|
|
Post by Ahenobarbus on May 18, 2015 12:35:56 GMT -5
Hey guys. A couple of Melee figureheads have been circulating the link for a google doc which is essentially a compendium of all guides to competitive Melee: --> docs.google.com/document/d/14scMKnw-IyD_FhOy6Pg7EAkRwu-e1YNbA06k0pwZpF0/preview?sle=true# <--
I figured that maybe we could single out an article/post/video for discussion every week, and either discuss it on here or maybe at the Reaction freeplay on Wednesdays. Kind of like what I did the the Wobbles post in the fb group, but on a less public forum. If you're interested, you can look through the doc and suggest something for the first discussion. I can then make a strawpoll of everyone's suggestions to decide what to discuss first. My suggestion for the first discussion is --> Positioning: The Divide Between Good and Great by Omni <-- |
|
|
|
Post by Mentaculus on May 18, 2015 21:04:37 GMT -5
Awesome idea. I'll start reading it now as that is one I haven't yet (though honestly I haven't read that many of them). Also of interest is --> "The Best the FGC has to Offer" <--. It's a post on the melee subreddit which I think deserves it's own google doc, but have been too lazy to create. Basically it is a compilation of a number of resources that were actually written for FGC games but have applications in Melee and other smash games. Perhaps we can put together a resources list and sticky it somewhere. Chris? Next week let's read The Inner Game of Tennis :^) EDIT: I linked the post, but the link tool is silly and it appears as the same color as regular text. |
|
|
|
Post by Ahenobarbus on May 20, 2015 9:04:08 GMT -5
EDIT: I linked the post, but the link tool is silly and it appears as the same color as regular text. Yeah that's weird. It let me change the google doc URL to blue, but wouldn't let me change my link-tooled link to blue... EDIT: it displayed the google doc URL as blue in the post I typed, but still displays it as white... I'm gonna have to go back and add the blue arrows like you did |
|
|
|
Post by Mentaculus on May 20, 2015 20:15:10 GMT -5
Did anyone discuss this today or yesterday? I've read it over a few times and written up some stuff I think about it that I might post on here if you think everyone has had plenty of time to review the material.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ahenobarbus on May 21, 2015 17:34:01 GMT -5
I was waiting for someone else to suggest something, hopefully more people will join the discussion once we get it going. Which one did you read? I'll just read that and maybe we can inspire some people to join in.
Also I'm totally down to do a reading group for The Inner Game of Tennis if people are interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mentaculus on May 21, 2015 20:46:40 GMT -5
Lol I read Omni's positioning post. Here is what I wrote up once I read it:
Going straight through the post, the first thing that catches my eye is his "basic science" of smash. One thing I always love when reading posts like this is how they bring the focus in on different aspects of the game, and out to the game as a whole. I like that his simplification of the game as a whole matches the rest of his post, but personally I believe a slightly better sentance would be: "Thus it is every player's goal to keep the opponent off of the arena.", rather than "Thus it is every player's goal to force the opponent outside of this boundry." The second sentance (Omni's) seems so simplified that it is a little out of focus. His sentance leaves the impression that players will go out of their way to force the oppenent off a blast zone, when in the majority of cases all that is needed is to prevent them from recovering to the arena. Nit picky, but I believe my slightly less simplified version of the sentance is more accurate. Gravity, yo. I believe it was Umbreon's Drastic Improvement where I got the notion for that view of the game, though I'm not sure.
His basic factors of position are pretty sound. I don't think making them more or less specific would help at all. "A match is a battle for the better position" I really like that, and it is something I try to remember. Now that I have video evidence I'll have to check, but I've always felt that as a player I am very concerned about position on stage. I feel like I am always on the ground in the center of BF, or else trying to get there.
Advancing, Retreating, Waiting. Again, I have no arguement about this, seems like most basic view of adjusting. I also like that he used "Adjusting" specifically because I like the idea that everything decision is based on previous decisions made by both players. "The common smash player is impulsive." That is great, I'm really glad he points this out, because it is so ridiculously true. What I disagree with is his next generalization that when they're afraid they retreat and when they're confident they advance. I think in general this might be true but there are always exceptions, esepecially if you look at more specific situations. When I am threatened in my shield as Ganondorf, a lot of the times, I will actually be really aggressive out of my shield, U-airing to get them off me and then trying to retaliate back to CS if I'm not already there. Not because I'm confident, but because I'm scared about my positioning. Also about smashers telling their opponent what kind of player they are just by how they adjust their position is really true.
I am personally not crazy about the view he narrowed down to for styles. "Assailant, Camper, Ambusher" seem way, waaaaaaaaaaay to general. And while I know that he admits that they are very raw, and that there are too many combinations to get into if they are any less broad, I just think it's a silly notion to have in mind. He even admits it later "The best smashers have no real combination, either; there’s a time and place to advance, retreat, and wait and they simply do it at those correct times." I know that in a general sense people have more aggressive styles or more defensive styles, but for me he cut the line way to clearly and then kind of went back on himself. Personally I would not make strong distinctions like that at all.
Overall, I like that his article is concise but I also feel that he could have expanded on a lot of his ideas to validate them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ahenobarbus on May 22, 2015 9:50:42 GMT -5
I definitely agree with your point about preventing the opponent from getting to stage. Though, in Omni's defense, in certain matchups matchups against floaties and characters with really good recovery (e.g. Puff, Samus, to a lesser extent Peach), edgeguards are really hard to come by, so as a Marth main I'm looking for a tipper to send them straight through the blastzone as opposed to just hitting the character offstage for an edgeguard setup, which I would go for against most of the cast.
I think you're dead on here. Fear is more complex than just some impetus to retreat. I think the best way to think about an opponent's fear in smash is more like a feral animal--when there's space and opportunity, they'll run, but once they feel trapped/cornered, they'll attack, still out of fear, but they know that the best way out of the FOXty situation is to attack in that moment. If you can recognize when your opponent will flee (e.g. roll, spotdodge, WD oos) vs. fight (e.g. aerial oos, shieldgrab, shine oos) when afraid, then you can really press your positional advantage.
I think the mistake he made here was naming the styles as people. No one is purely an Assailant, purely a Camper, or purely an Ambusher. He should have named the styles after behaviors: "Assailing, Camping, and Ambushing." Then it's easier to say that players go back and forth between the three, because you haven't characterized the player already. I, as a person who is not an "Assailant, Camper, or Ambusher," do sometimes assail, sometimes camp (not enough tbh), and sometimes ambush. It's much more profitable to understand these three as specific behaviors that unique and ambiguous players can employ at will.
One final thought: even if you have internalized all of the helpful info in this post, there are two things you have to keep in mind when applying it:
1) You need to be able to recognize when your opponent is afraid, when he is confident, when he is "Assailing, Camping, or Ambushing."
2) You need to be able to disguise when you're afraid, when you're confident, when you're "Assailing, Camping, or Ambushing."
I think we have a lot of players who are pretty good at (1) (e.g. Jay excels at this when he pushes his punishes really far and finds wacky neutral openings with Falcon), but no one who has really reached the level of (2) consistently (I would say that some of Brian's spacing tricks with Ganon are the closest we have here).
|
|
|
|
Post by psych on May 22, 2015 10:23:58 GMT -5
I really like what you guys have said so I don't feel a need to elaborate on those topics. Jim, I think your "final thought" is awesome, and I feel like those are two simple goals that could really boost anyone's play style if they actively keep them in mind.
One thing in this post that was really interesting to me was the 5 factors of position (direction, character, location, action, percentage). I think that not only are these the factors of "position", they are also the determinants of "options". I've seen top players who love theory (KK, PPMD, Cactuar, etc) talk about how the truly most abstract way to talk about success in a given situation is restricting and then covering the opponent's options. I have recently been realizing how closely tied the concepts of position and options are (edgeguarding, corner pressure, and platform camping are a few obvious examples), and it's something I think I really need to be more mindful of in-game. A big problem I have is that I see a certain position and attack that position, but in the time it takes me to do so, my opponent's position has changed and I totally failed. I feel like I need to see positions as the future options they represent, rather than their current state, so that I take action against those options and actually have a chance of catching my opponent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Moo on May 22, 2015 12:15:04 GMT -5
Ahhh this thread is awesome. Loving the discussion guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by psych on May 22, 2015 13:53:53 GMT -5
Also, I was planning on starting The Inner Game of Tennis soon, so heck yes I'm in on that discussion
|
|
|
|
Post by Mentaculus on May 22, 2015 16:04:12 GMT -5
Thank you for this. I couldn't think of the words to match how I felt about what he was saying, but this is absolutely right. I know that he himself even brings up how every player is a mix of types, but using these words rather than his make it so much better.
This is really nice. It's honestly something that I hadn't really thought out logically, but this is the perfect next step after reading Omni's post. I think his post could have benefitted a lot if he had kind of gone on to this (though it would have lengthened considerably).
|
|
|
|
Post by Mentaculus on May 22, 2015 16:06:43 GMT -5
Also I'm totally down to do a reading group for The Inner Game of Tennis if people are interested. Also, I was planning on starting The Inner Game of Tennis soon, so heck yes I'm in on that discussion Lol I was kinda joking actually, but I'd be up for reading it. I don't think we should do it as part of our regular reading group discussions unless we find a chapter we find really compelling, but yeah I'd read it. Extra credit assignment, lol. |
|
|
|
Post by psych on May 22, 2015 16:17:47 GMT -5
I had been planning on reading it anyway, and I just feel like it's a book where reading it will be even more valuable if I have people to talk to about it. I don't want to like "assign" readings or anything though lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Mentaculus on May 22, 2015 16:36:20 GMT -5
Yeah I know, lol. Bad joke  doesn't translate into text well. But yeah, I'll reserve it from my local library now. EDIT UPDATE: They don't have it! I guess I'll read from a PDF and if I like it enough I'll purchase it. I just hate reading long stuff on my laptop. Books are so much simpler. Does anyone have a link to PDF by chance? |
|
|
|
Post by psych on May 22, 2015 16:53:36 GMT -5
I do not. I actually just said why not and bought it from Amazon. It was only like 8 bucks or something (it was on sale for whatever reason)
|
|
doesn't translate into text well. But yeah, I'll reserve it from my local library now.