Hate Speech: A Formal Introduction

For those of you who don't know me, my name is BrianHatesYou, or just plain Hates, and I think it's time we all had a little chat....

This is the inaugural installment of what will be a regular column in which I'll be discussing issues pertinent to the community. What's fair game?

Match video analysis, developing the right mindset for competitive play, a breakdown of new mechanics for Soul Calibur 5 as they're released and how those might be used strategically, and almost anything else Calibur-related. The goal here is to spark debate and push everyone to think deeply about why and how we play fighting games--there might even be homework. That said, I suspect there will be plenty in here of interest to the more casual player. Let's face it, we're all staring down the barrel of Zwei's outfit and his totally bitchin' crescent moon tattoo/birthmark--character design arguments, anyone?

Seriously, look at this thing. Look. At. It.​

Know Thy Enemy

Before launching into any of that, however, it's worth taking a little time to introduce myself more thoroughly. I've been competing in Soul Calibur since the arcade release of SC2, and in that time I've built a reputation as a highly skilled player and notorious misanthrope charmer, which means I can speak from firsthand experience. Moreover, in my "day job" as a PhD student, I'm actually doing research that deals explicitly with games and the development of expertise, and I've even taught a class on games at Stanford. Hopefully this will establish that, despite my recent inactivity in the scene, I am still in possession of a brain worth picking.

In a sense, that is a substantial part of what inspired me to begin writing a column. Not long ago, Omega from the Dominican Republic (a legendary player and one of my all-time favorite opponents) contacted me and asked what I thought of the GI changes Daishi had then recently tweeted. He was pissed. I was annoyed, too, at first glance, but what evolved from that initial shock was a conversation in which the two of us allowed the cruelest, most malevolent parts of ourselves to devise ways in which these new mechanics could potentially be turned into real competitive advantages. Our reservations remained intact, but they were tempered by the hint of possibility. Before he signed off of our chat, Omega closed by urging me to talk about these sorts of things with more people, so I promptly went out and found myself a soapbox.

As you may have gathered, I only play characters with giant junk.​

A Thought Experiment

Now that we have dispensed with the obligatory first post fluff, we can get down to something more interesting.

"Introductions and real content in one post," you say. "Hates, you spoil us!"

Yes, yes I do. In deference to considerations of space, however, this will be somewhat brief. In fact, brevity is crucial here because what follows is an attempt to sum up an entire philosophy of high level play in one thought: The Hates Fundamental Rule of Fighting Games.

The Fundamental Rule states that if, at any time while you are playing a match, someone could hypothetically pause the game and ask you why you just made a particular decision, you must be able to offer a clear and reasonable explanation for your choices.

In principle, what this means is that there should be a definite logic to one's decision-making at all times. In practice, it's damn hard, but it will also force you to become a more thoughtful player. Consider how often you execute a particular attack just hoping to randomly connect. Consider how often an opponent lands a throw attempt and you mash A or B in a blind guess. Now consider the alternatives. What if you choose an offensive option based on how it affects your ring position? What if, when it's time to break a throw, you realize that your opponent has a specific, predictable pattern of which he may not even be aware? These little marginal changes collectively yield serious competitive advantages.

Most elite-level players are incredibly good at recognizing such patterns and otherwise exploiting their deep knowledge in order to pull out win after win. Of course, when you ask them (and I have), they'll often say that whatever they were doing "feels" right. This instinctive play can be incredibly powerful, but unfortunately it also lends credence to the notion that winning against the best requires some innate mystical gift. It's time to cut the Miss Cleo psychic garbage. Some players do possess a natural talent for recognizing patterns and reading the types of scenarios that arise within fighting games, but we can learn to do the same thing. The Fundamental Rule exists to facilitate this; developing the habit of overtly thinking through one's split-second decisions may seem awkward at first, but over time it gets internalized, and smart play is very hard to beat.

Homework:
What are your Fundamental Rules of fighting games? Let's see if we can make a list. Or, alternatively, tell me why that's all a load of crap and "feeling it out" is the only way to play--I'll get a kick out of the, ahem, civil debate.

 

I just ask myself questions.

Why am I winning? Why am I losing?
What should I practice? What needs improvement?
What are my habits? How do I get less predictable?
What are my opponents habits? What's he's goal? What's he's style?
Is he aggressive? Is he passive?
How do I counter that? How do I exploit that and make it a disadvantage?
How are my nerves? How do I concentrate better? How do I make less mistakes?
How bad do I want to win really?
How can I kill the SOB seating next to me? How can I destroy him? How do I make him so afraid that he's fingers start shaking? How do I make him freeze? I need to cut down his thinking. I need to pressure him. I need to corner him. How do I bring fear into my opponent?

He's not my friend. He's my enemy. And I must destroy him. Decimate him. Completely cripple him and bring him to his knees.

There's more to it than that but that's my mentality when I am getting into a tournament mindset.

 

One of the best thread on this site.
Some rules I follow are:

1) If it works keep using it. If a certain mix up is working or if and strat is effective I will keep using it.

2)Try to always mix it up to avoid becoming predictable and to keep the opponent always on edge.

3) Observe if the opponent is a rush down or turtle player and try to play accordingly.

4)Why did I lose, or why did I win.

 

I've been waiting for column like this...

I'm just like you Hates, I prefer to have some sort of logical thought process behind everything I do. I don't think that my ability to play by instinct is as strong as a lot of other players'.

I find that if I pause a match right at a point where a decision needs to be made, I can usually analyze the situation and come up with a great answer for the situation based on what actually offers the best risk/reward and strategic gain, as well as being able to recall what the opponent did the last time the situation arose...

However, I have problems keeping track of the progress of the mindgame between myself and the other player. There are simply too many scenarios and decisions that need to be made during a game, each one requiring its' own analysis. Of course there are some situations that can be boiled down to a small set of optimal options, like Cervantes' 1K on hit, but there are an infinite amount of situations that can present themselves and it's pretty much impossible to analyze them all in advance. You have to be able to do it while playing.

I think the perfect player would be able to keep track of every little mindgame and reaction that both players have to each situation. I guess you could say my personal RAM isn't large enough. I can almost always tell what a person's next reaction is going to be if the same situation arises again...but it's hard remembering everything.

Right now, where I am with this game, it's too much for me. Especially over long sets (Ft5, Ft10, etc).

My fundamental rule is the same as yours. It's just a really hard rule for me to keep. Do you think I should put down the controller and take a break if I find myself playing on "autopilot" or not putting enough thought into what I do? Do you think that hinders progress, or actually makes me worse at the game?

I'm sure my ADHD doesn't help either, haha. I can do short bursts of complete concentration, but after an hour of straight playing...

 

The attribution of mystical qualities to top players is one of the most frustrating phenomenon to combat within the fighting game community. Everyone wants to believe Justin Wong (i.e.) wins at everything because "He's Justin Wong" - begging the question like they were courting it with a tin cup.

They ignore potentially logical interpretations of his success, i.e. it is likely that the amount of time, dedication, and sacrifice (in terms of social relations in the broadest scope) far exceeds the average player, which is why he's able to consistently compete in all these games at a high level. Because of this, few learn anything observing him and there are few Justin Wongs. Of course, people are drawn to things they don't fully understand and such is part of the allure of Justin.

Of course, this post isn't about Justin Wong, or Daigo or whoever. It's extending the fact that many fighting game players just don't know how to ask the right questions when it comes to fighting games, thus lacking in critical mindset, which is intrinsic to the competitive mindset. I think a large part of the "problem" is simply the lack of incentive. Compared to traditional sports or even a game such as Star Craft, the reward/incentive to be critical minded simply is not there. The competitive fighting game scene, while growing, is still incredibly niche. It's justifiably "just a game".

 

My thought process:

1. Spam preparation

2. Spam preparation some more

3. Spam A+B until he starts instinctively ducking the last hit, then don't do it and rape him.

4. 8WR is better than blocking when you can do it.

5. Ring outs are gay.

6. If I'm consistently losing, I probably need more Dr. Pepper.

I'm very hyper when I play, ideally. I do my best to make sure I'm hopped up on caffeine because believe it or not, that's how I concentrate. The thing that's always at the front of my mind is the enemy's reactions to my actions. I do my best to set the pace of the battle by applying as much pressure as humanly possible. if I'm working well, I can "train" my opponent to react in specific ways to certain moves.

 

I don't believe their is a mystical quality. In my opinion it's a mental quality.

At a certain point in your evolution, simply having knowledge isn't enough.

At a certain point, mental fortitude and concentration become the determining factors.

As you can see, some players perform very well in casuals but fail miserably in tournament situations.

That mental quality to me is the ceiling. Everything below that ceiling is at most average. Everything above it, is greatness.

 

Mr. h8s himself. My reasoning on doing a move has always been that, "I think you're going to this and I'm stuffing it." I know. It sounds dumb. But then again, I lose and you win. I think it's time for a new perspective in life.

 

Your fundamental rule earns a thousand likes from me! But I'll elaborate on the basics about what I think about during a match.

1) First I find out their player type in regards to aggression. The deciding factor here is how they act in seemingly ambiguous situations like stopped strings, and spaced safe attacks, where the initiative is almost entirely up to the players to take. Do they take it or back off? This gives me a basic framework for when I can run up to them and mix up against a player, and when I can steal opportunites that they give away by playing too safe (like not attacking at advantage) or if this player can be GI'd (they attack predictably at advantage to stop your advances). This can be tested by creating those situations and waiting to see how they respond.

2) I also take note of whether they tend to stay uninterruptable at advantage or leave openings. If they stay uninterruptable, GI is often a good choice. If they leave openings, attacking at disadvantage becomes an option. If they leave huge openings, trying to bait an evade, I make my next decision based on their "space sensitivity." More on that later.

3) Then, I see how they behave at disadvantage. Things that are worthing noting include whether they move around, tech evade/counter, or attack, and I act accordingly.

4) Now that I've covered the even/advantage/disadvantage situations, I'll talk about where it's ambiguous: the long range distance game. Here, approaching the opponent is based on their space-sensitivity I mentioned earlier. Every character controls space based on the area their moves cover. It's important to note the opponent's personal movelist as well. A space-sensitive player attacks right when you enter that space, as predictably as an AI, but also very effectively as it allows control of the maximum amount of space. Players like this must be baited by entering in and out of those spaces. Most players have a specific amount of time when you're in their space before they stop holding G or stepping around or w/e and attack. More sensitive players are easier to bait, but they're much harder to approach and mid/throw mixup. Less sensitive players can often be safely throw spammed.

5) Finally, this my framework for predicting the frequency of these behaviors. I have them categorized into three types: adapting, reacting, and stubborn. Adapters preemptively change their mixup options before it stops working in attempt to catch you when you change. Reacters act based on the last thing you did; they react to your current perceived set of options. Stubborn players don't change at all, catching people who think they eventually will. These three styles interact like in RPS: adapting > reacting > stubborn > adapting. However, an adapter may change into a reacter in reaction to your stubborn behavior! But the stubborn player might preemptively adapt to that reaction by changing to an adapter expecting a response to your obstinate stubborn play!

So yeah, those are my fundamentals.

 

I remember hearing somewhere that their are 2 types of competitive players, the first being ones that analyze things, the second being people that play by doing what feels right.

I usually don't have a game plan when I play, I don't try and analyze what the other guy is doing because I suck at that. I spend a lot of time just playing and learning things through experience. I try and drill things into my head, like whats punishable whats safe so when I play someone I don't have to think about it, I just let it do what I feel I should do at that particular moment.

If you pause the game on me at a certain point and ask me why I did what I just did odds are I will just tell you that it felt like the right move to make. That's how I have more fun, that's how I play people online and offline.

 

Strategy: "Do whatever it takes to win."
This is in a nutshell though, lols. :D

 

Do I know the matchup? Do I need to hit the lab again?
Should I listen to haters and lovers? How do I set a defensive pace?
Should I switch characters? Do tiers really matter?
When should I press the issue?

 

Great post Hates. It really got me thinking. I'm more of a casual player but interested in getting better and know I still have a ways to go. When I get stressed I am prone to do irrational crap like just throw in a Cervy 11k and hope for the best. But I think I am more like a lot of people here and can't act predominantly by instint and need to be more analytical.

 

To me 'feeling it' is not like some mystical gift, it's experience.

The more experience the player has the better he understands how the game works and the easier it is for the player's brain to absorb the multitude of details that are going on at any given moment.

With enough experience the player doesn't always need to be thinking about the frame data and game mechanics to tell what he should be doing. He just.. dare I say it? Feels it. Or more specifically, the game is so ingrained in his head that his subconscious mind can just tell if a move is unsafe and where the openings are and when and how to punish, without even feeling like he's thinking about it. And since he's not actively thinking about it, it gives his mind the time to focus on the mind games and adaptation, rather than frames and gameplay mechanics.

Like for example, I just got into MK a few months ago, but I don't have a full grasp of the fighting engine, frames, and mechanics. I still have to actively think not just about the mind games and how I should adapt, but also about the mechanics and what I should be doing and when. In SC it just comes naturally. I rarely need to actively think about the latter, and can focus much more on what my opponent is thinking.

This is my interpretation of what "feeling it" means. And I base it off my experience with SC which began exactly 12 years and 3 days ago (when SC1 came out for DC: 9/9/99).

 

KingAce: I'm a fan of the PLAY2CRUSH mentality, generally speaking. Do you think there's a way that your questions, particularly with regard to "cut[ting] down [the opponent's] thinking," could be systematized/further articulated?

Noface: Walking away when you're on autopilot strikes me as a good idea. That tends to be what I do, too, because it's important to be mindful of the potential to develop bad habits. We end up training ourselves while we train our opponents, and not always in a good way.

Signia: That's pretty detailed. Have you given any thought to how a person could go through that progression of "feeling things out" more quickly and efficiently? I've been known, in tournaments, no less, to trade rounds or even games for information on my opponent. It's a viable tactic, but I think we should all work toward minimizing risk.

Tanegashima: Glad you're interested in stepping your game up--learning good skills for self-evaluation will help you make up the experience gap a lot faster than someone flying blind, as it were.

Mr. Oooooofmatic/everybody: Read what OOF posted. I believe that the equation of "feel" and vast libraries of experience is spot on. That isn't the whole story, of course, because if it were, time played would be almost the sole determining factor in who wins and who loses. The purpose of the Fundamental Rule isn't to replace the lightning quick, quasi-conscious decision making process that characterizes high level play, but rather to develop a model that strengthens the fundamental principles behind that process while shortcutting people to it.

What I mean is this: expert level performance across all fields of human endeavor tends to involve less active cognition on the part of the expert performer than on the part of someone who's just learning because they've internalized best practices. The old myth about chess masters seeing 87t5497486 moves ahead is just that--a myth. More rigorous laboratory settings have revealed that master and grandmaster chess players don't tend to see that many more possibilities than novices. The difference, however, is that the chess master will see better possibilities because he has a near-automatic grasp of best practices. Overtly analyzing what you're doing while you practice is the equivalent of, say, going through a difficult piece of music at a slower tempo in order to make sure you get the notes right. The more we practice the habits of intelligent decision making, the more likely we are to revert to those habits under the pressure of tournament play.

 

I would say I'm more of a feel and reaction type player but I certainly need to adapt a more technical approach. Especially being a maxi only player.

There is one thing I am mindful of while playing anything competitively and its based on the way I play chess. Trying to setup a move or string while drawing the attention away from that strat with something that seems defensive or mindless. Usually this pertains to my ringout game. Like in chess I might have ten or so layers of strategy in place and within the first exchange of moves I have to decide whether he fell for it or has read accordingly. Then you have to decide how many layers you should reveal and gauge how deep the opponents strategy goes. In fighting games, for me, this strategy is difficult to keep up.

After the first clash I just want to do what I want to do. I don't give enough attention to what the opponent wants to do. Obviously the decisions and pace are faster for fighting games and maybe that's why I rely on feel instead of the nuances of the system. But that's what I will be working on in this new calibur

 

Well done my friend.

 

I smell hate in the building. Lol.
Let me go ahead and stick up for ZWEI.
1st thing is, gamer boys love gamer chicks. The big hips, big thighs, enjoy this ride, the big tigobitties. We all know this. what kind if straight gamer guys doesn't want to play SCIV/COD with his bitch? Mhmm. So to discuss my debate. Yall know that girls are going to love ZWEI, Homosexuals too. Yall know that all them bitches you wanna bed are going to want to love him, hes like, the SC version of justin beiber, you guys hated on him for the longest time too.
Now as for the rest of post, I completely agree, I play offline as much as i can and I have agreat time with it, but people do bitch, a lot. Enough with the hate on the hot guys, im serious baby.

 

Of course the higher I feel I am getting up the skill level, the more direct I feel my thoughts become. Instead of thinking about mind games, he's doing X so I should counter with Y, these mixups are already ingrained in your head like OOF says, they come out naturally.

My thinking is more like destroy, destroy him, ignore that damage, ignore that pressure, don't let him feel ahead, make him feel behind, make him feel inferior, crush him. KILL KILL KILL.

At that point the only questions that matter are, "Do I have a presence in this fight?" "Can my opponent feel me imposing my will upon him?" "Or does he not see me at all?" "Is he looking past me?" "Am I something to fear, or merely his step stone to the top?"

Specifics. I turtle....but....

I have this thing I do with Astaroth. Basically, I ignore any damage I take mentally and rush down my opponent. But I don't rely on throws, I go for SG damage and pressure. I did pioneer Asta's 3[A+B] stuff. The move does incredible SG damage ,+2 on block, it can ring out, it picks you up on Ch3A+B also, and it leaves you at around -13 recovery. If you don't block right away, Asta can crouch grab you. 66[K] is uninterrupted(can't gi it), near walls his bear hug is difficult to deal with, and 3B/3(b) ub mixups are also difficult to deal with. I use 3A+G_B+G when I knock down my opponent away to close the distance(sometimes you grab someone teching). I almost never go for ground damage because I want them up right in my face. I GI more often than usual and mixup command throws with 3[A+B], 4, and bear hugs. When I land 22B, I immediately do 44B which they have to block(move does good SG damage). Bullrush, BULLRUSH.

Sometimes it works, and I scare my opponent shitless, good players just fight it off better. I ran a similarly aggressive style with Cervantes as well, since I believe that's the only way to play the character. A well time GI is a good way to deny someone, and maintain pressure on him. They have to feel out classed. Speechless. So shock and awe them.

 

Yall know that all them bitches you wanna bed are going to want to love him, hes like, the SC version of justin beiber, you guys hated on him for the longest time too.