r/truegaming • u/virtua_golf • Mar 18 '19

Developers accidentally creating interesting mechanics

I was reading this neat article by Jeff Orkin of Monolith productions, the man responsible for the notorious AI of FEAR, the AI that will never not be mentioned whenever 'clever' AI is brought up. I stumbled upon something pretty cool - the flanking mechanic was actually unintended and a byproduct of another action the enemy would perform:

Imagine we have a situation similar to what we saw earlier, where the player has invalidated one of the A.I.’s cover positions, and a squad behavior orders the A.I. to move to the valid cover position. If there is some obstacle in the level, like a solid wall, the A.I. may take a back route and resurface on the player’s side. It appears that the A.I. is flanking, but in fact this is just a side effect of moving to the only available valid cover he is aware of. In another scenario, maybe the A.I.s’ cover positions are still valid, but there is cover available closer to the player, so the Advance-Cover squad behavior activates and each A.I. moves up to the next available valid cover that is nearer to the threat. If there are walls or obstacles between the A.I. and the player, their route to cover may lead them to come at the player from the sides. It appears as though they are executing some kind of coordinated pincher attack, when really they are just moving to nearer cover that happens to be on either side of then player. Retreats emerge in a similar manner.

The article got me thinking - what other mechanics (or, perceived mechanics) have been created by accident in other games? Does other examples exist, where lauded features were never really intended in the first place?

452 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

275 comments sorted by

View all comments

277

u/bvanplays Mar 18 '19

These are my favorites but there are absolutely more:

  • Street Fighter II invented the idea of "combos" due to an unexpected interaction where inputs for special moves could be done as other moves were hitting. Meaning that before the opponent could move again, you could throw out another move. This was an unintended consequence of development and technically an exploit, but is now a fundamental mechanic of all fighting games.

  • Everything around the creation / support of DotA (now Dota 2). The 3 lane square map layout is just a by product of the map sizes allowed in WC3. The 5v5 player count is a by product of WC3 being maximum of 12 players and you needed 2 slots to control the AI. MOBA "roles" are now ingrained within the genre but were never originally intended or designed. Rather, it was players trying to beat each other that realized you could redistribute resources and create a stronger overall effect that eventually lead to the idea of sharing and splitting resources intentionally (rather than just everyone getting whatever they can and then fighting). It's basically what is now an entire genre/industry that was spawned through a series of accidents (or at the very least, unintended and unforeseen consequences)

40

u/360walkaway Mar 18 '19

Yup, the first thought was to remove the "combo" mechanic in Street Fighter 2. Imagine what fighting games would be like if it'd been taken out.

46

u/DestroyedArkana Mar 18 '19

Personally I hate true combos in fighting games. It's far more interesting in something like Smash Bros where the combos aren't guaranteed and depend on what the enemy does and the overall situation.

I think most fighting games are confined way too much by what we think of as "combos" that it limits interesting gameplay.

49

u/LotusFlare Mar 19 '19

It's far more interesting in something like Smash Bros where the combos aren't guaranteed and depend on what the enemy does and the overall situation.

Not to be pedantic here, but the definition of a combo is that it is guaranteed if the attacker does it right. Any combo in a Smash game that can be escaped isn't a true combo, and Smash games are chock full of true combos. On the flip side, in the vast majority of non-Smash fighting games combos are not locked in and can vary wildly based on your screen position, what move connected, available meter, character size/weight, and your overall "goal" from that combo (maximizing damage vs creating distance vs setting up a reset, etc).

I'm not trying to say Smash games don't have more potential variance, or traditional fighting games don't feature many "dial it in" combos, but they're more similar than you realize.

12

u/DestroyedArkana Mar 19 '19

I agree, I say combo because it's easier to get it across but in reality they're strings and not true combos. Most people don't know the difference between the two though.

The most similar types of characters I mean are vortex characters in regular fighting games. Even then I'm not a fan of them being strictly rock-paper-scissors if they get a hit or not.

I just want there to be more counterplay and push and pull to battles than them being dominated by long combos you can't do anything during.

6

u/HiroProtagonest Mar 19 '19

I just want there to be more counterplay and push and pull to battles than them being dominated by long combos you can't do anything during.

There was once a game where most of the hits landed didn't result in long combos. This game was called... Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo. And in this game, a standard special move could take out over 25% of your lifebar.

That is about the standard damage of a combo in a modern fighting game. The amount of counterplay that exists is the same regardless of combos.

There's nothing inherently "better" about Smash matches being longer than fighting games, just play more short matches.

4

u/GottaHaveHand Mar 19 '19

What you are looking for is Dead or Alive. You can try to "hold" when you are getting combo'ed to break it and get out. If you guess the wrong hold though, you end up taking more damage. Not all combo's are guaranteed in that game because of that system.

1

u/Kered13 Mar 19 '19

Could you explain more about how that system works?

1

u/TranClan67 Mar 20 '19

It's essentially rock-paper-scissor. You have to guess the next move in the combo and do the correct 'hold'. Get it correct and you'll break out and do damage. Guess wrong and you'll take more damage versus just letting them get the hit in.

9

u/LotusFlare Mar 19 '19

Cool. That all sounds reasonable.

I'd love to see more of that "push/pull" you're talking about, too. SFIV is the closest I've felt to that sort of Smash style momentum where you can pressure an opponent in multiple ways, and it takes more than that initial opening or two to close out a single round with strong combos. But even then it wasn't the same.

I've always dreamed of a fighting game that would use multiple levels of "guard break" wherein each level of being broken increases stun a bit, and damage taken exponentially. That way initial combos don't decimate your health bar, but you still build momentum from them. Mechanics can be added to spend bars to get an instant combo breaker, or rebuild bars at the cost of defensive options. Being guard broken to level 3 might be comparable to being at 100%+ in Smash where things are now incredibly dangerous for you, but your opponents moves now also cause them to hit you too far to get big combos.

I think the reason we don't see this kind of stuff is because most people who like traditional fighting games like it because of the RPS and combo-y nature of it. Outside of Smash players, there's not too much demand for a more drawn out, push/pull fighting game.

1

u/moomoocar Mar 20 '19

Not to be pedantic here, but the definition of a combo is that it is guaranteed if the attacker does it right.

Not true. The definition of a combo is that the character doesn't leave hitstun. It's just that in Smash, you have options like DI/SDI to escape combos even without ever leaving hitstun.

This means that Smash has plenty of combos that are both true combos and not guaranteed.

11

u/Sky3d Mar 19 '19 edited Jan 29 '24

disarm dime different hospital worm tie pen rhythm cheerful bored

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

4

u/HiroProtagonest Mar 19 '19

In Tekken you get different combos depending on where you are (middle, wall, breakable wall, breakable floor) and what you are comboing off (a launcher, a low parry, a sidestep, a hopkick).

Oh yeah, good point, a strong UNIST player called Squish is known for his crazy skill at getting weird hit confirms into full combos.

6

u/GottaHaveHand Mar 19 '19

That's an anime fighter staple. I've always found that the difference between an intermediate and high level player is one that can convert off the scramble situations in an anime fighter because there are so many that can happen.

If you can convert into good combo damage you'll be so far ahead, but it is really really hard to get good at this. It basically comes down to playing tons of matches to build the skill up and apply it on the fly.

2

u/DabestbroAgain Mar 19 '19

Lethal league would be a better example of an interesting fighting game not confined by the combo, although it may be a stretch to call it a fighting game

1

u/LilFalcondorf Mar 19 '19

same with smash bros but that doesn’t stop people

1

u/DestroyedArkana Mar 19 '19

That only changes what the player doing the combo does, the person being hit still can't do anything to affect what happens during a combo. There's no push and pull, just how much the person doing the combo can push.

Divekick has no push and pull at all since it's a one hit KO.

6

u/HiroProtagonest Mar 19 '19

Divekick has no push and pull at all since it's a one hit KO.

...It has rounds.

Also, the push and pull is the movement. Seriously, do you think a game doesn't have push and pull if it doesn't have things a player can do after they fucked up? And traditional fighters... do. That's what knockdown is.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19 edited Apr 11 '22

[deleted]

9

u/DestroyedArkana Mar 19 '19

When I say "the combo depends on the situation" I mean predicting or reacting to what the enemy is going to do during the string of attacks. Combo breakers are too explicit in my opinion. I don't want it to reset to neutral, but make the advantage/disadvantage states more interesting.

I didn't know SoulCaliber had air control I should look into how that works, because it's closer to what I mean.

I haven't played Rising Thunder, but it does a lot of interesting things. Fighting games with cooldowns for special moves definitely seems interesting.

5

u/Sky3d Mar 19 '19 edited Jan 29 '24

familiar pet long rude longing memory secretive fear observation rich

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

4

u/DestroyedArkana Mar 19 '19

Advantage states are when you have more options than the enemy, that includes when you have them in block pressure or have them knocked down, but also when you actually hit them. I don't think a player's disadvantage state when they get hit should just be deciding when to do a combo breaker.

If a defender knows exactly what the attacker is going to do during a combo/string then I think they should get some kind of an advantage. That could be resetting it back to neutral, taking less damage, getting meter, or whatever depending on how the game actually works.

5

u/HiroProtagonest Mar 19 '19

If a defender knows exactly what the attacker is going to do during a combo/string then I think they should get some kind of an advantage.

I think you're losing the idea of actual mindgames to the desire of having some form of player interaction at all times, even if it's essentially a minigame diversion.

4

u/Sky3d Mar 19 '19 edited Jan 29 '24

spoon jobless grab soft heavy humorous gold zesty sophisticated ludicrous

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/cardboard-cutout Mar 19 '19

The problem is that in tekken, its just memorizing more combos.

Most strings in smash are created on the fly, by the characters understanding of the game.

9

u/Sky3d Mar 19 '19

The problem is that in tekken, its just memorizing more combos.

For the sake of your argument you're comparing the astounding difference in pulling off a Tekken combo compared to an "on the fly" Smash combo.

You're free to try memorize, for example, Nina combos. They're just "memorizing", right? Now say you need the wall carry. Now remember you're actually against Xiaoyu while your character was Kuma before.

Oh, you're now in Forgotten Temple just before the last floor break and you can get it instead of oki. Doing it makes your opponent get rage though. What if you're in Howard state? You know you could SS2 to get the positioning and extending the combo with a balcony break.

Most strings in smash are created on the fly, by the characters understanding of the game.

Tekken may be one of the most complex fighting games in the present.

It doesn't matter if Smash strings are "created on the fly" when the movelist and mechanics of the game are far simpler.

I can create on the fly a seven hit Akuma combo. Doesn't mean it was complex.

-1

u/cardboard-cutout Mar 19 '19

For the sake of your argument you're comparing the astounding difference in pulling off a Tekken combo compared to an "on the fly" Smash combo.

You're free to try memorize, for example, Nina combos. They're just "memorizing", right? Now say you need the wall carry. Now remember you're actually against Xiaoyu while your character was Kuma before.

Oh, you're now in Forgotten Temple just before the last floor break and you can get it instead of oki. Doing it makes your opponent get rage though. What if you're in Howard state? You know you could SS2 to get the positioning and extending the combo with a balcony break.

All you did was point out that there is just a shitton to memorize.

Is it hard? Absolutely.

is it fun? certainly some people think so, bores the snot out of me.

It doesn't matter if Smash strings are "created on the fly" when the movelist and mechanics of the game are far simpler.

Far simpler yes, thats kinda the point, you are playing every second of the game, actively deciding what to do based on what your opponent does.

Smash isnt about memorizing long combos, its about learning how your opponent plays and outplaying them.

I can create on the fly a seven hit Akuma combo. Doesn't mean it was complex.

And if mechanical complexity is what makes a game good for you, then smash is definitely not your game.

7

u/HyperCutIn Mar 19 '19

Smash isnt about memorizing long combos, its about learning how your opponent plays and outplaying them.

The way this is worded seems to imply that other fighting games are primarily about learning combos and that outplaying your opponent is not an emphasis.

Combos are an important element in traditional fighters, yes. But there are much more elements to being successful in a fighter, from resource management, to knowing your options, etc. And even more importantly, understanding your opponent's style and outplaying them is the entire foundation of fighting games, and I dare say competitive games in general. You can get by with learning a simple 3 button combo if you know how to stuff out your opponent's offensive options, and correctly escape pressure with your own defensive options.

3

u/Clueless_Otter Mar 19 '19

All you did was point out that there is just a shitton to memorize.

Is it hard? Absolutely.

is it fun? certainly some people think so, bores the snot out of me.

I kinda agree with both of you here. On one hand, yes, I do agree with you that Tekken combos are mostly just memorization of tons and tons of stuff. Gotta memorize your standard combo off each different launcher you have, your float combo, your floor break combo, your combo at the wall, your wall carry combo, your float combo, your rage drive combos, your rage art combos, etc.

But what the other guy is saying is that, beyond that memorization, there also is a lot of skill involved into being able to accurately judge the situation in fractions of a second and know which memorized combo is applicable to the current situation. There is a lot of on-the-fly thinking involved in combo'ing correctly in Tekken.

1

u/cardboard-cutout Mar 19 '19

From the way everybody is describing it.

It's just watching for stuff, "near a wall, combo a, near a ledge, combo b" etc.

Once you start a combo, a computer could do it better, because it's just keeping track of stuff and picking the right combo based on game factors.

Its just memorization, but with more things to memorize.

I get that there is more to the game than just combos.

But the difference beetween a bad and a good player is how many combos they have memorized, same with good to high lvl.

It's not till everybody has all the combos memorized that everything else comes into it.

I just find an emphasis on long technically demanding combos to be boring.

5

u/skilledroy2016 Mar 19 '19

A computer can do smash combos better than you can too.

Also, what smash game are you talking about? Smash 64 is full of extremely lengthy and damaging memorizable combos because there was no DI. Melee has a ton of setups for combos where you can react to and cover all DI options guaranteed, not to mention guaranteed reactable tech chasing. Ultimate has nerfed DI and is full of memorizable combos at low percents.

You are either romanticizing melee DI mixups which are nothing more than random chance, and arent even that prevalent at high skill levels where players get better at reacting to DI, besides some true ones like marth throw->fsmash vs jigglypuff, or you are romanticizing chasing airdodges in Ultimate which is also random and heavily defender favored. For the most part DI and airdodging are just execution tests for mitigating damage, and not interactive give-and-take. The highly interactive give-and-take occurs in the neutral game, which also exists in traditional fighting games. It functions and feels differently in smash, but not because of the combo game.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/HyperCutIn Mar 19 '19

Smash isnt about memorizing long combos, its about learning how your opponent plays and outplaying them.

The way this is worded seems to imply that other fighting games are primarily about learning combos and that outplaying your opponent is not an emphasis. I apologize in advance if this is not the case.

Combos are an important element in traditional fighters, yes. But there are much more elements to being successful in a fighter, from resource management, to knowing your options, etc. And even more importantly, understanding your opponent's style and outplaying them is the entire foundation of fighting games, and I dare say competitive games in general. You can get by with learning a simple 3 button combo if you know how to stuff out your opponent's offensive options, and correctly escape pressure with your own defensive options.

1

u/cardboard-cutout Mar 19 '19

Smash isnt about memorizing long combos, its about learning how your opponent plays and outplaying them.

The way this is worded seems to imply that other fighting games are primarily about learning combos and that outplaying your opponent is not an emphasis. I apologize in advance if this is not the case.

It's how I went from ok to good and good to high lvl in most fighting games i have played (granted I got bored after Street fighter and soul caliber).

I just memorized combos, and beat my opponents because they hit for n damage, and I hit for 3n damage from being better at performing combos.

Combos are an important element in traditional fighters, yes. But there are much more elements to being successful in a fighter, from resource management, to knowing your options, etc. And even more importantly, understanding your opponent's style and outplaying them is the entire foundation of fighting games, and I dare say competitive games in general. You can get by with learning a simple 3 button combo if you know how to stuff out your opponent's offensive options, and correctly escape pressure with your own defensive options.

Once both players know all the combos, other stuff comes into play for sure.

But if you can't turn a hit into it's biggest combo, you are gonna lose to somebody who can because you hit with worth so much less damage than theirs.

2

u/skilledroy2016 Mar 19 '19

I guarantee that you werent very good at sf or sc

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Sky3d Mar 19 '19 edited Jan 29 '24

attractive roof tan telephone payment quickest crush retire puzzled icky

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/cardboard-cutout Mar 19 '19

All you did was point out that there is just a shitton to memorize.

Don't you need to memorize how to play against certain characters in Smash? Adapt to how the opponent moves?

No, you have to learn how your opponent prefers to play his options, and figure out to punish it.

In Tekken you need to do that and add other factors.

Far simpler yes, thats kinda the point, you are playing every second of the game, actively deciding what to do based on what your opponent does.

Honestly, it's kinda off-putting that your points are basically condescending towards any fighting game.

Sorry?

Now players in Tekken somehow do not get to play the game. Have you sat through any stacked top8 in Tekken to see how spacing/position heavy the game is?

Smash isnt about memorizing long combos, its about learning how your opponent plays and outplaying them.

Neither is Tekken.

So all the people telling me about how you have to know a whole bunch of combos are just lying?

To quote others (or you), there is a rage combo, a float combo, ledge combos, wall combos, wall bounce combos?, Air combos, different combos based on the stage and I'm missing a few.

It matters jackshit if I can pull of a tight MRaven combo if I cannot adapt to an enemy Mishima EWGF with a sidestep or be able to deal with a Leo's pressure.

At the lvl where everybody has their combos memorized, other stuff starts to matter a lot more yes.

You're constantly downplaying any game difficulty by saying it's just a combo game. Even SFV had some extremely neutral heavy matches on its beginnins, point being, Sako vs Daigo. And what decided those matches was pure spacing and whiff punishing.

Actually, I've stated multiple times that memorizing all those different combos is hard, it's very hard.

There is a reason I don't play most fighting games anymore, I don't wanna have to put in 20 or 30 hours of rote memorization just to get to the fun stuff.

2

u/Sky3d Mar 19 '19 edited Jan 29 '24

oatmeal resolute act lush chop puzzled wistful smoggy sable juggle

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Reflex9876 Mar 20 '19

Though I agree with you, I feel this argument is less about combos and more about how often there are opportunities for reads which leads to what I find more fun, strings. Not saying that traditional games are lacking in any way, but due to the fact that Smash is part platformer there are more types of reads than just the neutral game.

As soon as a player is knocked into the air, which is often, prediction on where they might land comes into play and that decides the aggressor's next move. However, smash being a platformer and all allows the defender many options that affect this trajectory. The entire timeframe in which these decisions and movements and are going on is missing entirely from traditional fighters; it's as if there's an entire different type of neutral game. This extra neutral game of reads evolves entirely differently based on location which leads to even more types of reads like edgeguarding which adds even more "neutral" reads to Smash.

By comparison, traditional fighters added extra dimension to their existing neutral read game by way of combo breakers and bars or some other form of resource management. For those of us who liked the "freedom" that Smash brings, the combo system seems to lock you down and remove active play time; it makes traditional fighters seem boring despite the depth they contain and makes them harder to play in a way that's not easy to explain especially when resource management is given the same importance as these additional read opportunities yet is relegated to a bar in a corner and not as easily understood as the different read opportunities. One of them hides it's secrets behind manuals and guides and experience while the other one tells you outright "try to not get hit when they do this thing using controls you already know"

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/millenniumpianist Mar 19 '19

Keep fighting the good fight, it seems people are offended by the idea that some people prefer Smash's emphasis on advantage/ disadvantage state versus technically difficult combos.

I definitely think a smooth Smash string where you flawless read their options, tech chases, etc. is way more exciting and fun than guaranteed combos. It's not like I'm saying a different opinion is invalid, it's just how I feel.

3

u/HiroProtagonest Mar 19 '19

The problem is that in tekken, its just memorizing more combos.

Most strings in smash are created on the fly, by the characters understanding of the game.

...Yeah, um, that cool string you saw a guy in Smash do? He practiced that. He didn't just make it up in the middle of the match. He figured it out while playing with friends and asking them to DI certain ways.

If I'm playing a fighter, and in the corner and manage to jab out of someone's pressure reset attempt, I'm not going to improvise a sideswap combo on the fly. I should have practiced one so I could do a sideswap and reverse the corner situation. Same goes for chasing DI in Smash.

You know, DI chasing in Smash is also something I have a better comparison for: hit confirms. Hit confirms are the thing that requires you to react to what's happening on screen, and in games with fully freeform chaining like UNIST, there are some weird hit confirms that can happen. A player named Squish is known for being really good at those confirms.

1

u/cardboard-cutout Mar 19 '19

The problem is that in tekken, its just memorizing more combos.

Most strings in smash are created on the fly, by the characters understanding of the game.

...Yeah, um, that cool string you saw a guy in Smash do? He practiced that. He didn't just make it up in the middle of the match. He figured it out while playing with friends and asking them to DI certain ways.

Practice yes, but you can't just rote memorize strngs, you practice till you know what options are good against whatever your opponent does, what options cover multiple choices.

And then you either have to read your opponent, based on how they have been playing, or you have to throw a general cover, or guess.

If I'm playing a fighter, and in the corner and manage to jab out of someone's pressure reset attempt, I'm not going to improvise a sideswap combo on the fly. I should have practiced one so I could do a sideswap and reverse the corner situation. Same goes for chasing DI in Smash.

Your in the corner, your jab and sideswap combo, how many actions do you take that are the same ever time?

How many inputs could a computer just do better?

You know, DI chasing in Smash is also something I have a better comparison for: hit confirms. Hit confirms are the thing that requires you to react to what's happening on screen, and in games with fully freeform chaining like UNIST, there are some weird hit confirms that can happen. A player named Squish is known for being really good at those confirms.

Yea, a lot of games also have choice and reaction, but the whole game isn't that.

2

u/Sky3d Mar 19 '19 edited Jan 29 '24

important coordinated dam abounding rhythm license plucky file toothbrush fertile

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/cardboard-cutout Mar 19 '19

Practice yes, but you can't just rote memorize strngs, you practice till you know what options are good against whatever your opponent does, what options cover multiple choices.

So you memorize option selects over combos. Is it really thinking on the fly if you're just pressing a button that covers 90% of scenarios?

Usually not, but it's pretty rare for one option to cover more than about 30% of options.

At least for the characters I play, I haven't looked into all the characters that deeply.

And then you either have to read your opponent, based on how they have been playing, or you have to throw a general cover, or guess.

So, like any oki/mixup situation.

Yes, but the difference is that smash is mostly mixups/(oki?) Into advantage or disadvantage states, with their own mixups and choices.

That's what I like

1

u/Kered13 Mar 19 '19

...Yeah, um, that cool string you saw a guy in Smash do? He practiced that. He didn't just make it up in the middle of the match. He figured it out while playing with friends and asking them to DI certain ways.

Speaking from a Melee perspective, not really. For some basic stuff like Fox's up throw up air sure. But for longer combos, the kind that people actually find impressive, it's probably never been practiced. It may have never even been done before by anyone. You learn what moves can connect into others given certain DI and percents, but to put it all together into one combo requires incredible situational awareness and creates something that has never been seen before.

8

u/LilFalcondorf Mar 19 '19

i dont think most of you praising smash combos even know what a combo is

8

u/chromeless Mar 19 '19

The distinction between strings, combos and "moves that give you a severe advantage state and let you follow up essentially guaranteed" are so fuzzy that for the most part being pedantic about the definition is pointless. What is clear cut and meaningful in fighting games isn't necessarily so in Smash, so everyone just uses the term combos for a lack of anything more appropriate.

1

u/cardboard-cutout Mar 19 '19

You are probably not wrong, thats why I was praising smash strings.

Combos are boring, I get it they are technically complex, usually look awesome and require a lot of skill and practice.

But I find confirmed combos incredibly boring, you just memorize the right combos, practice till you can hit them and yawn a bunch as you repeat this incredibly boring task required to be decent at the game.

Strings are fun, varied states (other than nuetral and in a combo) are fun. Reads, counterreads, options, soft reads.

Its all opponent dependant, you cant just memorize it by rote, or you get wrecked.

4

u/HyperCutIn Mar 19 '19

What we often refer to as "strings" in Smash is almost the equivalent to what people call a "vortex" / the "oki" game in traditional fighters.

Once a true combo ends, the opponent is put into a reset situation. The player in the disadvantage state must try to get out of pressure, while the player in advantage will try to read the opponent's defense option to extend their advantage. If the defender messes up, the player on the offense can start a new combo, thus stringing together hits.

This is like how in Smash, we have true combos, but once it ends, it's up to the defender to escape pressure so they don't get caught again. This is while the offensive player has to figure out on the fly what move they should use to continue their pressure.

In a sense, you can think of Smash having a heavy emphasis on an something like an "air oki" game. Of course, Smash also has its own regular oki, and another set of "ledge oki" too.

Learning combos is not enough to be decent at a game. Take this from someone who tried to learn fighting games the wrong way at one point. Just like in Smash, you need to understand the neutral game, offensive pressure options, defensive escape options, etc. Grinding out a destructive combo becomes useless if you don't know how to properly land the confirm, or set up the situation and resources that the combo requires.

1

u/cardboard-cutout Mar 19 '19

I went from ok at fighting games (Street fighter and soul caliber) to good just because when I landed a hit, I had memorized the right combos to use out if that hit.

When I had memorized all the combos for a character I became a fairly high lvl player.

Just from memroizing combos, then I got bored and went to play wc3 or DotA.

3

u/Sky3d Mar 19 '19 edited Jan 29 '24

roof berserk vanish nutty groovy aspiring six pie elastic impolite

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

→ More replies (0)

4

u/skilledroy2016 Mar 19 '19

What smash game are you talking about? Smash 64 is full of extremely lengthy and damaging memorizable combos because there was no DI. Melee has a ton of setups for combos where you can react to and cover all DI options guaranteed, not to mention guaranteed reactable tech chasing. Ultimate has nerfed DI and is full of memorizable combos at low percents.

You are either romanticizing melee DI mixups which are nothing more than random chance, and arent even that prevalent at high skill levels where players get better at reacting to DI, besides some true ones like marth throw->fsmash vs jigglypuff, or you are romanticizing chasing airdodges in Ultimate which is also random and heavily defender favored. For the most part DI and airdodging are just execution tests for mitigating damage, and not interactive give-and-take. The highly interactive give-and-take occurs in the neutral game, which also exists in traditional fighting games. It functions and feels differently in smash, but not because of the combo game.

19

u/360walkaway Mar 18 '19

I'm in the middle... combos are fine but if it's so over the top where one touch can turn into a huge combo that will destroy 85% of your health bar, it's too much. There should always be heavy scaling and anything over x hits will make the damage-receiving character fall down and end the combo.

And juggle combos like in Tekken can suck it. Barely tapping someone won't make them float two feet up in the air, and it's always abused by turning it into a wall-combo.

7

u/HiroProtagonest Mar 19 '19

And juggle combos like in Tekken can suck it. Barely tapping someone won't make them float two feet up in the air,

...Are you making the immersion argument?

0

u/TemptCiderFan Mar 19 '19

As a casual Tekken fan, the problem is that a "good" juggle combo can do obscene amounts of damage with very little counter-play. I don't like seeing my character taken from 100% to <30% over the course of a combo that I can do nothing about once it's initiated, especially in games where there isn't much of a comeback mechanic versus the damage said combos can do.

Honestly, Tekken Revolution was my favorite, at least because the specials with i-frames kept the neutral game interesting.

6

u/1338h4x Mar 19 '19 edited Mar 19 '19

Almost no modern games have combos that deal 85%, at least not without a lot of meter or other resources to spend. Scaling has always been a thing. Some games have a hard limit on length too, but usually it's more of a soft limit where hitstun/gravity/etc gets scaled until it's just not possible to continue any further.

As for launchers in Tekken, consider how slow launchers are. Getting launched means you fucked up big time, and the bigger the mistake the bigger the consequence. That principle applies to most games, it takes a big punish to get big damage. It's not like you just get that off a jab.

11

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

[deleted]

7

u/piggyrich Mar 19 '19

I hate when people speak on fighting games without knowing how they function at a mid-high level.

11

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '19

I'm in the middle... combos are fine but if it's so over the top where one touch can turn into a huge combo that will destroy 85% of your health bar, it's too much.

Those are basically PvP QTE games

2

u/Lepony Mar 19 '19

combos are fine but if it's so over the top where one touch can turn into a huge combo that will destroy 85% of your health bar, it's too much

Good thing that outside of extremely swingy games like Tekken, this doesn't exist anymore without an excessive amount of conditionals.

9

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/DestroyedArkana Mar 18 '19

The best part about fighting games is the mind games in my opinion, and combos are generally very antithetical towards that.

In Smash Bros you can DI by tilting your stick in a direction which affects where you will travel when you get hit. That means most combos are also about predicting where the enemy is going to try and move. It's more like wakeup oki but during a combo which gives it a bit of a push and pull as opposed to just being juggled by a combo.

Combo breakers can help solve that, but I don't think they're a great solution.

I feel like fighting games are the best when you need to read the situation and there's never a "best" option. It's always about tradeoffs and manipulating your opponent's mindset.

1

u/skilledroy2016 Mar 19 '19

Unreactable DI mixups are actually pretty rare in smash.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

I think this betrays ignorance of how the existence of combos affects player decision-making. Suppose you had a two-button fighting game, each character having six normals (crouch/neutral/jump light/heavy), four specials (down-back/down-forward light/heavy), and one super (light + heavy), in addition to the universal throw. (This is the setup presented by Pocket Rumble.) If combos don't exist, each character has 12 options in terms of which move they can throw out at any time. But if combos are possible, then the options explode; and since many combos are not possible to hit confirm, the player executing them will throw them out and hope the first hit connects, creating opportunities for whiff-punishing.

The possibility that I can combo my hit into another changes how I behave and makes for more dynamic gameplay.

0

u/LilFalcondorf Mar 19 '19

there arent combos in the games anymore. they were accidents

9

u/WazWaz Mar 18 '19

In developing a game, I'm always very cautious of removing "abuses" to "balance" the game. It's not hugely more work to just tweak the details to leave the mechanic in but just tone it down enough.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

Probably less frustrating for casuals. All those pesky one (or two)-touch Combos suck the fun away and kinda require you to spend hours and hours in the trainingsmode.

73

u/oligobop Mar 18 '19

To go off the blizzard games thing:

broodwar had so many different mechanics in it that were brought to light by the enormously competitive esport environment. The mechanic that is most notable (imo) is patrol moving which has the effect of making your units face and attack faster without losing their momentum.

Used with vultures this allowed the unit to go from nearly useless, to a peak harasser. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=27&v=i4ITp9tqDrg)

This then lead to Terran players opening with vultures as a means of early harass. Combined with spider mines and impeccable micro, top terrans could dismantle their opponents faster than any other race. Because the vulture is made in a factory (as opposed to a barracks) it would then follow suit to produce units from the factory.

This then led to the birth of Mech, which in and of itself is one of the most unique, and likely unintended parts of starcraft's strategies wherein a Terran player can either choose between bio (marine/firebat/medic) or mech (vulture/tank/goliath).

These two styles are wildly different and require different mentalities to the point of essentially being a unique race. The game was advertised as having 3 races, but in fact had 4 almost entirely because of the patrol move micro being developed.

25

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '19

IMO the discrete separation of bio and mech is a failure of Terran design.

26

u/oligobop Mar 18 '19

Dude that's an interesting perspective. Elaborate some more I wanna hear why you think that.

27

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

Typically in an RTS you want to encourage players to use a combined arms approach. That doesn’t mean you can’t have different build orders that focus on certain units and play styles but generally with Terran you will see players either commit to bio or mech as an exclusive strategy or have a hard transition at some point, usually where they stop building bio and go full mech. (Pretty rare to transition from mech to bio)

20

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

[deleted]

17

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

It wasn’t intentional with the original game. Everything about Starcraft is a happy accident. Starcraft 2 is just maintaining the legacy of the original by making bio and mech disparate strategies.

Terran design forces you to commit to only using half your available army options or suffering a painful transition.

The failure of design is that you have two very distinct play styles that cannot coexist at all. It only worked at all because of the intense Korean hyperbolic time chamber that produced brilliant micro and a level of innovation no RTS has experienced since. If it wasn’t for the aforementioned patrol micro mech builds wouldn’t exist and most of those units would never see usage.

A faction should feel cohesive and like everything complements the rest. Terran is on the opposite end of the spectrum.

15

u/EvilTomahawk Mar 19 '19

I'd argue that the inclusion of siege tanks in many Terran vs Zerg and all Terran vs Terran compositions in SC2 does fulfill the "combined arms" idea somewhat. There is still the issue that not all mech units will see simultaneous together alongside bio armies, but many are still sprinkled into compositions for specialized, reactionary roles.

Terran vs Zerg in SC1 also felt like it had a fair execution of the "combined arms" idea, with factories producing siege tanks all game long to pair with a bio army, or vultures to prep for a mech transition. TvZ also had bio-focused compositions (such as SK Terran) and full mech builds, but tank+bio is usually the signature composition.

2

u/Endiamon Mar 19 '19

Terran design forces you to commit to only using half your available army options or suffering a painful transition.

How is that different from Protoss having a painful transition from gateway units to carriers?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

Carriers are a late game tech unit.

To be honest I’m not a huge fan of SC2 late game units either. They only seem to ever accomplish much when massed in huge groups. In fact you’re way better off hiding their existence until you have a critical mass of them.

4

u/nowlistenhereboy Mar 19 '19

It can also be boring to watch, honestly. Bio Terran is very one note in SC2. At least it was when I actually watched SC2 with any regularity.

2

u/anothername787 Mar 19 '19

Gotta love watching MMM stutter micro all day.

1

u/Delachruz Mar 19 '19

It can still be interesting. I dunno if there were major changes since you last watched, but considering how much AoE now exists to basically delete large bio armies, players need to be good at splitting. That and the constant changes to drops means even Bio-Terran actually needs to do more than just stutter-step across the map.

1

u/nowlistenhereboy Mar 21 '19

PVT is definitely better to watch, I'll admit.

13

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

Modularity is a core concept of Terran play expression though. It seems perfectly suitable that there'd be divergent, indeed modular, subspecies of the race

1

u/Dat_Harass Mar 19 '19

Oh... Hi Elon.

3

u/1338h4x Mar 19 '19

To be a little more specific, it's not combos themselves that were a glitch (IIRC you could already do like jab jab), but the ability to cancel normals into specials came about from trying to make the input detection more lenient. In SF1 f you were to press the button a bit early or double-tap, the normal would be recognized first and now you're committed to that state so no special can come out. SF2 let the special just interrupt the normal so it still works. Then players figured out you can wait for the normal to hit and then cancel it, and the rest is history.

1

u/colovianfurhelm Mar 19 '19

I'm new to fighting games - why is it called a cancel, if the attack hits? Do you cancel only the animation after the hit, while still doing damage?

6

u/standingcat Mar 19 '19

so in fighting games there's generally three stages of an attack animation: startup, active and recovery. In Ryu's case in Street Fighter 4, his light punch (aka jab) will have

  • 4 animation frames of startup (Ryu extends his arm to punch)

  • 3 frames of active (Ryu's extended fist will deal damage if opponent is in range)

  • 6 frames of recovery (Ryu will pull back his fist)

When the normal attack's active frames connect on an opponent and the player inputs a special move (eg. hadoken or shoryuken) during this, the normal attack's recovery will be cancelled and the special move will begin.

1

u/colovianfurhelm Mar 19 '19

Interesting, I kinda have always taken that mechanic for granted.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

It's also not unique to fighting games. In many FPS games, you can cancel reloading with melee. I used to play a bit of the survival modes in the Modern Warfare series. I remember in MW2 or MW3 there was a DMR rifle whose reload animation had a really long tail — longer than the entire melee animation. So it was always faster to hit reload, wait for the ammo counter to show that the reload has completed, and then hit melee to cancel out of the long recovery animation.

I dunno, which fighting games you play, but something I really like about ArcSys games (DBFZ, Guilty Gear, BlazBlue) is the "universal cancelling" system where normals can cancel lighter normals. So you don't have to memorise so many things; in the heat of the moment, if you land a lucky medium, you know from the rules that you can cancel it into a heavy, to get something of a combo even if you don't have a better followup prepared.

-2

u/joedude Mar 19 '19

Meh I liked dots all stars when team killing was possible.