Hate Speech: Degeneracy (Competition)

[LP]

[quote="Digitality, post: 302982"
that's a mistake I (like to believe lol) wouldn't even leave myself open to making. It's a very basic positioning error that was the result of riding the pressure you had for too long.[/quote]

Errbody gets hit by them. In preparing for one thing, you'll always leave yourself open to another. Still, you should come to NEC so I can show you. This isn't a challenge or anything - just something to show you facets to the game you may not believe in yet.

 

[MONEYMUFFINS]

Digitality: As long as everyone doesn't have good access to the same types of abilities, and someone is losing from it, I won't believe the player is at fault as much as the character.

 

[Digitality]

that's a mistake I (like to believe lol) wouldn't even leave myself open to making. It's a very basic positioning error that was the result of riding the pressure you had for too long.

Errbody gets hit by them. In preparing for one thing, you'll always leave yourself open to another. Still, you should come to NEC so I can show you. This isn't a challenge or anything - just something to show you facets to the game you may not believe in yet.

I actually might attend NEC if funds/time allow. I know for sure I want to be active with SC5 to really bring my game play to the next level. I've been looking at it seeing if I can swing it. My ex lives just outside of Philly and she wants me to come visit sometime anyway saying east coast living beats anything else. At the very least I'd hopefully have a place to crash for a few days.

I'm in no way saying I play a perfect game, mistakes happen and openings occur, or the matches would rarely result in KOs at all if they didn't. Hell, Vincent backing out to the middle might not even have resulted in a win, it's unknowable what would have occurred. That's just what I'd have been predisposed to doing knowing that I could eat a combo for half life on the wall there. Even then, we can go into a match with a game plan at the ready and either change it on the fly, or have judgement lapses and fail to stick to it at times.

I have a pretty wide open view as to believe in many facets of the game.

Digitality: As long as everyone doesn't have good access to the same types of abilities, and someone is losing from it, I won't believe the player is at fault as much as the character.

I have to continue to disagree here. You essentially have free reign to choose the tool set you want to use at your own discretion. If they were all essentially equal without differing strengths and weaknesses then this choice offered to the player would be superficial in the context of play. What's important is making them viable to use within the limits of their differences.

I play modern warfare as well, and to draw a comparison, if I lose a firefight in close quarters because the other guy has a shotgun and I didn't take one that's a death I just have to accept. It's a weakness I willingly chose to take to have some other strength in my arsenal. I won't always lose that shoot out because the circumstances can always differ, but in that situation I'm inherently at a disadvantage.

It's such variation that allows for deeper game play dynamics. I'm glad that each match up makes things different and has impact on the decisions we make.

 

[MONEYMUFFINS]

It's superficial either way. A specialized character is superficial because they're gimmicky, and a balanced character is superficial because they're unoriginal. But if you want to measure skill, why assume that balance is irrelevant? It should be top priority. Thinking otherwise gets into an unnecessary grey area and accuses players too much about things that aren't even necessarily true. "If you did this you would've won." Well, guess what, as LP said, by focusing on one thing you leave yourself open to another, and you can't just presume that your take on it is superior when you're not the one in the arena. Your mindset is not better than mine unless you can compete with as many people as I can. Those are my final thoughts unless you have something new to add.

 

[Digitality]

It's superficial either way. A specialized character is superficial because they're gimmicky, and a balanced character is superficial because they're unoriginal. But if you want to measure skill, why assume that balance is irrelevant? It should be top priority. Thinking otherwise gets into an unnecessary grey area and accuses players too much about things that aren't even necessarily true. "If you did this you would've won." Well, guess what, as LP said, by focusing on one thing you leave yourself open to another, and you can't just presume that your take on it is superior when you're not the one in the arena. Your mindset is not better than mine unless you can compete with as many people as I can. Those are my final thoughts unless you have something new to add.

I've been cordial. You're starting to be contemptuous. You're also putting words in my mouth. I never said "if you did this you would've won." What I did say was that what you did do lost you a single round. I mentioned how I would've handled the scenario, but I also said that it would be difficult to definitively say that it would have turned out any better. There's a very distinct difference there.

Do you really believe that balance can't exist with variation? That's a simple approach to balance. It's the easy method that requires no depth. Balance does not have to mean that all characters are exactly the same, only that capacity for victory is equally viable.

I've not said balance is irrelevant, but that it does not have to be approached in a 1 for 1 manner. Especially not in a fighting game where a character is essentially defined by their move set.

Do I really have to define superficial? How is a playstyle choice superficial when it directly effects how you are going play the game and how you're going to approach a match up? The choice would only be superficial if it had no meaning below the surface. If character choice was only for graphical appeal and flavor preference, then it really would be superficial.

Nor have I suggested that my mindset is better than yours, but are you really going to argue that you didn't make an error there that you clearly did? Do I need some sort of certification to point out the obvious?

I'm beginning to regret having highlighted an example at all. I didn't think it would be met with such sensitivity.