[Discussion] "This character is super easy to use"

[PLAYING TO WIN]

Execution barrier is the most lazy and useless clueless design decision in the world.

Hm, i have an 8-2 matchup with this character, better make that character need to solve 3rd degree equations before you press any move, that would balance it.

Since in the pro scene there will ALWAYS be a skynet t1000 pro player able to input everything (see kof, setsuka, alpha pat players, instant airs blablablabla) you will ALWAYS be destroyed by that top tier character nonetheless.

Ah he has difficult inputs it's ok that he could mop me 10-0. So when a guy comes that can do the inputs, what do you do? Get mopped 10-0. That's not the solution, never was.

This is only a request that mediocre players want to be a big fish in a small pond, playing with casuals and having a good ranked record because 90% of the people won't invest in learning the execution.

Horrendous topic, it should die in the seven fires of hell along with the execution barrier concept.

 

[untitledsix]

Again I disagree and this has not been true for a long time in the fighting game community.

just watch this. tell me... if everyone could move like fchamp and it was easy to do... It blows my mind that people actually think like you! you millennials want everything easy! f'ing work for it! god damn kids get off my porch.

What the fuck are you saying? You need to chill out. I have no problem with high execution. It can't just be arbitrarily added. Movement in games like MvC Tekken and Melee were discovered accidentally and added extra depth to already solid gameplay. And the fact is, anybody can move like Fchamp if they put in the time. It's the other qualities that make him a great player.

 

[untitledsix]

i think im literally going to just start responding with hype top 8 matches of games that required investment and had depth. it makes me sad to think people actually think execution shouldn't matter. go play chess then.

Somehow I just realized you're a troll. Good day, Sir.

 

[M.D.]

I don't even need to do analogies, just watch Killer Instinct. It's the hands down BEST game on the execution concept. It's so braindead and easy to do huge combos and anything in that game, and yet, pro players are still pro players, there are no casuals beating them. Why is that?

I'll tell you, because the game is well made. Because it focuses on neutral, reads, tells, outplaying your opponent, using your BRAIN instead of worrying you might drop a cr.mp into cr.mp link.

But since you mentioned chess, fighting games are not a combo exhibition contest. If that was true there should be no online mode, just a leaderboard of the highest combo count.

In FG you fight with your brains, you fight to beat your opponent and outplay him.

Let's take a fictional 14 year old prodigy champion at chess.
He goes at a chess competition.
But this competition has a plot twist. To get in to play, you have to pin this huge 200 pound gorilla bodyguard.

So the kid gets destroyed and goes to the hospital, while a chunk brawn based man pins the gorilla and goes to win the chess competition with day 1 skills making 1 depth moves.

Then that guy tells the kid he's better than him at chess.

It is bullshit, the same as the execution barrier concept.

Only elitists that are worried that random kids might be better than them at the game are complaining about this. Since they are gated safely against the hours and hours needed for input practice, and hope most people don't have the time to do it and expose their lack of actual skill.

Well TOUGH.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

i think im literally going to just start responding with hype top 8 matches of games that required investment and had depth. it makes me sad to think people actually think execution shouldn't matter. go play chess then.

You’ve completely missed the point that everyone is making. You’re talking here but aren’t truly listening.

 

[Marlow]

If anything Chess shows how you can wind up with an incredibly deep game while having a fairly low execution barrier.

 

[Sutter Pain]

If anything Chess shows how you can wind up with an incredibly deep game while having a fairly low execution barrier.

Not many people gathering around to watch hype top 8 chess though

 

[SaltShaker]

Some of you guys are missing the point.

It isn't that Deadshot or Starfire was broke so make the execution harder. MK9 Kabal was broke too and required lots of execution. That's irrelevant. No one wants busted characters at any level. The point is to have a balanced game that isn't "Easy to pick up characters". That way you have a system like Tekken or SF, where someone can't say "wow my main for a year is having a hard time, so let me pick up my one week pocket top tier for this MU". That does not happen in most other games.

It isn't rewarding to the person who is taking the time to master their character and all their options when the opponent can just know "the game" and pick a character who beats theirs. Ideally if two players of the same skill level master their characters, one wouldn't be able to switch to a "better" character that they know significantly less well and start winning the games. This is the issue being brought up.

 

[Marlow]

Not many people gathering around to watch hype top 8 chess though

I actually think it does ok. https://esc.watch/tournaments/chess/candidates-chess-tournament-2018 That tournament seemed to have about 18K viewers. For game where most of the audience is probably not in the streaming demographic, that's not bad.

If there was good commentary, I'd love to watch chess on Twitch or something. Maybe blitz, or something faster paced though would work better in a streaming setting. Honestly I'd be curious to see a speed chess side tournament at a FGC event, I wonder how many FGC players are also chess players, or would be good at chess.

 

[Marlow]

That way you have a system like Tekken or SF, where someone can't say "wow my main for a year is having a hard time, so let me pick up my one week pocket top tier for this MU

Just to play devil's advocate, was this really what was happening in MKX or Injustice 2, though? It seemed to me that most of the time in Injustice 2 if someone went with a side charater they had usually spent a decent amount of time working on that side character, in order to make them a viable side pick.

 

[Sutter Pain]

I actually think it does ok. https://esc.watch/tournaments/chess/candidates-chess-tournament-2018 That tournament seemed to have about 18K viewers. For game where most of the audience is probably not in the streaming demographic, that's not bad.

If there was good commentary, I'd love to watch chess on Twitch or something. Maybe blitz, or something faster paced though would work better in a streaming setting. Honestly I'd be curious to see a speed chess side tournament at a FGC event, I wonder how many FGC players are also chess players, or would be good at chess.

I don't mind chess at all, but I don't think a chess version of a FG would be that appealing to the FGC crowd was kind of the comparison I was making. I do like speed chess nothing more annoying then playing with friends and they take fucking days, would rather practice making quick good decisions.

 

[PLAYING TO WIN]

You’ve completely missed the point that everyone is making. You’re talking here but aren’t truly listening.

Crimson no I’m now dude. Everyone isn’t making the same point first of all. Second the point a fewmaking is that execution shouldn’t matter but diecision making should. I am also seeing others in the bread agree with me such as Jdm. Why not make all specials one but and flight cancels one button. Execution should be and has been apart of nearly all respected fighting games.

Deadshot hard to use? You would have had some mains and long term alts. White boi would not have beat bdon to make top 8.

Umv3 magneto mobility easy? He would have been as rampant as Aqua pre patch.

Gen sf4 execution? Sf4 c viper? Top tier but extremely hard to use. If they were i2 easy they would have been deadshot.

In al honestly it’s you that’s missing the point bc you constantly argue and refute every single thing I say. This is a you issue not me my man.

 

[SaltShaker]

Just to play devil's advocate, was this really what was happening in MKX or Injustice 2, though? It seemed to me that most of the time in Injustice 2 if someone went with a side charater they had usually spent a decent amount of time working on that side character, in order to make them a viable side pick.

I didn't follow Inj2 as long as the other NRS games, but MKX? Absolutely.

There's no way you could have forgotten the pocket Kung Jin era or the pocket Shinnok era, and to a lesser extent the pocket Alien/Tanya era. That is because at the time the characters were incredibly powerful, but ridiculously simple to both implement their gameplan and their movesets. Top 8's going on where main's were being switched out for Alien and Shinnok for wins was the definition of anti-hype.

In contrast, if you watch a Tekken major, you'll see many more "low tier" level characters place or even win (Kuma beat Qudan's DJ of all MUs) finals matches because the character mastery is superior to the character usage. The type of Grand Finals that you can't even imagine happening in MKX, actually happened, and that's just one example. Yea Kuma still sucks, but that's the type of character dedication reward we should be aiming for. When they keep talking about how easy every single character is, or how much easier a character is to play than they used to be, it makes some of us a bit nervous that a couple of top tiers (because there will always be tiers) will be too easy to exploit and cover yourself once the game releases.

 

[ChatterBox]

It shows the flaw in a lot of people's arguments that "some kid just showed up and beat these players that are way better than them" well, if the kid winds, isn't the kid the better player? Isn't that the way it works? Do you really want people to win because they are the only person left after the 100 hours of practice mode who has decent reads? Don't you want the person who adapts fastest and has the best punishes and reads to win the tournament? Why didn't anyone else win with Batgirl in IGAU? Why was there only one real good MMH player? Neither of those characters had an execution barrier and yet TONS of people lost with them all the time.

Everyone gets the same opportunity at the character select screen. Pick a good character. Then you really learn what a fighting game is. You need to condition your opponent and adapt to them.

The reason WhiteBoi beat Bdon is that he's the better player. He won. He's better. Get gud.

 

[M.D.]

Execution barrier being a part of existing games is not an argument sustainig it.

It is a bad decision and slowly everyone is starting to see this so they will naturally improve the games by removing it.

"Magneto mobility busted, thank god 3 people were able to do it"
Yes, but it was still busted. If it was easy to do, it will have been the same exact way of busted, only the devs would have realized and FIXED IT. You know, the PROPER way.

Hiding around the execution barrier to justify broken crap is exactly what will dissapear along with the execution barrier itself.

Which is awesome.

 

[portent]

I think that what @PLAYING TO WIN is getting at here is a good overall question, though it's possible that the question has changed a little since the beginning of the thread.

Initially, his main question was "Does a lower barrier of execution (easy to use characters) encourage counterpicking?"

Let me answer this question IMHO. No, lower barrier of execution doesn't encourage counterpicking at the highest levels of play. First, counterpicking has been rampant since before the age of easy execution, it exists in all competitive games, low execution or high execution. Easier barrier of entry doesn't encourage or deter counterpicking.

What easier barrier of entry does, however, is encourage players to learn more characters, thereby making counterpick choices easier and faster to learn. The elite will learn them, regardless of the time it takes to develop the execution to use them.


What the real question, I believe, has come from this is, "What matters more, execution, or decision making?"

That's a much harder question to answer.

The SF4 series is famed for its 1-frame links, and seeing someone execute them can be super hype when you know what you're watching. For those of us who understand competitive play, that's awesome, but we also only make up a minuscule percentage of the player base. That means that hype-level of that 1-frame link is completely lost on the overwhelming majority of people.

Then we have decision making. That 1-frame link is hype, it requires pinpoint precision, and it also requires a level of practice that borders on obsessiveness. It literally becomes "don't practice it until you can do it, practice it until you can't miss it". HOWEVER, if you're capable of the combo, that doesn't make you capable of the decisions necessary to put yourself in the right situation to perform the combo.

Split second decision making is a skill and video games are a proving ground for it. You hear this all the time in sports, as well as video games, "I'm the better player, I would have beaten him, but I missed that window" or "We're the better team, but we weren't prepared for that breakaway". In those moments, split second decision making is the difference between winning and losing, the difference between the better player and the better team. It's what puts you in a position to make those 1-frame links and perform those sick combos.

They're equally important IMO.

That said, I think that there are definitely games that border on insane levels of execution that are only execution heavy for the sake of saying that it's execution heavy. For these games, combo artists only need apply.

There are also games where decision making is the primary focus. As @PLAYING TO WIN said, if that's what you want, consider playing a board game instead.

 

[Marlow]

it makes some of us a bit nervous that a couple of top tiers (because there will always be tiers) will be too easy to exploit and cover yourself once the game releases.

I see what you're saying, but to me some of that is simply par for the course in fighting games. In seems like in most fighting games, at launch there are always simple characters who seem top tier at the start because that's who everyone picks up at first. Then as players start to figure them out, there's less of an impact.

 

[ForeverKing]

What the fuck are you saying? You need to chill out. I have no problem with high execution. It can't just be arbitrarily added. Movement in games like MvC Tekken and Melee were discovered accidentally and added extra depth to already solid gameplay. And the fact is, anybody can move like Fchamp if they put in the time. It's the other qualities that make him a great player.

I see what you're trying to say man but I dont think you understand what p2w is trying to say.

You don't even know how wrong you are when you say anybody can move like Fchamps Magneto, his silky smooth movement in the neutral was arguably even harder than his combos. I played Mag for 100's of matches in MVC3 and my movement was nowhere even close to Fchamp's.

What p2w is trying to say is, that made Fchamp's movement special, since not anybody can just pick up a controller and start doing it. You have to be absolute prodigy or take many many months of training. But you would feel way more proud at the end of the day of your achievement of moving like that if it was that hard.

I seems like you know about Melee so I'll use that as an example too. There's absolutely nobody in the world that moves like Plup does with Sheik. The way shield drops through platforms and/or ledge cancels to punish things other Sheik players normally wouldn't, makes Plup's Sheik look 120% faster than any other Sheik players. It's such a visual spectacle to watch. But it literally took Plup YEARS of training to get that good. If Sheik's movement was super easy and could be learned in days by any Joe shmoe, it would be nowhere near as entertaining to watch

 

[Wigy]

Generally it's a mix of low execution and their tools covering too much in the rock paper scissors game.

Like x tool will cover option 1 2 3 4 of another character with minimal risk.

This is why inj zoners get so much hate as until you close the distance it's basically 0 risk just pew pew. (Then came the problem that when u did close they had tools)

Sub was so flowchart vs his good matchups cause it was legit just put all clone- no execution and negates 99% of their normals and specials and makes him safe on his mixups.

 

[Mikemetroid]

Every character in MK2 is easy to play... good luck playing that game against the best lol

 

[Marlow]

What the real question, I believe, has come from this is, "What matters more, execution, or decision making?"

I lean towards the decision making side. I think games can have easier execution, but still offer plenty of depth. The Virtua Fighter series comes to mind. Not a lot of execution barrier, but in my opinion VF is one of the deeper games out there.

 

[SaltShaker]

I see what you're saying, but to me some of that is simply par for the course in fighting games. In seems like in most fighting games, at launch there are always simple characters who seem top tier at the start because that's who everyone picks up at first. Then as players start to figure them out, there's less of an impact.

Difference being that the hot potato last throughout the entirety of these games. Mainly because you're able to play say, 4 characters, at your highest or near highest level simultaneously, so there is no real need for character loyalty longterm. Something you cannot live by in most other games. That's different than the prior argument of "pocket Deadshot everywhere until he's nerfed". Let's say in a perfect game, all MUs are 5-5 and 6-4. Because of the ease of accessibility with characters, you can always option select out of a slightly tough MU. I think that boils down to personal opinions on counter picking, but I like to see the least amount of counter picking as possible in a game. It's very strong in NRS games so it is wise for players to do so.

A game meta that allows you to main 1-2 characters at your best is ideal for some like me, P2W, etc. I think it brings out more hype because I'd argue it adds more character diversity, not less (can't reinforce with the same/best characters). Whereas others prefer metas where they can use 4 characters at the same time to rotate around all matchups in the game for different reasons. I don't think it makes the game scrubby, that's a bit misleading. It does make it easier to play through though, for better or worse.

 

[Rearawt]

You're not playing chess though, you're playing a videogame.

Why is reaction time considered a fair metric for measuring skill, but execution isn't?

 

[portent]

I lean towards the decision making side. I think games can have easier execution, but still offer plenty of depth. The Virtua Fighter series comes to mind. Not a lot of execution barrier, but in my opinion VF is one of the deeper games out there.

I played VF2, VF3 and VF5, somewhat competitively. VF is mash heavy for beginners, but at the highest level, the game has incredibly high execution. VF2, in particular, especially with Akira's reversals.

But you're right, VF is one of the deepest series I've ever played.

 

[portent]

You're not playing chess though, you're playing a videogame.

Why is reaction time considered a fair metric for measuring skill, but execution isn't?

Reaction time deteriorates as you get older. Yet, players who have been in the FGC for many years, players like Daigo who is approaching 40, Alex Valle who is over 40, they continue to have success. That may very well be due to experience over reaction time.

That doesn't execution at all, however. In fact, as one's reaction time decreases, I would venture to say that greater emphasis needs to be placed on execution, since you may get fewer chances due to deteriorating reaction time, it means when your chance comes, you can't miss and you have to hit as hard as you possibly can.