| Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
| Replies:
|
| Time Mage 491th Post
 
Gold Customer
    
    
|  "Re(1):The Moriarty Fighting Scale (Ver 0.5)"
, posted Sat 11 May 14:02
Hmmmm... I'm Mid Intermediate, a 5.
I can do all motions in the game, I know a decent amount of tactics and combos for several characters, and I defeat the non-expert people.
Since I don't own the game, and no arcade that I know has it, I play at a friend's house, and not very often, exactly. I have played 5 or 6 times, an average of 2 hours the session, so I know I can get better, when I have the game and practice.
My current team is Vega(claw) R1, Guile R1, and Kim R2, in C or P groove. My fighting style is poke-poke-poke and mind games, so I don't have to rely on practice too much. When I get the game for my future GC, I supose I'll rank 6 or 7, but for now, 5 describes me.
|
| Juke Joint Jezebel 324th Post
Bronze Customer
|  "eek"
, posted Sat 11 May 20:06
huh
well i chose an 8. when i first played the game, i think i was probably a 3, but after playing at my university arcade, my friends and i have learned a lot from the people there
unfortunately, i can only play this well at home with a DC or PS controller. with a joystick, i'm probably a 5. then again, i can't even pull off simple moves with a joystick, so maybe i'm lower 
since my friends don't visit this board regularly, i'll speak for them. one of my friends, ralph, is probably a 4 or a 5. he still just throws out moves, hoping they'll hit. i don't blame him though. he doesn't own the game at home. he does pretty good for someone who doesn't play the game often. my other friend, noel, is an 8. whenever we fight, it's a tossup as to who wins
|
| Crimson
148th Post
Regular Customer
| "Re(3):The Moriarty Fighting Scale (Ver 0.5)" , posted Sat 11 May 22:12
quote:
So, any suggestions to making the scale better? I want to eventually be able to make the scale more universaly adaptive to other fighter games. I used CvS2 for now since it's the most popular on net.
Basically, a rank difference of 1 is supposed to be able to compete fair, but a rank difference of 2 is almost a one-way game.
In example, a Low-Intermediate player would be able to beat a Mid-Novice or lower without even thinking. But the player sometimes loses against a High-Novice. The player can beat a Mid-Intermediate opponent, but a beating a High-intermediate opponent is highly unlikely by .
I would have to say I am about a 9.
I say this because I am a high competiteve player who has played and beaten some of the top Midwest players ( where I live )including VDO, Bone, Forgo, and floe. Some people play sports competeivly, I play CvS2/MvC2 as if it were a sport itself.
|
| Time Mage 496th Post
Gold Customer
| "Some suggestions." , posted Sun 12 May 05:35
quote:
So, any suggestions to making the scale better? I want to eventually be able to make the scale more universaly adaptive to other fighter games. I used CvS2 for now since it's the most popular on net.
Basically, a rank difference of 1 is supposed to be able to compete fair, but a rank difference of 2 is almost a one-way game.
In example, a Low-Intermediate player would be able to beat a Mid-Novice or lower without even thinking. But the player sometimes loses against a High-Novice. The player can beat a Mid-Intermediate opponent, but a beating a High-intermediate opponent is highly unlikely by skill.
quote:
6- High Intermediate:: Can guard cancel on a single hit guard at a success rate of over 70%. Has lots of breathing room for tactics.
I don't see the utility of this description. I mean, guard cancel is not that important in the game, due to the lack of damage ad not-so-high prority of the guard cancel attacks. Also, not all grooves have this. So, saying that a player is High Intermediate because he/she can GC 70% of the time at the first guarded hit is not significant, for me.
I would add to the scale something like: I can play (bad/decent/good/very good) (few/some/many/all) of the characters. That suits better. The tactics description is usefull. Also, you could put some about the comboing ability.
That's my 2 cents (of Euro  )
|
| Professor 1538th Post
MMCafe Owner
     
| "Re(1):Some suggestions." , posted Sun 12 May 07:56
quote:
6- High Intermediate:: Can guard cancel on a single hit guard at a success rate of over 70%. Has lots of breathing room for tactics.
I don't see the utility of this description. I mean, guard cancel is not that important in the game, due to the lack of damage ad not-so-high prority of the guard cancel attacks. Also, not all grooves have this. So, saying that a player is High Intermediate because he/she can GC 70% of the time at the first guarded hit is not significant, for me.
I would add to the scale something like: I can play (bad/decent/good/very good) (few/some/many/all) of the characters. That suits better. The tactics description is usefull. Also, you could put some about the comboing ability.
That's my 2 cents (of Euro )
Humm true, thanks. Btw, got some advice for comboing ability?
One I was thinking was being able to stop combos in the middle depending if they're guarded or not. low intermediate players imo, tend to go all the way regardless if it's a clear hit or not.
Finally Commas Can be used in the signature.
|
| Gojira 384th Post
Silver Customer
| "Re(2):Some suggestions." , posted Mon 13 May 00:52
I'm a 6, I guess. I play against a lot of 6s, 7s and 8s though, so I have a hard time.
quote:
One I was thinking was being able to stop combos in the middle depending if they're guarded or not. low intermediate players imo, tend to go all the way regardless if it's a clear hit or not.
Hmm, it's a little more complicated... for your example it actually depends on the combo. If stopping a combo means no tick/guard damage and puts you at a disadvantage than even an expert would continue the combo assuming it was safe and the opponent couldn't do anything about it. You are right though, if the player does an Aragami chain and it's blocked the lower levels would probably continue to the third hit of the chain and get punished for it, while higher level might stop at the second or first hit.
On a scale, I think experts are more inventive of combos, they use them in the specific situations where they're most useful. Lower-level players just try to find a combo to use in any situation and even lower lever players use easy combos that really don't do them much good even if they hit. After that it's just comboless scrubs. And obviously the higher the level the less human error.
|
| Burning Kyo 270th Post
Copper Customer
|  "Re(1):Fuckin' a. SRK people give me a headach"
, posted Mon 13 May 02:57
quote:
True that, I'll think about it more thoroughly. I don't see much people getting perfects though, since that means not even a pixel of chip damage... hummmn, what'd be a beter explanation for the top scales..
That's what I expect when one reaches the highest peak of gaming though... ;p
Parry gods and Just defend gods could manage that more easily... I think. But that case'd only work for a few games. Or the highest rank could be something like 'Jobless, lives off winning tournaments'.
That would be a 10 silly. Go look at Valle, Combo Fiend, etc. No jobs or crappy jobs. But they are the best.
 Have you already played against a asian players ?
You make me laugh chump ...
Nope, I haven't had a chance to play Bas and the rest of the asian guys. But, I do know that they play similar in style. But whatever. Don't be such a cock. This isn't SRK. Flaming for no reason just makes you look immature. 'Sides it a fucking game. Don't tell me you're another one of those people going to give up all ambition in life to play video games? Don't act so high and mighty. You didn't even get the point of my post. It ment you have to be a dead beat loser to be the best. It's the same in Japan. Which is why I will never be a 10. Cause frankly it is a GAME. Even if you win Evolution. At most you get 7000 dollars. How about you get a real job instead?
No, it isn't flamming 'n I'm not a SRK member !
It just seems that you're a little bit too boastful ...
'N yes, I'm student who work hard !
PS : me too, I don't like so much this game (I prefer KOF)
|
| ninjabastard 556th Post
New Red Carpet Member
 
| "ok ok" , posted Mon 13 May 03:53:
quote:
True that, I'll think about it more thoroughly. I don't see much people getting perfects though, since that means not even a pixel of chip damage... hummmn, what'd be a beter explanation for the top scales..
That's what I expect when one reaches the highest peak of gaming though... ;p
Parry gods and Just defend gods could manage that more easily... I think. But that case'd only work for a few games. Or the highest rank could be something like 'Jobless, lives off winning tournaments'.
That would be a 10 silly. Go look at Valle, Combo Fiend, etc. No jobs or crappy jobs. But they are the best.
Have you already played against a asian players ?
You make me laugh chump ...
Nope, I haven't had a chance to play Bas and the rest of the asian guys. But, I do know that they play similar in style. But whatever. Don't be such a cock. This isn't SRK. Flaming for no reason just makes you look immature. 'Sides it a fucking game. Don't tell me you're another one of those people going to give up all ambition in life to play video games? Don't act so high and mighty. You didn't even get the point of my post. It ment you have to be a dead beat loser to be the best. It's the same in Japan. Which is why I will never be a 10. Cause frankly it is a GAME. Even if you win Evolution. At most you get 7000 dollars. How about you get a real job instead?
No, it isn't flamming 'n I'm not a SRK member !
It just seems that you're a little bit too boastful ...
'N yes, I'm student who work hard !
PS : me too, I don't like so much this game (I prefer KOF)
I thought I saw your name on SRK. Well I guess Kyo is just too common of a screen name. Anyway the asians aren't invinsable. They suck at MvC2. The americans own in any game with Marvel in it. I can do well agaisnt the top US players. If you think you're really good just go to golfland. When I first went there I was owned. But, I got a lot better in 6 months. But, I still can't roll cancel on command that well. I can get it maybe 30-45% of the time(I don't play rolling grooves). But after playing against roll canceling. It's not as strong as I thought. It doesn't change my play style of parry/jd, then attack. Oh yeah like 2 weeks ago someone with P-groove won the Cal State tounry. He even beat A-groove players. A-groove scares me.
Edit: I wish SNK gamers where as organized as Capcom gamers. If you're in California. Goto Arcade Infinty for KOF competion
[this message was edited by ninjabastard on Mon 13 May 03:58] |
| Ultima
240th Post
Frequent Customer
| "Re(3):Some suggestions." , posted Mon 13 May 12:34
quote:
On a scale, I think experts are more inventive of combos, they use them in the specific situations where they're most useful.
Combos are not necessarily an indication of how "good" (or skillful, if you prefer) a player is. COmbos could mean that a person just has a lot of time on their hands. It doesn't necessarily translate into that person's ability to win, which is really the ultimate criteria of how good someone is at a game, though one's competition must be considered.
Combos are a tool to be used, and it's generally difficult to win if you don't have at least a certain level of competancy in them (it depends on the game), but it doesn't necessarily mean you capable of winning tournaments.
Take Mike Z for example - those who've known him for a long time and have seen his combo vids know he is extremely inventive by his ability to find crazy combos and weird glitches (for those know don't know, I'd say about 80% of all of MvC2's known glitches were found by him first). But he has zero tournament experience (I think?). For all of the shit he can pull off, being able to set it up against a real opponent under stressful conditions makes his comboing skills moot. In other words, a combo is not good if you can't actually *land* the thing.
Experts know when to combo, as well as they also know when NOT to combo - i.e. when the tradeoff in lesser damage results in something far more beneficial in the long run, like a positional advantage or more super meter. That type of thing. They also know the value of utility - if my strongest combo is strong, fierce, roundhouse, dp+k (Strider's "Golden Ghram" combo in MvC), then I do that when I want damage. Generally, I'm not going to waste my time with fancy shit like full ground hunter chain into fb+p just because it looks better. If it serves no purpose, then I don't do it. Simple as that.
So I don't think combos should be a real criteria in the scale. After all, I know a number of players who can perform combos much better than I can, but they can't beat me.
ObCvS2: I would say I used to hover between a 6 and a 7, though now that I'm several months removed from serious competition, I've dropped down to a 5 (and getting worse). Blah...
--
Ultima - The Right arm of Scrub Voltron
http://uramble.com/index.html - U's Rambling Page
|
| Time Mage 507th Post
New Red Carpet Member
| "Combos do count (but aren't vital)" , posted Tue 14 May 05:19
quote:
Combos are not necessarily an indication of how "good" (or skillful, if you prefer) a player is. COmbos could mean that a person just has a lot of time on their hands. It doesn't necessarily translate into that person's ability to win, which is really the ultimate criteria of how good someone is at a game, though one's competition must be considered.
Combos are a tool to be used, and it's generally difficult to win if you don't have at least a certain level of competancy in them (it depends on the game), but it doesn't necessarily mean you capable of winning tournaments.
Take Mike Z for example - those who've known him for a long time and have seen his combo vids know he is extremely inventive by his ability to find crazy combos and weird glitches (for those know don't know, I'd say about 80% of all of MvC2's known glitches were found by him first). But he has zero tournament experience (I think?). For all of the shit he can pull off, being able to set it up against a real opponent under stressful conditions makes his comboing skills moot. In other words, a combo is not good if you can't actually *land* the thing.
Experts know when to combo, as well as they also know when NOT to combo - i.e. when the tradeoff in lesser damage results in something far more beneficial in the long run, like a positional advantage or more super meter. That type of thing. They also know the value of utility - if my strongest combo is strong, fierce, roundhouse, dp+k (Strider's "Golden Ghram" combo in MvC), then I do that when I want damage. Generally, I'm not going to waste my time with fancy shit like full ground hunter chain into fb+p just because it looks better. If it serves no purpose, then I don't do it. Simple as that.
So I don't think combos should be a real criteria in the scale. After all, I know a number of players who can perform combos much better than I can, but they can't beat me.
Agree partially:
Combos are not that important, but they play a very decisive role in many matches.
I'm myself mora a poker than a comboer (hey, I use Vega), but combos and safe strings are of vital importance. It's just that they're not the most determining factor, but they count for sure.
|
|
|
"Re(6):Some suggestions." 
