Menu
By:
Filters
What's new

How competent should a good player be with any/every character?

Matix218

Matix218

Get over here!
I don't think being strong in a random select match shows that you are a top player at all, it just shows that you have practiced enough to execute fairly well with many characters.

I don't think anyone would argue that 16bit or dizzy was not a top player in mk9 as an example but I don't think they would have done well in a random select match because they are character specialists.

Many players, even top players can only be proficient with two or three characters tops before it starts to actually water down their execution/timing/spacing/punishment/matchup knowledge etc.
 
Matix218

Matix218

Get over here!
BatmanBeatsCap said:
Hmm. I think there is a difference when people can play any character in a game and not have familiarity with a character, and come out on top. Fundamentals don't change, and a good character will figure out some/most of the basic movies pretty quickly. I would think any top competitor would also do well in random matchups.

I might well be wrong, but I think its an interesting potential metric.
Click to expand...
I do think that knowledge of how every character works from a moveset and strategy perspective is essential for top players to be successful in tournaments without question. But they definitely do not need to actually play every character themselves IMO.
 
Crusty

Crusty

Retired forever; don’t ask for games.
Random matches are not an accurate representation of characters being used at the highest possible level. They're only useful for quick games. If you want to truly analyze a matchup, you have to fight a long set with someone, regardless if they are a character specialist or not, to understand how to read them better.

Top players don't necessarily do well unconditionally in every match, variables like lag and randomness can contribute greatly to the pace of the match.

It all comes don't to neutral, once you understand how that works, you'll understand the game better. Learning characters gets you so far, learning spacing and options at certain ranges as well as exploiting your opponent's bad habits will get you further.

It doesn't matter if a character is good, if the persons neutral is downright terrible, it is up to you capitalize their mistakes.
 
Skkra

Skkra

PSN: Skkra
BatmanBeatsCap said:
Hmm. I think there is a difference when people can play any character in a game and not have familiarity with a character, and come out on top. Fundamentals don't change, and a good character will figure out some/most of the basic movies pretty quickly. I would think any top competitor would also do well in random matchups.

I might well be wrong, but I think its an interesting potential metric.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you, but I see what you're saying. Justin Wong or Chris G would crush most people in random select simply due to godlike fundamentals. But, if we're talking about playing competitively at the highest level, then it doesn't matter if you have a well-rounded quiver of characters in your pocket.

Using a Tekken example, FightingGM only ever uses Lee. He doesn't counterpick, he just uses Lee. And he's one of the best. He obviously knows the tools/frame data/combos/etc of the rest of the cast, but it doesn't necessarily mean that he would beat other people in a random select match.
 
I GOT HANDS

I GOT HANDS

Official Infrared Scorp wid gapless Wi-Fi pressure
Skkra said:
I disagree with you, but I see what you're saying. Justin Wong or Chris G would crush most people in random select simply due to godlike fundamentals. But, if we're talking about playing competitively at the highest level, then it doesn't matter if you have a well-rounded quiver of characters in your pocket.
Click to expand...
Not if they randomed Kano and the other other guy randomed his main anyway
 
SneakyTortoise

SneakyTortoise

Official Master of Salt
BatmanBeatsCap said:
Yeah, that seems right. I just find it interesting. Some players I fight are almost godlike with their main, and I just don't understand how they can be so very bad at any other character. Fundamentals just go out the window. I guess it's interesting to see the different types of minds people have, and how they all approach the game differently and get to the top by different methodologies.
Click to expand...
Because a major part of fundamentals is knowing your character's range on each attack. If someone is using a character they've never used before then of course this will appear to affect their fundamentals
 
MrProfDrPepper

MrProfDrPepper

NRS, Guilty Gear, and KI, the holy trinity
The knowledge of a character is extremely important at high level, you need to know the match ups. Counter strategies, etc. HOWEVER you don't need to know all the characters gameplay wise, you need to know the match ups for the characters YOU play, generally the best way to go about it as a character specialist is lab out the counter strategies that other characters have against you and experiment, play others who are good with those characters, knowing each charger inside and out is unnecessary and not that productive unless you are like Wonderchef in which the word main doesn't exist, knowing yours character inside and out and unlocking their full potential should be a priority and playing a character to their maximum capacity and a firm grasp on the mechanics knowing the games basic fundamentals inside and out make a top player a top player, or at least that is how I view it :/
 
Protagonist_1

Protagonist_1

Noob
BatmanBeatsCap said:
It seems to me that random match-ups are a great indicator of player skill, showing those who can adapt and have very strong fundamentals, to those who limit themselves and are unable to adapt.

Is there any merit to this line of thinking? If there is not, why is it flawed?
Click to expand...
Currently working on an assignment, but I'm just going to take a break to respond to this. I do admire your observation, but here's where I feel there are flaws in your argument:

BatmanBeatsCap said:
I've noticed there are a few kinds of players. Truly top tier players who have incredibly strong fundamentals, whose blocking is always on point and can adapt to any game-play while playing. The rest seem to have only be able to master a few specific strings for a few characters, are don't play well when those strings don't work in a certain match-up or when they try to play a different character. Or worse than that, they only master one or two special moves and don't go beyond that.

I've played random character matches with players who usually beat me down pretty quickly with their main, and they did terribly. Very basic things seemed to have been forgotten. With other players who I considered especially top players, they would still dominate me in a random match-up.
Click to expand...
I feel the scope of your argument is rather narrow to make a broad assumption. The basis of your argument is from players you played in injustice online to generalize that playing random-select is a great indicator of player skill. There are several flaws to this:

1) Online isn't favorable to reactionary play (due to lag/delay), something that is critical to offline play and for footsies/spacing. Plus this is from players you played against (not saying they are bad players) but it's a very small pool of evidence to leap to such a broad conclusion.

2) Players main characters for a wide variety of reasons. Some just play their favorite characters (16bit), others choose a character that best fits their play style (Dizzy-rush down), and some just like choosing multiple characters because they get bored playing one (Foreverking). Just because a player decides to play one character ("those who limit themselves and are unable to adapt") does not mean they have, or will have, weak fundamentals. Countless top players in the offline scene have proved this.

3) A top player can choose to main one character, learn how to punish/whiff punish the rest of the cast, and learn the spacing against each characters primary tools without having to play/main a wide variety of characters. If a player can play random select and win matches then that's great and all, but most tournament matches aren't decided by how well you can play random-select, it's about how well you can outplay your opponent.

If I knew my next opponent in a tournament can destroy me with his main but I could beat him in random select, why would the latter matter? At the end of the day, I'm going straight to losers bracket.

4) Random select doesn't show how well you can adapt. It just shows you can play a wide number of characters. The ability to adapt is how quickly you can read your opponents tendencies and habits and punish them for it. The ability to adapt in a tournament setting is not hindered by only playing one character, only by the player not being able to adapt. (Well that and playing a 9-1 matchup)

I can see where you are coming from. Players like for example JDCR could play a multitude of characters in Tekken Tag 2 by his fundamentals alone, and had a good understanding of the game's engine. But as mentioned you have players like FightingGM who only uses Lee, and Anakin who is primarily a Jacks main didn't even study frame data at one point and just knew the mechanics of the game. And of course 16 bit who primarily used Kitana, Dizzy, using cage back in mk9, Tyrant using Jax, etc.
 
Last edited:
GAV

GAV

Resolution through knowledge and resolve.
BatmanBeatsCap said:
This is something I have been pondering for some time. I have about 2 years of "serious" fighting game experience, meaning 2 years of learning everything I could and actually trying to improve. Pretty much limited to Injustice Online.

I've noticed there are a few kinds of players. Truly top tier players who have incredibly strong fundamentals, whose blocking is always on point and can adapt to any game-play while playing. The rest seem to have only be able to master a few specific strings for a few characters, are don't play well when those strings don't work in a certain match-up or when they try to play a different character. Or worse than that, they only master one or two special moves and don't go beyond that.

I've played random character matches with players who usually beat me down pretty quickly with their main, and they did terribly. Very basic things seemed to have been forgotten. With other players who I considered especially top players, they would still dominate me in a random match-up.

It seems to me that random match-ups are a great indicator of player skill, showing those who can adapt and have very strong fundamentals, to those who limit themselves and are unable to adapt.

Is there any merit to this line of thinking? If there is not, why is it flawed?
Click to expand...
Elite players should be able to beat average players with any character, theoretically.

To each his own though. Who are we to tell anyone how they should practice or play?

Some players stick to one character. You don't need to know how to play a match-up to play against it. We shouldn't thumb our noses at such players.

Fair or unfair, correct or misguided - players will always be judged on success - and how they conduct themselves.
 
Doctor Rektangle

Doctor Rektangle

Think outside the Box
I play 2 variations of every character in MKX except Shinnock/Kano/Kung Lao/Kenshi. Each at a moderately high level of skill. However I rather be a specialist who can win entire tournaments with one character than a guy who can just do damn impressive stuff with all entire cast. But a random select tournament? I'M IN!
 
Braindead

Braindead

I want Kronika to step on my face
Sure, good fundamentals are good fundamentals. That means you know how to space your character, you know how to block, you know when to punish, you know how to do good combos, you know how to pressure. Let's just take those aspects for a minute.

You pick a random character, you work on your spacing well and make your opponent commit mistakes (whiffing strings, for example), or you block the opponent's stuff and it's your turn to punish. Now you just picked up the character and you don't know his combos, or you don't know what your fast normals that should be used for punishing are. Now what?

Or you block your opponent's safe (but negative) attacks, or you knock them down. Now it's your turn to pressure. But you just picked up the character you don't know what their pressure moves are, or you know them (from labbing your options against them) but you don't have the execution to perform the pressure because you haven't practiced it enough. Now what?

See the problem? You'll end up most likely losing playing against a decent opponent at least, because you aren't capitalizing on anything nor have you the experience to play to the character's strong points. That's the problem.
 
A F0xy Grampa

A F0xy Grampa

Problem X Promotions
I think you're confusing execution for character knowledge.

I only play Lao, but I understand how most characters work better than most understand their own mains just for the purpose of knowing what to exploit against them.

So let's say we play random select theory fighter, I stand a pretty good chance cause I understand the situations that arise in a match, but if it's an actual game it won't play out that cause I don't have the muscle memory on those situations.

It's just application of theory, that's all.

Spacing and things like that are pretty dependent on the character, what 1 character can punish in 1 scenario, another might not be able to.


Basically it really doesn't matter how good you can execute with a character, because if the theory of your game is bad, then it's just bad.
 
U

Undergroundepict

I am like the blue rose
A player's ability to pick up multiple characters is generally born out of overall fighting game experience. A player who has been playing fighting games for several years before coming to, let us say, MKX, will have a far easier time picking up any given character than somebody for whom MKX is their first fighter. Fundamentals translate from fighting game to fighting game, as do inputs and common strategies.

I have seen some very mediocre players who seem to have absolutely no problem playing damn near every character in the game at the same mediocre level.

When you see players who are overreliant on character specifics and strings, it is largely the result of being new to fighters. This is one reason it is especially recommended for new FG players to pick a main and stick to them. They can win matches due to familiarity with their own character that they would not otherwise win fundamentally. Fundamentals come with time, practice, and proper analysis; they are not an endogenous trait.
 
juicepouch

juicepouch

blink-182 enthusiast
on a competitive level i would imagine it depends on what characters they already hae learned. Someone who plays Harley in injustice will need to be competent with more characters than someone who plays Aquamang for instance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.