Bad, good ideas.

[Gooberking]

Kind of random questions, but how often does something need to work for someone to become convinced it “works”, that it’s a good idea? Something here being basically anything.

How much do you think an average person is weighing the risk reward when something they are doing might work? Like if I like to do A, B, then C and C gets me 300 damage, works half the time, but risks 300 damage if it doesn’t, am I likely to use it just as much as if it I were only getting 200 damage and risking 300? At what point am I forced to notice that skewed risk? When I get hit with 350 trying to get 100?

How do you think avoiding situations can skew a person’s perception of how well something is working? By that I mean, if I do something that appears to work most of the time, but I refuse to play people that don’t fall for whatever it is I’m trying to do, how much is that convincing me that what I’m doing is a good idea, when maybe the reality is I’m just seeking out players that don’t know what to do about my cute little game plan?

Are there other ways to fool yourself into thinking “This works. This is what I should be doing”? Success fallacies as it were.

Once I'm convinced I know what I'm doing, that I have a good plan of action, does that discouraging me from trying or exploring alternatives? How quick should someone be ready to discard a plan that stops working and try plan B, then C, then D?

I know that's a bit all over the place, and I don’t know that I’m looking for anything here other than just to see what people’s thoughts might be when asked to think about it. Maybe there is a discussion to be had. Maybe not.

 

[Jynks]

There is like a bazillion questions in that post.. but in general I "think" your asking about Max Damage vs Assured Damage. There is not real answer to that as far as I am concerned. It is just preference.

Max Damage is usually harder to achieve, longer combos with more difficult links. In most FGC games people avoid these. In MK, as it is such an aggressive game, when it is your turn, it is a good idea to get as much out of it as possible. As you may only get 1 - 3 turns in a round. Plus in MK11 there is a universal way to close out the round with the FB as well as many characters having nice closerer to remove that last few shards of health. So there is an argument here for always trying max damage, even if you spend all your bar.

Assured Damage is basically the opposite. It is easier to execute, uses less resources and all that but the off side is that you are opening yourself to more attacks, as your do so much less, there is just more opportunity for them to have a turn.

You saw this in The Kolosseum with Turkey vs FullAuto. Turkey was playing Blulc Kotal Khan (Totems) and FullAuto was Sindel Royal Edenian (the Low Shot One). Basically Auto was doing a decent 200-350 or w/e each turn, and a lot of damage through projectiles. This is solid, slow work. Work that is a path to victory. Meanwhile Turkey was going all out with Totem Based Mega Damage. Something hard to setup, and failed on most of his turns. BUT he only ever needed it to work once. A single 3 Totem attack basically dose like 90% or something. So by going Max Damage he had less successful attacks, but much more devastating ones.

IMO, there is no right or wrong. I personally combo for style points anyway as I am not a competitive player. Still, I think either or is just wrong.. Fighting Games are fluid and you just need to choose what works at the time.

 

[Gooberking]

It is a lot of questions. I'd say it's probably more about a class of player that may play a lot, have his combo's down or whatever, but overall has decided to play the game in a specific way with little variance. They get to decent level. It seems to be working. Then it doesn't, and when it doesn't there isn't anything else.

It's about the guy when MK11 first came out to played Kano, and just wanted f3 95% of the time. Or the guy that spent 3 matches just wanting to poke throw or poke poke throw with no regard to if his poke hit or not. Something that worked until I saw there was no other plan and I let him poke, and threw him instead.

What that thing is can be more elaborate, it could just be balls out aggressive play that forgets about the back and block buttons, and that some people know how to block things. Whatever it is, suddenly the game's not fun anymore, RQ, rage messages or whatever. On to the next guy that will let me do whatever it is I want to do, and not what I probably should be doing.

How do you get to be that person? How many people does "it" have to work on? How many people do you have to beat with something before you are convinced it's a good idea to say neutral jump on wu every time?

I'm pretty sure I have dumb habits. I do like to jump on WU a lot if I even feel the slightest bit safe, and will continually ignore getting bopped by a meaty SZ slide thinking "but he is way over there. It's totally ok to jump now."

 

[M2Dave]

At what point am I forced to notice that skewed risk? When I get hit with 350 trying to get 100?

You notice when you start losing rounds and matches, at which point you contemplate your decision making as well as the risk versus reward of your mix ups.

The character's gameplay design ought to dictate the extent of your risk taking. If your main character is a zoning character like Cetrion, you generally want to follow a safe gameplay style that de-emphasizes risk over space control. Dragon uses Cetrion to great effect in this manner. If your main character is Terminator, you generally want to take more risks because three or four mix ups can win you the round. Sonic Fox uses (and has used for many years) lots of vortex characters to great effect in this manner.

You have to know which type of character you are using and more importantly you have to know yourself and the type of player you are.