>HURR you are LITERALLY not allowed to play the CPU or else you'll pick up on irreversible bad habits
I fucking hate this meme so much. I thought the reason why people picked training mode while waiting for online matches was so they could practice without having to have to sit through loading screens.
Fuck you niggers just let me have fun.
Literally no one is stopping you from playing through arcade mode.
However, if you actually have some sort of desire to play against other people and to *get good* at it, then yes, you need to stop playing arcade mode and find some people to play against.
And people pick training mode to actually practice execution, not to fight input-reading AI.
Also I just want to reiterate that no one is forcing you to do anything and your rage is silly and misplaced.
Meh, "serious" fighting game players in general are autistic fucks. So yeah, THEY pick up habbits and can't stop themselves later on. A normal person CAN in fact play the CPU and learn shit. Enough to play against other low to mid level players and have fun.
Serious players seem to think that if you're not ranked top ten in the world, or playing professionally at tourneys, that it's pointless to play fighting games. And that's just retarded.
Personally, I'm like lower mid level of skills, and I do just fine for myself and have fun on occasion. THAT'S what it's all about.
>A normal person CAN in fact play the CPU and learn shit.
This is pretty untrue. Again, if you people want to play the CPU, go ahead and do so. If you want to do that and play your friends, go ahead and do so. But if you have any desire to get good, you aren't going to learn shit by playing the CPU.
You people have this weird persecution complex. The things you people are arguing against are only said to people who seek competition out of their fighting games. If your bag is playing through storymode or whatever, none of this applies to you.
Chess is the original fighting game but it's not fast, loud, or colorful enough for ADD millennials so they turn to button mashing instead. Fair assessment of people who take fighting games seriously?
They are right you will pick up bad habbits while playing CPU since the CPU runs on a script and reacts differently to a human.
Ill use the game you posted a screen shot from as an example.
Bloody Roar 2 on high difficulty the CPU will ALWAYS, 100% of the time tech a throw, however if you tech out of Stuns chain throw and he doesn't input the second part will result in the person teching falling prone allowing you to get in another attack, and since the CPU will always tech you can just repeat the process indefinitely till the CPU is dead while a human player would just simply stop teching.
The responses to Chess would be fucking hilarious if it were released today.
>omg nerf queens plox
>stop pawn rushing noob
>wtf my opponent swapped his king and rook he hax
>isn;t it racist the white player goes before black?
>Chess is the original fighting game
Go is older and more fun. Also it's not weeaboo because it's originally Chinese, and the Chinese rules are superior to the Japanese rules, so anti-weeaboo is not a good reason to avoid it.
The only difference I know between Jap and Ching-Chong rules in Go is how the score is tallied at the end, between counting stones of one's color or not. I've heard this doesn't make much of a difference in gameplay. Is there something else, or is this a strategic game changer?
Reading is hard, i understand.
here's a funny cat picture im sure its more your thing.
Area scoring makes a huge difference because you don't have life and death disputes. With Japanese rules you are punished for playing in your own territory, so it rewards claiming enemy stones are dead when it's uncertain. This results is a whole lot of complicated special cases rules about life and death, and sometimes you even need a second board so you can play it out without breaking the scoring.
Chinese rules are much simpler, just play it out every time, you always get the correct result.
The objectively best rules however are the Tromp-Taylor rules, which are very similar to the Chinese rules but clearer and simpler:
You can actually use the CPU in the training mode to master timings and perfect counter strategies against different moves though. Human opponents are actually different but I feel like once you understand all the mechanics of the game, fighting a human opponent is a totally different skill separate from the game itself even. No more can you prepare to fight a person by playing the CPU than you can prepare to fight one person by practicing against another.
Given that fight-man games are imperfect designs, there's also the concept of perfect strategies, a set of defense strategies and counters that will answer every situation, or a perfect offense that will always find an opening
Which is why I like a game like Tobal 2 which makes it into a thrilling fast paced rock-paper-scissors match
>Pawns are literal useless garbage with a gimmick thrown in just to make you believe they're worth shit
>Knights' movement is retarded as fuck and have invincibility frames for shit and giggles
>Queens are the best piece for no fucking reason, blame Tumblr for that
>The King, the most important character, is basically a slightly buffed pawn with a bit more mobility
>You lose the King, it's game over
>Can't use Rooks or Bishops unless you get pawns out of the way just because
>Have to wait for your opponent to make a move before you can make one
>If you don't get a good opening you're at a disadvantage already
>Retarded comeback mechanics
>Retarded combo system
>Clunky as fuck command system
Another proof for the objective fact that western devs can't into fighting games.
>where it does whatever is the best percentage play derived from past matches regardless of what the player is doing
It should completely disregard what the player is doing? I don't see how that could work. Also, the programmed reactions of most AI are pretty much the "best percentage play", only that these percentages are pre-computed.
I was thinking the best percentage play based on distance, that's it's constantly calculating.
Also instead of precomputed it's learning and recalculating after each match,
Anyway I was only asking if there were games where the Ai was well thought of compared to others, I'd like to play them.
I understand OP, but the problem with AI in games is that they're much more predictable as opposed to fighting real humans. You'll eventually pick up on their techniques and habits, and start playing against someone using similar techniques that you used to fight the AI with when in reality a human player is much more unpredictable typically. This is moreso muscle memory than any fault of your own.
I can play Smash with myself via AI, play against a player and still hold myself, but what they say is somewhat true. Just play to have fun though. Tournament communities are cancer with their metagaming and shit. And hey, it's better to play against an AI instead of nothing if it really bothers you.
>The things you people are arguing against are only said to people who seek competition out of their fighting games.
It's said in literally almost every fighting thread, both here and /v/. And I'm pretty sure most of the users of both boards are not EVO tier players. There seems to be this prevailing idea that if *anyone* plays against the CPU they're shooting themselves in the foot.
>I was thinking the best percentage play based on distance, that's it's constantly calculating.
I'm quite confident AIs account for distance, because it results in different optimal actions.
>Also instead of precomputed it's learning and recalculating after each match,
fair enough, I can get behind that. Machine learning is a huge challenge though, even outside of gaming. In the meantime, hardcoding established optimal strategies strikes me as a good starting point.
>I was only asking if there were games where the Ai was well thought of compared to others, I'd like to play them.
Fair enough, it was more of a general question towards the thread. Seems like people have issues with "input reading" but what else can they do, so they are not considered cheating? What's an AI to do to be fair?
You didn't read the rest of it though, but I should say more I guess. The tournament scene is purely about winning, getting a leg up, taking any advantage you can with metagaming being a huge factor in your success. In tournament play winning is a primary, that makes sense. But it bleeds over everywhere beyond that, where fun is more so the secondary as opposed to the number one thing. Everyone likes to win, but you play games to HAVE FUN. Maybe I'm just autistic, I dunno.
Reads your inputs before the frames play out, so it can react in a way that a human player could not, it also ramps the difficulty up to impossible levels until you continue; drops down after it's got your quarters.
Competition and winning is fun, people who play games at a competitive level are having more fun than you ever could.
You are the cancer here, you see people who are better than you so you try your hardest to discredit them in any way possible, i constantly see whining faggots like you claiming competition and fun are mutually exclusive, you make me sick grow the fuck up.
>Reads your inputs before the frames play out
So you want it to look at the screen somehow, or what? The input is a good proxy for the actions on screen.
>so it can react in a way that a human player could not
You could add a reaction delay to the reading, but in many cases human players don't react either. They do moves on a hunch or instinct. Giving the AI a delay for reaction would make it easy to beat.
>it also ramps the difficulty up to impossible levels until you continue; drops down after it's got your quarters.
That's fucked up, well beyond "cheating"
>Doing so only gets you thrown and they don't even have to be in range.
This is completely false, if you are getting thrown "out of range" its because you threw out an attack which extended your hitbox allowing your opponent to throw you, any human player can do this.
The AI is not cheating you simply dont understand how the game works.
Stamina would make a fighting game even more tactical, you wouldn't want to attack constantly because your punches would become slower. Body shots could do more damage to the stamina bar than the health bar, slowing down your running and walking pace.
It would be a different type of fighting game for sure, which would attract a different type of player maybe.
I like the idea of longer rounds, also what about feinting?
I'd like to play a more tactical fighting game, throwing feint kicks and punches, and being able to target specific limbs.
Maybe it would be a bit slower, but what about one punch KOs being possible?
There's lots of things fighting games could do to be better.
I've never liked EA games
But you are right, UFC and Fight night have some of these things.
It would be cooler with arcade type characters though, with all the things they have like fireballs and robots.
Or more realistic fighters like medieval knights or samurai, or streetfighters with jeans and vests on that can pick up bottles.
This sounds awful, it also sounds like it would remove any, skill, strategy, tactics, depth and most of the gameplay from fighting games.
Nah, Destrega had a magic meter which would deplete if you did too much magic, what is that if not similar to a stamina bar?
It's a simple risk/reward thing that would add more depth, and that's not even counting things like feinting, One shot KOs and body shots dealing huge stamina blows.
I'd like a fighting game with magic attacks, weapons and stamina, where feinting, baiting, trapping and defensive cunning are important.
You being shit at fighting games and knowing nothing about them doesn't make him an "elitist"
Him calling out your shitty uninformed ignorant opinion does also not make him an "elitist"
Thinking you are immune to criticism however does make YOU an elitist.
You add a tool in the form of burst attacks, instead of constant pounding. It turns a game of reaction into a game of management though, which may not be your thing. Calling it more shallow because of it drifting into a different genre though, does not make you look good.
Kengo:Master of Bushido on PS2 has a ki meter that acts a bit like a stamina bar, your sword swings become slower, you have to be careful too, you can die in a few swipes, it's PS2 though, not retro.
No it breaks the game up destorying the flow of the game while removing all semblance of strategy or skill.
Saying Destrega has the same level of depth as actual fighting games is both laughable and ignorant.
STGs are incredibly overrated, you might argue about meta and depth as much as you want but most of the time proper memorization trumps all.
RPGs are incredibly overrated, you might argue about meta and depth as much as you want but most of the time proper grinding trumps all.
Action games are incredibly overrated, you might argue about meta and depth as much as you want but most of the time proper reflexes trump all.
Racing games are incredibly overrated, you might argue about meta and depth as much as you want but most of the time proper track memorization trumps all.
RTSs are incredibly overrated, you might argue about meta and depth as much as you want but most of the time proper zerg rushing trumps all.
FPSs are incredibly overrated, you might argue about meta and depth as much as you want but most of the time proper BFGs trump all.
Puzzle games are incredibly overrated, you might argue about meta and depth as much as you want but most of the time proper autism trumps all.
Rhythm games are incredibly overrated, you might argue about meta and depth as much as you want but most of the time proper rhythm trumps all.
Threads on /vr/ are incredibly overrated, you might argue about meta and depth as much as you want but most of the time proper shitposting trumps all.
But I don't, I simply enjoy videogames a normal amount as a well adjusted adult instead of being an insufferable aspie manchild who thinks his virtual skills are a substitute for peer approval.
>it's not weaboo cuz it's originally Chinese.
>Meh, "serious" fighting game players in general are autistic fucks.
There's no need to insult people with autism by comparing them to fighting game players.
Fighting game players are some kind of unholy combination of a nigger and a euphoric fedoralord.
>There seems to be this prevailing idea that if *anyone* plays against the CPU they're shooting themselves in the foot.
Well, you aren't going to learn anything worthwhile by playing AI that reads your input. I can't comment on the tone when someone told you this, but they weren't lying to you.
Are you kidding? You think it's even remotely fair that the AI can respond to attacks as they come out without having to react on it like a human player? Go play Super Turbo, Mortal Kombat 3, or Art of Fighting 2. You don't learn shit by fighting that AI. A human player has to set up actual mind games to beat you. Fighting game AI is so simplistic that you only end up winning by cheesing against it.
Hell, MK3 AI is ridiculous. Sometimes the AI just stands there and does nothing, waiting for you to press a button.
>Are you kidding?
I am not. What input should an AI use instead? It does need some input, to do feedback
>that the AI can respond to attacks as they come out without having to react on it like a human player?
Who says it has to respond on it the moment the input is detected?
>none of us overthought shit to the level it gets nowadays.
If you're talking about the tournament scene, you're wrong.
People did all of those things. That's how they won. Maybe you didn't do it because you're not a tournament player.
>It does need some input, to do feedback
Nah, you just need to write it well, give it a good behaviour, scripted combos and general strategy.
Pure input reading is the lowest of the low for an AI, it's just a cheap way of creating a challenge, which doesn't even last because unless you pump up the AI's actor in some ways it might kill a player twice but once they figure out that they're basically playing two characters at once they're going to cheese it bad.
Case in point, Geese in FF, he's maddening hard because he reacts perfectly to your inputs AND he has an unfair moveset on top of that, then you have something like GG's Justice or I-no which do read your inputs but are not programmed to be 300% precise and don't have a brutally overpowered moveset, those might even be able to teach you something and don't rely on input reading for a challenge, they have good prebuilt combos, movesets and behaviour that work well even without the use of input reading.
And that's a big deal in competitive games because you end up playing the game in a completely different and almost non complementary way, because the AI is fundamentally dumb and will always be
(no offense meant to you robots).
Like, you don't really play Age of Empires 2 or chess with a human player the same way you play them against an AI, or try playing mahjong against a computer and then against a human opponent.
It can respond to the attack that's out there instead of reacting in the same split instance a hadouken comes out. A lot of the time, the AI makes it's counter at the same time a hadouken comes out. A human player doing that each and every time is unheard of. Even dominant players don't have the ability to read like that.
Depends on the games.
For instance, chess AI generally registers your moves and then elaborates a follow up based on a huge pool of possible moves, each time the AI gets to its turn it rechecks that huge pool, which is mostly basic math by the way, and chooses what it deems the best choice at the moment, and so on until the end of the match.
Mahjong AIs work already very differently and are interesting in a way, as they do read your hand of tiles butthey do not necessarily use all that information, being a gambling game that would be pretty much impossible to win against such an opponent, it would be like playing poker by showing our hand but not being able to see you opponents' hands. The AI is then "balanced" on ignoring certain sets of tiles, not ignoring them, make stupid decisions, make good decisions and so on MOSTLY randomly, upping the difficulty level makes the AI more merciless but even then, it's still mostly basic math applied to the game's ruleset.
In other games things can become increasingly complicated or not, action games generally have the AI have your coordinates, it can read your inputs and react accordingly and usually have a general behaviour and script that varies from elementary to very complicated, RPGs have a very basic AI most of the time since it's basically a clash of number crunching and tool sets, you don't really need a complex AI for those.
STGs AIs are vastly a matter of scripted patterns and little else.
I don't know much about racing games but I suppose the're basically the same AI as action games, they know your coordinates, read your input and are generally calibrated on a standard behaviour and interaction with themselves, the player and the track.
RTSs AIs generally read your data, follow a scripted behaviour and apply general instructions according to your decisions.
It all comes down to what the AI has to do and predicting how the player will behave, it's pretty complex.
Input reading, coordinates, general behaviour patterns, standard answers to moves, frame data, character statistics data in case of games that have character weight since it has to check for fall speed in order to be more efficient.
I'm probably forgetting something but I'm not an AI programmer so I don't know whether there's more than this.
People said that's evil, and I asked them for what input should be used
Keep in mind that fighting games don't have much time to make decisions, so you probably want to keep the overhead low
>and I asked them for what input should be used
The ideal AI should be written in order to react using strategies and data instead of cheesing players by reading their input and countering them pronto since the AI doesn't have to deal with the mechanical effort of inputting commands on a controller and reacts and processes such feedback much faster than the human brain, but that would be an insanely huge workload for any programmer, not to mention that it's not worth the effort since FG are meant to be played against other humans instead of a machine.
>Keep in mind that fighting games don't have much time to make decisions
That's the other problem, while you can IN THEORY write a supercomplex, and to a certain degree, efficient AI you also have to make it so that it doesn't clog your machine, so yeah, it's basically a catch 22 no matter how you look at it.
Doesn't change the fact that playing against the AI isn't going to help you when you decide to fight against other players, given that you care about actually winning of course, and if you don't you probably have no reason to play any kind of game anyway.
>in order to react
react to what? What is the AI working with?
>reacts and processes such feedback much faster than the human brain
>Who says it has to respond on it the moment the input is detected?
>since FG are meant to be played against other humans instead of a machine
That's why they include computer opponents
>What is the AI working with?
>That's why they include computer opponents
Son, I'm beginning to think you're not very bright if you need people to point out the obvious to you.
I can understand not knowing how AIs work but this is common sense.
If the games are not meant to be played using computer opponents, maybe they should not include computer opponents.
And so far nobody managed to actually say what the AI should work with. If I were to implement it, I'd take at least the following inputs: current position, current stance/frame and player input. I'm not allowed to do the last one. I could, of course, evaluate the frame of the player character further, but it's just a proxy for the input (input causes the player character to play back a sequence of frames), and input is much easier to react to, since, unlike frame data, it's limited to a few specific moves. I'm not allowed to use input, according to these people. Since frame data is a proxy, I'm of course not allowed it either. Reading the video buffer is prohibitively expensive and needlessly convoluted, as I just end up with simple frame data, which I'm not allowed to use, since it's again the direct consequence of input. I need to react to the player in some form, or I'm just getting pummeled. So the question stands, what data may I actually use as an AI?
>If the games are not meant to be played using computer opponents, maybe they should not include computer opponents.
>What is making the player familiarize with the game
>What is teaching fundamentals
So you are not very bright.
>of course, evaluate the frame of the player character further, but it's just a proxy for the input
It isn't, frame data doesn't give you info on my input besides "Anon's character is doing animation 4, it has X active frames and X cooldown frames", it doesn't tell you whether I'm also charging a sonic boom or not while I'm doing animation 4, it doesn't tell you whether I'm using a negative edge, it doesn't tell you that I'm probably buffering something else to that animation because all of these things can't be read from frame data, but they can be read or implied by reading your inputs.
>So the question stands, what data may I actually use as an AI?
In an ideal, utopic environment? Metadata and simulation of an ideal behaviour.
But we barely know how our own brain works so that's already impossible to implement.
As I told you, for the time being it's a catch 22.
>What is making the player familiarize with the game
>What is teaching fundamentals
Others in the thread pointed out the computer opponents are not doing that. They're also available outside of a trainings mode.
>frame data doesn't give you info on my input besides "Anon's character is doing animation 4, it has X active frames and X cooldown frames"
I know exactly the frame the animation is currently in, and hence when it started, and how long it's gonna last, and can predict the next frames, and likely subsequent inputs (the last bit can be done statically)
>it doesn't tell you whether I'm also charging a sonic boom
Only if said charging won't produce any different animation. In this case, it's trivial to drop the charging input from the input handler
>it doesn't tell you whether I'm using a negative edge
So drop that from the input as well, no problem. Unless it can be infered from previous frames. No need to look just at the current state, but also how it got there.
Seems odd though that so much input is not visible.
>it doesn't tell you that I'm probably buffering something else to that animation because all of these things can't be read from frame data
If there's a transitional animation, it can be read from the frame data, at the very least the moment the buffered animation starts. Whether it's too late for a counter at that point, I don't know.
>In an ideal, utopic environment?
People complained about input reading right now, so I'm expecting an alternative for that given present constraints.
You made a point on disregarding some input, or prefering the frame data over input data.
>Others in the thread pointed out the computer opponents are not doing that.
Well, I disagree with them, duh.
> They're also available outside of a trainings mode.
Training mode is a crutch mainly used for combo practice, which is the bread and butter of most FG today, it's used for muscle memory and nothing more, it won't teach you fundamentals such as spacing or zoning.
>and can predict the next frames
>and likely subsequent inputs
Based on what? Surely neither frame data nor inputs.
>Only if said charging won't produce any different animation.
It can't, if it ever did charge characters would stop existing.
>Unless it can be infered from previous frames.
See previous point, a lot of character archetypes and general startegies would cease to exist if that was the case.
>If there's a transitional animation, it can be read from the frame data
Again, see the other point.
It seems to me you really don't play fighting games at all since you brought up these points, what's the point of making me telegraph my tactics through animations, might as well tell my pal what I'm gonna do before even playing something. The vast part of fighting games' strategy and depth, and a lot of other games really, comes from the fact that you have to infer what the other player is going to do, since you can't read inputs and react accordingly, if you make animations that tell whether or not I'm buffering or charging something the game loses meaning, any competitive game does.
>People complained about input reading right now, so I'm expecting an alternative for that given present constraints.
The fact that people complain doesn't imply that they have a choice, I too complain that I'm forced to buy a console for exclusives I want, but it's not like I have a choice if I want to play that game, likewise I complain about AI programming being nothing more than a temporary crutch in fighting games but I know all too well there's no alternative and I have to deal with it.
There was nothing like these tourneys back then. We had small scale stuff yes and it popped up at random.
No one put as much effort into these things then as they do now outside of the most outcast of nerds. (See CwC ilililili)
>Based on what?
The next frames? Based on the animations coded into the game. If you're in the middle of a punch animation, the next couple frames are the continuation of that punch. A human knows that, a computer may as well.
As for the subsequent inputs: playtesting and static analysis of plays. Not unlike an old turn db for chess.
>It seems to me you really don't play fighting games at all since you brought up these points
correct, I don't. I have casual knowledge of OMF, which is, as far as I can tell, an extremely simplistic FG. Nothing against the genre, but reading comments like yours tell me the genre's not for me anyway. That shit sounds like more frustration than entertainment, at least to me.
>what's the point of making me telegraph my tactics through animations, might as well tell my pal what I'm gonna do before even playing something
No idea. I figured fighting games are a bit more immediate, that it's possible to read the stande of a character, even if the details/differences are tiny. Turns out it's fairly meaningless filler. Sad, but ok.
>The fact that people complain doesn't imply that they have a choice
They called it cheating, which means there must be a non-cheating alternative. I can accept that using the current animation of the character is better suited than raw input, due to the features you mentioned.
I don't know about the rest of yoy guys but I play fighting games alone for the story or with my wife for fun. (No not on a retron 5).
Cuz games are supposed to be fun.....
I mean that's the theory right?
>This is pretty untrue.
You are the dumbest, most faggoty, most provably wrong retard on this board right now. If you disagree please respond for a list of reasons of why you're a fucking contrarian moron.
>f you're in the middle of a punch animation, the next couple frames are the continuation of that punch.
The problem isn't what the frames from point A to point B of animation 4 are, the problem is what's going to happen once the animation 4 is finished.
There are two ways for the AI to handle it, one is input reading so it knows exactly what happens, another is having a pool of every possible thing that can happen after animation 4, which would be mostly anything, and having the AI select the most suitable choice and react to it following either a scripted pattern or a general behaviour, but that would be tremendously taxating for both the machine and the programmer.
> That shit sounds like more frustration than entertainment, at least to me.
Sounds like it is for you, I can imagine.
It's okay though, I too got frustrated a lot by playing danmaku back in the days and trying to get into them, I then realized the genre isn't for me and moved on, there are some interesting aspect to it, but that's not the stuff I like in a game anyway.
>that it's possible to read the stande of a character, even if the details/differences are tiny.
Well, Stance characters are a thing, so you're not completely incorrect, it just is a very minor aspect of strategy, FG are really complex and dumb at the same time, most games are.
I mean, I love RPGs but there's like a trillion ways to break them and the more you play the more you realize most of the stuff in them is "filler" in a way, FG are the same, even at high level most games boil down to using a few characters and baiting each other in order to spam the tools you're most comfortable with.
>They called it cheating, which means there must be a non-cheating alternative
Well, the alternative exists in theory, but sadly isn't feasible in practice because no AI can replace a human being, not for now at least.
>(No not on a retron 5).
Shit anon, what are you doing?
I can feel those divorce papers coming already!
>another is having a pool of every possible thing that can happen after animation 4, which would be mostly anything
From a technical viewpoint, yes. From a practical viewpoint, the pool is much smaller, and certain things are much more likely. Few people will perform a defensive move in the middle of an attack string, especially a defensive move countering attacks that are not helpful in interrupting the ongoing string of attacks, so during certain attacking animations, these defensive moves can be "ruled out", even though they're technically possible. Of course I do see the potential to players realizing that, and taking advantage of it, a general weakness of hardcoded probabilities.
A potential workaround is replay analysis. That is, the AI may have a static tree of potential actions used during a round, and maintains a playback of the last round, which it can analyse when the round is over (and it's not time critical), to compare against their tree of potential followups. If there's a mismatch, the AI could update that tree as part of its savestate. Of course none of this is viable in a /vr/ level game, but as a general approach to a more fair FG AI.
>Well, Stance characters are a thing
Just to clarify, I used stance in the informal sense, the exact pose the character strikes at that moment. I do know that stance characters exist, but I don't understand the concept of stances well enough to do anything with that.
with filler I was refering to visuals that do not convey any information about the actions of the player. From what I understand it's technically feasible that your character shows an idle animation, while a heap of invisible actions are going on. I naively expected that all actions are visible to the opponent, even if just subtly, and it's largely a matter of experience and reaction to expect them, recognize them, and counter them in time.
>From a practical viewpoint, the pool is much smaller, and certain things are much more likely.
In theory you are right, but in practice it doesn't really happen, humans love to improvise and are potentially much more insightful than any machine when it comes to real time decision making.
The examples you made are sound but the problem is that the machine still can't evolve feasibly to change strategy against humans, the most we can squeeze out of them is still giving them trees as you suggested, but that is not even remotely enough when it comes to high level play though it would certainly be much better than what we have now. An AI that evolves dinamically is a wet dream for many players of any game genre really, but it would be a colossal amount of workload for any programmer if you want to make it as good as it sounds.
>but I don't understand the concept of stances well enough to do anything with that.
Well, stances in stance characters are technically a move that let's you enter a state when you have multiple branches you can choose as resolution of said move.
To make an easy example, GG's Johnny's Mist Finer stance put you in a state in which you can come up with 4 different follow ups which you can't guess from the stance per se (though actually you can enter a whole new level of gameplay since Mist Canceling is a thing but that's another layer of strategy), you can follow up with a mid, low, high or special follow up which the player won't be able to infer until it starts, and it's obviously very fast.
By stance you probably mean the characters' general animation routines I guess.
>From what I understand it's technically feasible that your character shows an idle animation, while a heap of invisible actions are going on.
Very rare in practice but yes, that is the case of charging or negative edge.
>I naively expected that all actions are visible to the opponent, even if just subtly
Well you're not entirely wrong, it's just that while you don't effectively have any kind of direct hint, you'll get used to the game's rules and conventions so much you'll know more or less that after a certain move there will be a range of possibilities.
Fact is that said range is not at all static, mostly because strategies change dynamically both in the short and long term, you're not gonna bait your opponent with the same strategy or patterns for too long, sooner or later they'll get used to them.
Though there are of course exceptions to this, especially depending on how the community handles the game, banlists might be a thing, people find new strategies to hard counter old ones while others are so good they just keep on working almost indefinitely.
But now, after some time you're gonna be able to tell when people will resort to fireball spamming and hopefully you'll know how to deal with that, same with charge characters, you'll know more or less when people begin to charge or when there's a possibility they've begun to charge and how you can deal with that, stances are a bit more tricky because it's kind of a lottery in some cases, but even then you can pressure them so much they won't be able to use stances easily, after some times it all really comes out naturally, kind of like playing an instrument, only that you're playing with another dude who's eager to show you he plays better than you.
That said, you must really like the genre in general, otherwise you'll hate this shit.
>this is the same type of person that claims Chinese mahjong is superior to Japanese
There should be no life or death disputes whatsoever in the Japanese version, unless in some special cases. If both players aren't idiots they will realize when groups are dead and that there's no hope to try saving them, and the rule of thumb is "if there aren't at least 2 eyes, the group is dead".
Also, Shogi > Chess. Chinese Chess also gud.
I've explained multiple times in this thread how fighting the CPU won't help you learn about the game to fight other players. Where did you explain the opposite? Where is the rebuttal?
>There was nothing like these tourneys back then.
There actually were big tournaments. You just didn't hear about them because we didn't have livestreaming.
Look, maybe you didn't have tournies where you were. But they happened.
try spamming a projectile at a computer opponent from across the screen. It'll crouch and somehow slide across the stage to try to get you with an uppercut. Or so that happened to me in the SNES version.
>Aww sweet Bloody Roar thread
>its just people crying about other people who are better than them at video games than them
What kind of an idiotic complaint is this? If you want to fight other people, then you'll want to fight other people and not a computer. If you only want to fight the computer then just do that. But indeed everyone is right that fighting AI is nothing like fighting humans and training only against a computer will make you shit at anything else. That's your choice though.
As for training mode. People use training mode to practice execution and test combos. That's really it. You want to see if something will connect and under what circumstances. Or you want to practice inputs without the pressure of a fight.
Yeah this thread is pretty cancerous and would fit right at home on /v/.
Anyway, didn't Virtua Fighter 4 have a mod where the AI adapts to your play style over time?
More game should have that, but I'd imagine it's tough to program that it to make the AI reach human levels of skill.
It doesn't really work. Basically just moves the AI from a more defensive to offensive style depending on how aggressive you are. It sounds fancy but does almost nothing practically.
The fact is that fighting games are like Chess in that it's all about trying to out think what your opponent is going to try and do. AI just can't do that at all, and so it will never be real competition without resorting to cheating.
Pretty much any fighter worth playing has at least some presence on GGPO. Beyond that, like >>2943542 says, play with your friends.
But also it's not that fighters are completely unplayable in solo mode. They're just more boring because you're stuck either fighting something piss easy or something cheating. But there's nothing to say you can't play it. Just look at it more like a Beat Em Up than an actual vs game. I do that from time to time.
The source for GGPO is not public, the reason Fightcade works is because the emulator + GGPO DLL are essentially copy-pasted with the titles changed using a hex editor and other people had already figured out the GGPO lobby protocol beforehand (this is the only major component of FC that's built from scratch)
RetroArch currently implements rollback netcode that I've heard a few good things about but the issue is that each core is responsible for adding code to take advantage of it, this is why it can netplay NES games right now but not something like PSX; it's entirely possible, someone just has to get around to it for those particular cores
Because the vast majority of today's userbase is composed of entitled teenagers and manchildren who don't have any social skill whatsoever and have never worked a day in their life, they can't face the hard reality that there's better players than them out there, so they either have to be:
>No life losers
>People who play only one game in their life
>All of the above
And I don't mean to defend the FG community because most of them aren't exactly the kind of people I'd go have a beer with, but there's also a lot of them who are decent people.
Playing against the AI is good for practicing spacing, punishing and pulling off combos in a match.
On the other hand, if you play like an idiot, fighting AI isn't going to help you play smarter, it will just teach you how to exploit the AI, while still playing like an idiot.
That's not true though. For example in Street Fighter 2, the AI does not do movement inputs for special moves, which essentially breaks charge characters because their special moves can be done on a whim (this is at its worst with Guile and Balrog).
I only read the first part of that, but they have a point. People saying "they play for fun" as if high-level players somehow hate what they do, I dislike that as well. Some people like to learn the ins and outs of a game to learn how to play it in the most optimal manner, others want to discover things as they go and reach the end organically. Why do these two groups have to hate each other so vehemently?
I honestly never understood why people would play fighting games against the AI once online was a widespread thing. I used to play stuff Alpha 3 world tour mode because I literally didn't know better, but there are so many different games to play with good online (as long as you're in Europe or Asia) that I really don't get what is fun to play an input reading opponent that can react to jabs.
>Why do these two groups have to hate each other so vehemently?
I find it strange as well. It's like the "stop liking what I don't like" Even when they're playing the same game, they still get pissed that someone else is enjoying it but not in exactly the same way.
I think some people just aren't interested in playing against other people but they still like the form of the games. I'm the polar opposite and can't stand fighting AI at all, but I've talked to people who really do seem to just want that. Playing like it's a boss rush version of a Beat Em Up or something.
As for the screen grab, something about that feels fishy though it could be because I don't play Tekken. Most fighting games these days don't have real infinites though, and it seems odd that a game as major as Tekken would have them.
So it's hard to believe he can get pinned and hit with the same move over and over while defenseless. In most fighting games, especially modern ones spamming the same move over and over even if you've caught your opponent with it is pretty much asking to get blown up.
But by the same token, if I'm playing against someone online and they fall for the same thing every time then I'm not too inclined to stop until he actually counters me.
So this guy, even if he's been playing Tekken since 3 came out is probably just really bad. Fighting games have never really been about honor. There's the good sportsmanship of not being a dick to your opponent, but let's be real here. They're games about fighting. You're supposed to be doing anything you possibly can to beat your opponent. He shouldn't be relying on his opponent going easy on him, or to stop throwing something at him if he fell for it too many times. That's silly.
I played a room-mate at Tekken 5 a while ago and I just kept doing a basic 1-2 juggle a couple times after a launch and kept sweeping him because he always tried to roll backwards, he just got up and turned the 360 off after one match. People who don't really know how these games work just think you're being really unfair by hitting them on the floor.
Well that's a very different situation. If he was unfamiliar with the game of course he's not going to know what to do and it wouldn't be fun at all to play like that.
But that guy claimed to have been playing Tekken for almost 20 years. If he keeps falling for the same shit or expecting his opponent to go easy on him, that's really only his problem.
desu I assume it's someone who played fighters against the AI and called themselves a veteran
>I did ALL of soul calibur's weapon master mode!
>I did ALL of alpha 3's world tour!
>I did arcade mode on VERY HARD!
These people actually exist. There's even a competition for SFV in GAME stores where the winners are the ones who can beat 5 AI opponents in the fastest time, dumb stuff.
>I did ALL of soul calibur's weapon master mode!
this (as well as SFEX expert mode) is a legit way to play the game, though, since they do offer different kinds of challenge (not merely "beating the AI").
And it also sounds like he's used to fighting his friends on his couch. There are some guys who get "local good" where they can beat their friends and the few local guys they play against so they think they're really hot shit. But the reality is that his friends suck and are actually holding him back because he's never challenged to improve or learn to deal with high level shenanigans.
So then he goes online and gets demolished because he's only used to playing against shitters. Then we get this hilarious stuff about honor and no more respectful matches.
>as if high-level players somehow hate what they do
That's a strawman and/or false dichotomy.
Likewise, the "two groups" you described dismiss a large part of the people that subscribe to the "play for fun" aspect.
The mutual disrespect is due to entirely conflicting mindsets and perception of games. There's no way out of that.
From my experience most of the "hardcore" people into fighters like that there are people playing them casually because it's all just growing the genre. But at the same time they don't want to play with them either. Some people think that guys go around wanting to body noobs all day and feel special. But the reality is that for people who actually like playing fighting games, there's nothing more boring than playing against someone much worse than you.
Okay, what's the problem then? Fighters are always best when you're playing with someone around your level. The great thing with them is that so long as you can find someone close to your skill level, they're always fun. But playing someone who's either much, much better or much, much worse is rarely much fun.
Most high level players that I know at least don't have an issue with people who play casually for fun. But maybe that's not the problem you're talking about.
>Fighters are always best when you're playing with someone around your level
Assumption. For some people, from the "for fun" group no less, games are more entertaining when you're winning, maybe even dominating. They're actively gimping opponent players, or setting them to a low difficulty, because they're having fun pummeling the opponent. Your statement blindly assumes that people are always, without exception, seeking a challenge, and that's missing such a broad number of other motivations, it's making the disconnect glaringly obvious. Also keep in mind that arcade mode SP is all about winning a set of matches. Not a percentage, all of them.
>so long as you can find someone
Another assumption. A lot of people don't like the competitive nature of opponents, or their unpredictability, or just them being humans. That includes online play.
>But playing someone who's either much, much better or much, much worse is rarely much fun.
And nobody but you is wasting a thought on that strawman
>Most high level players that I know at least don't have an issue with people who play casually for fun
They likely have problems with people who aren't interested in all the deep details and would rather have some "hilarious" button mashing, and fuck who wins, that's secondary. "high level players" always, without exception, assume competitive motivation. They can not fathom that there are people out there who not only don't give a shit about winning, they're actively repulsed by people who make winning, by any means necessary, their primary goal
Okay, but I was talking specifically about the "hardcore" type fighter players. The ones who are playing them either seriously or with the goal of getting as good as they can. For people playing fighters like that, regardless of what their skill level is, the game is most fun when you're close to your opponent.
Sure there are people out there who do want to just play to win and want to dominate, but I think they're a very small percentage of overall players. Doing something easy is rarely fun for an extended period of time.
But also as you say, there are people who want to play single player and that's perfectly fine. It's a different kind of experience, but if it's what someone enjoys then that's great.
>They likely have problems with people who aren't interested in all the deep details and would rather have some "hilarious" button mashing, and fuck who wins
That's what I was talking about, in my experience they're totally cool with those people. They don't see them as playing the game in the same way, and have no interest in playing with them. Yes, there are people on the internet who will be extra vitriolic and nasty just because they can be, but of everyone I play with in person they really have no issue with people who play like that.
But understand that's not to say they want to play with them. Because if you do take fighters "seriously" and are into high level play, then someone just goofing around mashing buttons and spamming fireballs isn't going to be a lot of fun.
>They can not fathom that there are people out there who not only don't give a shit about winning, they're actively repulsed by people who make winning, by any means necessary, their primary goal
I don't really get this. The whole point of a fighter is that it's a vs battle. That's why I say these games are most fun (in 2 player mode) when you're against an opponent of equal skill. The whole point is trying to win.
>in my experience they're totally cool with those people
As long as they're playing competitively, or trying to learn. If they enjoy button mashing, these "pros" will just shake their head in disgust and give up.
>then someone just goofing around mashing buttons and spamming fireballs isn't going to be a lot of fun
aka they're not cool with them. They use them as a coffee break tool and then go back to competing, because as you said "isn't going to be a lot of fun", that kind of fun is entirely foreign to them, and always will be.
>I don't really get this
My point from the very beginning. You can not understand that mindset, and they can't understand yours, and there's nothing that will change that.
> If they enjoy button mashing, these "pros" will just shake their head in disgust and give up.
I think you may misunderstand. They don't have a problem with those people existing and playing the game. If someone is just goofing off or playing the game their own way that's all good. At the end of the day it's all just more people getting into fighters. A small number of those will get hooked and down the line it leads to more opponents to fight.
But like I said, they're obviously not going to want to play with them either. Look at it like this, say you're really into tennis. On the weekend you like to go to the court and play with people. And even though you ultimately want to play your best, it's not going to be a fun time if your opponent isn't skilled and doesn't take the game seriously. This is the same thing.
> that kind of fun is entirely foreign to them, and always will be.
You're fundamentally wrong here though. Almost everyone who is now into fighters first got into them because of how much fun that is. Of course it's fun to goof around and just have fun with what you can do in the game.
But you have to understand that for the people who then get really really into them, that looses it's appeal after a while. And just like the guy who wants to go and have a good game of tennis with a skilled opponent, no one who's a fan of fighters enough to want to seriously practice them will want to play with someone not really trying.
Which is why I said this
>Fighters are always best when you're playing with someone around your level
Bearing in mind I'm talking about player vs player specifically. Two people playing on the "let's just goof off and toss fireballs around" can have just as much fun with the game as two people who are deep into it and playing seriously. That's what makes these games so awesome.
Anon... please... he outright pwned you, I know it takes a toll to admit it, but just because he makes a fool out of you for calling people fag, doesn't mean they're butthurt. Learn to know when you've been defeated.
It's just a rip off something icy calm wrote years ago. Although his version was a lot smarter.
the tldr is that everyone plays for fun, winning is itself a form of form, and winning is more than losing. So there is comprimise between 'fun and winning'. There are a few exceptions though. "Pro gamers" do not play for fun, they play for prize money. "Streamers" also do not play for fun, they play for ad revenue. And reviewers do not play for fun, they will play a game that is not 'fun' because their real goal is to write something critical.
>"Pro gamers" do not play for fun, they play for prize money. "Streamers" also do not play for fun, they play for ad revenue.
Isn't it possible that it's a combination though? I don't think anyone has decided to become a "pro gamer" if they didn't love playing video games to start with. Certainly trying to actually make money is incredibly inefficient compared to just getting a more normal job. And I know for a fact from experience that at least some "pro gamers" primarily work as testers or similar jobs to make ends meet. It's just not something you're going to do if you don't love playing video games.
Which isn't to say that I'm sure there are times when it feels more like a chore than a game. Practicing combo execution for hours on end or doing the same fights over and over to work out a bad match up. But at the same time it's probably a hell of a lot more fun than working in an office, waiting tables or whatever else they may be doing.
>And reviewers do not play for fun, they will play a game that is not 'fun' because their real goal is to write something critical.
This I agree with a lot more. Even though reviewers are similar in that no one would choose the path of a video game reviewer if they didn't love to play games. But a lot of what they do isn't necessarily fun because unlike the "pro gamer" they're playing all manner of different things and often games they don't like or don't interest them.
I think it's his way of protecting himself. He obviously likes fighters to some degree but knows he'll never play them enough to be any good so he doesn't even want to try. It's also telling that he's repulsed by people who enjoy competition. So it's likely that he doesn't enjoy any kinds of competitive play.