CvS2: Ratio Mode vs. Single Match Mode

[jchensor]

Apoc, in another thread, posed an intersting question. But it was off-topic from the thread's original purpose. So I've started a new thread to respond to him:

Originally posted by Apoc


Completely off topic:

On A2 I recall Gief vs Chun to be a REALLY great match when played expertly by both sides. Not that I remember much else about the game:P

BUT! As far as gief being usable on CvS2? James, imo, the game would be much more fun if we all tried it on single match mode. Unless ppl were damn good with Blanka and Sagat, they wouldn't be much of an issue. Single character would allow Gief to actually become usable. Not to mention the variety in characters and grooves. What do you think about the idea? I honestly believe that it would rejuventate the game.

Apoc.

Quite honestly, Apoc, I've come to hate the Ratio system, and here's my reason why:

In all non-ratio games, close matches meant something. When one person eeked out a victory in a round, it was incredible. And the person who lost REALLY felt it. And then, next round, outside of Super Meters, everything is back to square one.

In Ratio System games, if this similar situation occurs, no one is disappointed. If your Ratio 1 lost to another Ratio 1, but did 90% damage, it's all good. Your Ratio 1, though lost, did his/her job WITHOUT A DOUBT.

I would easily prefer the game on Single Match Mode these days. It's because it kept the game more exciting. There wasn't any of this "yourcharacter did their job" stuff. A round was a round, and winning it mattered.

However, I do believe that if we played tournaments on Single-Match Mode, variety in character usage will DROP. I mean, it happens in all games: In Alpha 3, we only saw V-Akumas, V-Sakuras, V-Zangiefs, V-Ryus, and A/V-Dhalsims. They were always the winners of Alpha 3 tournaments. Why? Because you can't be top tier unless you can beat top tier. So if people were serious about winning, most of the time they'd play top tier. Sure, there were a few people squeaking in on their turf (Charlies and Sodoms come into mind), but most of the time, you'd see only the best characters.

CvS2, the reason why we see such oddballs as Maki and Geese and such are because as long as that character "does their job", they are viable. I use Maki, she's nowhere top tier. But she can do her job and I can easily do 80% to 120% damage off my enemy on average. So what if she isn't top tier? Behind her, I have Chun Li and Cammy, who ARE top tier. The Ratio System allows for less-than-qualified characters to make an appearance because they can always be backed-up by top tier characters.

Without a doubt, if we played Single Match Mode, I would be using Cammy only or Chun Li only. And no doubt anyone who has an Oddball + Oddball + Sagat team or an Oddball + Oddball + Blanka team would pick Sagat or Blanka as their main character. In tournametns, we'd see mostly Sagats, Blankas, Cammys, and maybe Chun Lis. The dynamic of tournaments would change drastically, for sure, but the results would always be a Sagat winning, probably. Or a Blanka or an A-Bison.

HOWEVER, I think the main point you are trying to get at still stands. Another weakness of the Ratio system is that nothing is ever fleshed out in CvS2. Do we REALLY know the match up of Eagle versus Sagat THAT WELL? I don't think anyone here can describe the scope of that match-up in as much detail as someone can describe Zangief versus Sakura in Alpha 3 or Vega versus O.Sagat in Super Turbo. Why? Because it's lost it's importance. As long as you know how to deal your damage with your character, it's all good. So the depth of strategy of an Eagle versus Sagat match is gone, because there's not as much at stake. If your team did well, and Eagle showed up last with your opponent's Sagat already drained 40%, it's not as important trying to kill your opponent. You've got such a head start. If it's the oppostie, and you start at 60% and he's at 100%, then it becomes a quest in landing a Super or something. It's just not the same as in Alpha 3 or Super Turbo.

So if we played Single Match Mode, I guarantee you that characters will be BY FAR more fleshed out. Someone out there will pick Zangief and REALLY LEARN HIM. And we will really learn what he['s capable of. Nowadays, it's just "Gief died! Argh. Oh well, I still have Yamazaki and Rolento, so I'll be okay but man does Gief suck." In Single Match Mode, that Gief player will WANT TO LEARN EVERTYTHING HE CAN to avoid getting whalloped by an opponent. So guaranteed Zangief versus Sagat, we'd learn every detail. Maybe Zangief really doesn't suck against Sagat. But who wants to take the time to learn it? I mean, look how much O.Sagat's Standing Strong changed Sagat versus Dhalsim in Super Turbo. Something THAT SMALL can affect a match-up that much. But with the Ratio System, no one takes the time to learn these things because no one is FORCED to. Are we REALLY worried that our Maki died after draining the enemy 80%? No. Because that's still considered a success, not a total loss. If it were a total loss (single match mode), we would definitely take the effort to learn why our Maki died first, and make sure we defeated the opponent first next time. Because losing, in Single Match Mode, is just that: losing. Not a "my character did their job".

So Single Match Mode would let us all lern our characters and the match up tenfold, IMO. But, in theend, we'd figure out which of the characters were the most viable, and at tourneys, we'll see mostly top tier winning with the few people who dare to compete with Maki or Eagle or Zangief. But, sad to say, I'm almost positive those people will never win a major tournament and they will eventually be forced to move on the top tier as well (unless their character turns out to be top tier as well... ^_^).

So that' my viewpoint on it. We'd learn our characters a LOT more, but I think we would end up seeing less variety at tourneys.

- James

[N-Ken]

Originally posted by jchensor
Apoc, in another thread, posed an intersting question. But it was off-topic from the thread's original purpose. So I've started a new thread to respond to him:



Quite honestly, Apoc, I've come to hate the Ratio system, and here's my reason why:

In all non-ratio games, close matches meant something. When one person eeked out a victory in a round, it was incredible. And the person who lost REALLY felt it. And then, next round, outside of Super Meters, everything is back to square one.

In Ratio System games, if this similar situation occurs, no one is disappointed. If your Ratio 1 lost to another Ratio 1, but did 90% damage, it's all good. Your Ratio 1, though lost, did his/her job WITHOUT A DOUBT.

I would easily prefer the game on Single Match Mode these days. It's because it kept the game more exciting. There wasn't any of this "yourcharacter did their job" stuff. A round was a round, and winning it mattered.

However, I do believe that if we played tournaments on Single-Match Mode, variety in character usage will DROP. I mean, it happens in all games: In Alpha 3, we only saw V-Akumas, V-Sakuras, V-Zangiefs, V-Ryus, and A/V-Dhalsims. They were always the winners of Alpha 3 tournaments. Why? Because you can't be top tier unless you can beat top tier. So if people were serious about winning, most of the time they'd play top tier. Sure, there were a few people squeaking in on their turf (Charlies and Sodoms come into mind), but most of the time, you'd see only the best characters.

CvS2, the reason why we see such oddballs as Maki and Geese and such are because as long as that character "does their job", they are viable. I use Maki, she's nowhere top tier. But she can do her job and I can easily do 80% to 120% damage off my enemy on average. So what if she isn't top tier? Behind her, I have Chun Li and Cammy, who ARE top tier. The Ratio System allows for less-than-qualified characters to make an appearance because they can always be backed-up by top tier characters.

Without a doubt, if we played Single Match Mode, I would be using Cammy only or Chun Li only. And no doubt anyone who has an Oddball + Oddball + Sagat team or an Oddball + Oddball + Blanka team would pick Sagat or Blanka as their main character. In tournametns, we'd see mostly Sagats, Blankas, Cammys, and maybe Chun Lis. The dynamic of tournaments would change drastically, for sure, but the results would always be a Sagat winning, probably. Or a Blanka or an A-Bison.

HOWEVER, I think the main point you are trying to get at still stands. Another weakness of the Ratio system is that nothing is ever fleshed out in CvS2. Do we REALLY know the match up of Eagle versus Sagat THAT WELL? I don't think anyone here can describe the scope of that match-up in as much detail as someone can describe Zangief versus Sakura in Alpha 3 or Vega versus O.Sagat in Super Turbo. Why? Because it's lost it's importance. As long as you know how to deal your damage with your character, it's all good. So the depth of strategy of an Eagle versus Sagat match is gone, because there's not as much at stake. If your team did well, and Eagle showed up last with your opponent's Sagat already drained 40%, it's not as important trying to kill your opponent. You've got such a head start. If it's the oppostie, and you start at 60% and he's at 100%, then it becomes a quest in landing a Super or something. It's just not the same as in Alpha 3 or Super Turbo.

So if we played Single Match Mode, I guarantee you that characters will be BY FAR more fleshed out. Someone out there will pick Zangief and REALLY LEARN HIM. And we will really learn what he['s capable of. Nowadays, it's just "Gief died! Argh. Oh well, I still have Yamazaki and Rolento, so I'll be okay but man does Gief suck." In Single Match Mode, that Gief player will WANT TO LEARN EVERTYTHING HE CAN to avoid getting whalloped by an opponent. So guaranteed Zangief versus Sagat, we'd learn every detail. Maybe Zangief really doesn't suck against Sagat. But who wants to take the time to learn it? I mean, look how much O.Sagat's Standing Strong changed Sagat versus Dhalsim in Super Turbo. Something THAT SMALL can affect a match-up that much. But with the Ratio System, no one takes the time to learn these things because no one is FORCED to. Are we REALLY worried that our Maki died after draining the enemy 80%? No. Because that's still considered a success, not a total loss. If it were a total loss (single match mode), we would definitely take the effort to learn why our Maki died first, and make sure we defeated the opponent first next time. Because losing, in Single Match Mode, is just that: losing. Not a "my character did their job".

So Single Match Mode would let us all lern our characters and the match up tenfold, IMO. But, in theend, we'd figure out which of the characters were the most viable, and at tourneys, we'll see mostly top tier winning with the few people who dare to compete with Maki or Eagle or Zangief. But, sad to say, I'm almost positive those people will never win a major tournament and they will eventually be forced to move on the top tier as well (unless their character turns out to be top tier as well... ^_^).

So that' my viewpoint on it. We'd learn our characters a LOT more, but I think we would end up seeing less variety at tourneys.

- James

Some very good points, HOWEVER, as you said matches will be forced to become more in depth, maybe then people will see that Blanka and Sagat maybe arent the gods ruling over peons such as Maki, Eagle, etc. Maybe it will be found that CvS 2 isn't as lobsided as thought previous. Maybe the top tier will be reinvented. Or maybe things will stay as they are, but as it stands every other game has a defined top tier anyway, that is being used and abused, so 1on1 really has no disadvantages to being tourney tested, at least for a while.

A scrubs $.02

[Azrael]

Wow, great post. I agree with pretty much everything said. One of the things about the team/ratio set up is, we don't want to pick below top tier at all because that'll be a weak point on the team. That character will get worked, and now you have a deficit to fight behind. Plus, you don't really have to fully learn the character. As James said, as long as they "do their job", we consider them effective. In single player mode, you would really have to learn your character. You couldn't just drain your opponent, you'd have to beat them. It would make players come up with new strats for winning matches.

Plus, single player matches would go by a hell of a lot quicker. Whether I'm watching tournament Cammy/Blanka/Sagat, or casual play Joe/Vice/Guile, it's still very long and very boring (thank GOD the 4v4 option was removed). I think more arcades should look into having the single play option activated, or even adding a single play division to APEX. It could potentially really help this game.

And yeah, you'll probably see a ton of Sagat's/Blanka's/Chun's during tournament time. Such is life. As long as there is a top tier, a handful of the same chars will dominate tourneys. But here, at least you have the option of being creative. Master your one character and take it up against the comp.

[IllegalMachine]

I like a good one on one fighter just as much as the next guy, but if we did switch and started using single match I think the game would start suck really really bad. As it is right now most of the teams out there have ether Blanka, Sagat or both on them. If everyone started to use single match almost everyone who wants to still be competitive is going to be forced to Blanka, Sagat, or maybe one of the other 3-4 char that can actually compete with them, that renders 90% of the cast useless. What the point of having all of those chars and not even being able to use them(effectively), thats why I like the ratio system, it allows you to use the not so great chars and still be able to win.

[Ex_MaTT]

Play 3on3!!
that way no Ratio2 come backs!!!!

[Mummy-B]

eX_MaTT, you totally missed the point, and/or are joking.


I am up for Single Match in tourney play. Always have been.

[Ex_MaTT]

Originally posted by Mummy-B
eX_MaTT, you totally missed the point, and/or are joking.


I am up for Single Match in tourney play. Always have been.


I was Joking
jeez

[Mummy-B]

okay, i just threw in the "and/or joking" for that reason.

But in any case, I think 3 on 3 is good for team play, like three people with one character each. That way, every player's characters are all even, if you disregard vitality differences.

[Dasrik]

Christian and I were throwing around an idea of having CvS2 single match tournaments.

If I could get enough people interested AND willing to make the trek down to Riverside, I'd go ahead and do it.

Originally posted by Dasrik
Christian and I were throwing around an idea of having CvS2 single match tournaments.

If I could get enough people interested AND willing to make the trek down to Riverside, I'd go ahead and do it.

Would I have a chance with single match? Or would I die more than I do now?

[Dr.B]

It's all about Ratio...Thats how the game is played and it gives more balance to the fighting....

-Brandon:cool:

[erco]

single match means people would be less willing to take risks. IMO, it'd be interesting, and a good learning experience, but, after a little while, it'll devolve into even more turtling and c.fiercing. The risk/reward factor of picking an oddball character is really whacked in single play mode.

[Hoonyo]

Yes, we probably would see more Sagat/Blanka/Chuns in play, but don't we already know GREAT counter characters to these top-tiers? You'd definitely see more Eagle/Balrog action with Sagat's in play, more Anti-Blankas (none of which I am aware of other than Hibiki, and we know Hibiki's counter-char is Bison, etc.).

Anywho, I'm down for Single Match Mode tournaments, as someone stated earlier, perhaps a separate division for Apex?

[cruelfist]

i feel that single player is good for showing whos the best with out any help, and there is really no excuse about "he was ratio 3 and i was ratio 1 yea and thats why i lost" i think the dmg is equal just like all the other st games. But the team play is what makes CvS2 fun to play. Using the whole entire cast like illegal machine said and playing 3 on 3 like mummy-b said makes it fun. If you wanna really have a 1 on 1 fighting game, play 3rd strike or super turbo.
originally posted by jchensor
So that' my viewpoint on it. We'd learn our characters a LOT more, but I think we would end up seeing less variety at tourneys.
Hell yea, shit i see ppl using sagat, blanka, bison on the regular basis, it gets boring after a while, there are so many characters to choose from like yun or guile. Just like marvel vs capcom 2, all you see is cable, magneto, sent/storm and its the same deal, but the main goal is to win, bottom line so what ever it takes to succeed then thats whats gonna happen.

[shiniduo]

both modes offer different options/style...

so honestly I don't care if it's a ratio or single match I'd still use C or N groove Hibiki...:D

[oriku]

IMO, ratio/3vs3 matches incorprate more strategies than 1vs1 matches. Examples:
- you have to keep track of the time to see how much life you have left - which is a factor in your decision to using super (esp P Groove).
- character order guessing games (character countering).
- say your character is about to lose and you know you have close to no chance of winning this matchup, you can play run-away to make sure your opponent doesn't get much life back (while charging the super bar for your next char).

these and plenty more strategies leave me happy that arcade cvs2 is in ratio mode and not single matches. I do like single matches so i'm not hating, but i feel ratio matches are so much better.

Another thing, I don't think it makes sense to say that 1vs1 matches, as opposed to ratios/3vs3 mean you delve deeper to find the intricate strategies of your choice of character. if you're playing a (3man) team in a tournament that you'd want to win, you would practice and try to find the little intricate details of each of your 3 characters as much as the one char in 1vs1. the only difference is that you take more time to learn 3 characters as opposed to one.

On the other hand, I think having the option to play 1vs1 in the arcade is useful for those who don't have the facilities to practice their characters at home. BUT for tournaments, ratios is the way to go. The more strategies involved the better.

that is all.

[Gunter]

If you really want to see variety, the only way is to adopt the Japanese format of tournaments - one match, single elimination, one character throughout, and held weekly/often. People may think that "oh, it's single elimination, I gotta use the top tier", but when there's another tournament the next week, it doesn't really matter. You'll use who you want to use. This makes people practice matchups more also, because since you can't do the stupid American style of counter character play (*cough*EVO ST finals*cough*), you never know when you're going to get that difficult matchup. So you master that matchup just in case. In Japan, you saw Z3 tournaments won by A-Gen, V-Charlie, A-Guy... all because the players MASTERED their characters and were able to win their difficult matchups ONE MATCH. It doesn't matter if a character loses to another character a lot... even if it's 1-9, in a Japanese format, all you have to do is win that one time and you win the set. You advance, the other person is out. That's the beauty of Japanese tournaments. They are much more exciting than American ones... by FAR.

[folken001]

Originally posted by oriku
IMO, ratio/3vs3 matches incorprate more strategies than 1vs1 matches. Examples:
- you have to keep track of the time to see how much life you have left - which is a factor in your decision to using super (esp P Groove).
- character order guessing games (character countering).
- say your character is about to lose and you know you have close to no chance of winning this matchup, you can play run-away to make sure your opponent doesn't get much life back (while charging the super bar for your next char).

these and plenty more strategies leave me happy that arcade cvs2 is in ratio mode and not single matches. I do like single matches so i'm not hating, but i feel ratio matches are so much better.

Another thing, I don't think it makes sense to say that 1vs1 matches, as opposed to ratios/3vs3 mean you delve deeper to find the intricate strategies of your choice of character. if you're playing a (3man) team in a tournament that you'd want to win, you would practice and try to find the little intricate details of each of your 3 characters as much as the one char in 1vs1. the only difference is that you take more time to learn 3 characters as opposed to one.

On the other hand, I think having the option to play 1vs1 in the arcade is useful for those who don't have the facilities to practice their characters at home. BUT for tournaments, ratios is the way to go. The more strategies involved the better.

that is all.

That is very true.

Sorry to say, I think 3 on 3 use more strategy than one on one match.

[Azrael]

Heh, this is my 1337 (th) post. :cool:

The Japanese tournaments sound really cool. And it makes you a better player - you have no room for mistakes, so you have to tighten your game.

As for what people are saying about lack of variety....as if we see any now? All it is is Sagat/Blanka/Random Third. As long as top tiers exist in a game, they're going to be unavoidable, especially at high levels of play. In a team, you have to pick SB in order to keep up with the other guy. One on one, you can use whatever character you think will get the job done. In single matches, I'd be bringing my A-Hibiki against all comers.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with James - I hate the ratio system. Imagine your R1's are dominating a match....your first char takes out the other guy's first, and half the second. Your second R1 finishes the other guy's second, then goes up against the R2. Your R1 can put up a decent fight, even hit a level 3 super, but then get destroyed by the R2, and when your R2 comes in, the other guy gets most of that damage back, making it just about equal. By the numbers, you should have the advantage. You dominated the match. But here you are in the decisive battle, and all things are equal. I like 3v3 better than ratio.

As far as team strategy goes, I think you had more with the set ratio system of CvS1. You had point characters to build meter, meter users, meter abusers. I used EX Vice/Ryu/King in that order because Ryu sort of was a meter builder, and King was a heavy abuser. Plus, people feared my King more than my Ryu. :evil: So far, I haven't seen too many strategic CvS2 teams. Either give R2 status to your strongest character and have them anchor, or give it to your weakest as a booster, and put them in the middle. And the whole thing about running away strategically to prevent the other guy from getting life back....so, we're trying to promote turtling and games even longer than they already are?

And I don't think anyone is proposing replacing team CvS2 with single play. Just add it to APEX. You don't have to participate if you don't want to. The only single play game we have up there is ST, and that game is mostly up there for nostalgic purposes - I don't think there are that many people playing it. A3 got old, and 3S lost its shot, so all we've got left is single play CvS2. All I'm saying is, if you can have ST on APEX, why not single play CvS2? At least give it a shot, see how it works.

[FMJaguar]

- you have to keep track of the time to see how much life you have left - which is a factor in your decision to using super (esp P Groove).

Of course, the decision to use super meter or not is far more in-depth and skillful than actually learning characters and engines what was i thinking!

- character order guessing games (character countering).

IMO that's one of the worst things about the newer games, there was a huge thread on it before, but the bottom line is that it's at best random, at worst outright cheating, and totally distracting to the game.

- say your character is about to lose and you know you have close to no chance of winning this matchup, you can play run-away to make sure your opponent doesn't get much life back (while charging the super bar for your next char).

I don't think strategy is the term that best describes this. Annoying, silly, makes me want to leave the machine, yah those are more like it. Theres a difference between running 5 seconds of a match your winning, and literally doing NOTHING for 99 seconds since there's really nothing better to do.

these and plenty more strategies leave me happy that arcade cvs2 is in ratio mode and not single matches. I do like single matches so i'm not hating, but i feel ratio matches are so much better.

Yes, the skillful days of 'oh damn my counter to sagat is last, but his sagat is 2nd, guess i lose' and chasing characters with 1 pixel and full meter. Ratio IMO has a couple advantages, however they are not the ones you mentioned. You just seemed to throw out a couple of obvious tactics and label them strategic.

Another thing, I don't think it makes sense to say that 1vs1 matches, as opposed to ratios/3vs3 mean you delve deeper to find the intricate strategies of your choice of character. if you're playing a (3man) team in a tournament that you'd want to win, you would practice and try to find the little intricate details of each of your 3 characters as much as the one char in 1vs1. the only difference is that you take more time to learn 3 characters as opposed to one.

The whole point is that it doesn't matter or help you win to learn 3 characters, since you don't have unlimited time to learn the game, why not just learn 1 or 2 characters at above average level, then pick a third character that has great matchups. It ends up being the same.

On the other hand, I think having the option to play 1vs1 in the arcade is useful for those who don't have the facilities to practice their characters at home. BUT for tournaments, ratios is the way to go. The more strategies involved the better.
that is all.

[Eternal Blue]

personally, i think i like 1 on 1 more. 3 on 3 doesn't bother me. i actually like it better sometimes cause i have more variety during one fight. for example, don't u sometimes get bored of winning with just one character in a game like 3S? i do. also, 3 characters allow you to test your skill more. what i mean by this is that you can insert a character considered low tier and match him up against lets say Sagat and see how you do. thats pretty fun IMO. 3 vs 3 is not bad, but i think i would enjoy 1 vs 1 also...maybe even more. and i know this sounds really bad, but i sometimes believe that cvs is a better game than cvs2. some ppl will be shocked, but unbelievably, some ppl agree with me (or i agree with them...however you wanna look at it).

oh this has nothing to do with this cvs2 talk, but sometimes, dont u guys think SF needs more atmosphere and story back in the game? like in a3, the stories were pretty cool, but cvs2 just seems kinda gay and not a lot of atmosphere. i liked the old school sf games more sometimes just cause they had more excitement. i can't really explain it...i think it may be nostalgia.

[Maj]

Sorry guys, but i don't this is gonna ever get off the ground. It's just too late in the game for this you know, plus with All Stars coming out, nobody really wants to get excited about CvS2 again. We have this huge random variable to look forward to and guess about, and that's XBox Live CvS2, but it's pretty random at this point so no point in guessing already.

But even though i don't think we'll ever have separate Apex systems for Team and Single Match CvS2, mainly cuz those damn Cannons are so lazy (i've been protesting outside their house for Apex CvSPro for weeks with nothing to show for it), there are a few good points that need to be made.

First off, like James said, there's a huge difference between learning matchups and learning how to to deal with the fact that you don't know matchups. If your best character is Guile but you have Cammy on your team, when your opponent picks Vega, you're automatically going to try to match up Cammy against Vega because Guile vs Vega sucks so bad. But that's not learning a matchup. Believe it or not, there's a whole bunch of tactics that your Guile will be FORCED to learn from Guile vs Vega that he just doesn't need enough in other matchups for him to break down and learn them. These tactics will branch out and help him in every matchups as well by adding to his variety and versatility, and give his mind something new to play with - a new problem and a new approach. This is called FLESHING OUT YOUR CHARACTER. It takes time, and it takes effort.

But in Team Play, even if you wind up with Guile/Cammy/Blah vs Vega/Blah/Blah and you have absolutely no fucking idea what to do and lose for free, your opponent (assuming they are about the same skill level, and he just tries to avoid your Cammy just like you try to avoid his Vega) will lose for free to your Cammy and you'll wind up even thinking you both know matchups and got skillz. You may call that strategy, but it's really just knowing the game at a very simplistic level and never having a reason to get advanced and elite and og or whatever.

Cuz let's face it, a lot of these characters win for free. Like Sagat for example. Sagat wins so many fights for free, that the Sagat player has really no idea what he did RIGHT to win. What's worse is, when he loses against a superior player, he has no idea what he did WRONG to lose! If he has no idea what his mistakes were, he'll have no idea what to change, and what does that mean? Means he can't adapt for shit! And what's the number 1 thing that separates top tournament players from scrubs? Adaptability!!

This thing is even worse with Blanka. Because at least Sagat is sort of logical, in that he is such a basic character design. Fireball, uppercut, low fierce, jump roundhouse. But Blanka is so ... different. Blanka is basically Rolento in this game. How many people do you know that can actually play Rolento without Custom Combos? Let's say the teams in question are A-Rolento/Iori/blah vs N-Ryu/Blanka/blah. Rolento can't use custom against Ryu because then Blanka will rape meterless Iori for free (don't argue with me on this, just go along with it for sake of example). How many people do you know that could actually WIN A-Rolento vs N-Ryu without using CC? I'm betting most of the Rolentos you know tend to wind up at 20% life vs 60% life Ryu and just use CC to win the match. Or run away for 50 seconds until they have meter, then CC to do damage and find some way to land a combo and win, without caring if they lose 30% along the way. That's not knowing a MATCHUP, that's knowing how to use a CUSTOM! Yes that's a stategy, but it's such a shortcut strategy because it applies to all your characters.

These sorts of tactics are what predominates CvS2 because learning when to low fierce with Blanka means you pretty much learned when to low fierce with Sagat. Learning when to roll with Sakura means you pretty much learned when to roll with Shotos. There is a way around this obstacle and that's picking non-top-tier characters like Shotos, Guile, Kyo, Terry, Rock, Rugal, Kim, and Dhalsim and FORCING yourself to play footsies against characters who clearly have the advantage. But how many people are willing to do that? Plus of those people, how many people have the patience to get hit by 30 low fierces and still keep trying to find a way to hit it back without just giving up and hoping they'll get lucky jumping blindly or rolling all day?

But with Single Match and sticking to one or two characters, you would be forced to play these kinds of shitty matchups even if you picked top tier characters! Because every top tier character has a bad fight, and just from those you would get much, much better. Plus your opponents, who picked say A-Iori vs your N-Blanka, would get better and better against your Blanka to the point where it wouldn't be a free win for you anymore and you'd actually have to TRY in order to win, and definately get better in the process.

And someone mentioned using meter or not to get life back. Well, the thing applies to a MUCH greater extent in Single Match because if you use your meter, you get one round and then you're considerably ahead of your opponent. But in the next round, your opponent will have meter and you won't and you'll have a really tough time getting around that so you'll be more likely to lose that round. And if you use your meter and miss and lose the first round, you're totally fucked and will have to know how to use your character without meter to bait your opponent's meter just to have a shot at playing a third round for the game. That's much better than just trading characters for meter and winding up even by the time your last characters come out in Team Play every fucking time no matter what.

Just a few points i thought i'd throw into the mix. Good thread.

[Azrael]

^ Wow, so many good points in that post I don't even know where to start.

I think the whole adaptability thing is really key. Especially with the way things are now, most Sagat's either fight another Sagat, Blanka, or a counter char. Same for the other top tier. I get beat by Sagat a lot (honestly, who doesn't), but I rarely ever see any new tricks or tactics. The established ones work so well, why bother to come up with new ones? Especially if your Sagat comes into the fight with an advantage, if your team did a good job of beating up on the other guy.

In A3, I can actually beat a lot of V-Akuma/Sakura's with my A-Karin. Mostly because I play a LOT against V-Akuma and Sak, and for the casual player, I've seen all their strats before and I know how to deal with them. On the other hand, they probably don't get to play against many A-Karin's, so they get hit with a lot of stuff they never saw coming. I think the same could apply for single match CvS2. I mean, sure, Sagat/Blanka can come in and finish a round no problem, but can they take 2 out of 3? And what happens when the usual tactics get predictable? What happens when someone picks a mid-tier character the Sagat/Blanka player has no idea how to deal with? Things like that.

I also agree that in the team setting, you only really learn the surface of your character. For example, I use N-Sakura on point. It's very easy for me to "do my job" with her. I can hit one of her level 3's fairly easily, and get in a few uppercut combos, or standing roundhouses, and beat the other guy's point, or at least come close. But this isn't learning Sakura, it's using her. In single play, the dynamic is very different. Sure, I can go for the quick level 3, but then what do I do in the next round? And even if my Sakura gets worked, I can always shrug it off and have my next character pick up the slack.

Not to mention that because I have Sakura on point, there are a lot of matchups that I rarely ever play...like Sakura Vs Sagat, Blanka, and Ryu.

Anytime I start learning a new character, I always play for a week in single play before ever adding him/her to my team. Lets me get a true feel for the character. And the computer sucks! Against real people, that's where you can really learn your characters.

I guess I'd like to see single play in APEX because I'm incredibly bored with the game as is, and single play could breathe some more life in it. And this is the only 1v1 option outside of A3, 3S, and ST, games which, to me at least, not too many people are playing. I don't necessarily need it in APEX, but without the APEX backing people aren't going to bother with it at all.

[oriku]

Of course, the decision to use super meter or not is far more in-depth and skillful than actually learning characters and engines what was i thinking!

I didn't say that. It's just another strategy. geez.


I don't think strategy is the term that best describes this. Annoying, silly, makes me want to leave the machine, yah those are more like it. Theres a difference between running 5 seconds of a match your winning, and literally doing NOTHING for 99 seconds since there's really nothing better to do.


Turtling/runaway is a strategy. If you don't like it, then that's your problem. Personally, I wouldn't do this in casual play, but in tourneys where you play to win, then hell ye I'd do it, especially if I know it's gonna piss off my opponent (psych adv).


Yes, the skillful days of 'oh damn my counter to sagat is last, but his sagat is 2nd, guess i lose' and chasing characters with 1 pixel and full meter. Ratio IMO has a couple advantages, however they are not the ones you mentioned. You just seemed to throw out a couple of obvious tactics and label them strategic.


What's your problem? Can't you quote me without flaming? FFS If you don't agree with my view then at least provide some constructive arguments.


The whole point is that it doesn't matter or help you win to learn 3 characters, since you don't have unlimited time to learn the game, why not just learn 1 or 2 characters at above average level, then pick a third character that has great matchups. It ends up being the same.


What is the time limit to learn characters? And I don't see how picking a third character you don't really know how to use wins you matches because of great matchups. I'd say that'd be true if you play against mid-level players, but not to players with high-level skills.

One last thing, my bad for using "strategies" as a synonym for "tactics". How about you tell me some more tactics instead of attacking me. Seriously, wtf is your problem??

[Buktooth]

this is kinda irrelevant... but I thought it would be cool if the game had a modified Rivals Schools system. It's still 2 out of three rounds like any other fighter, but you pick 2 chars. If you lose the first round, you have to use your other fighter. Simple enough, right?

Anyway, the do-able change I'd like to see in the game most is a bump in the speed level from 3 to 4. Maybe even 5, but that's a bit too nutty.

As far as single match... I definitely think it's worth a trial run. Maybe I'll run the next few SVGL tourneys with that format if I can garner enough support from the players.

[FMJaguar]

Turtling/runaway is a strategy. If you don't like it, then that's your problem. Personally, I wouldn't do this in casual play, but in tourneys where you play to win, then hell ye I'd do it, especially if I know it's gonna piss off my opponent (psych adv).


Who cares about turtling as a strategy? You were trying to say that a specific instance of running around the screen with no purpose other than to waste everyone's time is a *feature* of the ratio play system, that adds to the value of playing the game... I was saying that not having it, is a better option than having it.


What's your problem? Can't you quote me without flaming? FFS If you don't agree with my view then at least provide some constructive arguments.


I did not flame you, i was just saying what happens and making a point. You portrayed them as strategic elements of the game, i portrayed what I thought of it. Even if you don't like my description, it's still pretty much what people think of CvS2.

What is the time limit to learn characters? And I don't see how picking a third character you don't really know how to use wins you matches because of great matchups. I'd say that'd be true if you play against mid-level players, but not to players with high-level skills.

You seem to be promoting this cliche of 'well if your the best, you'll learn everything and nothing else will matter', First off, if it were true there would be no point in discussing games at all, since the answer to everything would be to just become the perfect player so nothing else matters. The reality is that most people go 'well damn, why waste my time with this if it doesn't help me win as much'. Everyone is affected by matchups, the set of moves a character gets doesn't change because a top player plays them! Also a top player that doesn't know how to play a character is different than a beginner that doesn't know how to play any character, which is why it's still good enough to win most of the time.

[Cantrip]

My personal opinion is ratio mode is the worst of the three modes. Three on three feels more like team play than ratio mode due to the lack of the ratio two at the end. The ratio two on peoples teams is usaully the anchor like sagat,cammy,ect,ect. The ratio two ends up being the focus of the team and the other characters expendable extentions of the ratio two. Three on three doesnt have this problem and I like the fact that u can use team order switch because of the more diverse matchups that u end up playing.

People have already mentioned a lot of good points about single player mode the only thing I can think of more I can think of that character groove selection becomes more important. A-Bison is a major threat in any line up, but not quite as scary when he starts with no bar. When u dont have team members to back you up the way supers get used changes in a big way. Aside from the way super meter use changes, one on one mode forces u to know your character better and how your groove unqiuely relates to him. There on other important factor that comes up isnt game play related really but how 1v1 could affect the player base. I turned on many of my friends to cvs2 n they loved it for a while but having to learn a whole team part sorta turned them off. The reason is they just couldnt devote there whole life to the game. Most people who arnt die hard fighting game players wont/cant invest that much time in the game but they do enjoy playing. Most people find a character they like based on character design or the characters fighting style. That becomes much harder in ratio and 3v3 and still be effective overall since u have to pick 3 chars and a groove which all work well together.

Aside from everything I think single match(and 3v3) mode tourneys are great idea ...even beter with apwx support!!

[zuggzugg]

I like the idea!! Let's get some tourneys going!! Please!!

I know there are enough people that still want to play. No one is showing any support for it.

I'm ready for tourneys in my back yard. Somone come over and help me!

Geese!!

[PSX]

One of the better discussions I have seen in a long time. I am making this thread a sticky with the hope that maybe this could expand on the CVS2 scene and maybe introduce some new format to tournaments and the way we approach them.

[Master Yen]

Single match tourneys would be very cool. It gives us something new to try in CvS2 instead of the soon to be boring crap.

[zekemek]

Originally posted by Gunter
If you really want to see variety, the only way is to adopt the Japanese format of tournaments - one match, single elimination, one character throughout, and held weekly/often. People may think that "oh, it's single elimination, I gotta use the top tier", but when there's another tournament the next week, it doesn't really matter. You'll use who you want to use.


I agree entirely with Gunter. In fact, I think I’ll start running weeklies at Stockton Golfland using this format. Should I just have the players choose one ratio 4 character each? Or is there a way to set up the machine for single character play? Also, what would be the problem in Apexing the results? Is there a rule against single character play, or were you guys just talking about having a separate ranking for it?

I’ll let you guys know when the tournament will be, if you’re interested in joining.

[jchensor]

Originally posted by oriku
IMO, ratio/3vs3 matches incorprate more strategies than 1vs1 matches. Examples:

[snip!]



All you your points are valid, oriku, but thre's one significant mistake in the logic of your arguments 9not a flame, just pointing it out):

The strategies you are listing have nothing to do with the characters.

The reason for bringing up the single-match mode is because we want to learn character specifics. Everyone says Zangiefdies to Sagat pathetically, but I disagree. I think Zangief can fight back (but then again, I am always on Zangief's side). Regardless if there is more meter management or character order to take into account, that doesn't affect Zangief vs. Sagat. I am specifically looking for ways to gain more knowledge about match-ups.

I think 1-on-1 match ups would greatly benefit CvS2. Probably turn it into a better game. I mean, HONESTLY, who here does NOT have a team with a supposed "Blanka-killer" or a "Sagat-killer"? In Alpha 3, if your character was Charlie, your character is CHARLIE. You don't look for a Sakura killer or an Akuma killer. You used Charlie. I'll bet you, right now, that most characters can fight Sagat and Blanka than you think. And, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they are Gods of the game. But the thing is, we don't know. Which is why rankings for CvS2 have been actually really hard to justify. Do we really know our characters?

The only weakness is that we WILL see a drop-off of Makis and Geeses and Mais. Because maybe they just aren't up to snuff with the top tier. We probably will see a larger use of Sagats and Blankas and Cammys. But every game has been that way. But we will always have the dedicated Guy user and the dedicated R.Mika (^_^) user. We will always have the Fei Long lover of Super Turbo and Cammy users of Super Turbo. And they will surprise you. Do you know that R.Mika's Standing Jab can beat Vega's Crouch Strong in Alpha 3? Did you know that a Cammy Jumping straight up Strong will beat a wake-up Tiger Uppercut from Sagat in Super Turbo? Probably not, but someone out there does. Someone out there finds these things out because they hae to. NO ONE knows these kinds of things for most of the CvS2 characters. THAT is what CvS2 will benefit from from Single Match Mode. And it may, in the end, even make Ratio Mode MORE fun.

* * *

And I'm gonna kill this whole "CvS2 Single Match Mode in Apex!!" now. Let's not even start trying to beg for CvS2 Single Match Mode Apex. It's too late, and it's not going to happen. In fact, even though I'm a proponent of the CvS2 single match mode, I don't even want that in Apex. It's too late: the game's too old, no one cares as much anymore, and Evolution 2003 will probably be just Capcom All-Stars anyhow... there's no real point for national rankings of it. But for PERSONAL knowledge? Who knows, maybe if it catches on, we can outright replace original ratio style CvS2. ^_^ You never know.

* * *

I applaud Capcom's attempt for making an interesting new system for teams. It has promoted variety and I like it. However, I honestly think there's a better way to do it. If anyone from Capcom Japan secretly reads this, I hope to propose to them THIS idea for a future team-based SF game:

3-on-3 Set with random order may be the most fun for a team format. If there was a 3-on-3 mode, the cpu determines your order randomly, and every round began with the NEXT TWO CHARACTERS, that would be more fun. In other words, if one team is A, B, and C and another team is X, Y, and Z (CPU chose them in that order), then round 1 is X versus A, Round 2 is Y versus B, and Round 3 is Z versus C. Whoever wins the round, WINS. The winner of the match is the first person to win two of those rounds. THAT would be the best way to incorporate teams, IMO. I even dislike King of the Fighter's method. And you have to make the computer randomly determine your character's order. Then we can still have some meter management issues with your team, but we would learn MATCH-UPS. You'd be forced to learn Maki or King against 100% of the characters, because you have NO clue who you are running into. The team idea was cool, but it has yet to be properly implemented (in a non-realtime switching environment like TTT and MvC2).

* * *

In any case, I'm just dreaming now, fantasizing, and there is very little point to that. It's not gonna happen, and as much as we'd like to believe it, that idea will never reach a Capcom of Japan's game designer's ear. So I need to stick with reality more than fantasy.

And I've said enough for now. ^_^ Just wanted to add one last comment that I think the Japanese style of play is the best: single elim, 1 round, 1 character (or team) forever. That's the way to learn match-ups. No more of this "coutner character" or "switching teams or order" thing that bogs games down. That type of strategy is just a cop-out and a substitute for really learning your characters and match-ups.

- James

[Eternal Blue]

I just wanna point out that the random method jchensor suggested would be soooooo easy to implement. I just don't think they will do it, because most players don't like random anything. They like to be in control. How would you like if the computer chose random supers in a game like SF3? That would suck cock for most people (i would like it a lot). For me, random character/super/order/ratio select is a thrill because I enjoy trying to win using any combination...but because Street Fighter appeals to many people, not just hardcore players, I don't think Capcom would ever seriously consider a random team order. In consoles YES, in arcades...probably not.

[Cantrip]

I think u need to use the YAMAOOUT password in the games option menu to unlock single match mode.

[zuggzugg]

Originally posted by jchensor
The only weakness is that we WILL see a drop-off of Makis and Geeses and Mais. Because maybe they just aren't up to snuff with the top tier. - James

I have no problem playing geese only. :) Geese isn't going anywhere. At least, mine isn't.

[darthJones]

Originally posted by Hoonyo
Yes, we probably would see more Sagat/Blanka/Chuns in playsorry. i haven't been around the boards for a little while. has chun li somehow become top tier within the last few months or something? anyone care to fill me in on why and/or give a link to the thread where this is shown?

thanks

dj

[Azrael]

Y'know, I don't particularly care for APEX, especially since there are no games on it that I really like/play right now, but I get the feeling that unless CvS2 Single Play is APEX supported, not too many people are going to want to invest any time in it, aside from those who think it's a good idea and really want to work on their characters.

Hope I'm wrong though, I'd like to see something breathe new life into this game.

[Takamura]

Originally posted by Mummy-B
eX_MaTT, you totally missed the point


:lol: :lol: :lol:

[SEbastard]

Me and zekemek were messing around with single character play last night, and it changes up the whole game. In a good way. We may be throwing some tournaments following this format.

[jchensor]

Originally posted by zuggzugg


I have no problem playing geese only. :) Geese isn't going anywhere. At least, mine isn't.

Yeah, my mistake... Geese actually is pretty top tier. I think we'll still see a flock of Geese in tourneys. :-P

Originally posted by darthJones
sorry. i haven't been around the boards for a little while. has chun li somehow become top tier within the last few months or something? anyone care to fill me in on why and/or give a link to the thread where this is shown?

Chun Li would be top tier in this situation because she's a viable character that can fight both Blanka and Sagat. And she holds her own against many others. She may have weaknesses against certain characters, but the fact that she can take out the top two tired characters is hugely important and beneficial to her position on the ladder.

* * *

I think if people are interested in trying this out, they really just need to start running tourneys this way and playing in this mode. I think if Apex supported it, it would help it a lot for sure (I wsn't trying to put down Apex at all). But I'm just saying that pushing for it NOW is a losing battle because we have nothing to support the need for it. In fact, if CvS2 ends up becoming a better game with Single Match Mode, then who knows? Maybe the whole nation will switch over (in tourneys and serious play, not casual local scrub arcade play). If anything, play it that way at home a lot more and see how different it turns out. We'll need as many people to try it out as possible and to see if they like it or not before we can determine if this is a smart move. Anyone who runs a tournament using Single Match Mode, please share your results and thoughts afterwards. Was it more exciting? Less exciting? Please let us all know.

- James

[Gandido]

Lord knows how many Hibiki players might show up.
Maybe even Kyo as well. =)

I'll still stick with Iori, Bison, Chun and Rolento even if it's made into single match mode. Maybe even Akuma once in a while.

[honda man]

i don't think it's nescesary to repeat good points, so i'll let you all decide which points are good or not. I am a hater of top tier. Yes I ocassionally stray to the top in my efforts to "diversify" my character knowledge base, but i always feel so dirty. I love the idea of 1v1. I agree that I would be able to focus on one character at a time. My Kyosuke would find a way to consistently launch against airborn foes. My raging storm would become integral to my strategy (yeah I switched characters). My Haomaru will find the best time to do that kick ass super. I know it's not to be at my arcade though, who near the bay area is planning tournies, or will have machines set to 1v1?
My experience with 1v1 is that the match ups that seemed so easy before aren't really. My friend's hibiki, which usually is owned by my geese, made matches really dificult. His kim kept on psyching out my dhalsim. I thin kwith the 1v1, terry would become more than just: let's try to land the super and burn knuckle. And ken would make everyone pee their pants.
In conclusion: SHAZAAM

[zekemek]

Originally posted by honda man
i don't think it's nescesary to repeat good points, so i'll let you all decide which points are good or not. I am a hater of top tier. Yes I ocassionally stray to the top in my efforts to "diversify" my character knowledge base, but i always feel so dirty. I love the idea of 1v1. I agree that I would be able to focus on one character at a time. My Kyosuke would find a way to consistently launch against airborn foes. My raging storm would become integral to my strategy (yeah I switched characters). My Haomaru will find the best time to do that kick ass super. I know it's not to be at my arcade though, who near the bay area is planning tournies, or will have machines set to 1v1?
My experience with 1v1 is that the match ups that seemed so easy before aren't really. My friend's hibiki, which usually is owned by my geese, made matches really dificult. His kim kept on psyching out my dhalsim. I thin kwith the 1v1, terry would become more than just: let's try to land the super and burn knuckle. And ken would make everyone pee their pants.
In conclusion: SHAZAAM

i like the way this man thinks. just talked to the management at stockton golfland (sorta near the bay area) and he's cool with me hosting some weekly tournaments. he's going to figure out how to make it 1vs1. we just have to come up with a day for it. when can you guys make it out?

[Mummy-B]

I'm running Single Match Play for the tourney here at the end of November. I'll let you guys know how it goes.

[Masaka]

I like this idea, a lot.

My 2 favorite things about CVS2 were the number of characters and the Groove System. Playing in Single Match lets me learn all the more about the characters I like, makes the game shorter, and maybe makes the matches more interesting. Less essoteric characters may be played, but I think it'll be like ST, where when the non top tier IS played, they're played WELL because people have actually learned how to play them.

I'm not sure how significant this point is, but characters with really good RCs are going to be that much better. "Well duh." I haven't played too much CVS2 (or any SF for that matter) since Evo, so I haven't paid attention to how much RCing has taken over, but I'd think that in a single match world, RCing is going to be that much more dominant. It comes back to not truly knowing character matchups.

Re: single elimination weeklys, I supported that idea way back when there was a poll floating around about it. Unfortunately, it doesn't work well when people are really spread out. If there isn't really a central place to gather regularly, then it becomes a real chore. Travelling 4+ hours one way every weekend is a bit more than I'm willing to muster. But, if I lived relatively near an active arcade though, that would get my vote.

Masaka

[Burghy]

What do people think of playing at a faster speed, say speed 4 or speed 5?

That helps you learn more about characters too.

[Gunter]

As usual, I'm agreeing with everything that James says, but these points I just had to comment on...


Originally posted by jchensor


Everyone says Zangief dies to Sagat pathetically, but I disagree. I think Zangief can fight back (but then again, I am always on Zangief's side).



NOT die to Sagat pathetically? You MUST be crazy, because I think the same way, and I know I'm crazy! :lol:

Seriously... I like Sagat matches with Gief. It turns into a "fierce vs. fierce" match, and those are seriously the only matches Gief can win in this game...



And I'm gonna kill this whole "CvS2 Single Match Mode in Apex!!" now. Let's not even start trying to beg for CvS2 Single Match Mode Apex. It's too late, and it's not going to happen.


Yes. People don't understand that APEX came about because there was a great interest in the games that are included in the system. This is no "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" debate. Interest in the games came first, and that brought about APEX. 3S, A3, and CvS2 Single Match Mode do not need to be part of APEX. If they ever do it is because of such a great interest in the game/format that it demands APEX rankings. Right now, that is not the case.

[FMJaguar]

Yes. People don't understand that APEX came about because there was a great interest in the games that are included in the system. This is no "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" debate. Interest in the games came first, and that brought about APEX. 3S, A3, and CvS2 Single Match Mode do not need to be part of APEX. If they ever do it is because of such a great interest in the game/format that it demands APEX rankings. Right now, that is not the case.

*Clap**Clap**Clap**Clap**Clap**Clap* best one yet

[Kikosho]

James is definately right about the whole Makis, Mais, and Eagles thing. My team is Mai/Chun/R2Cammy, and Mai was one of those "get the job done characters" like he said. I think a single match tournament is something they should try and see if it works out. I mean, what do they have to lose? But of course, like James and Gunther said earlier, it probably wont happen.

[Fred The Jack P]

oh yeah

[Sleronipt]

Originally posted by honda man
My experience with 1v1 is that the match ups that seemed so easy before aren't really. My friend's hibiki, which usually is owned by my geese, made matches really dificult. His kim kept on psyching out my dhalsim.

...In conclusion: SHAZAAM

Yeah. My Kim kicks your ass and orders a side of fries.

SHAZAAM.

[CompassSaviour]

I always though a good idea was to have a 2 vs 2 system with instant tagging. You'd have your basic 3 level system, and tagging would take 1 or 2 levels (depening on how perful it is during the testing of the game) and instantly (like a super animation) the game freezes, and you switch with your partner, in the same place that tehy were (eg: if they were center screen, you could just switch with your partner, and the partner would be middle screen, with a second of pausing to re-adjust)

They would also share the same health bar (which would be decribed as a point system instead, so people wouldn't nit pick) and if someone was jumping at your character, you could tag in ryu (your other character) and dragon uppercut them. You get initiative, tho small, and it costs meter.

comment?

[Gunter]

SVGL is attempting to run a team tournament for CvS2 with 2 man teams - each person controls one character on the team, so you must have the same groove as your partner.

I suggested having 2 man teams of 2 r4s. That way, you can have teams of different grooves.. or teams of the same groove and same character... all matchups would be same ratio vs. same ratio (no "r3 Blanka vs. r1 ANYBODY" impossible matchups) PLUS no "building up/saving meter for your partner" BS - if you're about to die and you have meter, you can USE it since there's no "next round". Also, there's no need to change the settings to tournament format - since we're paying to play anyway, you can just leave it in normal format (although lowering the price would be good... yes SVGL is one of the few places left that still has it at 2 tokens :lame: )

Unfortunately, Choi seems intent on doing this new format of his.:(

Has my suggested format been attempted anywhere yet? What do you guys think of it? I think it'd be similar to the single-match mode a lot of us are in favor of, except only one round per player (per game that is)...

[Yumi Saotome]

Originally posted by Gunter
SVGL is attempting to run a team tournament for CvS2 with 2 man teams - each person controls one character on the team, so you must have the same groove as your partner.

I suggested having 2 man teams of 2 r4s. That way, you can have teams of different grooves.. or teams of the same groove and same character... all matchups would be same ratio vs. same ratio (no "r3 Blanka vs. r1 ANYBODY" impossible matchups) PLUS no "building up/saving meter for your partner" BS - if you're about to die and you have meter, you can USE it since there's no "next round". Also, there's no need to change the settings to tournament format - since we're paying to play anyway, you can just leave it in normal format (although lowering the price would be good... yes SVGL is one of the few places left that still has it at 2 tokens :lame: )

Unfortunately, Choi seems intent on doing this new format of his.:(

Has my suggested format been attempted anywhere yet? What do you guys think of it? I think it'd be similar to the single-match mode a lot of us are in favor of, except only one round per player (per game that is)...


That actually sounds pretty cool, but wouldn't it be easier to have two r2s vs two r2s like y'all did in CvS1 pair match mode? I think that would be interesting as well.

If y'all hold a tourney over thanksgiving break like that, I'll go....though I don't know who my partner would be (sloppy, perhaps).

[Gunter]

Originally posted by Yumi Saotome



That actually sounds pretty cool, but wouldn't it be easier to have two r2s vs two r2s like y'all did in CvS1 pair match mode? I think that would be interesting as well.

If y'all hold a tourney over thanksgiving break like that, I'll go....though I don't know who my partner would be (sloppy, perhaps).

Choi wants variety I guess... but both your format and his requires you to have the same groove as AND different character from your partner. Having r4 teams allows a mix. Like, say I use A-Ryu with a partner who uses N-Ryu. We go up against a team that's K-Blanka and N-Sagat. Both teams can have multiple grooves. My team has the same character, and all matchups would be equal ratio matchups. PLUS you don't have to worry about saving meter for your partner, OR turtling to make sure your opponent doesn't gain any life back. Games are one round. I suppose you could make it 2 out of 3 if you want, but I'm a big proponent of making matches SHORT. 2 man r4 team format would basically be the same as a single match mode one-game format.

[jchensor]

Grrgrrgh... Sorry, Gunter, changing topics a tad bit here...

Isn't there a code you can do in the arcade to switch it to SIngle Match Mode? When the game starts up, it reads "Ratio Mode" in the top right corner. I thought, like for CvS1's 2v2 Pair Match Mode, there was a way to do Single Match Mode for CvS2. If there is, I certainly can't remember what it is, and it's nowhere on the internet that I canfind. :-( If anyone remembers how to do it, please let me know.

- James

[Cantrip]

Have u tried using the YAMAOOUT password in the games config?

[PokesYOU]

I agree CVS 2s ratio play is the way its played, and is good, but a change in pace would also be good. Single mode would make it feel like the good old days, with the classic games.

[Lar-ry$]

i greeted the format with open arms.... but it's really not fun at all to me. have you guys tried it yet? it's really only for the 25 and over crowd i think. seriously. but who am i to judge? i hate training mode.-L.

[Evil Rahsaan]

it's still gonna be bogus, because roll cancelling still exists, and that is why cvs2 is lame not really ratio match, although they both bring down the quality of the game in their own way.

[FMJaguar]

Originally posted by Evil Rahsaan
it's still gonna be bogus, because roll cancelling still exists, and that is why cvs2 is lame not really ratio match, although they both bring down the quality of the game in their own way.

At least with RC everyone gets some decent bs instead of just 2 characters. Where do people get off saying that ratio is the way CvS2 was 'meant' to be played, this is SF not some religious text. Does that mean that MvC2 was meant to be played with the original 16 characters if the machine doesn't have the credits up? A3 was meant to be played without rog? cmon i don't think we need to be that hardassed about it.

[Evil Rahsaan]

Originally posted by FMJaguar


At least with RC everyone gets some decent bs instead of just 2 characters. Where do people get off saying that ratio is the way CvS2 was 'meant' to be played, this is SF not some religious text. Does that mean that MvC2 was meant to be played with the original 16 characters if the machine doesn't have the credits up? A3 was meant to be played without rog? cmon i don't think we need to be that hardassed about it.

That being said blanka is 10x as much bullshit as he was before, and he still owns all for free, sagat too. You were implying that RC makes cvs2 more balanced right?

[jchensor]

Originally posted by Evil Rahsaan
it's still gonna be bogus, because roll cancelling still exists, and that is why cvs2 is lame not really ratio match, although they both bring down the quality of the game in their own way.

I think you may have lost the point...

At least for me, this experiment isn't to improve the game. I have no idea what it'll do to the game. In any case, it's mostly for a quest for knowledge: how do match-ups play when they actually matter? And if we learn the match-ups better, does that improve Ratio Play in the end? Does that make Sagat and Blanka LESS pwoerful once everyone figures out the weird random counters to things... stuff we've never tried before.

CvS2 is a fun game, but it's not a great game by any means. Even though I like to play the game, I'll easily admit that. But as I said, I'm not trying to improve the game. I just want to see if we can delve deeper into the game, for right now, thanks to the Ratio system, the game is VERY "surface level". Who knows? If we dig deeper, we may find out Blanka and Sagat are MORE powerful. Like I said, it's not a quest for improving the game, but just to learn more about it.

- James

[box]

Originally posted by jchensor
Grrgrrgh... Sorry, Gunter, changing topics a tad bit here...

Isn't there a code you can do in the arcade to switch it to SIngle Match Mode? When the game starts up, it reads "Ratio Mode" in the top right corner. I thought, like for CvS1's 2v2 Pair Match Mode, there was a way to do Single Match Mode for CvS2. If there is, I certainly can't remember what it is, and it's nowhere on the internet that I canfind. :-( If anyone remembers how to do it, please let me know.

- James

There definitely are passwords that you can input into the configuration screen to change the format to either 3v3 or single match mode. I don't know them off the top of my head but I'll do some hunting on the net.

[snk dude]

Originally posted by jchensor


I think you may have lost the point...

At least for me, this experiment isn't to improve the game. I have no idea what it'll do to the game. In any case, it's mostly for a quest for knowledge: how do match-ups play when they actually matter? And if we learn the match-ups better, does that improve Ratio Play in the end? Does that make Sagat and Blanka LESS pwoerful once everyone figures out the weird random counters to things... stuff we've never tried before.

CvS2 is a fun game, but it's not a great game by any means. Even though I like to play the game, I'll easily admit that. But as I said, I'm not trying to improve the game. I just want to see if we can delve deeper into the game, for right now, thanks to the Ratio system, the game is VERY "surface level". Who knows? If we dig deeper, we may find out Blanka and Sagat are MORE powerful. Like I said, it's not a quest for improving the game, but just to learn more about it.

- James


Whats up james, If I had to pick a mode it would have to be single match mode, because it will be like SF2 (1on1). I agree about what you mentioned before, about how players will be able to figure out stuff when it comes to character match ups.
Like for an example, how in ST sagats s.strong is good against dhalsim. :cool:

[PROFESSORLESTER]

Sorry if someone has said this before but I have not read the entire post. I am ok with ratios I Ijust wish I could have a different groove for each chacter.

[TheRisingDragon]

Originally posted by Gunter
...
Seriously... I like Sagat matches with Gief. It turns into a "fierce vs. fierce" match, and those are seriously the only matches Gief can win in this game...



Seriously, if you knew anything about how to use Zangief, you would not blurt out such a fecal opinion.

Fierce vs Fierce. Don't make me laugh.

Zangief is a character that you must learn every single move's use in order to play correctly. I can beat any character in the game with him alone simply because of this. Also in each game that he has been in, some small factors change the way you have to use him. I have been struggling for a long time on refining my techniques w/ him in order to match out against newer and varied strategies that apply to other characters.

You and chen seem to have very bad opinions about him because no one is trying. No one wants to use him correctly. I have seen people that think the only thing that Zang is good for is roll into spd and that is about it. I am not new to this bullshit. But, somehow, you have awakened a new Dragon in me.

It's not you, but the posts about him that you 2 and others have roped that just pissed me off!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: WTF

[Gunter]

Uh huh. I don't know how to use Zangief. I'm sure anyone in the SF Bay Area will agree with you.

[cheese_master]

anyone know the password? i am sure one of the arcadias must have it.

[aCme]

I genuinely hope this post was a joke, otherwise its flat out ignorant.

Even if you didn't know that both gunter and james are two of the most knowledgable gief players, as well as very strong gief advocates in the US SF community, you could at least go back through this thread and read each of the posts they made regarding him.

just my take.
-a


Originally posted by TheRisingDragon


Seriously, if you knew anything about how to use Zangief, you would not blurt out such a fecal opinion.

Fierce vs Fierce. Don't make me laugh.

Zangief is a character that you must learn every single move's use in order to play correctly. I can beat any character in the game with him alone simply because of this. Also in each game that he has been in, some small factors change the way you have to use him. I have been struggling for a long time on refining my techniques w/ him in order to match out against newer and varied strategies that apply to other characters.

You and chen seem to have very bad opinions about him because no one is trying. No one wants to use him correctly. I have seen people that think the only thing that Zang is good for is roll into spd and that is about it. I am not new to this bullshit. But, somehow, you have awakened a new Dragon in me.

It's not you, but the posts about him that you 2 and others have roped that just pissed me off!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: WTF

[zekemek]

i'm with aCme on this. i've had the (mis)fortune of playing gunter's gief and it was bad times for my dhalsim. this guy is scary good with zangief. if i needed to write an essay on zangief you better believe gunter would be listed in the bibliography. if zangief was ever on trial (for bear mishandling or whatever) i'd call on gunter as an expert witness. if there were an iron gief cook-off....well you get the idea.

the point is, when it comes to zangief, gunter is an authority.

[jchensor]

I do perfectly well with my Zangief, but the point still stands: he isn't top tier. I do perfeclty well with Zangief, but it's known that he's just not top tier. Claiming that he is is more ludicrous than acting like he sucks. Everyone who is a Gief player will always joke about Gief as if he sucks in CvS2 because, well, that's the general perception. I don't think he's awful. In fact, I do well with him consistently. But is he practical to use in tourneys? Not really.

I've used Zangief in every game as well, as my main character, too. Believe me, I KNOW my Zangief. CvS2 is probably the first game he isn't on my tournament character list. But that's because he just isn't top tier. Make sure you bring your 'Gief up against the likes of Combofiend, Valle, and Choi before you start stating how your 'Gief can beat anyone. I can beat 90% of the people I play with 'Gief. But when your tournaments are filled with 80% of the 10% of people who I can't beat with 'Gief, there are problems.

- James

[Little Tits]

Originally posted by PROFESSORLESTER
Sorry if someone has said this before but I have not read the entire post. I am ok with ratios I Ijust wish I could have a different groove for each chacter.

I agree

[oriku]

if where u play is full of blanka/sagat/cammy/other teams, is it really gonna be more interesting if single match mode is used and then all u see are blanka/sagat/cammy anyway? you'll probably have non-top-tier chars in there, but i'd say it's probably gonna be the same ppl who didn't pick blanka/sagat/cammy teams.

in my experience (which may not reflect yours), good ppl who play blanka/sagat teams in tourneys usually pick 2 other non-top-tier chars (i.e gief) with blanka or sagat in ratio 2 as backup, for some variety and fun within casual play. in single match mode, i think ppl would be more inclined to play top-tiers to guarantee they got value for their hard-earned $1 (about 50 US cents).

of course, this is just my opinion. i do agree that single match mode means you delve deeper into your chosen char, but i think the cvs2 training mode (with the wonderful record option), and a bit of dedication should yield similar results.

Originally posted by FMJaguar


At least with RC everyone gets some decent bs instead of just 2 characters. Where do people get off saying that ratio is the way CvS2 was 'meant' to be played, this is SF not some religious text. Does that mean that MvC2 was meant to be played with the original 16 characters if the machine doesn't have the credits up? A3 was meant to be played without rog? cmon i don't think we need to be that hardassed about it.

it's not some religious text, but ratio mode IS the default arcade MODE. change it to other OPTIONS if u want, but the default mode is what capcom FIGURED the game should be played in the arcade (same with speed/damage/etc). common knowledge.

time release chars (in reference to mvc2, dunno about a3) is a totally different story. i think it's stupid to use that as an example.

[box]

this is from september 10 2001 madman's cafe

From 2ch.net- Password "YAMAOOUT" will unlock 3 modes in the system config's "Game Mode" option; Ratio Match Mode, Single Mode, and 3-On-3 Mode. Ratio match is the same as usual, Single is 1-on-1 style street fighter with rounds. 3-On-3 is KOF style with no Ratio strength differences. Again, I haven't confirmed it myself, nor do I know if it works for non-JP versions. But it wouldn't hurt to try, in any case.

[BAD]

Good post. I definitely think the tiers would be changed if 1 on 1 matches were the norm. I can take Sagat or Bison any day of the week...it`s just his bitch-ass helpers that I have to deal with in the end. I would really like to have some single battles with some of these Sagat and Vega players though...just to see how things would go without three top tiers on a team. Blanka's bad, but not as terrible as Sagat because Sagat's Tiger Genocide cancel into a Tiger Uppercut is so powerful. Anyway...would a lot of the same players be just as good in single as they are in ratio? A question to be concerned about, indeed. As far as Maki goes, here in Japan, Maki is used very effectively though...and I've seen a few really good players with her here. I can't remember it completely, but they use a lot of ground traps to pressure and guard break, with some well-placed counters that make me doubt even more where Maki is on the US tier list. However, most of the matches I see are Ratio, so it is a bit hard to tell how 1 on 1 would really turn out. Hopefully, though, to make Capcom VS SNK 2's life a bit longer, we can all start playing 1 on 1 or maybe even 3 on 3 mode to see how things pan out? Anyway, good points. Is CVSS2 really known as much as many think it is? No. Play Single matches to find out more of the game...if you can stand to lose a little in the process...

[TheRisingDragon]

Originally posted by jchensor
I do perfectly well with my Zangief, but the point still stands: he isn't top tier. I do perfeclty well with Zangief, but it's known that he's just not top tier. Claiming that he is is more ludicrous than acting like he sucks. Everyone who is a Gief player will always joke about Gief as if he sucks in CvS2 because, well, that's the general perception. I don't think he's awful. In fact, I do well with him consistently. But is he practical to use in tourneys? Not really.

I've used Zangief in every game as well, as my main character, too. Believe me, I KNOW my Zangief. CvS2 is probably the first game he isn't on my tournament character list. But that's because he just isn't top tier. Make sure you bring your 'Gief up against the likes of Combofiend, Valle, and Choi before you start stating how your 'Gief can beat anyone. I can beat 90% of the people I play with 'Gief. But when your tournaments are filled with 80% of the 10% of people who I can't beat with 'Gief, there are problems.

- James

First off, I am not claiming that he is top tier. I am saying that simply there is a lot of untapped potential for Zangief, allright. A lot of people don't take him seriously enough and/or are not willing to do what it takes to make him playable for tourneys in general. The joke part is understandable, but sometimes it does piss me off. That goes w/o saying. But people get their humor off that and I can respect it, however it still does piss me off sometimes because I have a sort of "bond" with Zang if you know what I mean.

Second, I do not play by way of "tiers". If I feel I can flow with a character and play him well in a tourney, "top tier" or not, I am gonna damn well do it. Even if I am not sure about it, I will take a tourney or some good casual play to rumble with the best in my area, okay. I, personally, do not care much for tiers. There is a way to beat any character with any other character in the game, the key is finding out how to defend against that character.

Third, when I say character, I mean "character", not "player", If I say player, I mean player. I am not sure that you read my post carefully about that and maybe didn't understand that, so this is just to let me know. And talking about characters that are "playable for tourneys" is an understatement. Every character is playable for a tourney, it just takes time to prepare for that whether it be skill, accuracy or dealing with pressure tactics, etc. I KNOW my Zangief as well, my friend, and I am not afraid to use him in tourneys to see if I have progressed enough to move up the ladder with him.

Lastly, for you to throw names like Valle, Choi, Nelson, Cole, Watson in my face like that is, in a way, disrespectful and can be considered mere trash talk. I mean, do I go up in your face talking about "I know you can't take Alex Valle. YOu ain't shit!" or something along the lines, and I don't even know you or them. I don't bad-mouth anyone's skill at all and I don't say things or bark comments about a person's skill unless I have played them a good while myself, even if only for a few games. If anything, I help them. If I know a tactic they can use to modify their gameplay better and I have seen or done it myself, I say so. I enjoy competition in fighting games and love to see better players go at it or modify a person's skill with my knowledge to give them some sort of an extra edge even if they have one. It's those kinds of challenges I enjoy, because it forces me to work harder to compete. And if I can't beat someone with a character that I can use fairly well, I review what happened in the match and work on it as best as I can. You may be working as best as you can on it, or you prefer other characters, or something else. I don't know. I don't know you like that, okay? Of, course, there are problems when dealing against other characters, other players, or other tactics, but there is a solution for every problem.

Just to make things a bit clear on my post. Sorry if you didn't understand me clearly enough. A lot of people don't sometimes. I get that. I just have to make things more clearly with some people.

[jchensor]

Originally posted by TheRisingDragon

Just to make things a bit clear on my post. Sorry if you didn't understand me clearly enough. A lot of people don't sometimes. I get that. I just have to make things more clearly with some people.

No, it's all good, perfectly understood. I have that same "bond" with 'Gief myself, and I'm actually a bit more angry that Capcom decided to make him less than worthy in this version of the game (CvS2). I more than anyone (except maybe you and Gunter) would love to make Zangief extremely powerful in this game. But he's not.

And some people do not like to talk about tiers. In fact, tiers are largely 75% judgemental, especially after the top tier characters. So tiers aren't the greatest thing in the world to refer to, but there's still such a thing as top tier, whether we'd like to believe it or not. And simply put, a character isn't viable unless they can fight this top tier (or at least one of them, as the case may be for CvS2). Zangief has problems against Blanka and Cammy and Sagat, esp. if you are a good 'Gief player and not an expert 'Gief player. And that's gonna hinder his usability. I never played with tiers either (in older games, I consistently used less than top tier characters) and I've never done well in tournaments because of that.

Lastly, sorry to throw names like that you. It's a knee-jerk reaction. There are too many people who post things like "I beat 95% of the people at my local arcade with <insert character here>!!" and, frankly, it gets old. Because good players are good players... a good player can win in their local arcade with almost ANY character just because they are better. So either they are full of themselves and just don't know, or they are giving a very honest evluation of their performce. And, frankly, the majority of the people who say those things, especially on the internet, usually fall into the first category. You, however, do not seem to. But I wasn't able to make that distinction until your second post. My fault for the knee-jerk response, but sometimes it's hard for me to control these days. ^_^ But I throw the names out, mianly because, these are the people who have discouraged me from 'Gief. And it's painful for me to admit that. Because, as I said, I would love to use 'Gief more in tourneys.

In any case, didn't mean to lash out at you. Zangief can be a decent character in CvS2, but he suffers the unfortunate fate of having most of his troublesome matches be top tier characters. If his weaknesses were something like Kyosuke, Yuri, and Dhalsim, life wouldn't be so bad. But Blanka, Sagat, and Cammy is not a good thing.

- James

[kitchenpatrol]

1v1 matches provide a different element than team matches....a definitely more "classic" feel in 1v1...i'd like to see this happen in tourneys....of couse, that p-groove player wont have a super in the first round lololololol.....sup maj/chen:D

[cheese_master]

IMO... the major problems in CvS2 stem from Blanka. Take out his gay ass like ST Akuma. And the game is already more balanced. As much advantages Sagat and Cammy have... they can be outplayed and BEATEN. Blanka on the other hand... you can outplay someone using his gay ass... and still only take away 3/4 of lifebar.... only to have that last 1/4 of his lifebar come back to haunt rest of ur team. I am sorry... but at least Sagat has to think vs some characters... like say Chun Li, or Guile, or Blanka, or even a Cammy. Blanka has just too much bullshit to make him in any means a fair character. Almost EVERY aspect of the game assists him. It is really dumb. I think ban Blanka... and the game is alot more fair and diverse. The main reason 99% of players don't want to pick a Kyo or Mai or Akuma on their team isn't cuz they are afraid of them vs Cammy or Sagat. It is cuz they don't wanna have the chance of them lining up vs Blanka... which in turn is an almost free win. So personally I would rather see Blanka be put up to ST Akuma status and banned.

[Cantrip]

N GIEF OWNS FOR FREE!!!!
Well not really but Ive had a fair amunt of success with gief in N groove. Of course N gief is completly dependant on your ability to RC. Giefs moving throw(beats other RCs!) and his spinning larait are in my list of top RCs. The throw stops other RCs n the lariat can be done almost on complete reaction.

[ShadyK]

James, let's go bug SHGL people until they change a machine to Single Match mode. Seriously.

[zuggzugg]

I'm down.

[zuggzugg]

One of the only really bad matchups i see would be any A-groove character w/ a guard chrush cc vs K or P.

He can play runaway until he has meter, then it's only a matter of time.


I'm still down.:evil:

[cheese_master]

K groove still gets the most benefit... your guaranteed about 2 lvl 3s per round even if u don't know wtf a Just Defend is. And now you don't have to worry about their R2 killing of ur R1 chars before u get a super.

[jchensor]

Shady, Zugg:

I most likely will go down this Thursday to SHGL. Maybe we can try to get it to work there, if Joey has a key for the machine. ^_^ Can you guys make it there Thursday night? I know you've got a distance to travel, Shady, so I can understand if you don't show up.

Lemme know, guys. Zugg, clean out your PM box so I can PM you. ^_^ Or look for me on AIM (I AIMed you yesterday but I don't think you were home...).

- James

[ShadyK]

Originally posted by zuggzugg
One of the only really bad matchups i see would be any A-groove character w/ a guard chrush cc vs K or P.

He can play runaway until he has meter, then it's only a matter of time.


True, but K-groove keeps existing meter even after losing a round which is pretty good.

I don't think it'll change groove tiers much.


James:

I'll try to make it Thursday night. I don't think it's likely though since the Marvel tourney is on Saturday. Probably Friday night though. If I'm not there, you guys should try to get it to single match mode anyway. :D

[zuggzugg]

Originally posted by ShadyK


True, but K-groove keeps existing meter even after losing a round which is pretty good.

I don't think it'll change groove tiers much.


Yeah, but a lot of people forget one thing. You can use taunts as a tactical advantage vs K groove. If they are almost raged, you can just taunt them and make them lose meter while you turtle.

I'll still play some K groove though. :)

[Shaolin]

I got a quick question... sorry I don't have time to read through everything...But since I have the ability to change the settings for CvS2 at UCLA X-cape arcade, is there a way to get Single match mode? or does everyone just pick ratio 4? because if there is I want to try out single match mode for tournament play!

Shaolin

[Hoonyo]

Originally posted by Shaolin
I got a quick question... sorry I don't have time to read through everything...But since I have the ability to change the settings for CvS2 at UCLA X-cape arcade, is there a way to get Single match mode? or does everyone just pick ratio 4? because if there is I want to try out single match mode for tournament play!

Shaolin
You need to enter a password.
The password is "YAMAOOUT" supposedly :confused:
It should make the game 1-on-1, round-based.

[Shaolin]

where am I supposed to enter this password?

[box]

You enter the password on the config screen.

However it doesn't automatically change the game to single match.

You have to go to game-mode on the config screen and change it from ratio mode to single match after you enter the password.

This is from Madman's cafe. I wrote a post about it before.

[Mummy-B]

We held a Single Match Mode tourney here in Gainesville the other day.

It turned out nicely, but since I was lenient and allowed character changes after losing a match, there was alot of counter-charactering. There was a nice diversity. The most used was still Cammy and Blanka I would have to say, Sagat not so much, I think I can count on one hand how many times he was used. Among them were Yuri, Hibiki, Morrigan, Balrog (claw), Geese, Rock, Chang, Rolento, Gouki, and a couple others.

Alot of the people claimed that Singles was very fun, so I am going to run another one after I get feedback from the participants to make it better.

Thought I'd share.

[Hoonyo]

Originally posted by Mummy-B
We held a Single Match Mode tourney here in Gainesville the other day.

It turned out nicely, but since I was lenient and allowed character changes after losing a match, there was alot of counter-charactering. There was a nice diversity. The most used was still Cammy and Blanka I would have to say, Sagat not so much, I think I can count on one hand how many times he was used. Among them were Yuri, Hibiki, Morrigan, Balrog (claw), Geese, Rock, Chang, Rolento, Gouki, and a couple others.

Alot of the people claimed that Singles was very fun, so I am going to run another one after I get feedback from the participants to make it better.

Thought I'd share.
Sweet. It'd be even sweeter if more tournament holders caught on to this format.

I've got a question, though. Did you allow character changes for both the winner and loser? Or just the loser? I'm thinking it's loser, but you said you were lenient so blah.

[Mummy-B]

Yeah only for the loser. One thing you have to do is implement blind character selection though, to ensure you can at least stop counter charactering for one match.

Example, someone was playing A Cammy against me, and I lost using C King. I changed to P Morrigan and won by a silver of life, and he changed to A or N Sagat. With the difference in vitality and priority there (I mean Morrigan and Sagat, come on) it was pretty much a lost cause for me (maybe if I played a little better it may have turned out differently but whatever).

I wanted to make everyone stick with one character, but since this doesn't happen as often as in Okinawa, there would be less character variation that way. Everyone would pick Sagat, Cammy, Blanka, Bison, Balrog.

[Gunter]

Originally posted by Mummy-B

I wanted to make everyone stick with one character, but since this doesn't happen as often as in Okinawa, there would be less character variation that way. Everyone would pick Sagat, Cammy, Blanka, Bison, Balrog.

Just make it one game sets. We've started to do that in the Bay Area, and it makes tournaments a helluva lot more exciting, as well as cuts down on time.

Even if you don't evolve to one game sets, making them stick to one character is a good thing. The stagnant character selection should only last for a couple of tournaments. After a while people realize that by picking someone else to use they hold the advantage - their opponent is used to fighting the same stupid characters, and so are you. But if your character ISN'T one of those stupid characters, you have the advantage of surprise. You know the match perfectly, but they have to test waters during the match itself...

[mike.m]

that tourney mummy-b's talking about was sooooooooooooooooooooooooooXX one million much fun.

Just thought i'd share.

[Ryuwinz]

how do u put the arcade on single match mode? (if its possible)

edit: n/m, i see its already answered in the thread

[zuggzugg]

It's gonna be cool if the dec 14th ucla tourney is single match mode.

One game, double elim would be sweet.:D

[margalis]

I've said for years the specific character matchup knowledge is a lost skill.

Some of this has to do with teams, and some with the number of characters. In general the most important thing now is to know your moves, your combos, your characters, etc.

Back "in the day," matches could go back and forth as the players worked out different counters. Nowadays with larger rosters and teams two characters don't meet each other as often as they used to. The only matchups that tend to be well understood are matches between the few most powerful characters. So generally it is find you best moves and combos and abuse them.

Whereas, back in the old day, for each character you knew what moves traded with what, what you could safely get away with, etc.


Edit:

Second point to make. I tend to dislike KOF, KI, VS types of round systems. In normal SF every round is a fresh start. You can lose the first round by perfect, then win the next two rounds by a bit of health and win. In a KOF setting that would come out as a loss.

In SF after an ass-kicking you can step back, figure out what went wrong, and adjust. You don't get that same opportunity in KOF style because you are now fighting an uphill battle.

[jchensor]

Two things to say:

1) I agree with Margalis, that normal energy meter systems are better, but in the case for Vampire Savior I'll have to stick up for it. ^_^ That energy system works better in VS, because of the general flow of the game. I've never minded it there.

2) Played a bit of one-on-one a few days ago with a friend. Mathces definitely need to be learned a LOT better, and things are definitely at a higher stake. But a lot of the general weaknesses of characters are magnified (as I had thought they would). Plus, the pace of the game is slowed down (now that everything is more vital, turtling and careful (read: slow) play becomes more prevalent). Thus, the game actually turns out to be less fun. I think in one-on-one, the game will be funner at higher levels of play, but when you use characters like Yuri or Kyosuke or King, the game just slows down.

There are just a lot of inherent weaknesses with CvS2 that make it not as good as Alpha 3. If the speed were better, Jump Attacks more prioritized, and if Rolls were a bit weaker, game would be better, I think. As it is, it's still got too many inherent weaknesses.

Don't get me wrong, I still like the game. Just that it'll never approach the level of, say, Super Turbo or (imo) Alpha 3.

Comments? Discussions?

- James

[Shaolin]

just thought that I wanted to agree with James.

Single match makes the game less broken and it takes more strategy to play in this mode but when I was playing Combofiend and others it just wasn't as fun as Super Turbo.

Shaolin

Zugg- still figuring out format for tourney

[NeoBlood]

Im for Single Match tournaments. Even when I play by myself, i use one character at level 4 ratio. Its almost a more refined format.

[ramberk]

2 cents...

1v1 is great because of the in-depth argument that James brought up and I like this idea. In A2 I know a lot about how Bison works against the A2 cast. In CvS2 I am always guessing and its harder to learn how good or bad Bison is because its 3v3. Not enough time and it de-evolves into a "good enough" mentality like James said.

Having said that 3v3 does add variety.

The more variety = less in depth knowledge. More in depth knowledge = less variety.

Lastly, Zekemek I'll be going to the Stockton tourney this Saturday. But I'll only be entering the 3S tourney. If you guys do weekly CvS2 1v1 tournies on Saturday or Sunday- I will enter them. I say go for it! GO FOR IT!

[MuziKal]

I hear A lot of talk about people wanting to make CvS2 singlesa match but I ve yet to see anybody throw any big singles tourneys

[chi-gui]

Yo jchensor could you give me your take on roll cancelling? Is it a technique that you agree with or disagree with! Me personally I disagree with because I dont see it as a technique! I see it as a another hitch to help the scrub player win! I dont particular like cvs2 that much because of the top tier characters! Im more of an old school player! In the ST days i think people picked characters that they really liked; not because of a cr. fierce! RC takes the fear out of doing a move; ie: its come down to the wire in A3 no super meter left for both players there a sweep distance apart and one guy throws a fireball BOOM a decisive moment in the battle the other anticipated it and jumped over it and crushes him in the face! game over! Not in cvs2 now i can throw and RC'ed fireball and dont have to worry about the delay or lag time on it and im perfectly safe! I think that feeling has left SF now! Am totally off with my theory or no! I'd appreciate your input and anyone else's is also appreciated! holla back!

[jchensor]

Originally posted by chi-gui
Yo jchensor could you give me your take on roll cancelling? Is it a technique that you agree with or disagree with! Me personally I disagree with because I dont see it as a technique! I see it as a another hitch to help the scrub player win!

Well, for one thing, it is DEFINITELY not a scrub-friendly tool. Yes, you can practice it to the ponit where you are consistent with it, but believe me: scrubs will be scrubs. Roll Cancels are good, yes, but if they are over-used, it will do them no good. Smart players will beat a scrubby Roll-Cancel player as easily as he can beat a non-scrubby Roll Cancel player. The onyl thing that makes it harder is that things that worked before don't anymore and things that didn't work before now do. That's fine. After the initial shock of "Oh crap, I forgot if he RC'ed there, I could get beat!" wears off, smart players can deal.

The problem lies with EXPERTS using Roll Cancels, not scrubs. Not only do they have the penchant to perform an RC with much higher consistency, they can also utilize it in smarter places... places when they'd actually count. This is where danger lies.

RC's, in the end, however, are a tactic that can be used by any character. So, really, it results in doing one thing. Let's pretend that RC's aren't a technique. Let's just give EVERY Special Move in the game invincibility when they start up automatically. Does this ruin the game? No, it CHANGES the game. Differnet characters will become top tier and different characters will drop. A nd different Grooves even become better. C-Groove, for example, increases in utility 10-fold thanks to the benefits of Damage and Air Blocking. Of course, in some instances, RC's just make a good character even better (like Blanka).

Regardless, it doesn't break the game. The biggest problem is that RC's AREN'T easy to do. They aren't automatic. So RC's WILL break the game for those of us (including me) who have never practiced it, never bothered to learn it, and never bothered to figure out how to fight against it. If RC's were for free, believe me, all of us would accept it a lot more and everyone would just do it, and CvS2 would be a different game. Would it become broken? Hard to say, since CvS2 isn't what I'd call "non-broken" in the first place. ^_^ But that's a different story (and yes, I still like the game).

Originally posted by chi-gui
I dont particular like cvs2 that much because of the top tier characters! Im more of an old school player! In the ST days i think people picked characters that they really liked; not because of a cr. fierce!

Tell that to OG.Sagat, who many people pick because of a Fireball. Have you ever played Cammy versus a top tier Ryu? It's not pretty. Fireballs dominate ST the way Crouch Fierces dominate CvS2. The main differences are:

1) Fireballs are more aggressive. They promote action. You can't sit there against Fireballs. Crouch Fierces, however, promote turtling, because they win mostly through space control, not offense. No one attacks with Sagat's Crouch Fierce. They just throw it out because it is safe. And that causes turtling, because the other guy can't do anything. Now if Sagat's Crouch Fierce had better range and did Block Damage? See how much sitting around would occur NOW.

2) Super Turbo daamge is so high. So these things don't annoy you for a whole round. You get frustrated by a Crouch Fierce in CvS2, and you get hit by 8 of them a round. In Super Turbo, you Block 3 fireballs, get nervous, make one mistake, BOOM. Dead. They bug you a bit, and then you die. It doesn't have a chance to get on your nerves.

3) Super Turbo is older, and people played it out a LOT more. Fireball traps were annoying, but you will get people like ME who argue that Cammy doesn't die to Ryu just because of Fireballs. I think she can beat him. But that's because the game has been played out.

4) All characters were cheap. CvS2's flaws are accented because there are 44 characters, and a lot of of them are subpar. CvS2 may have just as many "top tier" or "close enough" worthy characters as ST... but if ST has 12 worthy characters, that leaves 4 unworthy ones. But in CvS2, that leaves 32 unworthy characters. It's more glaring. CvS2 falls into the pitfalls of having too many characters for a game that wasn't designed to be "cheap" enough. The games where EVERYONE is cheap (and not everyone is fair) as a method to promote balance have always thrived: ST, MvC2. And ones that don't thrive are still more fun to go back to (Vampire Savior).

Originally posted by chi-gui
RC takes the fear out of doing a move; ie: its come down to the wire in A3 no super meter left for both players there a sweep distance apart and one guy throws a fireball BOOM a decisive moment in the battle the other anticipated it and jumped over it and crushes him in the face! game over! Not in cvs2 now i can throw and RC'ed fireball and dont have to worry about the delay or lag time on it and im perfectly safe!

Actually, that is completely false. Jumping over fireballs in CvS2, if they are RC'ed, will still warrant you a Combo. The invincibility doesn't last long enough. Their delay overshadows the invincibility by quite a bit.

Originally posted by chi-gui
I think that feeling has left SF now!

That feeling has left SF now because of the Ratio system. Rounds are a lot more meaningless. It's only the very last Round if it's down to the last characters. In older games, every Round counted, so a comeback any round, or a crucial win any Round made a difference. In CvS2, if your first character barely eeked out a victory against his first character, who cares? Your next will come in and kill the other character right away. No big deal. These days, it's when those weak character beat up on a full character that is worth noting, but it's not nearly as exciting as a close victory at the end of a round.

Originally posted by chi-gui
Am totally off with my theory or no! I'd appreciate your input and anyone else's is also appreciated! holla back!

No, you're not totally off, but it just needs to be less emotionally attached. It's easy to complain about something but not to think WHY it is that way. Of course all of us can marvel at the glory days of ST, but the very same reasons you like ST, you'll hate about MvC2. I personally think MvC2 is a brilliant game because it's the closest thing we've had to ST in a while. Unfortunately, I've never learned MvC2. :-( I've always regretted that ever since.

I'm just saying that instead of yelling at games, figure out exactly why what you hate detracts from the game. As I said, I do consider CvS2 broken, but I can go into step by step why, and why these things affect the overall enjoyment factor of the game. It's easy to declare it crap, but it's better when you can explain why it's so. ^_^

- James

[DarthSalamander]

Originally posted by jchensor


No, you're not totally off, but it just needs to be less emotionally attached. It's easy to complain about something but not to think WHY it is that way. Of course all of us can marvel at the glory days of ST, but the very same reasons you like ST, you'll hate about MvC2. I personally think MvC2 is a brilliant game because it's the closest thing we've had to ST in a while. Unfortunately, I've never learned MvC2. :-( I've always regretted that ever since.



You really think it's too late to learn MvsC2?

Point being in Houston, people who started off with MvsC2 at StarGate also play ST now.

[jchensor]

Originally posted by DarthSalamander


You really think it's too late to learn MvsC2?

Point being in Houston, people who started off with MvsC2 at StarGate also play ST now.

Hmmm.. Interesting to hear that fact... ^_^ Wonder if it is coincid