So, I know it sucks early. In my first 20 matches, I lost 18 of them. But after I got over whatever wall that was I now can hold my own. My record is closer to 1-1 now. All I can say is that if you are feeling frustrated, try to just keep playing and learn something from each match

@fnrslvr: That piece is about the players, not the actual system itself.

For example, if two players are standing next to each other not actively pushing any buttons or moving and one player decides to press the punch button. That move will take a certain number of frames before the move intersects the other player and a hit is registered. In the window of time before that happens, if the other player doesn't do anything then they will be guaranteed to receive damage. Even if the player does decide to do something, if that action can't be executed before the first player's one then the hit will continue to register. This situation will always come to the same conclusion. Having a deterministic system is about removing any randomness in the outcome.

Individual players will always have variances, but the actual system that they interact with will respond consistently each and every time.

I think that if you are not into the idea of losing tens, hundreds, maybe thousands of matches, until your ratio gets close to 50%, you probably just shouldn't play fighting games (unfair, I know I know but bear with me a moment). I easily played 300+ matches of Virtua Fighter 5 (&@!# that game!) before beating my first human opponent. Not intended to be harsh or whatever, I just think that's the reality of this genre. No one plays 5 games of chess and then gets it. Some people need 50, some 500. Some say match making solves everything, but that's a far cry from the truth I think. A match making system doesn't have any reliable data to use if you've played less than _____ (insert number) of matches.

There's no match making solution for two people who have played 5 matches each, never mind two people with 0 matches played but one of whom has been playing FG for life. Nothing can save you here.

I've played maybe 30-40 matches of Rising Thunder and would say I won about 5-10% so far. I'm not discouraged though, seems very normal. Every year when I pick up SF it takes a good 100+ just to get back into the semblance of a groove.

Losing is not toxic, it just weeds out the people who don't have the patience, love, fury or whatever the hell you need to succeed at this genre. It doesn't make you "not good enough", it just means it's not for you. Not yet anyways.

I don't consider myself much of a FG player, but playing these games consistently for decades gives me an appreciation for the fact that the learning curve is years long. No game can fast forward that experience. In fighting game time, I feel like 100 matches is nothing. Just keep playing!

@officer_falcon:Nevertheless, uncertainty from the player perspective can and does arise within deterministic systems, and I've been constantly at pains to stress the ways in which it does in fighting games since the the facepalm moment which was me first realizing that reactability is a pervasive thing. (e.g. immediately before someone set me straight, I had been trying to train myself to block Jago's wind kick on reaction in KI for, like, 10 minutes. >_>)

Also, in the context of the discussion I was responding to, it was absolutely relevant: the "winner" in yomi situations is absolutely random-arse bullshit luck a lot of the time, not entirely unlike crazy stage antics and lucky item drops in Smash Bros. It also allows relative novices to have a few lucky wakeup DPs, then a few lucky wakeup throws, and take a round off of a fuming veteran. The main reason why beginners don't get this kind of fortune is because they don't understand attack-block-throw and whatnot -- and in fact, every other video game teaches them not to play attack-block-throw, because guessing is bad.

@fnrslvr: Um, the systems are. Outside of bugs, and even then those tend to be situational and resolve in deterministic ways. The human element introduces randomness, but the underlying systems are deterministic.

@starvinggamer: See my previous response. Determinism at the system level is irrelevant -- yomi makes plenty of room for novices to take games off of lucky-arse guesses.

@fnrslvr: The difference between the players reacting to situations differently and the game reacting to situations differently is the entire point though.

Separate discussion to the thread but what games are you thinking of that teach against a "attack-block-throw" game flow? At least for games in which have heavy hand-to-hand/close combat emphasis I think they all basically do. The Souls games, for the most part, all contain shields and mechanics built around shield use. You can block an attack then counterattack. In character action games, like Wonderful 101, they also implement blocking and counterattacking mechanics.

Technical nit: video games are pretty much exclusively deterministic systems by nature (at least, I don't know of any that leverage a hardware source of real entropy). What you're really talking about is predictability / player knowledge of the system's "state". The thing in a game like Smash Bros (w / items) is really that the player isn't privy to everything involved in the game's decision-making (or at least, it's significantly obfuscated, which isn't bulletproof as speedrunners that exploit RNG glitches can attest). I hate when this is purported to make it somehow less competitive though -- all it means is that it's testing your reactions & adaptability to the unexpected more than it tests your anticipating skills. Of course, that means there's more uncertainty in the result of any one match, so it *does* make sense for tournament format to try to reduce this variability (if the goal is to find the "best" player without having to play a huge # of matches to reach statistical significance).

Whereas in a game like Street Fighter, the "system" is essentially laid bare (though arguably, needing to look up frame data etc. is kind of like obfuscation too). However, from a player's perspective, there is still variability at play, due to things like lag (esp. over a network, but even input, display, and feedback lag can vary unpredictably); is it really legitimate to separate such effects from the "system" even though they're essential in the player's interaction with the game? That said, it's definitely more of a thing that a player who understands the system better and knows / can predict what it will do will tend to prevail over one who doesn't, which I think is the point here (and I'm pretty sure @fnrslvr understands it).

@fnrslvr: I'm not sure what you're arguing...? My point is that poker is not a valid example when suggesting that random elements could be introduced to fighting games to allow less-skilled players to win more often because the very game of poker is designed completely around randomness whereas fighting games are designed completely around deterministic systems.

@officer_falcon said:

Full disclosure, I've never played a Souls game. I've seen a fair bit of them, and they seem to be about slow attacks and enemies that have tells before they do anything, so that the player can react and punish with certainty. What you're describing here sounds like being patient while you wait for a dude to take a swipe at you, so that his defences are down and you can punish with certainty. Do enemies in Souls games have unreactable mixups? Can they throw you with less than 10 frames forewarning?

My point here is that combat in other genres teaches you that combat is about dismantling your foe's offense as you see it coming. That is not what fighting games are about

@quantris: Actually, the only point I'm trying to make here is that poker and fighting games are based on fundamentally different systems and therefore are difficult to compare when talking about random elements in competitive games and reducing a skill gap based W/L discrepancy.

@starvinggamer: I guess we disagree on the matter of whether the distinction between system-induced randomness, and emergent uncertainty in the player experience (or, in game-theoretic speak, system-induced simultaneous games), is a distinction worth observing, when in both cases randomness is the intent.

@fnrslvr: Ok, you need to explain to me what it is you think I'm arguing here because I honestly have no idea what you're on about.

EDIT: The only way you could "disagree" with what I'm saying is if you believe that poker is a valid example of how systemic randomness could be introduced to a fighting game in order to increase the probability of less-skilled players beating more-skilled players without compromising the competitive nature of the game.

EDIT2: Or if you believe that the mechanical systems of fighting games, completely divorced of any human element, are not deterministic. Which it's clear you do not.

@starvinggamer: I think we're maybe getting a little too wrapped-up in this "having a disagreement" thing.

I mean, I guess I'm not all that bothered by random systems in fighting games, either, depending on how they're introduced. I think Omen's fireballs in KI are a crazy and interesting idea in a good way (even if the character itself is unpolished). On the other hand, I don't want random item drops in SFV, but more because that specific mechanism wouldn't make sense for other reasons.

But otherwise I was mainly worried that the way determinism was being talked about might falsely imply that the player determines their way to victory. One side was saying "random elements should be introduced so that newbies have a chance", and the other was saying "that would disrupt the deterministic purity of the game". I guess both sides were missing the win-win.

This post made me think a bit more about fighting games and it seems like most fighting game fans want every fighting game to be a "pure" skill test with completely shared information (outside of what inputs the opponent is putting in from moment to moment). They want chess, but with punching and kicking. Or at least they want to believe that they are playing chess with punching and kicking, despite the effectiveness of things like random dps (which are just guesses) and true 50/50 mixups (which force coin toss decisions on the opponent). As a result, developers have been building on the same fundamental system for years without really deviating from some core design decisions. Its like someone creating a new version of chess every few months with a few minor tweeks. In this case Rolling Thunder has lighter, easier to move pieces, but the rules are as complex as ever. It isn't even checkers.

I'd like someone other than Nintendo to try to make a version of a fighting game that throws some dice in. I think selling variations of the same game to the mainstream audience clearly isn't working and I'm not sure that removing the input barrier is going to help. Maybe if someone tried tearing up the foundation, the results would be a bit different.

Honestly, I would love to know Smash Bros sales when compared against other fighting games. I bet it is outselling most fighting games and I would also guess that it has more regular players online than any other fighting game. Like @slag said, the accessible fighting game might already be solved, it's just that the FGC doesn't acknowledge it as a "real" fighting game for the most part.

@thatpinguino:

I think you're greatly overemphasizing the effectiveness of random DPs. Any experienced player will be able to recognize an opponent who likes to use random DPs and change their gameplan accordingly. It will still be effective against an inexperienced player but then again most moves would also be effective against them. As for 50/50 mixups, it does cause a coin toss situation, but only the first time. In each subsequent setup the defender should be able to read the attacker's tendencies and learn how to defend. It's just the same way people become better at rock-paper-scissors. A single game can be random but with each subsequent game the players will be able to recognize patterns in their opponent and utilize that knowledge in the new match.

As for other people than Nintendo trying alternative fighting games, there absolutely have been. A recent example would be Sony with PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale. It's basically the same type of group arena combat that Smash Bros has but with a different rule for scoring. Capcom made Power Stone on the Dreamcast which was a 3D arena combat game. It introduced item dropping and the Power Stone mechanic where collecting 3 of the stones powered up your character and allowed use of super attacks.

To the point about Smash not being seen as a "real" fighting game, I can't speak for others but it's due to factors like this to make me feel like Smash isn't a proper fighting game, let alone a competitive game in general.

http://supersmashbros.wikia.com/wiki/Port_priority

@fnrslvr: But my whole point is that I don't disagree with you. At all. Except about us disagreeing. I disagree with your assumption that I disagree with you.

@thatpinguino: Yes and no. It's true we want as close to "pure" information as we can get. We want to know that when we hit X in Y situation Z will happen 100% of the time. But that rarely results in gameplay that becomes automatic or mechanical in nature (chess). When it does we call it "set play" (when a character exploits the deterministic systems to such a degree that they can largely be played successfully with very little thought or adaptation), and it is the most commonly derided style of competitive play in fighting games. Top players that mained Cammy in SFIV before Ultra came out drew more ire than any other players because people felt they were frauds that just flowcharted their way to victory.

That's because what most people want out of fighting games it to conquer the (random) human element. They want to predict the random DP or read where you're going to go next with your 50/50. It's why everyone groans at another Cammy back-throw unblockable setup but gets hype as hell for every Ume-Shoryu. By providing players with perfect information, fighting games gives players the tools they need to completely out think their opponent.

And yes, Smash is incredibly successful at being fun and accessible to casual players. But like I said, the very core of Smash gameplay lends itself directly to incorporating random elements like items and stage hazards. It was designed from the ground-up to utilize those features and only became competitive by accident with massive restrictions across the board. Trying to shoehorn something similar into a more traditional fighting game like SF or RT would be an entirely different story. I'm not saying Smash isn't a fighting game, but it is a decidedly different kind of fighting game. The goal of RT (as I understand it) isn't just to get a billionty players broadly into the genre by any means necessary. It's to help less-experienced players experience the joy of developing fundamentals specifically in a traditional fighting-game style by drastically reducing the execution barrier.

If you have problems with a game because you can't get into the mechanics then that's your issue. No need to label a perfectly fine and functional game as "unplayable", save that label for the games with actual problems.

Hopefully, this type of feed back is reaching the devs and they can focus on some of the key points people are mentioning, namely a better tutorial. The last few BlazBlues and Guilty Gear Xrd have better than most but I feel there's more that can be done. Perhaps and overlay that can be used by beginners that shows options during a given situation (i.e. and opponent jumps in or does a mix up) or more in-depth information with visual feedback on the timings required to perform links or the importance of setups.

I've tried the game and think it feels great and for a person who has played fighters all my life at a more than competent level, hopes this does well and finds ways to better educate people on fighters. I do not think any random nonsense show affect balance between players to catch new players up as I feel that is something that sets the genre apart. I see a bit of a parallel with actual fighting but obviously closer to a strategy based game like chess, where it's just common sense to plan ahead and not rush in swinging for the fences and praying for the best. I hope there's a solution to having that fun factor and coolness which brings people in and teaching players how and when to do the cool shit and keeping them engaged the way certain members of the community seem to, but in the actual game and not on YouTube or a forum.

Random dragon punches are not effective if you know even a little bit about fighting games. Often what look like "random" dps are not random at all, but calculated guesses that attempt to take advantage of the opposing player's habits. If someone was to play me and actually dp at random, truly guessing without having any sort of mindgame in place, I can almost guarantee I will win that game without any issue. Even if they scrub out a round (they will almost never take two sequentially), it will be completely on me, as there was surely numerous times I could have won, but failed to do so due to player error.

50/50 mixups are rewards for successful offense. If a player is given the opportunity to utilize a 50/50 mixup on an opponent, you can count on the opponent having made a significant error or the player having defeated them in the neutral game. By winning one aspect of the game I can make you guess what I'm going to do next, giving me control of the next several seconds of the round, but leaving you an opportunity to reclaim your footing in the neutral with a proper reaction or guess. This is ultimately more than a "guess" in most situations, because you are going to be analyzing how I act throughout the match in order to get a better read on what I'm going to do next. Unless that 50/50 mixup leads into an identical 50/50 mixup, there isn't any problem at all.

Adding randomness on a system level doesn't help gameplay at all, it just removes critical thinking in certain aspects of the gameplay and skews the risk-reward of most in match scenarios.

@xel:Yes, the issue described by various people, is in fact "their issue" The fact that you didn't experience the issue has zero impact on anything.

Coming from an FGC sort of guy ...

Heres how I think of it:

1.) Did you lose because the player was better than you at making decisions? If so, then a.) the game is designed correctly and b.) no amount of execution will make up the loss.

2.) From each loss, to win would you have a.) Needed to make different decisions? b.) Knew the answer but missed an input? c.) Got the input but did it too late (reaction time), or d.) Needed more character knowledge (got hit by shit you didn't know how to handle or never seen before)

This game is trying to eliminate b.), c.) and to a certain extent d.) ... but a well-made fighting game can never make up for your lack of decision making during matches. Knowledge should be easy to build up by just playing matches or the CPU.

As a person who isn't able to win a lot of matches because I don't have time to train and learn 1-2 frame links, combos and 45 character rosters, I think that's kind of cool.

Well this would be solved with Single player and easy mode, or private matches with friends.

As regards poker, IMO there's a tiny parallel to poker in Rising Thunder. When a match starts, I have no idea what specials or kinetic type my opponent picked (this stood out to me when I first played). Presumably this will become more significant as more move options are added to the game. I'm pretty sure it's an intentional choice on the part of designers.

But it doesn't really serve to increase probability of less-skilled players beating more-skilled players (which is probably not quite what they're going for anyway), so your point stands.

BTW I agree with you (@starvinggamer) when you say that you disagree with @fnrslvr about you disagreeing with him (!)

@quantris: That's a real good point about the special moves, especially since you lock in before you queue meaning you're entering every match blind. It's sort of like Magic in that regard, be solid then sideboard if necessary. It's going to be really interesting once RT tournaments start happening since the game is blind-pick by design and the significantly lower execution barrier is going to make maining multiple characters super duper easy for skilled players. TOs are going to need to develop rules to prevent people's friends from spying on the opponent during character-select.

So fucking weird. RT will be the first fighting game that is played exclusively in booths o_O.

Weird. I quit RT because it's so shallow. Can't wait for SFV.

I think the biggest takeaway from this thread for me has been that people have a hard time distinguishing between beginner friendly and casual. Rising Thunder is still supposed to be a competitive experience, it's just that they're trying to make it easier for you to learn from your losses and for you to focus on the tactics rather than memorization. Rather than a steep wall, the learning curve now resembles a bell curve.

With that said, I have to say I agree with @thatpinguinoon the fact that we need more casual fighting games (let's not get caught up in the semantics of what is a fighting game) and I really don't understand why the 2 v 2 battle arena genre hasn't really left Japan for that matter, other than that Rise of Incarnates. Sure, that genre is not the same as fighting games but they do share a common ancestry. Anarchy Reigns was cool too and is really underrated, especially the soundtrack.

I just want more games where I can beat people up with my fists or use melee weapons instead of just shooting them with guns.