UK VF Ranking Battle #1 Sat 12th Nov 05 2pm - 8pm // media & results:

Re: UK VF Ranking Battle #1 Sat 12th Nov 05 2pm - 8pm // media & resul

I've always felt that the person with the frame advantage will usually only go for a move that's safe enough to beat low punch. therefore, RN with a small attack makes no sense, because either way you're getting counter hit, or you're beating the throw.

I guess though it's different in FT because of the different levels of counter hits, but i still think it's pretty stupid to RN with a weak attack.

 

Re: UK VF Ranking Battle #1 Sat 12th Nov 05 2pm - 8pm // media & resul

yeah, .. during flow charts and blocked disadvantage, you're absolutely right, the opponent always has beating low P their first target .

but i think on a more free disadvantage (for example after you techroll), then the opponent must attack straight away inorder to keep a 2-choice game going, most of the time, it's a distance game or a delay game, where instant attacking is a mix-up, i think something like pai's high P will suceed more often than a bigger move.

i also think that opponent's can screw up their timing sometimes when they try a big attack at advantage because you dont buffer execution and there's no clear window to land an attack, so if they are a frame late on pulling off their attack, a small move like P will MC them and gain big advantage.

apon the basics of reverse nitaku, then yeah low P isnt necessarily smarter, my bad.

[ QUOTE ]
but i still think it's pretty stupid to RN with a weak attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

the objective is to gain advantage to create your own nitaku, meaning that a bigger attack is still your choice afterward. now the opponent has a riskier guess. i like to use P,K because it's pretty damaging, and gets a tight choice game afterwards..

i only play a big move like SS after techroll, because it has very good evasive properties, and can avoid throw, high attacks, and mid attacks if i guess right. sometimes even low attacks, but it seems really random 0__0*

 

Re: UK VF Ranking Battle #1 Sat 12th Nov 05 2pm - 8pm // media & resul

Reverse Nitaku is exactly what it sounds like....

Forcing a nitaku guess back on the opponent, between guarding and dodging. So it's not really trying to gain advantage and then create your own nitaku, it is already posing a nitaku game on the opponent. The idea is that you are assuming you have the advantage since you are guessing the opponent is going to forgo an immediate follow up attack when he is in advantage. So you are attacking and forcing your own nitaku game, making the opponent guessing between guarding or dodging. The option of a throw is ruled out because it will lose to any attacks that you throw out.

 

Re: UK VF Ranking Battle #1 Sat 12th Nov 05 2pm - 8pm // media & resul

we already established what RN is, what im imposing is to attack back with a smaller attack, or a larger attack.

as myke said, it doesnt matter wether you get MC'd with a low P or a yoho, so RN stays the same either way. the smaller attack is not supposed to just guess out a throw, it's supposed to cover yourself on the opponent's mix-ups or holes in their advantage choice.

for example:

many times i have blocked somebody's low P and forced a screw hook, but screw hook looses to low P on open stance. also, i have thrown out a knee a frame later and get low P'd again. many times i've attacked with a side kick too late on oki, only to be high P - thrown by pai.

so what they do with RN is after they gain their advantage, they force their own nitaku game, where as forcing a big attack all the time although perfectly normal RN, will be still be beaten down by an opponent's larger or mis-timed attack.

 

Re: UK VF Ranking Battle #1 Sat 12th Nov 05 2pm - 8pm // media & resul

I guess you didn't read what I wrote...

The whole idea behind RN is that you are assuming the opponent is not going to attack again even when they have the advantage... In all three of the situations you gave, wolf shouldn't have been beaten at all.

Losing a screwhook to a lp after blocking a lp is just a very bad choice on wolf's part, since wolf had the frame advantage. If wolf was going to counterattack, wolf should have used an attack that wouldn't have been beat by a lp, and this is what nitaku game is based upon. Someone lp'ing twice, yeah you can say that is RN, but Wolf shouldn't have done an attack that would have been beat by another lp. It makes sense if you put it in the context of higher layers of guessing, but in a text book nitaku situation, the choices made on both sides had no basis in terms of a textbook nitaku/reverse nitaku situation. Both sides chose to pick the fourth or fifth choice.

Losing a knee after a blocked lp is just that wolf was slow. Again, the same explaination as above.

Missing a sidekick or attacking too late. Again, same explaination.

I understand what you are trying to convey, but those are unique situations based upon players making mistakes, and the opponent happened to do something that capitalized on the mistake. The idea of RN should only be applied in a situation where both players are competent enough where they are not making these kinds of mistakes. Only in this scenario can the concept of RN with a large attack be understood as more advantageous than a smaller attack. Since when both players are using their textbook counters, a smaller attack would never win. If you are to apply RN in it's true form, then you know the opponent is going to give up the advantage, that is why it's much more advantageous to attack with a large attack. Since a delayed attack will lose, and a throw will lose, giving only the choice of Guard or Evade. That is why it's called Reverse Nitaku.

It wouldn't be called RN if the opponent had 3 choices now would it? Continuing to attack is already the logical choice, if people always played that way (continue to attack when given advantage), then no one would do RN. The only reason RN exists is because sometimes people do not continue to attack, to go for a throw or delayed attack, whatever. This break in attack is where RN exists, where you are guessing that this is going to happen, and you are forcing a nitaku choice back to the opponent.

 

Re: UK VF Ranking Battle #1 Sat 12th Nov 05 2pm - 8pm // media & resul

[ QUOTE ]
Srider said:

The whole idea behind RN is that you are assuming the opponent is not going to attack again

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Srider said:

Someone lp'ing twice, yeah you can say that is RN,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with the fact that you should always RN with your biggest attack as it's the essence or something and everything beyond that is yomi overclass. You can actually cut down on some options in good games by using for example a simple P back.

For instance, say a player is P counterable against Akira and Akira does the punch (so he's +5). Now if the Aki knew you were a player with good reactions and that you're going to either RN back with something big (bigger then 15 frames) or do a ETE on your punch hit it would perhaps be valid for him to do p>spod on you while if you opted for something smaller he could not treathen with something this big. Some of the biggest RN moves in the games would be stuff like Lau's +, wolf SS etc but they are all very slow so there could be situations like this in other ways aswell.

Or think the opposite, you're playing Aki and you have a tight defence, normally doing ETE when you get punched when you're -12. Now you might prompt to spod in this situation for flashpoints etc but your opponent might just be waiting for you to go into evadeanimation to do a delayattack (with something elbowspeed) on you and there's a big chance you will hit a SpoD on someones guard who is just waiting and then you're -15 while if you did P you would have the adv. Most ppl promt to do just that, use P's in ATE aswell instead of something bigger and this has probably alot to do with it (yes even before FT).

I understand what you're saying Srider that if you think that the opponent will throw you, you might aswell go for something big. But I see the concept of RN as more complex then that and not just punishing someone who's trying to throw you at -6. It's always specific and based on context. So to me there is no "textbook nitaku/reverse nitaku situation" actually. People still have lots of problem against attack-attack style of play cause you force them into taking certain actions which you later can capitalize on.

For instance, say you are -6. What's important here to remember is that the basic *big* launcher in VF is 18 frames. So if we're talking Pai, as was the original example, she has a standing jab that is 11 frames. That means, if she were to find herself @-6 and sometimes did a standing jab the other player wouldn't be able to mix in his big launcher (as he would if she 2p'd since that's 12 frames) and a throw and make it 50/50 for the Pai. Bla bla rantmode >_<;

/KiwE

 

Re: UK VF Ranking Battle #1 Sat 12th Nov 05 2pm - 8pm // media & resul

[ QUOTE ]
KiwE said:

I don't agree with the fact that you should always RN with your biggest attack as it's the essence or something and everything beyond that is yomi overclass. You can actually cut down on some options in good games by using for example a simple P back.

For instance, say a player is P counterable against Akira and Akira does the punch (so he's +5). Now if the Aki knew you were a player with good reactions and that you're going to either RN back with something big (bigger then 15 frames) or do a ETE on your punch hit it would perhaps be valid for him to do p>spod on you while if you opted for something smaller he could not treathen with something this big. Some of the biggest RN moves in the games would be stuff like Lau's +, wolf SS etc but they are all very slow so there could be situations like this in other ways aswell.



[/ QUOTE ]

I am glad you have posted this. That's exaclty what's behind RN with a small attack. In FT, Sega further reinforced it with adding different counter attacks as we all know.

Well said.

 

Re: UK VF Ranking Battle #1 Sat 12th Nov 05 2pm - 8pm // media & resul

again, .. you are explaining exactly what reverse nitaku is, but you fail to realize that a small attack is still reverse nitaku. played at the very limit of the opponent's flow chart

a larger attack at disadvantage is an anticipation with instant reward, but you can only stretch it as far as saying "the opponent is going to throw". where as a smaller attack at disadvantage is a reaction, forcing your opponent into solid nitaku meaning the opponent must take their fastest reaction possible in order to beat your low P.


[ QUOTE ]
Losing a screwhook to a lp after blocking a lp is just a very bad choice on wolf's part, since wolf had the frame advantage. If wolf was going to counterattack, wolf should have used an attack that wouldn't have been beat by a lp, and this is what nitaku game is based upon. Someone lp'ing twice, yeah you can say that is RN, but Wolf shouldn't have done an attack that would have been beat by another lp. It makes sense if you put it in the context of higher layers of guessing, but in a text book nitaku situation, the choices made on both sides had no basis in terms of a textbook nitaku/reverse nitaku situation. Both sides chose to pick the fourth or fifth choice.

Losing a knee after a blocked lp is just that wolf was slow. Again, the same explaination as above.

Missing a sidekick or attacking too late. Again, same explaination.


[/ QUOTE ]

these are not intentional instances, they are situations due to a player screw up, and shows that where you are playing RN (any kind of RN), only a low P would be able to supass their mistake, and not a bigger attack

you are not pressuring them any more by using low P, you are incidently taking advantage because they didnt exicute right, and this mostly happens at situations like +2 into elbow -- where the frames are exact inorder for it to become a flowchart.

a small attack is a coverage, and an annoyance because it stops the opponent from thinking anything more than textbook advantage, where as realistically there are many options which opponents can take when they have advantage. and initially, flow charts in VF are designed to beat the low P at advantage, therefore by not using low P, you are giving your opponent slightly more variation or laziness.

 

Re: UK VF Ranking Battle #1 Sat 12th Nov 05 2pm - 8pm // media & resul

For the record, I never said you should always use a bigger attack, I'm just saying a bigger attack in a RN situation is much more in line with that the technique exists for. You guys obviously don't understand what is a textbook nitaku situation or maybe just have a skewed view of it because you have moved beyond a typical textbook nitaku onto higher guessing planes.

Those examples you guys are giving shouldn't count as a nitaku situation because those are the 3rd or 4th choices.

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, say a player is P counterable against Akira and Akira does the punch (so he's +5). Now if the Aki knew you were a player with good reactions and that you're going to either RN back with something big (bigger then 15 frames) or do a ETE on your punch hit it would perhaps be valid for him to do p>spod on you while if you opted for something smaller he could not treathen with something this big. Some of the biggest RN moves in the games would be stuff like Lau's dfP+K, wolf SS etc but they are all very slow so there could be situations like this in other ways aswell.

[/ QUOTE ]

See what I'm saying, that you guys are talking about even more layers of guess on top of the simple textbook nitaku game, Akira already knew what the opponent is going to RN with, and he did something else instead of an attack that will beat the lp. The decision to use spod after P hit is already a deviation from a normal nitaku situation.

In a normal game of advantage vs disadvantage, the person with advantage gives a choice between a lp unbeatable mid or a throw. The person with disadvantage has to pick duck or guard. When we stay within this context, as where reverse nitaku is based upon, and the person with disadvantage decides to employ the technique; yes, it might be worthwhile to lp, but if the lp wins in this situation, then it means either the person with advantage threw or screwed up by mis buffering or using a slow attack; but that means that it wasn't a nitaku situation in the first place. The person with the advantage picked a 4th or 5th choice which brought it away from a text book nitaku situation. If that is the context you guys are using, the obviously it's advantageous to use lp or p as reverse nitaku, but what does that really achieve in terms of general play? That it's generally better to RN with smaller attacks? Since it's safer and more likely to take advantage of a screw up? Since players are likely to not use the text book nitaku choices or that players tend to screw up buffering? If that's the way you guys approach the game, then it's fine to define RN that way.

In that case, then only good RN option is the lp, since it avoids highs, and it's the fastest attack. Then there is no logical reason to use a bigger attack, since it won't beat out those bigger 3rd or 4th choice attacks that the player might do, and it won't take advantage of any possible screw up. In this sense, it's even more textbook than using a bigger attack.

So why do I see Maddy shrm in disadvantages, bk knee or SS in disadvantages? Why not just lp? Maybe because they are guessing that the opponent is NOT going to attack, which is what RN really is meant for. A technique to counter someone who forgoes attacking when at advantage. When you look at RN in this context, you wouldn't care about what the opponent might do to attack, cause you have made the decision that you guess the opponent is not going to attack. So there is no possible way that anything you do will be beaten. Using a lp is just a way to cover as a safety guard for a shitty guess and hope you win the exchange.

When you guys start bringing in other possibilities, it takes the situation out of context, and it's not a nitaku situation anymore. If you are going to add in the possibility of people screwing up buffering, or picking bad choices, why don't you add the possibility of doing ARE, evade, reversal, inashi, sabaki's? How come those aren't in the equation? When you want to take in the higher layers of the VF guessing game, we don't even need to talk about RN or nitaku. If you guys are psychic enough to already know that you won't be able to beat the opponent besides using a lp as RN, then I don't see why you even need to talk about using RN, just use some of that psychic power to beat everything.

 

Re: UK VF Ranking Battle #1 Sat 12th Nov 05 2pm - 8pm // media & resul

none of us had a point of saying "this is reverse nitaku, use it",i can only speak or myself in saying there are different guesses of using RN, because either way you have disadvantage to get beaten, and there is nothing you can do about it in the textbook term of reverse nitaku.

all im saying, and i cant speak for others, is that low P or P makes nitaku, the opponent's limit is beating 12 frames (in general), so this is what the opponent must break in order to keep you guessing for 2 choices. and quite rightly, guessing for a larger attack at disadvantage is not textbook.`

i stated earlier that i use SS at disadvantage because of move proporties alone, not frames, not sheer guess, it can evade high attacks, throw, and long mids (so for TR), even sometimes cuts through low P.. i cant use knee in RN because if i guess the opp will throw, i wont get MC launch. only sometimes after TR, when the opponent is still in move recovery, but they go for an oki option only to lose MC and those situatuons are mostly what im talking about when using a jab-throw after TR, but in a much tighter situation where a larger attack couldnt win.

in your post, you agreed to using low P in a particular context, it doesnt mean you should scratch off the other, they are both co-exits as reverse nitaku, because they are choices at beatable disadvantage. the only thing which a larger attack couldnt do is poke your way through a frame gap (and this really does happen, really~!) and a mistake isnt a 3rd or 4th choice, just an instance (but the SPoD example, mabye). even if you use low P, and they throw instead, you gain advantage to guess your own nitaku straight back, and that's the difference.

using a big attack as myke stated from the beginning is more rewarding as guessing from 2 choices, im just saying that sometimes the opponent doesnt always keep 2 choices closed, and if the opponent is guessing you with non-textbook, you must try to break it with textbook, and vice versa. that's VF, .