the pacing is fucking great. I want something that flows like GG or VSav regarding combos, scaling and similar stuff but with KoF/JJBA match pacing. And tons of characters with unique movement options.
Click to expand...

That'd be cool. The combos/oki in jojo's can get out of hand pretty quickly.
 
front page has terribly devolved into threads which could never yield discussion, like "what games do you like/dislike" effectively
 
QisTopTier said:
It feels like someone is stabbing me in the lower back right now. :l I think I need stronger pain killers
Click to expand...

Ouch. Stay safe, brah.

Zissou said:
Why though? There's no shortage of footage of Ogawa playing. You're not going to learn a lot if he's playing people who are too far below his level to really compete with him.
Click to expand...

Maybe it will encourage the american players to step it up?

oneida said:
front page has terribly devolved into threads which could never yield discussion, like "what games do you like/dislike" effectively
Click to expand...

Yeah, lots of pointless threads these past few days.
 
fader said:
very interesting... (ignoring option 1 since that's not happening)

so universal normal's for certain options (well i guess every option), poking, close range checking, anti-air (a la KOF's LP); no character specific "super jumps" and different speed and arc's of jumps?
Click to expand...

Well what it comes down to is that in SF4 you really only have two ways of moving... walking and dashing. Dashing sucks for some characters, backdashing sucks for a lot of characters, and jumping is usually medium to high-risk (except for divekick characters, who in a lot of matchups can jump at very low risk).

KoF has walking, running, and multiple jump angles for all characters, so spacing is very hard to pin down against someone who is moving. In SF4 it is not too hard to be at the specific spacing you want to be at by just walking forward into it. Since it is hard to adjust your spacing in SF4, you often see matchups played out at specific ranges. The exception to this rule is, of course, characters that are way faster than most others or characters that can jump at low risk.

The trend is that in a game with few universal options, some characters are strong enough to really screw characters -because- those universal options are the only thing the weaker characters have to deal with them.

More universal options (such as extra jumps, generally better backdashes, guard cancels, etc) allow more characters to defend themselves against strong mixups and also allow a more varied neutral.
 
alstein said:
The big thing with SF5 is going to be toxicity, especially with PC players mixing in with console players.

If I were Capcom, I'd disable voice chat while playing and design the game so autofire/macros have no impact, just like how Skullgirls does. I think that would be necessary to reduce the negativity. I hope Sony lets Capcom do that.


as for above post:

Could option #2 be done while still keeping it SF enough to not turn people on the game? SFA and SF3 both were very controversial in their day.

I do think you're hitting on something, in that oki is too risk-free in general. I don't think there should be situations where you get highly effective and free pressure. Highly skewed risk-reward in the attacker's favor is good, but it shouldn't be zero risk. Defender needs to be able to mixup as well on wakeup, and delayed wakeup isn't sufficient mixup.
Click to expand...
I'm probably going off on a tangent here, but I feel like getting this off my chest, so here I go...

Capcom should look at the things other fighters have done better and just stuff those into SFV. Taking inspiration from NRS single player content, ASW story modes, Lab Zero's input fixes (360 protection, simplified motions start button hold for tournaments), tutorial mode and online multiplayer philosophy would be a great start. Capcom themselves do DLC (excluding SFxT) and expansions really well already. Their games are also played extensively even if a lot of people have reservations about some mechanics (x-factor, fdac) and match flow problems (lol vortex and x-factor speed boost).

Capcom needs to leverage their fighters better. All the clout in the world isn't enough if the game doesn't have the proper teaching tools and online features for people who want to move past single player and online scrubbery (that should be a word). NRS and Capcom both haven't needed to learn that lesson yet since this genre isn't as competitive as others (ironically lol).
 
DryEyeRelief said:
Putting the word rounds in quotations already makes it not worth responding to. They aren't equivalent. It's just an attempt to cover the fact that the win condition for game of Marvel is worth less than a game in SF4.

Marvel 3 players wanted to change tournament standard, when other team games had no need to. Are we going to start doing 3/5 KOF13, CVS2, based on your definition of a round? Will Skullgirls tournaments have to change how many games to play with the ratio system? What is a round supposed to be in Smash?

The only commonality these games have is the objective of winning a single game, since they're arcade games by design. It's what requires the loser to put another quarter in. A round is only a game element of that objective, designed to cater to that game alone. That's why you can adjust round count. Can you adjust your 'round' count in Marvel 3?
Click to expand...

But you responded! :P

What's equivalent to what is obviously opinion, but I think many would agree that a game of umvc3 is roughly equivalent to a round of ultra. Do you disagree with this?

In my opinion, time should be the deciding factor. The TO should decide what the average length of a match between two players needs to be (across all games). Then, run each game to fit (roughly) within that parameter. For example, if it's decided that 10 minutes of play is appropriate/practical for judging who the better player is, adapt the number of games/matches for each game individually to roughly meet that goal. That's the best way to do things fairly, no?
 
SolarPowered said:
Capcom should look at the things other fighters have done better and just stuff those into SFV. Taking inspiration from NRS single player content, ASW story modes, Lab Zero's input fixes (360 protection, simplified motions start button hold for tournaments), tutorial mode and online multiplayer philosophy would be a great start.
Click to expand...

Not sure about this one. Following the NRS model on this matter would be better as well. Sure not the entire cast will get featured prominently this way but you don't need the whole cast to appeal to the mainstream, just the stars. Besides, multiple characters from BB CP already got shafted in story mode, despite how long it was.
 
NRS, for all it got wrong, seemed to get some of those things right. They did start button protection, a good movelist mode, and a bunch of other things for competitive play.

I suspect Capcom will do more of the same, but learn DLC practices from NRS.
 
Zissou said:
But you responded! :P

What's equivalent to what is obviously opinion, but I think many would agree that a game of umvc3 is roughly equivalent to a round of ultra. Do you disagree with this?

In my opinion, time should be the deciding factor. The TO should decide what the average length of a match between two players needs to be (across all games). Then, run each game to fit (roughly) within that parameter. For example, if it's decided that 10 minutes of play is appropriate/practical for judging who the better player is, adapt the number of games/matches for each game individually to roughly meet that goal. That's the best way to do things fairly, no?
Click to expand...

Some quick math I did came out to 15 minutes max for a full match of SF4 (99 seconds, 3 rounds, 3 matches). Does this mean all Marvel matches need to plan as long?
 
NEO0MJ said:
Not sure about this one. Following the NRS model on this matter would be better as well. Sure not the entire cast will get featured prominently this way but you don't need the whole cast to appeal to the mainstream, just the stars. Besides, multiple characters from BB CP already got shafted in story mode, despite how long it was.
Click to expand...
I was trying to give everyone some credit. ASW has tried harder than Capcom on both the online and the single player front for seven years now and more or less tied with NRS on single player.

BlazBlue CT already provided one of the best online experiences a fighting game offers to this day before 09ers were even a thing and BlazBlue's story experience was amazing three years before MK9 even came out. They really deserve a lot of acknowledgement that they never got just because people weren't into the characters and IP.
alstein said:
NRS, for all it got wrong, seemed to get some of those things right. They did start button protection, a good movelist mode, and a bunch of other things for competitive play.

I suspect Capcom will do more of the same, but learn DLC practices from NRS.
Click to expand...
NRS would probably be the new top dog if they went one step further and did a proper GGPO implementation. I will forever be a fan of Capcom and Japanese fighting game design/aesthetics, so they had better get their shit together.
 
Hinata should've been in Street Fighter X Tekken or Marvel vs Cacpom.
Kyosuke was in Capcom vs SNK, Batsu was in Tatsunoko vs Capcom, why is Hinata not in anything.
 
Busaiku said:
Hinata should've been in Street Fighter X Tekken or Marvel vs Cacpom.
Kyosuke was in Capcom vs SNK, Batsu was in Tatsunoko vs Capcom, why is Hinata not in anything.
Click to expand...
Hinata and Akira fans among the devs exhausted themselves to the point of uselessness every single time with all the fighting. This is why we need Capcom vs Capcom.
 
Professor Beef said:
Some quick math I did came out to 15 minutes max for a full match of SF4 (99 seconds, 3 rounds, 3 matches). Does this mean all Marvel matches need to plan as long?
Click to expand...

So you did the calculation based on length of the full clock running for the maximum number of rounds? 99 marvel seconds apparently work out to be roughly 3 min, so FT3 marvel would actually work out be the exact same maximum theoretical duration as SF4 under normal tourney rules.
 
alstein said:
NRS, for all it got wrong, seemed to get some of those things right. They did start button protection, a good movelist mode, and a bunch of other things for competitive play.

I suspect Capcom will do more of the same, but learn DLC practices from NRS.
Click to expand...
They missed up the single most important thing for the competitive community though.
 
Is there anyone with any chance of beating Ogawa at all remotley at NWM? I don't know the scene for Xrd.
 
Professor Beef said:
Some quick math I did came out to 15 minutes max for a full match of SF4 (99 seconds, 3 rounds, 3 matches). Does this mean all Marvel matches need to plan as long?
Click to expand...
Marvel matches already end up being as long as that. 5 matches at 99 seconds come out to be 15 minutes roughly.

Though on the opposite spectrum, a 3-0 shut out in Marvel 3 can take less time than a 2-0 in SF.
 
oh hey, all pools are finally up now (well, it's preliminary, but still)

Northwest Majors entrants by game:

Melee-152
USF4-131
Xrd-127
Smash 4-102
Project M-88
TTT2-64
MKX-58
UNIEL-48
UMvC3-47 (lol)
P4AU-39
BBCP-38 (I clearly see a duplicate in pool 1...)
GGXX-32
Skullgirls-25
VS-21
Smash 64-19
Injustice-18

Marvel: now so dead it's actually in the bottom half in entrants /s
 
Zissou said:
But you responded! :P

What's equivalent to what is obviously opinion, but I think many would agree that a game of umvc3 is roughly equivalent to a round of ultra. Do you disagree with this?
Click to expand...

Yes.
Those people probably play marvel and as a result are questionable to begin with. Curleh Mustache Battle Royale is single game. So basically people spend a day of their lives and good amount of money to determine the best by playing a single round. Okay, your words.

In my opinion, time should be the deciding factor. The TO should decide what the average length of a match between two players needs to be (across all games). Then, run each game to fit (roughly) within that parameter. For example, if it's decided that 10 minutes of play is appropriate/practical for judging who the better player is, adapt the number of games/matches for each game individually to roughly meet that goal. That's the best way to do things fairly, no?
Click to expand...

That's a tournament logistic issue, not a game design issue. Game design is what players derive the concept of skill from. It's like saying people should play basketball for an entire day, instead of the normal 2 hour length, because a game of golf takes an entire day to complete.

Tournaments usually have grand finals as two extended 3/5 sets from the normal 2/3 standard. The reason for this is because double elimination usually determines only the two best players of the tournament. It's harder to determine who's better between players closer in skill. So based on that, they give the best players a longer set to truly determine the winner.

Yet with Marvel 3, you do 3/5 in the entire tournament. Grand Finals, first match of pools, whatever. Probably because no one thinks one game is the equivalent of one round. They are just compensating for the fact, that it's harder to determine the winner between the future champion and someone who would go 0 - 2.
 
theprodigy said:
oh hey, all pools are finally up now (well, it's preliminary, but still)

Northwest Majors entrants by game:

Melee-152
USF4-131
Xrd-127
Smash 4-102
Project M-88
TTT2-64
MKX-58
UNIEL-48
UMvC3-47 (lol)
P4AU-39
BBCP-38 (I clearly see a duplicate in pool 1...)
GGXX-32
Skullgirls-25
VS-21
Smash 64-19
Injustice-18

Marvel: now so dead it's actually in the bottom half in entrants /s
Click to expand...
Melee...

I know it is about as perfect as something made by human hands can be, but I will not cease to be impressed by it's enduring quality.
 
This 2/3, 3/5 ruleset for various games is so messed up and inconsistent anyway.

One tournament they will have USF4 2/3 until grand finals, another they will have 3/5 in top 8 with no additional game for GFs. And then other games do 2/3 all the way in one tournament or 3/5 all the way in another.


The fact of the matter is that there is no universal metric for these things. There is no governing body that says "a set of a game should be 20 minutes maximum". TOs just play by community need and try to balance that with tournament logistics.


Off tangent but this reasoning has also resulted in the creation of T20 format for cricket. Most athletic, team based sports normally take somewhere around 2-3 hours to complete (Football, Soccer, Hockey, Basketball etc) which makes it feasible to run a tournament in a month if need be or run multiple matches in a day if needed of the same field even though that doesn't actually happen.

Cricket in its purest form can take 5 days to play and even then you will most probably end in a draw. This format is completely impractical for tournament format yet it is the format held in very high regard. For tournament play a 50 over format was made and that worked well until people realized that you are still taking 7 hours to complete a game. After that the T20 format was realized to emulate the time lapse of the other more popular games. And T20 settled in, so much so that it jump started the playstyle in 50 over cricket. Anyone who saw this year's ODI knows that there is a clear imbalance in the format... top players are already talking about changes rules of the format.

Anyway what I am trying to say is that time lapsed is a more important criteria than how many rounds/games/sets/overs because it's a UNIVERSAL metric. Otherwise you start playing favorites and bias starts kicking in.
 
You know what else follows the 2-3 hour match time format of traditional sports?

MOBAS...


One of these days fighting games will evolve where tournaments will have 16 of the best players (selected by various qualifiers) and every match would be a FT10. Basically Capcom Cup only spread across half a week with longer matches culminating in a FT15 GF on Sunday.

I personally would be hype for that... I love me some long set play.
 
NEO0MJ said:
But how do you feel about VS?
Click to expand...
What?

If you mean VSav, I think it's one of those damn near perfect games (for me anyways) too. Everyone has their favorites and grades them using all sots of metrics. Not everyone makes an ideal game using the same methods, though. Sometimes it is a mystery, sometimes it is damn near accidental and sometimes developers know what they're doing down to the very last line of code. Other times a damn great game doesn't have mainstream appeal, so it becomes a cult classic (F-Zero GX), it downright bombas (Wonderful 101) or it gets a 3/10.

Also, VSav is a 2D fighter not called Street Fighter II from the year 1997.
 
shaowebb said:
None that I've had so far needed running at all for Liu Kang Flame Fist BNB. You'd only really need it if you were doing one of his combos that utilizes his air fireball because you need to run to juggle them after any air fireball. He's nothing to get fancy with. He's just a straight up guy you can hit and use easily for high reward at low risk or entry barrier.

Just watch this starting at 4:20
Click to expand...

Good shit man, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Famitsu Sales: Week 4, 2025 (Jan 20 - Jan 26)
Sales-Age  2
73
3K
Hardensoul replied
UK Boxed Charts: Week 43, 2024 (Oct 20 - Oct 26)
Sales-Age 
24
2K
MrA replied
Rivals of Aether II |OT| Smashin Good Time
5
536
Arsic replied
Grand Theft Auto 6 delayed to May 26, 2026
7 8 9 10 11
535
1K
amigastar replied
gameranx: Top 20 NEW Horror Games of 2025
Opinion Trailer 
0
89
IbizaPocholo replied
Top Bottom