SF3 Boohoo to projectile zoning

Discussion in 'General Chit-chat' started by Spurn, May 9, 2012.

  1. Spurn

    Spurn Active Member

    Ok I was just wondering why parrying fire balls is such a bad thing in SF3. Twelve walks right under them should that not be allowed? Balrog in SF4 doing the turn punch through them is allowed without major complaint. I just don't see why its such a big deal to make projectile characters have to try something more than firing fireballs at a distance.

    edit add:
    What about rolls or parries' via KOF or Capcom vs Snk 2? They go right through fireballs yet their not drawing such complaints...
  2. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    It's about gameplay variety. It's not a problem if some matchups subvert a normal gameplay style, because it's good if your characters don't play exactly the same in every single matchup. So, yes, as you said, we want the property that sometimes a projectile character needs to use a non-projectile strategy.

    The problem in SF3 is it did the opposite thing, reduced variety. If projectiles don't work in *any* matchup, then you aren't making things more interesting by making projectile characters learn a second playstyle. The projectile strategy no longer exists, so now those characters just learn their rushdown-variant strategy, and now they have to use that in every single matchup.

    Even more problematic is the gameplay overlaps. If you create a projectile character and a rushdown character, and then force the projectile character to use a rushdown style, then you don't really have two seperate playstyle anymore. You just have two rushdown characters, and players will gravitate towards the stronger one since they basically play the same. (Which is exactly what happened in SF3 tournies... everyone plays Ken and noone plays Ryu because their similar but Ryu was slightly more projectile focused, and that style wasn't as effective)
  3. CWheezy

    CWheezy Well-Known Member

    12 also walks extremely slowly, and parrying the fireball builds meter while 12 walking does nothing

    The main problem is the same idea as to why dragon punches really do have to be a dragon punch motion. There has to be an opportunity cost to the move. That is why your balrog TAP example doesn't fit, because the player has to be folding all three kicks (Or punches), he has to time it correctly, because the tap is not projectile invincible forever, and he has to do it at a range where the tap will be safe. There is also a risk, because if he guesses the opponent will throw a fireball, and the opponent does not, balrog is in big trouble and will probably eat a full combo

    If he had parry, he doesn't have to think about any of that, he just taps forward. If the opponent does nothing, balrog loses nothing (in third strike, does not even lose a charge)
  4. Spurn

    Spurn Active Member

    What about rolls or parries' via KOF or Capcom vs Snk 2? They go right through fireballs yet their not drawing such complaints...
  5. CWheezy

    CWheezy Well-Known Member

    Strawman, no one said anything about liking those things. Don't change the argument
  6. Inkstud

    Inkstud Well-Known Member

    IIRC everybody hated rolls and those drew tons of complaints
  7. link6616

    link6616 Well-Known Member

    I think for kof the thing is you can really bait the rolls and punish bad ones. Parries not so much. At the very least rolls force a position change.
  8. Kayin

    Kayin Well-Known Member

    Yeah, punishing is a big part of it. Like, I love Akatsuki Blitzkampf and think the parries in that game are fine when it comes to preserving the keepaway game of the characters who have them. The trick here was making it so the parry wasn't super effective against fireballs. It also gave parries a big whiff animation. And also gave parries an auto followup attack, meaning that most parries lead to less than ideal damage (as opposed to SF3, where you can give optimal damage).

    Now that said, even in that game, parries had a bit of a negative effect. They simplified situations (Solution to bad situations? Guess a parry!) but that was okay because the game is and sort of succeeds at what it is because of it's simpleness (It's the game I've had the easiest time getting new players to play out of anything ever).

    Wheezy covers a lot of why various other options are less egregious than parries. The detail is very important here. At roughly medium range or longer, for a skilled player, parrying fireballs is a near zero risk option with no disadvantages. There are plenty of reasons to not roll, or not to tap, or not to FADC through fireballs. Even if a roll in a particular game is safe, you might not even want the positional change! There is at least a decision to be made. In Blitzkampf, I believe parries put you in a LONGER block stun (the advantage being you can cancel that block stun into a followup attack but that isn't applicable with fireballs at far range) but negates pushback and chip. There is a decision to be made!

    The other issue is it makes things homogeneous, even outside of the fireball game. Everyone has the same big, universal solution. Universal solutions can be fine, but you want them to be worse than specific character options. You want universal abilities to generally define to minimal ability of a character, not the maximum ability. If parries are the number 1 defensive option amongst all characters..... well.... That sorta simplifies the game a lot.

    Honestly I don't even mind that SF3's parries kill fireballs. I can easily enjoy a rushdown focused game. The fact that it penetrates the whole game. =/

    Also man I wish there were more punishable wakeup rolls in games. I actually sorta like the rolling option (it often leads to the need for some cool types of okizeme tricks and option selects), but they're usually too good. The only game I played recently where rolling didn't feel too good was Skullgirls -- because that game is crazy and you can easily cover them with assists and everyone is a murder machine so the knocked down player can use all the help they can get.
    Lofobal likes this.
  9. zem

    zem Super Moderator Staff Member

    Wakeup options tangent: I'm definitely biased because it was the first "fighting game" I was ever really "good" at, but I think the wakeup game in SSBM was really good. When you were on the ground, you could:
    a) Roll forward or backward. These are initially invincible and they go far, but they become vulnerable about halfway through, and are very punishable if predicted.
    b) Do a wakeup attack. This is a unique, normal-ish attack every character has that usually hits on both sides of them. It starts out invincible but is also easily punishable if blocked or dodged.
    c) Just stand up. I'm not sure if this had any invincibility at all, but at my level it was very effective, because most people are looking to react to a roll or waiting to punish a wakeup attack, and standing up allows you to act much more quickly than the other options.
    d) Keep lying on the ground and be vulnerable to anything that can touch your hitbox, except grabs, I think.

    The defender has a lot of options, but they're all pretty bad. Wakeup attacks weren't deadly or very damaging, so the best possible outcome for the defender is that they get a little damage and get out of pressure. And the option that provides that outcome is also the easiest to punish if the attacker sees it coming. Directional rolls have an "obvious" choice: away from the nearest edge. Often an attacker can cover multiple options sub-optimally, like by running towards and timing a dashing attack on reaction. And so on and so on.

Share This Page