These sort of things actually fall in the categorey of training mode katas. I’ve got a ton I do in training mode for sole purpose of improving execution.
i’m just explaining all the options makoto has… watch the player, watch how he reacts to all your attacks while you’re recovering. watch if he walks back alot, if he ducks alot, if he tries to counter attack during your recovery. all of them are useful in my opinion especially the ones you can cancel. most of these are definitly flashy and very unreliable. practicing alot of these helps me grasp the concept of ranges and hit boxes of other characters. what i try to do (and please give feedback i’m learning too.) during the start of a match is to stay at a good range before i get meter. w/ no SA meter, why would i wanna be in the corner. w/ no ex why would i wanna rush down. i wanna make them do something they don’t wanna do. or atleast try, and not be too predictable on attack and defending. if they are jumping in, i don’t want 50/50 parry or no parry. i wanna dash under and escape. and if i’m in range and get in quick before they land and chase. i may do standing lk kara dash punch cancel crouching hp. whatever i see i’m in great range for it to be toward my advantage i’m going to do. but please neiders hook us up w/ your makoto antics.
some random shit.
land standing hp, ex dash punch, jump in, dash back quick upon landing, bait a parry attempt, crouching lp, kara command throw. looks more fluid w/ a tech after the ex.
mid range directional throws towards the furthest corner away is definite for jump over command throw, standing hp, (hk) saII. works better against character who get up after makoto lands on the other side.
against big characters hit saII that leads to corner and sj into corner air cross up w/ mk and saII again.
i’m glad i’m getting some input, it’s always good no matter how it comes out.
i completely disagree. im gonna use your metaphor to try to prove my point.
well the biggest difference when comparing SF to RPS, is that in SF, the moves don’t have to (and will most likely not) occur at the same time. ill get to that later. but here we go…
to make things a bit easier, im gonna sub a,b, and c to rps respectively.
A > C
B > A
C > B
no arguments here. right? so moving on to the bulk.
so lets say you have your opponent on the ground. Assuming that both players will “make their move” at the same time (like rps), you have options A,B, and C. And your opponent has options C,A, and B, which counter your moves respectively. follow?
so first incident of me having my opponent in a wake up game… I choose to use option A, and my opponent uses C. I’ve guessed correctly and I won the “round” if you will…
the next few incidents I decide to choose A again. My opponent, however, now realizes that I favor option A, and will use his option B to beat me in that “round”.
Once this happens, of course, I decide to use option C next time, cuz I assume my opponent will believe I’m going for A again, and since he will counter it with B, I can counter his counter with C. Basic stuff.
So the game keeps going like that…
Now lets say I throw out something called option D.
Your opponent doesn’t recognize option D (gimmick), and when he played option B, he lost. Lets say option D’s properties say that it beats options A and B. Your opponent begins to recognize this and begins to use his option C, which beats my option D. And now we’re back in the same game we were before.
But lets say I keep throwing out new ‘gimmicks’, and the next 3 times I throw out E, F, and G respectively. my opponent, not recognizing any of these new options, has to once again figure out E,F, and G’s properties, to find which beats which. Even if E, F, and G have the same properties as A, B, and C (respectively), my opponent must take time to figure this out. Even if H~Z have the same properties as A, the end result is the same, however, your opponent must figure this out through calculations or trial and error. Getting to the point A > C is the important part, not the result.
So my point is… theoretically, if I have options A,B, and C in my pool, I am less likely to ‘beat’ my opponent than if I had options A~Z. follow?
This theory should work out even if you consider that your opponent will create new options to counter yours, but if you’re on the offense, you have a higher chance at being “rewarded” than your opponent who is playing defense. Just imagine a game of soccer… If I’m constantly shooting at the enemy goal, my opponent is forced to guess correctly, or he gets scored on. Worst that could happen for me is that the shot is blocked.
In SF, yea its a little different in that if your opponent counters your A with his C, I could actually be punished for attempting option A. But the theory is still the same.
This would be analogous to a situation in the soccer game that I have all my players at the enemy goal shooting, and my opponent manages to get by my players for a free goal.
So there is a point where u want to draw the line to maximize the risk:reward ratio. (analogous to how many players you want on offense in the soccer game.)
just making this point so it doesn’t seem like I’m saying go play makoto with 1000% offense.
The game SF, in most situations, will not be at which both players are making moves simultaneously, as in RPS.
This would take forever if I was to try to map it out, so to keep it simple, lets just do it like so:
If I decide to use option A, and my opponent sees that I am performing ‘A’, he will obviously use B to counter my A. But if I do something to suggest that I am going for A, and trick my opponent into using option B, I can quickly change to option C to beat my opponent’s B, which he used initially because I “feinted” option A. This should constitute to something like a gimmick. follow?
Imagine if you had to play RPS with a time limit. A third person stands by to tell you and your opponent to start/stop. Its completely up to the third person when you start and stop. You and your opponent keep changing from A, B, and C to counter each others moves, and when the third person says stop, the one with winning option wins the “round”.
Relating this to SF, both players will be changing from A,B, and C until one falls, or there is a stalemate, in which both players will proceed to play this “timed” RPS game again.
Apply my first theory to this, and you still have a more realistic idea of what gimmicks/mixups do than if both players chose a single option simultaneously.
So all in all, its better to have as many options available to you as possible, as opposed to fewer. and find the maximum risk:reward ratio for your type of gameplay, which (when playing makoto at least) should result in a higher offense over defense. The ratio at which you decide to set this is completely up to u.
God that was a mouthful… hope i made some sense…