From: ck522@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Nishinaga)
Newsgroups: alt.games.sf2
Subject: Re: Interruptable Attacks and Theory
Date: 6 Nov 1992 03:17:18 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck522@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Nishinaga)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu

bodom@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Brian Odom) writes (in partial):

>In <Bx5Cyo.6v7@news.cso.uiuc.edu> el27166@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (This Space for
>Rent) writes:
>
>>ck522@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Nishinaga) writes:
>>
>>>To all Sagat players:
>>>
>>>I've been arguing with dphantom@triton.unm.edu over whether or not Sagat has
>>>any interruptable (buffered) attacks.  I've been trying to tell him that
>>>standing Jab, crouching Jab, standing Short and crouching Short are all
>>>interruptable, but he almost refuses to accept it.  Will any of you please
>>>set this guy straight?
>>>--
>>>John Nishinaga
>>>ck522@cleveland.freenet.edu
>>
>>Sagat has some attacks which are interruptible (buffered).  Here's the four
>>hit combo I use on dizzied opponents:
>>
>>Jumping roundhouse (hitting the chest area),
>>Crouching short,
>>short tiger knee.
>>
>>If the opponent blocks, you can do the firebird instead of the tiger knee.
>>
>>Sagat certainly has interruptible attacks.  Please believe it, Phantom.
>
>But, you're interrupting a SHORT attack.  I wouldn't qualify that as a
>"buffered" move since it's such a weak and quick attack anyway.  Why don't you
>try jumping roundhouse, crouching ROUNDHOUSE and tiger knee, and tell me what
>you find out.  Then, that'll be a true "buffered" move.

I don't understand why you make an exception for Short/Jab.  Whether you like
it or not, it is and always will be a "bufferable" move.

I think people are getting a little confused about this whole buffering
"thing."  To explain what this all means, the following is an explanation of my
theory that I originally wrote to dphantom@triton.unm.edu.  Although it is just
a "theory," it's the best one I can come up with and it does WORK.  If any of
you can come up with a better theory WITH supporting examples, please post it. 
The same goes for throwing or anything else debatable.
 
(By the way, I don't like the use of "buffering" because it's not entirely
accurate.  I think "interrupting" is a better term, and therefore, I'm going to
be use "interrupting" to explain this theory.)
 
Now, from what I've seen, every (yes, every) special attack can "interrupt"
every (yes, every) normal attack.  The key is that each normal attack has a
certain "time limit" for the special attack to be executed.  If the special
attack isn't executed by the "time limit," then the special attack doesn't
interrupt the normal attack.  An example is that although you can do a
crouching Roundhouse to Fireball with Ryu; you can't do a crouching Roundhouse,
wait a little bit, then do the Fireball.  You need to do the special move by a
certain time limit otherwise it won't be interrupted.
 
"Wait a minute," you might say.  "If this were true, then every attack could be
interrupted, provided we timed it correctly.  Then Sagat's Fierce to Tiger
Uppercut would be possible, and that isn't so."
 
The reason for this is because these moves (Sagat's Fierce) have their "time
limit" set so early (or even perhaps non-existant) that the normal attack would
be interrupted before it would get a chance to connect, thus only the second
special attack would hit.  I know this might sound fishy, but it's what my 16
months of experience have concluded.  Let me show you an example to prove the
reasoning behind this theory:
 
If you ever tried air combo's (combo's that just swing at nothing) with Guile,
you would notice that you could do "impossible" things like far standing Fierce
(Backhand) to Sonic Kick.  If you tried this on an opponent (or anything that
connects), you would find out that it didn't work.  This situation has two
possibilities.  The first using my theory is that if you let the Fierce go long
enough so that it would hit, it would be too late (by the definition of that
particular normal attack) to be interrupted by the Sonic Kick.  An alternate
second theory is that some normal attacks are just programmed not to be
interruptable IF they hit.
 
The problem I have with the second explanation is that adding an "if" flag
really isn't necessary.  Since there must be an interrupt "time limit" variable
as I showed previously, a low value would do just the same.  Japanese are known
for their tight coding, and I don't think the SF2 team was an exception.

Please comment on this theory -- I want to hear what others think about it.

(BTW, I made a mistake in assuming dphantom@triton.unm.edu was "he", where in
fact "he" is a she.  Sorry!)
-- 
John Nishinaga
ck522@cleveland.freenet.edu