hmm, you see, now that’s more like it. those points and details you guys brought out do a much better job of explaining it for me. i appreciate that.
my biggest confusion was whether a3 upper, in it’s original arcade form, was a “better” version or not. now i have a better understanding that it really wasn’t. i mean, i can see where the vism versions of characters would just all be weakened across the board somewhat evenly, but what i wondered was whether or not the other ism versions of characters now became more viable, and did that make the lower tier characters now capable of challenging the upper tiers.
(for example: would a-ism charlie now have a better chance against v-ism akuma?)
and if that was indeed the case, wouldn’t that make the game better? but like i said, i know very little about a3, so i’m just speculating. my assumptions were this:
- a3 was dominated by a certain top tier using v-ism
- v-ism for the most part was the best choice for 80-90% of the characters
- v-ism infinites were (for the most part) the only way that the non top tier
characters could win
so based on those things i figured that anything that took away from the overall strength of v-ism would automatically make the other ism’s better, thus make some of the characters much better in other ism’s, and overall create more parady and balance.
i guess i can sort of see how it doesn’t quite work out that way, now that you guys have explained some things better. i still would love to know what the new tiers are based on the current alpha anthology version of upper. i mean, if v-akuma, v-sakura, a-dhalsim, etc. are still the overwhelming top tier, then i guess the changes really don’t help.
anyhow, thanks for the info.
btw, i never said i think that “infinites look silly”. what i said was, that when i saw players doing infinites, it made the game itself seem silly to me. (somewhat different, although to be honest, yeah… i do think infinites look silly, in the context of basic SF play)
this is just my opinion, but to me, any glitch that changes the basic/fundamental rules or properties of gameplay, to the extent where players can manipulate the game for extended periods of time, and for very large amounts of damage (much less infinite damage)… basically “break” the game. those kinds of glitches undermine the general principles of the game and imho, do more bad than good.
for example: take pro basketball. there are rules and guidelines that govern the basic principles and fundamentals of the game. so let’s take travelling violations. players can take only 2 steps after their last dribble before they have to shoot or pass.
well, what if all players were now allowed to throw the ball up in the air after their 2 steps, keep on running, catch their own pass, (basically keep passing the ball to themselves over and over without dribbling) an infinite # of times until they wanted to shoot, or until the shot clock ran out?
i mean, what kind of ridiculous game would basketball then become? who would go for that? it would basically ruin the game. now, i know those are very different analogies, but i really do think they describe the basic fundamental point i’m trying to make about certain kinds of game glitches. i also feel the same way about cvs2’s roll cancelling, i think they destroy the basic principles and rules of SF, and imo… they ruin the game. but hey, that’s just my personal opinion.