I wouldn't say she's crippled to where they deleted a character. That's how I see a lot of people here are acting about her.
In Japan, I can see people switching. You're playing the best of the best at arcades.
In the US, it's not going to matter for your average level of play. Hell, you're even seeing Potemkins here get top 8.
People in the US like to carry on the delusion that they are at the highest levels or that it will be in their future. She's probably not crippled but giving history some people just refuse to give it a chance because it has happened so many times. I can understand that somewhat.
I just noticed that the GGXXAC+R Steam page has a video uploaded of two ArcSys testers netplaying each other on a 3-bar connection. Seeing as one of them was using Ky, I found myself counting the number of Greed Sever attempts and their results.
Hypothesis: By studying the players' use of and reactions to netplay Greed Sever, we can ascertain the quality of GGXXAC+RSE's netcode before it is even released.
Findings: - 13 Greed Severs attempted over the course of the video's 5 rounds
- 0 were blocked standing
- 2 opened up the opponent crouch-blocking
- 2 were blocked in the air (one likely on reaction, one naturally in footsies)
- 5 stuffed the opponent's mashing/jumping forward
- 1 landed as part of a CH combo (was intended as a blockstring mixup)
- 3 whiffed
Discussion: It still appears ambiguous as to whether the netcode will be weak enough to allow netplay-unblockable Greed Severing to flourish. It can be argued that only 1 of 3 reactable Greed Severs shown was correctly answered, but this could have been for a variety of reasons besides latency. The two Greed Severs that opened-up the player blocking low might have simply succeeded from having been "clutch" or "random-as-balls".
The total number of Greed Severs attempted13, or 2.6 per roundis an above-average number of Greed Severs for an experienced player to attempt, but is about average for your run-of-the-mill Ky scrub. Not knowing the Ky player's offline level of play, it is impossible to determine whether he knew that latency would hinder the opponent's Greed Sever-blocking, or if he just simply enjoys the move.
It should be noted, however, that the Ky did manage to successfully block one Eddie 18-frame 6K overhead, which may not bode well for those who were banking on a leisurely unblockable-18-frame-overhead Steam-experience.
Recommendations: Further investment in testing is recommended
so somebody sponsor me already.
...
Sorry. I think I'm bored and feel nostalgic about writing lab reports or something. :V
I just noticed that the GGXXAC+R Steam page has a video uploaded of two ArcSys testers netplaying each other on a 3-bar connection. Seeing as one of them was using Ky, I found myself counting the number of Greed Sever attempts and their results.
Hypothesis: By studying the players' use of and reactions to netplay Greed Sever, we can ascertain the quality of GGXXAC+RSE's netcode before it is even released.
Findings: - 13 Greed Severs attempted over the course of the video's 5 rounds
- 0 were blocked standing
- 2 opened up the opponent crouch-blocking
- 2 were blocked in the air (one likely on reaction, one naturally in footsies)
- 5 stuffed the opponent's mashing/jumping forward
- 1 landed as part of a CH combo (was intended as a blockstring mixup)
- 3 whiffed
Discussion: It still appears ambiguous as to whether the netcode will be weak enough to allow netplay-unblockable Greed Severing to flourish. It can be argued that only 1 of 3 reactable Greed Severs shown was correctly answered, but this could have been for a variety of reasons besides latency. The two Greed Severs that opened-up the player blocking low might have simply succeeded from having been "clutch" or "random-as-balls".
The total number of Greed Severs attempted13, or 2.6 per roundis an above-average number of Greed Severs for an experienced player to attempt, but is about average for your run-of-the-mill Ky scrub. Not knowing the Ky player's offline level of play, it is impossible to determine whether he knew that latency would hinder the opponent's Greed Sever-blocking, or if he just simply enjoys the move.
It should be noted, however, that the Ky did manage to successfully block one Eddie 18-frame 6K overhead, which may not bode well for those who were banking on a leisurely unblockable-18-frame-overhead Steam-experience.
Recommendations: Further investment in testing is recommended
so somebody sponsor me already.
...
Sorry. I think I'm bored and feel nostalgic about writing lab reports or something. :V
Information is a must in learning anything. Info dumps are used now because people who can comprehend that info (i.e. think critically about the information) can take it, apply it, and teach it to others.
Granted, not everyone is up to the task nor is everyone interested. But without getting that information from somewhere, nothing really changes.
When people say they want better tutorials, what they're really saying is "I wish someone could hold on to this player's hand and coach them through the entire experience." But the problems with this are:
1) People usually aren't willing to or are incapable of proper coaching
2) Coaching does not guarantee a player will learn or will wish to learn
Personally, I blame players. Info is there, matches can be had, learning can be done... I understand that things aren't perfect and organized but that's not an excuse. Are people really just unwilling to learn on their own and waiting for skill to be given to them on a silver platter?
A great DOA5 guide stream is going on right now for those who want to pick a high level player's mind. http://www.twitch.tv/hajinshinobi
He's doing a Ayane guide.
I just think sometimes people don't know what they should learn. I mean look at that picture Blackule posted. A lot of people don't understand things like punishing or baiting
I just think sometimes people don't know what they should learn. I mean look at that picture Blackule posted. A lot of people don't understand things like punishing or baiting
He said THawk is -bullshit-. What will happen if he receives a comprehensive explanation of how cmd grabs can be beaten on startup, baited, punished, etc?
I have a feeling he'll say "meh, whatever, this game sucks" and go play Hearthstone.
My point is that it really depends more on the person than anything else. Making better tutorials is a great idea but I firmly believe this issue is far more psychological than logistical.
He said THawk is -bullshit-. What will happen if he receives a comprehensive explanation of how cmd grabs can be beaten on startup, baited, punished, etc?
I have a feeling he'll say "meh, whatever, this game sucks" and go play Hearthstone.
My point is that it really depends more on the person than anything else. Making better tutorials is a great idea but I firmly believe this issue is far more psychological than logistical.
It is ALL psychological. Unless there is a way of making learning the game as fun as playing other games more fun we will always get into this area. That is why I say the developers and the community is not suited up to this task.
He said THawk is -bullshit-. What will happen if he receives a comprehensive explanation of how cmd grabs can be beaten on startup, baited, punished, etc?
I have a feeling he'll say "meh, whatever, this game sucks" and go play Hearthstone.
My point is that it really depends more on the person than anything else. Making better tutorials is a great idea but I firmly believe this issue is far more psychological than logistical.
well I think the lack of understanding how to defeat an obstacle can be a huge hampering in the enjoyment of a game. If he does not understand how to punish T Hawk's Tamohawk or bait cmd while a T Hawk is just doing them with no care in the world, anyone will just stop playing and go to Heartstone. For me, it seems like his frustrations root from the believe that these two special moves are extremely strong techniques and just doing the move can lead to victory while the more conscious person knows that's not the case. If someone truly enjoys playing a game and they learn how to defeat certain situations that they at first deemed unbeatable, that can be a huge factor in someone continuing that game but the game has to be "fun".
As to the guy hating thawk because he does not know how to deal with it, I really can't say it's a character flaw, some could argue if you are sitting through all of that to reach ground level there is something loopy with you.
The real issue is learning all your options against somebody that much better than you while it being fun, is an issue. You gotta be insane for that.
It's a very good guide. Even if you don't know how the character goes it can show you how she goes about the game and shows how the game can flow for all characters.
LMAO @ the vitriol, this is nearing bitchslapping family tree levels of funny.
That said, as a guy who went through most of Marvel 3's meta, nothing was as simultaneously amusing and annoying as the Dante stuff between Vanilla and Ultimate. It got so bad that legitimate concerns about the character's design would trigger 10 pages of vitriol because of people getting assmad about how vanilla Dante was blessed by God and could think you out of existence off a s.L.
On the other side of the spectrum were the people who thought a character with a half dozen 360 degree attacks, some of the greatest assists (including one that is the second best vertical assist & best lock down assist in the game free), terrifying neutral and a mess of character specific BS that would ensure he'd have a spot in every meta to come in Marvel could be anything less than top 10-12 on an individual grading rubric.
He said THawk is -bullshit-. What will happen if he receives a comprehensive explanation of how cmd grabs can be beaten on startup, baited, punished, etc?
I have a feeling he'll say "meh, whatever, this game sucks" and go play Hearthstone.
My point is that it really depends more on the person than anything else. Making better tutorials is a great idea but I firmly believe this issue is far more psychological than logistical.
That's also a given, game design has always been about manipulating human psychology. But from my point of view it's working around the way people behave rather than trying to go against it.
That's also a given, game design has always been about manipulating human psychology. But from my point of view it's working around the way people behave rather than trying to go against it.
That is what I am suggesting. I find many of the frustrations of some of the fg evangelists comes from they are trying to change human behavior rather than working with it.
It is also why I say the devs and the fanbase are not equipped to actually make the games have more mass appeal until they understand that.
Figure out why they don't want to put in the time. If it's because they're lazy fucks and would drop out a week into the game's life regardless, who cares about them. If it's because they don't have access to the tools to get them into the positive gameplay "loop", fix that.
That's the developer's job to make learning the game fun, people will never get invested ina game when it has a hard stigma, a tactless community and a really bad way of teaching people outside of it's target market.
It will take many things. A dialogue between outsiders and people who are in the system that can communicate and build understanding, then you pass that on to developers and using those two groups can iterate. Or you get a decent size player pool at launch with proper incentives and you get a more gentle skill curve. The latter is the natural progression as things are now, but it's hard to do in the outset.
The former would be harder still because it will take some iteration and a different development pipeline. Either way could be lucrative with the right systems behind it (Costumes like DOA or some way of co0opintg side bets with the developers holding the purse strings)
But is the community and developers ready to do either? I doubt it.
yep in my experience this seems to work to some degree, especially if they've got kindling for a competitive flame to be lit
instead of being nice just tell them that if they want to be competitive they're gonna have to put in the work one way or the other- if they don't care about that then why bother asking for someone to teach 'em?
i mean, you're still going to have to provide them with the tools to understand how to improve and keep an open line for when they've got questions in approaching stuff but it has to be on their prerogative to improve and explore on their own.
i personally believe people need a rival or a nemesis to really get that fire going/keep it burning though- lotta flames tend to die out due to folks feeling complacent or not feeling like they'll ever improve and having that burning desire of competition or hate helps
although i personally think im a godawful teacher (despite others saying otherwise?) so maybe im full of shit idk
Some of the reponses here are exactly why I say some of the getting some people's fires kindled is going to be an issue with both the devs and the community.
You can't call somebody a lazy fuck if they don't have the vocabulary to understand the game and run into frustration with no help how to get it. How much of you ever got into a game without ANY help it all just clicked to you?
That is what I am suggesting. I find many of the frustrations of some of the fg evangelists comes from they are trying to change human behavior rather than working with it.
That's the developer's job to make learning the game fun, people will never get invested ina game when it has a hard stigma, a tactless community and a really bad way of teaching people outside of it's target market.
It will take many things. A dialogue between outsiders and people who are in the system that can communicate and build understanding, then you pass that on to developers and using those two groups can iterate. Or you get a decent size player pool at launch with proper incentives and you get a more gentle skill curve. The latter is the natural progression as things are now, but it's hard to do in the outset.
The former would be harder still because it will take some iteration and a different development pipeline. Either way could be lucrative with the right systems behind it (Costumes like DOA or some way of co0opintg side bets with the developers holding the purse strings)
But is the community and developers ready to do either? I doubt it.
The problem is learning comes from an attitude of accepting losing- but the nature of most fighting games is to punish for losing. This becomes worse in ranked mode systems.
I'd say, at least in the netplay environment where the majority of people learn, ranked mode systems are a problem- because they make losing too enraging for many folks.
If I was designing an online mode- I would either have a completely hidden ELO ranking that I'd make efforts to obfuscate as much as possible, or I'd disable ranked entirely (too bad Microsoft requires a ranked mode in games)
Some of the reponses here are exactly why I say some of the getting some people's fires kindled is going to be an issue with both the devs and the community.
You can't call somebody a lazy fuck if they don't have the vocabulary to understand the game and run into frustration with no help how to get it. How much of you ever got into a game without ANY help it all just clicked to you?
First of all, if they're expecting you to do the work for them, like how the question was framed, then you're damn right I'm gonna call them a lazy fuck.
Secondly, Dissidia clicked with me since the first time I tried the demo. Someone eventually pointed me to Dissidia Forums after beating me online a few months into the game's life, and that was that.
Sure, conditioning, that's a thing fighting game fans should be familiar with right?
I just don't think there is enough time/money/will to actually do that in service of making fighting games more popular.
There was a lot of hype around that 500,000K capcom cup announcement, but how did that reflect in the competitive scene? In the long term how will it reflect in the player population for SF5, that also remains to be determined.
You can't call somebody a lazy fuck if they don't have the vocabulary to understand the game and run into frustration with no help how to get it. How much of you ever got into a game without ANY help it all just clicked to you?
The problem is learning comes from an attitude of accepting losing- but the nature of most fighting games is to punish for losing. This becomes worse in ranked mode systems.
I'd say, at least in the netplay environment where the majority of people learn, ranked mode systems are a problem- because they make losing too enraging for many folks.
If I was designing an online mode- I would either have a completely hidden ELO ranking that I'd make efforts to obfuscate as much as possible, or I'd disable ranked entirely (too bad Microsoft requires a ranked mode in games)
