From: el27166@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (This Space for Rent)
Newsgroups: alt.games.sf2
Subject: Re: Good of ticking [please read]
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:56:51 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

larsen@hellgate.utah.edu (Steve Larsen) writes:
[in one long paragraph which I have taken the liberty to divide]

>  Well, I guess I play by defulat whay you would call a "No-Throw" game.  I
>will not throw someone unless they are dizzy (when I will usually combo, of
>course), or they made a mistake (like a missed dragon punch).  You may think
>that this makes me a weak player, and maybe by your definition, it does.  

It does make you a weak play, IMO, but that's not the point I want to get
across.  The point I want to get across is that it's MORE fun to have a
no-holds-barred (for Zangief) and no-throws-barred game.

I have seen the weeding process of the new No-Throw people at UIUC.  In the
beginning of the semester, I threw all of the new freshmen because I COULD.
A few of the masters went easy on them, throw-wise, but I was particularly
ruthless.  I wanted it to be clear that this arcade was NOT going to succumb
to wimpy cries of 'CHEAP!'.  At first, they stayed around and tried to
tick me to 'enforce' their no-throw rules.  Sadly, they failed and were
counter-thrown and simply beaten.

A few of the freshmen remained.  The ones who remained cared less about
winning than about enjoying the game.  It seems to me, that you, and many
other No-Throw people on the net would fall into this category.  These
players have a true appreciation of the game, and wouldn't mind a game
which involved throwing, since it is just another dimension of SF2.

The other players, many of whom turned to Mortal Wombat, only cared about
winning.  When they lost, they whined and cried 'cheap', although they
were not bad players.  They simply used the inherent cheapness of No-Throws
to win.  And when all of their little tricks were foiled by the very rules
which the game designers had intended, they became upset and gave up the
game.  It is these very No-Throw masters who set the tone for the arcade.
If you throw them, then they become upset and 'enforce' their rule by
ticking you to death.  It's a shame because they're depriving the rest of
the players of an entirely undiscovered aspect of SFII.

In short, the former No-Throws are some of the greatest advocates of
throwing, and the others are bitter Mortal Wombat players.

>If
>a strong player is one who can just devastate anyone who walks up to the game,
>then maybe throwing is requisite.  However, I play for FUN.  Fun to me is
>defined as playing people, who are challenging, and playing for as long as
>possible.  

I agree with your definition except for the last part.  To me, the fun of
SF2 is playing to the best of your ability and knowing that the other guy
is doing the same and seeing what the outcome is.  I believe this is the
same fun which is in all competitive sports, especially the one-to-one
matchups.

Now, often times, this is rather dull.  I especially hate Ken/Ryu fights
because to play to the best of your ability means taking very few risks.
The outcome of these battles is usually the one who is foolish enough to
jump in.  More often than not, it's me.  IMO, if you play your best
No-Throw game, each game will become a variant of a Ken/Ryu battle in
which neither player would have an advantage in being the aggressor.
I've seen No-Throw games with the matchups of Ken, Ryu, Blanka, and Guile.
In all of their combinations, it's a matter of whomever plays the most
conservatively wins.  I prefer randomness and chaos to the staleness of
a No-Throw fight.

>Now, if I obliterate my opponent is with 90 left on the clock
>for 2 rounds, chances are pretty fair that he is not going to come back in
>too many more times.  

If I continually obliterate an opponent, then obviously that opponent is
not a good match for me.  It's no fun for me to play a player who is less
challenging than the computer, just as it is no fun for him to play someone
he has no chance of beating.  And if I happen to obliterate anyone, it
certainly won't be with just throws, so the relevance of this topic to
throws is moot.

>I don't find that kind of game entertaining.  I don't
>take great pride in just kicking ass on everyone who sits down to play.  I
>enjoy seeing different playing strategies, as well as different peoples 
>approaches to my strategies.  

Oh, as do I.  But I have no patience for LOSING strategy.  If their
strategy is unsuccessful, it would be mean of me to let them THINK that
it was successful.  Of course, I do this every once in a while, because
as everyone knows, I'm a mean guy! :)

>To me, when ticking is engaged, the strategy
>and counter-strategy becomes quite redundant (if that is all that is done,
>which usually seems to be the case, once someone starts it).  I can assure you
>that I don't playing a "hit your opponent twice, and then block all round"
>game, and neither does anyone of the other regulars here.  

I know how fun not playing seriously can be.  I do it most of the time.
However, playing your best to beat an opponent can be fun to.  When
constrained to No-Throw rules, though, playing your best to beat an
opponent is not very fun, nor exciting.  I'm sure any of the masters here
could play that way, but they don't.  Astralwolf posted an example.
What we do here is play to the best of your ability AND have fun!  Sometimes,
if I play to the best of MY ability, it's not very much fun, so I don't
do it.  That's part of the reason why I'm proficient with so many of
the characters.  It's because I have to choose a character with a
disadvantage to another character so that the players are equalized.
I consider the unequal character matchups as one of SFII's strengths.

>Now, just becuase
>I don't tick as a rule, doesn't mean that I can't.  Usually, if someone does
>some form of ticking twice in one round, I will return the favor.  I also 
>consider myself to be a pretty good counter thrower ( > 80% success).  Just
>because I don't choose to do this, doesn't mean I can't.  Maybe to YOU, this
>is a poor/weak/lame/BAD way to play the game, but I enjoy it a lot, as do most
>the other regulars here, so it works for us.  Now, if I were to challenge you,
>more than likely, you would win because I am not used to expecting that kind
>of play.  I can see where that could be considered a weakness, point taken.
>However, I could also argue that if we were to play MY game, I might win.  If
>winning is everything, I guess your way has its merits, but it is not to me.
>Most of the fun comes from playing.  

It's not any less fun to play with throws and ticks.  I feel that it's MORE
fun.  I can play the No-Throw game, but if I play to win, then it's no fun.
You can play hide-a-Guile, or react-a-Blanka, or fireball Ryu, and you can
win that way, but it won't be very exciting.  Not allowing throws is closing
off a very large avenue of opportunity for many characters.  It allows
several traps and generally 'cheap' tactics to be successful.  The keep-away
skills which we learn as throwers is enhanced even more in a No-Throw game.
By limiting opportunities and chances, the element of randomness is taken
away.  It becomes a matter of choosing whatever character should beat
whatever other character and then carrying out those patterns.

If you want to have fun in a No-Throw environment, there is also an
unwritten rule that you don't play that way--- play to win so ruthlessly.
That's great and fine with your friends, but when you play someone else
who DOES want to win, then nobody has fun.  This is the reason that so
many are compelled to cry 'cheap'.  They don't realize that if throws
are allowed, you can play to win AND have fun.  When you throw alot,
people get the idea that winning is your sole objective.  That's not
the case.  The people who throw simply want to enjoy every aspect of
the game.

>Most of the regulars are like friends now
>(and some actually are friend), and reducing them to DP fodder is not my goal.
>I guess the point of this diatribe is just to say that you have your oppinions
>on what is "right" for the game, but I (as well as everyone else) have my own,
>and they are just as right (more so for me).  I really would like to play you
>guys (at UIUC) though, just to see how good you really are.

Well, if you're ever going to drop in town, be sure to post and tell us.
I'm sure the people who play here will be glad to play some new competition.
And just because they throw and play to win doesn't mean that they're
unfriendly people :).

>Steve

-- 
Eu-Ming Lee (aka CyberGeek)                      el27166@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
If you have nothing good to say, sit down, shut up, and post to USENET.