From: cw21219@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Crying Freeman)
Subject: Re: Good (and bad) of ticking[please read]
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 07:42:23 GMT

cw21219@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Crying Freeman) writes:

>I'm confused....

>epasls@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>In article <1992Dec29.165407.45953@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, epasls@kuhub.cc.ukans.e
>du writes:						 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^

>Who's who??

Never mind... I read further on in the article... (So who is the REAL 
epasls@kuhub.... ???)


>>> 
>>> 
>>> 	There are two kinds of ticks. 
>>> 
>>> 	You can do a whole bunch of little hits to dizzy your opponents,
>>> but you can also do a bunch of ticks that are unavoidable.  You can corner

>>Exqueese me?
>>This is about the worst atempt at defining cheapness that I'v ever seen.

>>IMO there are shades of cheapness.

>>1) unescapable. I dont know if any of these exist.
>>2) Touch o death, a move where if he gets u once then you are dead no 
>>matter how good u r.  Examples-dhalsims noogie till dead, guiles endless
>>magik throw(technically a bug).
>>3) Very hard to counter more than 10% ticks, Examples-vegas standing
>>strong till opponent gets board then walk in and throw, works with chun
>>but not quite as well. Or ken/ryu's short jabs, walk in and throw.
>>and many others.
>>4) throw combos's. EX- ken/ryus jumping roundhouse then land and throw.
>>5) 'Pulling a MIKE'  just walking up and throwing. not after a millisecond
>>like in #3 and not after 10 seconds which would be perfectly fine, but
>>after just a long enuf time that you could have avoided it.

>>Admittedly #5 isn't cheap but it resembles #3 and 4.



>>> the opponent, do a flying knee, and walk towards and throw him, it works 99.9 
>>Who the fuck posted this.  at least 3 people have access to this
>>account and none of them suck that bad at sf2 that that would work on them.


>>> percent of the time. You can also do a hurricane over your opponent and throw 
>>> him when you land. It's less definite to work but the odds are good.

>>This work about 50% of the time which means it has nothing to do
>>with cheapness or skill but just pure luck.

>>> 
>>> 	As to the ethics of ticking, of course, an arcade can't enforce the
>>> hazy line between skill and cheapness. But it is a universal code with SF2
>>> that if you are cheap, no one will play you, and they will give you dirty 
>>> looks. But cheap is hard to define. Things that can be done, throws in block, 
>>> that type of thing, things that block won't help are cheap.

>>Bullshit. You're saying that all throws are cheap. I'll admit that
>>most throws that happen are cheap but certainly not all.


>> But usually, you
>>> can't tell cheap unless you see it. I could see twenty people watch Chun Li
>>> do a sequence of throws and not complain.

>>because thats throwing, not ticking.

>> But one short-kick,short-kick,throw,
>>> and they will be all over that guy. There's cheap, there's ticking, and there's
>>> cheap ticking. 

>>because that IS ticking.

>>I'd like to be rid of it altogether, but nagannadewit. I've seen fistfights over ticks. People take SF2 seriously. It's more than a game now.  All I can say is watch the short kicks and throws, because it makes people mad, and if someone can't beat you in SF2, they can beat you for real.
>>-- 

>>I work at this arcade and I've seen 1 fight, not fight's but 1 fight.
>>                                                       ^     ^


>> 


>>Later...

>>/--------------------------------------------------\
>>|    DMC@Planet.Pinball=epasls@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu  |
>>|    Cindy Crawford=GODDESS                        |
>>|    Pain=Happiness=Sadness=Pleasure               |
>>|    And remember-"Big Brother is Watching you."   |
>>\--------------------------------------------------/
>-- 
> Kenneth C. Wang	| University Of Illinois Champaign-Urbana	
> 			| Internet: c-wang@uiuc.edu			
-- 
 Kenneth C. Wang	| University Of Illinois Champaign-Urbana	
 			| Internet: c-wang@uiuc.edu