From: larsen@hellgate.utah.edu (Steve Larsen)
Subject: Re: Good of ticking [please read]
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 20:49:41 GMT

el27166@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (This Space for Rent) writes:
: 
: 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.
: 

  You are correct in your observation.  I do not mind playing a throwing game.
It just so happens that if I were to play that kind of game here, I would be
playing by myself all the time.  I can do that at home with my SNES.  We used
to play a throwing game here (ie: follow a sonic and throw, jump in with 
roundhouse and throw, etc), but hardly ever a ticking game.  The main reason I 
stopped is becuase with Guile, I was creaming everyone else I was playing (this
was on the classic), moreso if I threw them regularly.  This is I suppose the 
basis for the no-throw game here.  It has just lived on.

: 
: 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.

  I agree, but you can do this without throwing, and hiding, and it is still
just as fun to me.

: 
: 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.

  I don't think this is always the case.  I find that the aggressor can have
a distinct advantage, and most of it is psychological.  I cannot say how
many times I have come back from being down a long way in the last seconds
of the round because my opponent psyched themselves out due to my aggression.
As, as you know, all Ken has to do is hit with one flying fierce punch,
and the game is all but over.  He can fail to get in on you a lot of times,
but all he needs in one.  Of course other players can do considerable damage
in similar circumstances.

: 
: 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.

  Well, what I meant was that a throwing game tends to go faster, and
discourage the opponent because of the amount of damage being done to
them with each throw.  Since each throw does more that any other move
in the game save combos, I will give them this advantage so that:

A) the game will last longer and be more challenging for me, and

B) maybe they will play again, and hopefully long enough to get good
   enough to maybe play me regularly

: 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! :)

  Well, I never meant to imply I let them think they are succesful.  I will
give a newbie a round, true enough, but if they cannot tell by the way I
crush them in the first and third rounds that they are out-classed, then they
deserve to dunk another quarter, IMO.

: 
: 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. 

I usually do, but if I lose to a no-throw opponent while I was playing my
best, then I lost, and that happens.  It doesn't bother me.  If I lose to
a throwing opponent, I play a throwing/ticking game.  As I said before, I
don't mind playing this way/can play this way, it just isn't my favorite,
and I am not a master of it.

: 
: 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.

If I play someone who is playing to win (I assume you mean they are ticking),
and winning is important to me (ego, I want to show off, I hate this asshole,
etc), I play to WIN.  When I play to WIN, all is fair, but only if they start
it.  If I can't beat them and they are playing no-throw, then I need to get
better.

: 
: 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 :).

Well, I hope I get the chance.  I would like to play you guys, and if I
have insinuated anywhere in my chronicles that I thought you were unfriendly,
I appologize, for it wan't intentional.  

Chau,

Steve

P.S.  If you are interested in continuing this thread maybe e-mail would
be appropriate due to the length of the post (or maybe this is a valid thread
for one and all, I don't know).

Newsgroups: alt.games.sf2