AaaA: On s-kill's "Tournament Player Archetypes"
Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:42 am
Article about an Article: On s-kill's "Tournament Player Archetypes"
pre-requisite reading: Domination 101: Tournament Player Archetypes by s-kill
At the time it was written, this article was amazingly insightful to anyone without extensive tournament experience. It still is, despite many of the specific examples having become outdated.
However, it has become more difficult to encapsulate someone within such narrow archetypes. Since fighting games have become kind of a niche hobby, even the players who lose in qualifiers at Evo events are pretty well rounded.
Improv Players: There are still a lot of players who go into matches thinking that they can win without a gameplan. And it's still a terrible idea. However, those players have gotten a lot more practice over the years in this unpredictable style of play. As long as their fundamentals are sound and as long as they keep a level head, they can do surprisingly well. The other side of the coin is that most recent fighting games have a much bigger character selection, which means that even the best players have to deal with the occasional S-Benimaru/Athena/Zangief team. Nobody has a gameplan against that madness.
Turtle Players: Depending on the game, this style of play is just as frustratingly effective as ever. However, turtle players need to account for a lot more bullshit these days. Since everyone has access to Training Mode and everyone can practice those Custom Combo variations, even the best turtle players can't block everything. Also, turtle players have to find a way to keep up with the opponent's meter buildup rate because in modern fighting games that's where all the damage potential lies. However, even though turtling requires kind of a lot of knowledge and effort these days, it's still not popular among the audience. If the best turtle player wins three tournaments and the best aggressive player wins one, the aggressive player is still going to get more props.
"Gimmicky Pete" Players: In some ways it's harder for these players to get by and in other ways it's easier. Games are much more complicated these days than they were 5 years ago, so there's more potential for crazy unpredictable tricks to be developed. By the same token, many of the best players have been at it for a long long time and it's very rare to take them by surprise. It also depends on the format of the tournament, because lots of upsets happen under single match rules. In summary, it's quite difficult for a gimmicky player to be consistent but then again these days there are so many gimmicks to choose from that it can still be done.
Stylish Players: Do these guys even exist anymore? It seems that almost every one of these players has learned that finding the right setup for their best combo is just as important as pulling off the combo itself. There are definitely some players who choose characters based on style but nobody even takes notice unless they place in top 8. Nowadays the stylish players show off their skills in combo videos instead, because it's simply too difficult to make up for the handicap in tournament play. Those rare few combo video makers who do well in tournaments do it by simplifying their tactics and focusing on fundamentals. Nobody enters a tournament with the primary goal of showing off some new stylish combo. However, everyone sees value in style so a lot of top players incorporate minor stylistic elements into their gameplan to make things interesting whenever they earn a huge opening.
"Grumpy Old Man" Players: Surprisingly enough, these players are nowhere near as ghetto as the article makes them seem. For the most part they have kept up with the evolving technical standards of the games. They master the combos, they learn all the advanced techniques, and they put the time into practicing. What makes their seemingly mechanical/repetitive patterns dangerous is actually their choice of attacks to rely on. These players understand the fundamental difference between a trick and a tactic. A trick is something that works until the opponent adapts to it. A tactic is something that poses a threat regardless of the opponent's familiariaty with it. Veteran players know how to set up and execute true 50/50 mixups which force the opponent to guess in order to avoid taking damage. Furthermore, veteran players implement these tactics in a way that minimizes the reciprocal risk. These players are never easy to beat because they tend to have solid fundamental skills, enough tournament experience to not panic under pressure, and generally pretty good instincts.
For the most part, these archetypes still exist today, but it's gotten more difficult to label players. As the weaknesses of each style became more apparent, the players compensated by incorporating aspects of other styles into their individual arsenals.
There are still general categories in effect today. For example, we call someone a "technical player" when they have detailed knowledge of the game engine or even memorize frame data, and then base their decisions on game analysis. We call someone a "mindgames specialist" when they focus more on outplaying their human opponent by manipulating patterns and otherwise psyching them out. We call someone a "training mode whore" when they rely heavily on extremely lethal offensive sequences which require a lot of practice to perform consistently, such as Magneto's resets or Genei Jin variations. However, the key word in the first sentence is "general" because the best players incorporate all of these tools into their arsenal. Everyone who looks up to them realizes the importance of being versatile.
I want to wrap this up with a little anecdote. A while ago, omni told me a story about making it really far in some old school tournament, to the point where he knew everyone who was still in it. He was hanging out with AfroCole, who said something along the lines of, "This is the part where you eliminate all your friends." Now i'm sure a lot of people hear that and interpret it as deep social commentary or whatever (which is an interesting take on it). It does suck having to take out your friends when you know how much they want to win. Personally, when it comes to tournaments, there are certain people against whom i simply can't bring myself to play seriously. But i'm pretty sure what Cole actually said was: (click)
pre-requisite reading: Domination 101: Tournament Player Archetypes by s-kill
At the time it was written, this article was amazingly insightful to anyone without extensive tournament experience. It still is, despite many of the specific examples having become outdated.
However, it has become more difficult to encapsulate someone within such narrow archetypes. Since fighting games have become kind of a niche hobby, even the players who lose in qualifiers at Evo events are pretty well rounded.
Improv Players: There are still a lot of players who go into matches thinking that they can win without a gameplan. And it's still a terrible idea. However, those players have gotten a lot more practice over the years in this unpredictable style of play. As long as their fundamentals are sound and as long as they keep a level head, they can do surprisingly well. The other side of the coin is that most recent fighting games have a much bigger character selection, which means that even the best players have to deal with the occasional S-Benimaru/Athena/Zangief team. Nobody has a gameplan against that madness.
Turtle Players: Depending on the game, this style of play is just as frustratingly effective as ever. However, turtle players need to account for a lot more bullshit these days. Since everyone has access to Training Mode and everyone can practice those Custom Combo variations, even the best turtle players can't block everything. Also, turtle players have to find a way to keep up with the opponent's meter buildup rate because in modern fighting games that's where all the damage potential lies. However, even though turtling requires kind of a lot of knowledge and effort these days, it's still not popular among the audience. If the best turtle player wins three tournaments and the best aggressive player wins one, the aggressive player is still going to get more props.
"Gimmicky Pete" Players: In some ways it's harder for these players to get by and in other ways it's easier. Games are much more complicated these days than they were 5 years ago, so there's more potential for crazy unpredictable tricks to be developed. By the same token, many of the best players have been at it for a long long time and it's very rare to take them by surprise. It also depends on the format of the tournament, because lots of upsets happen under single match rules. In summary, it's quite difficult for a gimmicky player to be consistent but then again these days there are so many gimmicks to choose from that it can still be done.
Stylish Players: Do these guys even exist anymore? It seems that almost every one of these players has learned that finding the right setup for their best combo is just as important as pulling off the combo itself. There are definitely some players who choose characters based on style but nobody even takes notice unless they place in top 8. Nowadays the stylish players show off their skills in combo videos instead, because it's simply too difficult to make up for the handicap in tournament play. Those rare few combo video makers who do well in tournaments do it by simplifying their tactics and focusing on fundamentals. Nobody enters a tournament with the primary goal of showing off some new stylish combo. However, everyone sees value in style so a lot of top players incorporate minor stylistic elements into their gameplan to make things interesting whenever they earn a huge opening.
"Grumpy Old Man" Players: Surprisingly enough, these players are nowhere near as ghetto as the article makes them seem. For the most part they have kept up with the evolving technical standards of the games. They master the combos, they learn all the advanced techniques, and they put the time into practicing. What makes their seemingly mechanical/repetitive patterns dangerous is actually their choice of attacks to rely on. These players understand the fundamental difference between a trick and a tactic. A trick is something that works until the opponent adapts to it. A tactic is something that poses a threat regardless of the opponent's familiariaty with it. Veteran players know how to set up and execute true 50/50 mixups which force the opponent to guess in order to avoid taking damage. Furthermore, veteran players implement these tactics in a way that minimizes the reciprocal risk. These players are never easy to beat because they tend to have solid fundamental skills, enough tournament experience to not panic under pressure, and generally pretty good instincts.
For the most part, these archetypes still exist today, but it's gotten more difficult to label players. As the weaknesses of each style became more apparent, the players compensated by incorporating aspects of other styles into their individual arsenals.
There are still general categories in effect today. For example, we call someone a "technical player" when they have detailed knowledge of the game engine or even memorize frame data, and then base their decisions on game analysis. We call someone a "mindgames specialist" when they focus more on outplaying their human opponent by manipulating patterns and otherwise psyching them out. We call someone a "training mode whore" when they rely heavily on extremely lethal offensive sequences which require a lot of practice to perform consistently, such as Magneto's resets or Genei Jin variations. However, the key word in the first sentence is "general" because the best players incorporate all of these tools into their arsenal. Everyone who looks up to them realizes the importance of being versatile.
I want to wrap this up with a little anecdote. A while ago, omni told me a story about making it really far in some old school tournament, to the point where he knew everyone who was still in it. He was hanging out with AfroCole, who said something along the lines of, "This is the part where you eliminate all your friends." Now i'm sure a lot of people hear that and interpret it as deep social commentary or whatever (which is an interesting take on it). It does suck having to take out your friends when you know how much they want to win. Personally, when it comes to tournaments, there are certain people against whom i simply can't bring myself to play seriously. But i'm pretty sure what Cole actually said was: (click)
