Belial: I don't think the reward is absolute. The most we can do is lower the probability. And I feel that that is very important.
Instant win = absolute reward. Isnt it?
As a side note: I like mathmathical approach to the game and I also has been playing long enough to separate useless theory (which brings ill-fame to so-called "theory-fighting") and useful one. So what I do when I face a dilemma in a game is sit down and do some math, then do some adjustments according to psycology and my experience and try to work it out in next session and see how it turns out. And fun thing is, even on walled stage, damage evaluations for Hilde is ridiculous.
But lets get back for a sec. Minimizing the risks only mean something as long as you can keep the reward ratio high enough. Minimizing the risks at the cost of decreasing damage opportunities is useless. (i.e. risking big once to deal 50% damage and risking small 5 times to deal 10% each time is basically the same risk)
Also what makes EVERY strategy appliable only as a gimick is that you cannot depend on any kind of mix-up as your primary damage dealer, and most of the times have to capitalize on your opponents mistake and flaws in general gameplan.
Good strategy should feature a potent mix up, that, given opportunity to apply required number of times, should aquire victory. Mix up is something, your opponent cannot defend against with a monotonous defence. Something, he has to take risks while defending against.
Apply your strats here and see there is no such thing against Hilde. So every strategy is a gimmick. So it basically will come down to just how much reward can a gimick strategy provide. While some characters can hope for a quick resolution (and yes, they will be taking lots of risk in the process) in their favor, simply outguessing in a somthing like 3 to 1 ratio, other's have to outguess twice as much. Now consider how much consecutively correct guesses you will need to win and just by simple statistic see it's improbable. That's exactly why it may be possible to win 1 match against hilde, but nearly impossible to win a FT 5. And might I add, that
"guessing correctly" has never had anything to do with skill. It's pure luck, or gamble.
I can adress the other part of common delusion about minimizing risks and "never doing mistakes". I think I've already adressed part of what "mistake" is in the above text. From certain pointview EVERYTHING is mistake vs Hilde. There can be a calculatable situations (i.e. C3B on block) which allow to punish opponent for being predictable (i.e. 1A will interrupt C3A), but if you consider your opponent can jump over 1A and RO you, this suddenly no longer has "little risk". All he need to to is to read your, already limited by C3A, decision.
But that is not what I wished to talk about, but that
initial concept of doing that kind of "mistakes" is hard coded in human brain, that is, by brain being a pattern-based "machine". In game (SC) you dont have time to ponder about your decicions and take everything into account. More than anything your "patterns" will fire accordingly to estimate of situation. I dont know if you hope to create a specific responce to every situation at every possible angle of the arena (refering to spacing issue) , which is highly unlikely, but even if you can it will still will not work quite as well.
I.e. inside your brain you have a pattern template called *C3B on guard*, which has a subtemplate *C3B on guard with your back to the RO* , those patterns have a hierarchy - one of them is more likely to fire than the other, based of, generally, how often you use either. Meaning, that once you lose concentration (which happen with anybody quite often) , pattern with highest priority will fire = mistake = ring out.
I tried to make it as simple as I could, I'm still not sure if it's understandable.
I still believe Hilde is beatable with some characters, but is a chore to do so. It is not fun.
I find dealing with overwhelming power with skill - challenging. Having to deal with overwhelming power with luck - frustrating and stupid.
I'm okay with people who are fond of the latter. But they and me - are not playing the same game.
I still believe Hilde does not encompass good, or smart play. I think her tools are too good to develop strategies and matchup knowledge. Some people may do this, but eventually same reasons and notions of risk/reward as I described kick in, and very little of what is considered actual skill is left. Her kind of step, where you can step anything to either side, or backdash anything - also doesnt enforce learning and knowledge.
I find Hilde simple and uninteresting to use and play. I believe only people who love to WIN, not actually PLAY - pick her. I know Sirlin's book influenced a lot of minds, but in its core, I believe there is something seriously wrong with people who wish to "win no matter what" in a videogame. Some people just enjoy being esteemed better than the others, but some enjoy actually outperforming others.
I'm totally okay with the former, but they and me - are not playing the same game.
The reason for this wall of text is that I just felt like making an excuse for my, somewhat, scrub mentality. But those who know me and played me, know I always was and am, a hard working player. Always striving to step my game up and get over my losses.
I know I've offended many Hilde players with my posts. Maybe after they read this they will understand me better, and forgive me or think of me as yet another scrub (at least in mind).
My offer at proving that two years of holding down the buttons havent made a good player off anyone still stands though. If you're up to an eye-opener on your real skill. My Yun Seong vs your secondary whatever it may be (by WGC rules) FT 10 where you only need to win 4. I'd put money on this by your demand.
A
