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

[TurboTaco]

If anyone on here wants to play chess hit me up! My chess.com username is IamRookHard

 

[THTB]

Here's my 2 cents.

Having high execution characters is fine. Having low execution characters is also fine. There are way more factors to a character being good than slapping execution. Past games have shown us that people who play a game will play whoever they want, regardless of the executional barrier. Kabal wasn't that uncommon in MK9. Mishimas in TTT were too fucking good regardless of their execution requirements. Fox is everywhere in Melee, even at levels below the top level. It doesn't matter...if the top has that execution barrier, no one is really going to stay away.

What is a huge factor is how dominant the toolset is. High Tech Jacqui...high execution barrier. Unused not because of that, but because she was just plain bad...not even being easier to use was gonna save her. If we want less Deadshot situations, the answer isn't just make them harder execution wise. It's called making characters who simply don't dominate the rest of the cast due to overbearing options. Build a character around the mechanics of the game properly.

This talk of execution also applies to the amplify mechanic. That shit realistically wasn't stopping anyone from picking up another character. People who believe so underestimate how well people can memorize movesets. It's been proven in past games that people are gonna branch out regardless of something like that. The problem is that the mechanic changed something that wasn't really even an issue to begin with. I'm not against it, but I also didn't really see the point of changing to it, either.

 

[Rathalos]

Well with how the game is shaping up with what they have shown so far, from universal mechanics, and revealed characters, the cast seems a lot more homogeneous then past games, to the point counter picking might not be as lucrative no matter how easy it is to learn the characters.
Which is a whole other issue depending on what you want out of the game.

 

[untitledsix]

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

P2W doesn't even understand what he's saying because he's arguing two separate things. He's saying both that high execution is more hype and more rewarding, which is a personal preference. Also that high execution leads to better balance and would reduce counterpicking, which is certifiably false as explained many times previously in this thread. You're misconstruing what I said about anybody being able to move like Fchamp. I said anybody who puts in the work can move like that, and it's not what makes him a great player. I'm this case it might be years. And with your experience you should no 100s of matches isn't that much. In the case of most games, as I previously stated, what makes them difficult wasn't even initially meant to be in the game. They were discovered later on so who knows what tech will be discovered in unreleased games.

 

[Eddy Wang]

Wasn't really posting on this thread until i see some posts having half bullshits, some with half truths and so on.

As someone who has always been keen to play characters which takes more time to learn or to put proper use of their tools i disagree with some of these posts.

1. A character having combo potential usually locked behind execution its not so character can make extremely over the top damage, when a character with high execution barrier exists in fighting game, without it usually that character does damage below average.

Ibuki in SF4 had a pretty low damage without execution, and if you mastered some of the things she had to offer she would bring strong 50-50 setups on the table, but she wasn't invincible just strong enough if well executed

2. A character having utility or a stronger tool locked behind execution its not so when the player learns it the character becomes extremely dominant and wins 10-0 matchups as it was said posts above.

3. Reads, punishements, and strategy are indeed skill every game should have, but so does execution in some cases walk together to make certain characters far more interesting when playing at certain levels, i will say this once again "It doesn't mean the character needs to become invincible or extremely OP"

Akira Yuki from Virtua fighter is a character designed to be top tier at higher level, but he is not invincible by any means, he has multiple complicated commands, can break guards, a just frame Knee which without it, his game its practially ass, but the same knee it still punishable heavily by the entire cast on top of being a strong tool. In Doa he has the same approach but that's a game of holds, and Akira entire moveset is made of punches, so he is keen to being Held a lot due its predictable buttons, however he has the just frame knee which puts ppl on the edge on holding him and allows him to play as a regular character, but the knee its still punishable if blocked.

Mishimas EWGF are just frame commands, but are attached to a wavedash so they can realign to fight their weakness of stepping its non tracking side, are plus if blocked and are as fast as jabs, guess what, they are also duckable and non abusable on top of it they all have very distinct weakness that EWGF won't fight it.

Jin is a character with strong pokes and some what OK damage, he has mishima tools but he can sufice without it to a certain extent, but at higher levels you will going to need to use his mishima side to keep up with harder and dominant characters which can deal with his tools much easier

What happens its, that NRS never actually did a high level/top tier execution character right in modern MK history.

Kabal execution was hard but, he was extremely dominant once mastered because he could do everything the rest of the cast couldn't do.

Skarlet was hard to put her tools at display but once you really tapped in her potencial she was almost as broke as Kabal, Cyrax and Kenshi with loops of 10% chip, insane meter build wakeup attack disabling, and imba armor, unreactable overheads and so on.

Cyrax did 100% damage combos off 1 punish, 1 mistake, i gotta say i told my nephew to practice Cyrax combos in era MK9 before tournament and it took him about 3 or 4 days to do the most optimals, and then he mopped a bunch of people in tournaments off one mistake for 2 years.

Liu Kang in MKXL at higher level its super dominant as well once you master his execution.

A fighting game in order to have a balanced roster high level or not, the basic requirement is, do not create character who can break the rules you set for your game, when this happens usually these same characters specific tools become un-counterable that is why they become so dominant.

Every single top character from the NRS games go beyond the rules they set for the game high level execution or not, easy to use or not, characters with range without counters, super armor in the game but no way to counter it, Kabal pressure with no weakness, Skarlet blockstrings with 0 risk, cyrax resets and insane pressure with a command grab 50-50, 2 characters with 9f normals and 0 on block while the rest of the cast has 10f to 12f normals and some are even minus, by default those 9f characters where always +1 or +2 against the rest.

Pre-Patch tanya, Barakalien before the nerf.


A combo maniac character damage locked behind execution doesn't mean he has to do far more than the rest.
Stronger tools locked behind complicated commands still need to have weaknesses
No one should be allowed to do whatever they want just because they've learned this or that with their character, harder to use or not, and this should be a red flag for Paulo or any other developer at NRS.

Stablish damn rules, design any character withing that threshold, no beyond or under that line, only then balance and enjoyment will be achieved.

 

[Badboy Takuma]

@PLAYING TO WIN
would you please use the multi quote function?
just select the quote (it turns red) and press +quote

 

[Pterodactyl]

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.

I disagree partially.

It totally does encourage counter picking if said easy execution character is a top tier. Like someone else mentioned with pre-nerf Tanya and Alien.

You didn’t see anybody counter picking by switching to Blood God in MKX and he was the simplest character variation in the game. Because Blood God was straight ass.


I DON’T think devs should intentionally make good characters harder to use to discourage counter picking, but characters that are both easy and exceptionally good always become prone to pocketing.

We’ve seen it time and time again throughout the history of fighting games.

 

[portent]

I disagree partially.

It totally does encourage counter picking if said easy execution character is a top tier. Like someone else mentioned with pre-nerf Tanya and Alien.

You didn’t see anybody counter picking by switching to Blood God in MKX and he was the simplest character variation in the game. Because Blood God was straight ass.


I DON’T think devs should intentionally make good characters harder to use to discourage counter picking, but characters that are both easy and exceptionally good always get prone to pocketing.

We’ve seen it time and time again thought the history of fighting games.

I mostly agree with what you're saying. Again, though, counter picking isn't something new, or something exclusive to heavy execution or lower execution characters. Players have been counter-picking for generations of fighting games, regardless of the barrier of execution. I think what is being talked about in this thread, is something we call "tier-whoring".

When a character has a fairly simple, straight forward gameplan, with somewhat easy execution, decent damage that is lower risk/higher reward, relatively few (if any) losing matchups, then we call them top tier characters, something I'm sure you're aware of already.

That said, is it counter-picking if, when you lose with one character, and you jump to a high tier character in order to win? Is it tier-whoring? Is it both? Moreso, is it the indicative of a less skilled player when they jump to a higher tier character in order to win?

Lets take sports into account here. If the batter keeps hitting my 4 seam fastball, at some point, I'm going to change pitches. The 2 seam fastball has a different trajectory, but is just as easy to throw. Doesn't this case dictate that decision making is more important than the ease of execution? Is this "counter-picking"? Is the pitcher any less skilled because he is choosing to throw a pitch with the same level of execution, but moves differently?

My point is, counter-picking will happen regardless of the barrier of execution. I don't think lower barriers either encourage or discourage. I think that it makes it easier to counter-pick sooner in game's competitive lifespan. That doesn't mean that, if the barrier of execution is harder that the counterpicking wouldn't happen. I believe it would, and it would be just as rampant, but possibly further into the lifespan of the game.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

A fighting game in order to have a balanced roster high level or not, the basic requirement is, do not create character who can break the rules you set for your game, when this happens usually these same characters specific tools become un-counterable that is why they become so dominant.

Every single top character from the NRS games go beyond the rules they set for the game high level execution or not, easy to use or not, characters with range without counters, super armor in the game but no way to counter it, Kabal pressure with no weakness, Skarlet blockstrings with 0 risk, cyrax resets and insane pressure with a command grab 50-50, 2 characters with 9f normals and 0 on block while the rest of the cast has 10f to 12f normals and some are even minus, by default those 9f characters where always +1 or +2 against the rest.

Pre-Patch tanya, Barakalien before the nerf

And this is why I say that this is really a discussion about balance, not about execution. A good fighting game will have a range of characters that appeal to everyone — some with complicated execution mechanics and Gen-like stances and nuances, and others that are simple in premise/gameplan but require great fundamentals to win with (the Ryu archetype).

But what keeps the game rewarding for EVERYONE, of all persuasions and preferences, is that the balance is such that a couple of tools don’t dominate most of the cast. There is no game that is perfectly balanced, ever, and there will always be stronger and weaker characters and that’s ok. But the goal is to require significant investment from the player to reach maximum effectiveness. And for a simpler archetype that means perfecting one’s fundamental-type play, a la classic examples like Daigo and Snake Eyes.

It’s not how complex a particular character’s meta is, it’s the proper balance of risk/reward and effort/payoff.

Not every character needs to have the same complexity of tools, it’s just how you balance them that makes the difference in the end.

 

[Zaccel]

I consider execution to be part of the picture, but less on a character basis and more on a move basis. There's so many things you can do to balance an attack (startup, active frames, recovery, range, damage, elevation, followups, built-in OS, movement, just-frames, etc.) that "execution" as a balancing tool just gives designers another toy to play with.

In my experience, Virtua Fighter handles this well. Despite its reputation, VF has probably the lowest execution hurdle of any modern fighting game, with simple controls and a very generous input buffer. But part of its depth occasionally emerges in the form of execution (primarily defensive Option Selects and a handful of Akira's techniques, most notoriously "KNEE"). It's not a universal thing, but it is there--and it serves a means of balancing moves that would be challenging to adjust otherwise (I'll spare the details, but Goh's P+K+G would be crazy if it didn't require such tight timing to reverse throws).

Taken as a tool and not a rule, execution has a place.

 

[Circus]

Everyone in this thread is right!

That's what you many of you guys are failing to see.

Balance is the key to things not being a counter-pick parade regardless of execution. You could still have an enjoyable experience where one person is using an execution heavy character against someone who is using a low execution character if BOTH players have skill levels that are similar fundamentally.


BUT execution provides something for the experience of fighting games that is very unique, and IMO important!


High execution gives people that feeling of accomplishment, even if they aren't winning every game. It feels good to be good at something. It feels good to be able to do something that other people can't because you know you WORKED for it.

Fighting games are very good at fulfilling this feeling. And yes, while it might have nothing to do with the gameplay in the grand scheme of things, it is a huge reason why people like @PLAYING TO WIN and thousands of others like fighting games.

Not only that, but it's amazing for spectators.

Evo-moment-37 wouldn't be a thing if it weren't so impressive.
When something unexpected or difficult happens in the heat of the moment, it's hype!

I'd honestly say that it gives a game a tremendous amount of longevity. That's why fighting games that focus on things that aren't as impressive for too long (Injustice2 zoning) end up having people lose interest faster.

 

[Pterodactyl]

I mostly agree with what you're saying. Again, though, counter picking isn't something new, or something exclusive to heavy execution or lower execution characters. Players have been counter-picking for generations of fighting games, regardless of the barrier of execution. I think what is being talked about in this thread, is something we call "tier-whoring".

When a character has a fairly simple, straight forward gameplan, with somewhat easy execution, decent damage that is lower risk/higher reward, relatively few (if any) losing matchups, then we call them top tier characters, something I'm sure you're aware of already.

That said, is it counter-picking if, when you lose with one character, and you jump to a high tier character in order to win? Is it tier-whoring? Is it both? Moreso, is it the indicative of a less skilled player when they jump to a higher tier character in order to win?

Lets take sports into account here. If the batter keeps hitting my 4 seam fastball, at some point, I'm going to change pitches. The 2 seam fastball has a different trajectory, but is just as easy to throw. Doesn't this case dictate that decision making is more important than the ease of execution? Is this "counter-picking"? Is the pitcher any less skilled because he is choosing to throw a pitch with the same level of execution, but moves differently?

My point is, counter-picking will happen regardless of the barrier of execution. I don't think lower barriers either encourage or discourage. I think that it makes it easier to counter-pick sooner in game's competitive lifespan. That doesn't mean that, if the barrier of execution is harder that the counterpicking wouldn't happen. I believe it would, and it would be just as rampant, but possibly further into the lifespan of the game.

It’s not about whether it happens or not, it’s about how prevelant and easy it is to do within the game.

Jin/Kazuya might be really good in Tekken, and used a lot, but you won’t see a top 8 comprised of only Jin/Kazuya players because it takes so much effort to learn how to do frame perfect electrics absolutely consistently on top of the rest of their kit that the opportunity cost of trying to tier whore and be consistent with your actual main is considerable. The investment discourages rampant pocketing because it isn’t really worth it for most players. Where as day one Tanya was so brain dead on top of being good, you could lab her for a couple of hours and be ready to take on the world, which is exactly what happened as we all know with that catastrophe of a tournament.

And again this is not me advocating for purposely using difficulty to discourage counter picking and pocketing of top tiers, but an elaboration on how it all comes together.

The reason this sort of thing is a problem is that it is both unfun to deal with and unfun to watch happening.

Watching a player get mopped and then switch to a character that’s as strong as they are gormless with an effective moveset that reads like a kid’s menu, and destroying their opponent may be fair, but it GENERALLY isn’t satisfying for anyone but the person doing it. It’s toxic to hype and the scene.

 

[portent]

It’s not about whether it happens or not, it’s about how prevelant and easy it is to do within the game.

Jin/Kazuya might be really good in Tekken, and used a lot, but you won’t see a top 8 comprised of only Jin/Kazuya players because it takes so much effort to learn how to do frame perfect electrics absolutely consistently on top of the rest of their kit that the opportunity cost of trying to tier whore and be consistent with your actual main is considerable. The investment discourages rampant pocketing because it isn’t really worth it for most players. Where as day one Tanya was so brain dead on top of being good, you could lab her for a couple of hours and be ready to take on the world, which is exactly what happened as we all know with that catastrophe of a tournament.

And again this is not me advocating for purposely using difficulty to discourage counter picking and pocketing of top tiers, but an elaboration on how it all comes together.

The reason this sort of thing is a problem is that it is both unfun to deal with and unfun to watch happening.

Watching a player get mopped and then switch to a character that’s as strong as they are gormless with an effective moveset that reads like a kid’s menu, and destroying their opponent may be fair, but it GENERALLY isn’t satisfying for anyone but the person doing it. It’s toxic to hype and the scene.

First and foremost, OUTSTANDING use of the word gormless! I respect the vocabulary!

Again, like I said before, I agree with almost everything you're saying and I very much respect your opinions on this. The only place where I disagree is that I do not believe that lower barrier of execution actively encourages counter-picking at the elite level.

I honestly don't know Tekken well enough to know what characters are consistently winning tournaments in order to speak knowledgeably about it and if Jin/Kazuya players are consistently winning them.

 

[PLAYING TO WIN]

Everyone in this thread is right!

That's what you many of you guys are failing to see.

Balance is the key to things not being a counter-pick parade regardless of execution. You could still have an enjoyable experience where one person is using an execution heavy character against someone who is using a low execution character if BOTH players have skill levels that are similar fundamentally.


BUT execution provides something for the experience of fighting games that is very unique, and IMO important!


High execution gives people that feeling of accomplishment, even if they aren't winning every game. It feels good to be good at something. It feels good to be able to do something that other people can't because you know you WORKED for it.

Fighting games are very good at fulfilling this feeling. And yes, while it might have nothing to do with the gameplay in the grand scheme of things, it is a huge reason why people like @PLAYING TO WIN and thousands of others like fighting games.

Not only that, but it's amazing for spectators.

Evo-moment-37 wouldn't be a thing if it weren't so impressive.
When something unexpected or difficult happens in the heat of the moment, it's hype!

I'd honestly say that it gives a game a tremendous amount of longevity, and that's why fighting games with gameplay that focus on things that aren't as impressive for too long (Injustice2 zoning) end up having people lose interest faster.

Jesus this was an amazing post. Very articulate. @General M2Dave

 

[TackyHaddock]

blah blah blah.

Execution shouldn't be the skill barrier. It should be your reads, knowledge of punishes/combos, situational awareness, spacing, etc.

Not whether you can roll your thumb in two 360 rotations while mashing both bumpers and slapping your ass.

Lol. I agree but isn’t there something to be said for high execution characters like mk9 kabal and others. You only earn the payout of certain dominant tools of these characters if you’ve put in the practice time to master the execution heavy elements, which is a good thing for game dedication and longevity

 

[KingHippo]

This is still, to me, largely an issue of balance rather than physical execution, because even with a lack of physical execution, rando shithead #7 didn't ever win a big tournament, even in NRS games. It was the usual suspects expertly applying strong, potentially overpowering tools. But it's still a problem at lower levels of play, thus something that needs fixing.

More to the point though, Injustice is a fundamentally flawed game. There's no way to beat the fact that it favors a certain style of play in almost all facets of its gameplay, and there's just nothing really to counter that. The stages don't get shorter, you can't make the end of round splash-back any shorter, nor can you force proximity blocking with a move. All those and more made it so that in Injustice, there was always going to be characters that would eternally struggle against a single archetype. Raven is just a so-so character in IGAU, but even Honeybee had a hard time beating Ducky just because it's hard for a melee character to chase down someone who can fill the screen and constantly move back fast, even when you have insane offense. It's also not particularly hard to do a few moves and hold/jump back, so I can see the frustration.

I didn't like MKX on principle, but I would argue that after it was all said and done, XL seemed to largely be just top tier characters duking it out with their dedicated players and the usual guys who kinda make it a habit to play multiple characters. MKX had a lot of flaws but I don't think the system of it was matchup-affecting as Injustice: most characters could move very quickly, and there were less defensive options to really slow down offense. Armor, however, was a big problem that both limited the interactions on offense as well as defense, since there were so little counters to it that didn't involve blocking or getting out of the way. That is actually how you get less depth, and it's something they seem to be taking steps to avoid (probably not for that reason, but still).

The things that could make some Injustice matchups not have much depth don't seem to apply to MK, and while these games are never going to be high execution, I still think with that with less standing in the way of making it a 2-player game, you're going to have a lot more interaction and thus specific, nuanced matchup knowledge.

 

[villainous monk]

Everyone in this thread is right!

That's what you many of you guys are failing to see.

Balance is the key to things not being a counter-pick parade regardless of execution. You could still have an enjoyable experience where one person is using an execution heavy character against someone who is using a low execution character if BOTH players have skill levels that are similar fundamentally.


BUT execution provides something for the experience of fighting games that is very unique, and IMO important!


High execution gives people that feeling of accomplishment, even if they aren't winning every game. It feels good to be good at something. It feels good to be able to do something that other people can't because you know you WORKED for it.

Fighting games are very good at fulfilling this feeling. And yes, while it might have nothing to do with the gameplay in the grand scheme of things, it is a huge reason why people like @PLAYING TO WIN and thousands of others like fighting games.

Not only that, but it's amazing for spectators.

Evo-moment-37 wouldn't be a thing if it weren't so impressive.
When something unexpected or difficult happens in the heat of the moment, it's hype!

I'd honestly say that it gives a game a tremendous amount of longevity, and that's why fighting games with gameplay that focus on things that aren't as impressive for too long (Injustice2 zoning) end up having people lose interest faster.

^^^This.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I didn't want to comment in this thread but I thought I would throw in my nickel and say it.

It's super rewarding to do pretzel motions, standing 720's, EWGF's X3 & Taunt jet upper IN GAME!!! As well as other exicution heavy moves or with charaters. Even though I too feel it's not needed to be designed that way either.

If games could balance out skills, exicution, mechanics, and so on.
With fun, clear precise goals & rewards along with replay value, then games that can offer higher exicution or skill will be more interesting to others who wouldn't even think about this thread.

I look at this not has a one versus the other but why can't it be both!

So others outside this discussion can see that fighters can have real depth such has this one.

It's wonderful to have used your hard earned time and effort to say or be complemented on your exicution or skills. It's truly the best feeling and I do agree with p2w.

I also on the flip side see charaters with motions that are just made to challenge you to learn or not abuse. These things teach your how to play & why you can't just willy nilly it or said charater.

Some see it as daunting to learn pretzels motions or walking 720's or 1080's for example.

I think it's a part of fighting games that is necessary learn and except but also its not necessarily needed as well.

 

[Gooberking]

(I realize I'm under qualified and very late to the party)

If some of what sparked this starts revolving around the counter pick stuff in IJ2 and lop sided MU, doesn't some of that come from the wide variation of character abilities? NRS has been really pushing the creative front of what a fighting character does in a fight.

If you called it character shape, and all you have are kinds of rectangles (call one Ryu and one Ken) then it's easier to control the interactions. IJ2 had all kinds of crazy shaped characters, and some just happened to have a small weakness another character would puzzle piece into. The character with an answer didn't need to be better on average, just be an answer to another particular character.

I felt like those shape struggles were more pronounced in the game than most others, and could explain a lot of the desire/need to counter pick more than simply a low bar on execution difficulty. To discourage counter picking, wouldn't over all difficulty of execution need to be raised? Not just that, but to a level that the best of the best are being discouraged from moving to any other potential character?

I have to think there are maybe a 100 people on the planet good enough to be known & relevant to the competitive scene of a given game, and most of them probably aren't going to struggle a lot with execution issues, meaning it's some other group holding the impact of not being able to do something.

I think execution is a skill trait that should have some value. I don't know that it should be valued over a lot of the other skills it takes to win, or has to be something that gets prioritized for any and all fighting games equally.

It's tricky though, because how can you give it value without giving it power to tap into an imbalance? If the character is only as good as other characters then what was the point? If they are better, then you are saying only high execution players can play good characters, which is giving the skill a premium value over other skills.

I'll stop talking now.

 

[aj1701]

blah blah blah.

Execution shouldn't be the skill barrier. It should be your reads, knowledge of punishes/combos, situational awareness, spacing, etc.

Not whether you can roll your thumb in two 360 rotations while mashing both bumpers and slapping your ass.

My thoughts exactly. I loved MK2 because it was like playing chess, not because I had a super hard time executing moves.

 

[aj1701]

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.

I was thinking you could learn to juggle chainsaws. As long as you're accurate you'll be fine.

 

[dribirut]

Idk they made it seem like absolutely all of the characters that have been revealed are extremely low execution and easy to use which to me is a problem..

 

[Dankster Morgan]

"this character is very easy" and "I would say this character does best in the mid range" is most of what weve heard.

 

[Juggs]

The goal of this thread is to discuss an ongoing debate about execution barriers and what it will mean to a game. Considering depth, counter pick meta, ease of use, execution level of characters and game play mechanics can have a tremendous effect on an individual's investment in a title or the longevity of said game. In recent kombat kasts and character reveals, 16 bit explicitly stated "This character is excellent for beginners and easy to use. We want it to be more about the decision making instead of execution" This mentality surely makes the game more approachable to new/casual players but it has a detrimental effect on the games longevity.

A game’s popularity involves a lot of factors. The main goal of a game is for it to be “easy to play, hard to master”. That way you appeal to all audiences. This has consistently been the way NRS designs their games, even back with Midway and the classic MK’s. So, when your game has unnecessarily high execution barriers, you’re already limiting your playerbase. I know a lot of friends who are gamers who refuse to play “hard” fighting games because of this fact. They don’t want to have to grind for days on end just to be able to do a simple move or combo. Which makes sense, tbh.

Now, the longevity of a game also involves a lot of factors. How easy it is to get into 100% comes into play. If you’re not even getting players to play your game, longevity can become irrelevant. Now I know the response is “we don’t care about new players, casuals, etc, cater only to high levek players”. Sorry, but you don’t build a scene/community that way. You want as many new players playing the game as possible. That isn’t to say that these players need to be catered to, or rather ONLY catered to, not at all. But the barrier to entry for these games need to have some simplicity, otherwise you’re wasting a huge pool of players.

Everyone starts out as a scrub and/or casual, it’s just the nature of gaming. If a game has unnecessarily high execution barries to even be able to play the game, these players are going to be turned off and not be interested. I’ve said this before, but there’s a very real common misconception when it comes to high execution requirements and/or barriers. People tend to think the harder a game is executionally, the better it is or the more depth it has. While it could potentially add depth, execution plays only a small role in determining depth, or skill gap for that matter.

As a competitive video game player, I’d much rather focus my time on all the high level aspects of a game, including fundamentals. Also I’ve said in another thread, personally I’ve never had a problem with high execution requirements, just unnecessary ones. When you add unnecessary execution requirements, you’re only giving the illusion of depth. You’re making it artificially difficult for the sake of “high execution”.

There’s been many old school games that have lasted for a ridiculous amount of time competitively because of this fact. They’re relatively simple to get into, hard to master. But the emphasis is placed on high level decisions, fundamentals, mind games, reactions, footsies, spacing, reads, knowing MU’s, knowing what to do in every situation, etc. These are the things that determine skill gap. Execution comes into play when we are talking about consistency. Being able to consistently do your BnB’s, your full combo punishes, being able to execute everything you’re trying to do effortlessly. This is the type of execution that should be admired, this is also the type of execution that separates good players from great players.

I know there’s a lot of casuals and scrubs crying to make things easier. So it’s easy to automatically want the opposite. But for good of the game, and for the longevity of it, sometimes making certain things easier is the best decision. The skill gap will still be there regardless, and in fact it could even be larger when you don’t have to focus so much on high execution stuff and can get into the high level stuff as a mentioned above. It’s all about time managment when you’re training, which I suppose is a topic for another discussion.

 

[B. Shazzy]

the only real one. i competed early in the game but i do not anymore. can you give some insight to this thread? i know how good you are and loved playing you in 12. you were one of a few that required me to think or get messed up. the only one baiting push blocks et cetera. im a fan. wish you traveled.

if anyone does't know shazzy was ranked in the top 5 (or better) for sf5 online ranked and thats no joke.

oh lul. thanks, I... wasnt expecting this reply.

as a player i pride myself on playing characters in ways other cant, so ya i like characters to have barriers. I play charge and zonk characters in sfv and people ask me all the time how i do it on pad

nrs characters dont really have levels to them to master so i just pick whatever is cheapest, looks cool or has memelike moves, aka Mikey in inj2. In a week or 2, you could do anything any dedicated main does with any character execution-wise in these games because of the combo system and how everyone is motion-based inputs. Combined with how setplay heavy the games are... low execution standards can make anyone effective really. Im surprised everytime i play someone who knows what neutral is in online ranked lul


Over a a few month’s time people “catch up” to the game’s “meta” (aka watch sonicfox/etc show them a character is good and suddenly everyone has a pocket x character by next week) . Its what makes the games boring and stale despite the great netcode for me

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Not only that, but it's amazing for spectators.

Evo-moment-37 wouldn't be a thing if it weren't so impressive.
When something unexpected or difficult happens in the heat of the moment, it's hype!

I'd honestly say that it gives a game a tremendous amount of longevity. That's why fighting games that focus on things that aren't as impressive for too long (Injustice2 zoning) end up having people lose interest faster.

Execution isn't any more impressive for spectators than any other style of fighting. Snake Eyes had some of the hypest, most memorable matches in all of SF4 and Zangief's gameplan is as simple as it gets. But people knew that actually pulling it off was difficult. No one cared about the execution motions for SPD, they cared that he actually had to get in against his opponent and pull it off. And thus people were on their feet yelling and screaming for a guy who was walking in and blocking for 30 seconds just to land 1-2 moves.

Meanwhile in MK9 people became bored of watching players counterpick with Kabal and it was far more exciting to see someone try to make a run with Baraka, Noob, Ermac, Sub Zero etc. After the first couple months of the Kabal era, no one got excited just because you had to mash your controller constantly for NDC pressure.

Hype comes from drama, mind games and risk/reward, not from counting the number of controller inputs you need to get something done.