Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
Here's a timestamp of a clip of mine that I'm looking at. The situation ends after puff finishes her second back air and lands behind me. https://youtu.be/uptFvztLpGM?t=246
The game starts and I start off by dash dancing and puff is back airing. Puff does one back air but does not drift in. Then he does a second bair, and he drifts in. While that happens, I come in with a nair and my nair whiffs. So, If I'm dash dancing, lets say by doing 8 or so dashes (Like I do here) and THEN I throw out an approaching move, and the move whiffs, and while this move whiffs, they come in with the back air, could it have been that I waited that long before threatening with a move that they decided that it could probably be safe to move in?
If I had done a few less dashes and THEN threaten with a move, would it have been more likely that the move could have either traded with an approaching bair from the opponent, or if I had done this sword move in place out of my dash dance, they would have been less likely to want to move in?
Here's a timestamp of a clip of mine that I'm looking at. The situation ends after puff finishes her second back air and lands behind me. https://youtu.be/uptFvztLpGM?t=246
The game starts and I start off by dash dancing and puff is back airing. Puff does one back air but does not drift in. Then he does a second bair, and he drifts in. While that happens, I come in with a nair and my nair whiffs. So, If I'm dash dancing, lets say by doing 8 or so dashes (Like I do here) and THEN I throw out an approaching move, and the move whiffs, and while this move whiffs, they come in with the back air, could it have been that I waited that long before threatening with a move that they decided that it could probably be safe to move in?
If I had done a few less dashes and THEN threaten with a move, would it have been more likely that the move could have either traded with an approaching bair from the opponent, or if I had done this sword move in place out of my dash dance, they would have been less likely to want to move in?
It looks to me like he drifted in expecting another long dash back like before. You could've maybe gotten him with a running fair earlier since you could predict that he wanted to jump at you when you got near him. I'm just not sure if it makes your chance of hitting him greater, I guess it just dependz. I do think in this situation you could have hit him.
If you had done it in place. I would guess that they would be more cautious about challenging your dash back.
My thing with Hbox at Evo was okay but I could've done a million times better. M2K played Marth against Hbox during STR or something last year I think and did alright so maybe that's something too. Good Marth Puff footage is too rare unfortunately
Dr Peepee
I have a punish routine I practice for all the relevant characters except Marth and Peach, but even now I'm not sure what to do there and wanted to ask for ideas. Right now I just juggle them and techchase them on the ground, but I've always thought those were very organic situations and not easily practiced with a CPU. I also do the fthrow > pivot fsmash DI mixup but that's really it apart from thinking about situations - but that's not "practice" per se, so I feel unprepared. Do you have any recommendations for reliable stuff I could practice against those characters?
Marth you should practice mixups on Fthrow at 0-7ish% and then tech chase him with Fthrow after that. I forget how well Dthrow tech chases but I don't think it's as good. Anyway then you practice Uthrow followups at relevant percents(use Kadano thread). For Peach you tech chase at low percent with Fthrow and past like 40-45 or something I think that stops being viable so you'd probably just want to practice pivot tipper then.
Here's a timestamp of a clip of mine that I'm looking at. The situation ends after puff finishes her second back air and lands behind me. https://youtu.be/uptFvztLpGM?t=246
The game starts and I start off by dash dancing and puff is back airing. Puff does one back air but does not drift in. Then he does a second bair, and he drifts in. While that happens, I come in with a nair and my nair whiffs. So, If I'm dash dancing, lets say by doing 8 or so dashes (Like I do here) and THEN I throw out an approaching move, and the move whiffs, and while this move whiffs, they come in with the back air, could it have been that I waited that long before threatening with a move that they decided that it could probably be safe to move in?
If I had done a few less dashes and THEN threaten with a move, would it have been more likely that the move could have either traded with an approaching bair from the opponent, or if I had done this sword move in place out of my dash dance, they would have been less likely to want to move in?
To your second question, it would depend on when you decided to interrupt your DD. If you interrupted all of those dashes early to aerial, it could be less likely they moved in, OR they might have moved in to challenge your lag and see if they could go in on you moving back/make you put yourself in more lag defending yourself. If you interrupted later, then yeah what you said about trading is possible.
Two things I'd like to add:
1. You waited until he floundered that second Bair before confirming an opening and moving in. Problem is you were too far away and not using an appropriate punish option for that.
2. You were also just waiting for him to approach and if he didn't then you'd want to go in, similar to how he was waiting for you. I can tell by your movement that did not seem to vary so much, which leads me to believe you were just waiting.
Edit: Everyone who just watched or will watch Moon vs S2J, please take note of how Moon edgeguarded and also how he DI'd Falcons throws. Some good stuff he did there.
Ok, that has definitely been a big thing to realize. Completely empty dash dances are not the most threatening thing in the world usually. Dash dances with only one move threatening out can also be exploited like what i learned above from that sheik clip.
So after a move is thrown out, there could be that time where I might want to defend myself from doing that move because if it does not hit someone, I could still be vulnerable, especially if they challenge me by coming in when the move finishes. This is also something I've just now started to pay attention to, how people might want to defend themselves after whiffing a move. If I've been dash dancing, unless I'm paying attention, I might be prone to moving back, which I can definitely see as something they'd want to capitalize on.
A few questions for those two things:
1. Are you saying that after I come in with my Nair, and puff lands behind me, I could have punished out of that? (Maybe if I had been a bit closer) ( https://youtu.be/uptFvztLpGM?t=249 ) Did not think I could have punished out of that situation, and instead I continue to move. If I understand what you're saying, then that totally ties into my goal of cutting on excess movement, being way more threatening with neutral game which I really want to understand, which is starting to become more of a game of just "use more sword in neutral" to me which what this next part is about.
"Confirming an opening and then moving in" I'm trying to write a question to this but right now it's just something I'm pondering and wrapping my head around so I've got nothing atm. It just seems like a concept I need to practice myself.
2. So for "I can tell by your movement that did not seem to vary so much," Are you saying that the intention I had in neutral could be seen from how I was moving? That the intention was not varying, and from that it's clear that I was just waiting? I'm finding it difficult to list an exact purpose but if I had used sword earlier or in a different way while interrupting my DD could that be varying my intention? The moment that something else happens in neutral game, that could suddenly change the intention of the person doing that move?
Ok, that has definitely been a big thing to realize. Completely empty dash dances are not the most threatening thing in the world usually.
So after a move is thrown out, there could be that time where I might want to defend myself from doing that move because if it does not hit someone, I could still be vulnerable, especially if they challenge me by coming in when the move finishes. This is also something I've just now started to pay attention to, how people might want to defend themselves after whiffing a move. If I've been dash dancing, unless I'm paying attention, I might be prone to moving back, which I can definitely see as something they'd want to capitalize on.
A few questions for those two things:
1. Are you saying that after I come in with my Nair, and puff lands behind me, I could have punished out of that? (Maybe if I had been a bit closer) ( https://youtu.be/uptFvztLpGM?t=249 ) Did not think I could have punished out of that situation, and instead I continue to move. If I understand what you're saying, then that totally ties into my goal of cutting on excess movement, being way more threatening with neutral game which I really want to understand, which is starting to become more of a game of just "use more sword in neutral" to me which what this next part is about.
"Confirming an opening and then moving in" I'm trying to write a question to this but right now it's just something I'm pondering and wrapping my head around so I've got nothing atm. It just seems like a concept I need to practice myself.
2. So for "I can tell by your movement that did not seem to vary so much," Are you saying that the intention I had in neutral could be seen from how I was moving? That the intention was not varying, and from that it's clear that I was just waiting? I'm finding it difficult to list an exact purpose but if I had used sword earlier or in a different way while interrupting my DD could that be varying my intention? The moment that something else happens in neutral game, that could suddenly change the intention of the person doing that move?
That thing done after whiffing a move....that is a big part of zoning/defensive play in general so it's really important to go deeply into that especially as a Marth player.
1. Only if you read Puff coming back in to hit you with Fair/Nair as he did there. You both committed hard and in doing so crossed each other up very far to the point you were far away again. Using more sword is not the only way to achieve more threats, since there are players who just swing a lot without much purpose like those who move a lot without purpose, but still if you come at the idea from multiple useful angles it should be helpful to get more intent.
"confirming an opening and moving in" is like when Falcos wait until they hit a laser before approaching. They aren't really paying attention to what their lasers are doing, only if they get some small frame advantage to help them get in. Similarly, if you wait for the opponent to move in a lot without setting yourself up to react, you will react late because you're just responding to them without anything to give you a sense of when they would move or how they would, and you might not even be in appropriate punish position since you're just moving back and forth and may be too close or too far to get a punish anyway.
2. Yes, I can tell what people are thinking in a general, and sometimes very specific sense how people are thinking by how they move. If you interrupted more often with sword, you'd at least be forcing yourself to stop doing so many inputs and pay attention to what your opponent was doing so it's likely there would be more intent there. Now I am not against inputs if you've watched me play well, but I am against mindless inputs. Like I tell anyone working on intent: practice moving simply with only 1-2 dashes before making a decision(you can stay in place, let the dash stall, go in, back up, etc but do something that the movement sets you up for). Do it slowly and build speed like other tech. If you build this up right you will see people responding to different parts of the movement(like you responded to the puff taking his time and vice versa as well as how you both responded to getting crossed up). I am not suggesting this is easy at all, it's really the most difficult thing you can do in this game. Start with simple ideas like dash in WD back to gain information about how your opponent deals with you breaking TR and play with your zoning ideas and go from there. Ask questions any time!
Thanks for answering! Alright, lol hoooooly guacamole this is going to take a long time to work through but if it was that easy, etc etc. I'll most likely be asking tons of questions since that does sound very tough haha!
Hello Marth boards. I'm a Roy player at heart but I do have a Marth as well.
I lurk these boards a lot mostly because the Roy boards are ded and I don't know where the Melee Roy players
went.. Lol. ( I know low tier char)
Anyway I love the in depth and psychological discussion going on here with threat ranges and such.
One thing I have learned during my lab time with Roy that has helped my marth is, with his very limited options and range is being super precise with my opponents threat range. I generally use very tight barely moving dash dances at the very tip of their longest attack in neutral that way as soon as they miss I can counter attack.
I'm just now starting to play with shield pivots for stuff like dash back shield pivot neutral jump fair or nair. Seems really good if you do this at a range where their approach will just miss. Is this a good technique to use?
Hello Marth boards. I'm a Roy player at heart but I do have a Marth as well.
I lurk these boards a lot mostly because the Roy boards are ded and I don't know where the Melee Roy players
went.. Lol. ( I know low tier char)
Anyway I love the in depth and psychological discussion going on here with threat ranges and such.
One thing I have learned during my lab time with Roy that has helped my marth is, with his very limited options and range is being super precise with my opponents threat range. I generally use very tight barely moving dash dances at the very tip of their longest attack in neutral that way as soon as they miss I can counter attack.
I'm just now starting to play with shield pivots for stuff like dash back shield pivot neutral jump fair or nair. Seems really good if you do this at a range where their approach will just miss. Is this a good technique to use?
Dr Peepee
Is the idea to use less movements to help decide when to make a decision? Instead of something that a lot of people might do like -dash dancing for a long time, especially at a length where they couldn't punish something they could have, and then do something, or dash dance for a long time and during that time the opponent has already come in and it's too late to do much of anything and now you're kind of just responding out of survival mode (tons of examples but lets use these for simplicity ) - It's more like "You're becoming a lot better at making decisions and you make them quickly because you only need (some small number) of dashes (or maybe sword moves) to have a sense for what kind of decision you feel you need to make" and then you're a lot better at responding to what they do in response to the type of movement one might be doing in neutral?
Though this probably wont always be the case. there could definitely be times where you'd want to dash dance for a while longer than normal of course.
These things plus learning how to understand what opponents might do after whiffing a move is really attractive to me right now and the benefits sound very rewarding, but very difficult to practice ;p
https://youtu.be/tHwoB3ujnps?t=606 (you vs hbox, the situation I'm looking at ends when you hit hbox with the nair). so I counted the dashes which made me think that it isn't always about just the number of dashes one does. It was also your spacing and what you do in response to hbox whiffing a bair. was this kind of nair a read that he might come in with another jump after whiffing? To me this is impressive. that seems like such a difficult kind of punish to pull off compared to what is conventionally spoken of in how to play matchups.
Dr Peepee
Is the idea to use less movements to help decide when to make a decision? Instead of something that a lot of people might do like -dash dancing for a long time, especially at a length where they couldn't punish something they could have, and then do something, or dash dance for a long time and during that time the opponent has already come in and it's too late to do much of anything and now you're kind of just responding out of survival mode (tons of examples but lets use these for simplicity ) - It's more like "You're becoming a lot better at making decisions and you make them quickly because you only need (some small number) of dashes (or maybe sword moves) to have a sense for what kind of decision you feel you need to make" and then you're a lot better at responding to what they do in response to the type of movement one might be doing in neutral?
Though this probably wont always be the case. there could definitely be times where you'd want to dash dance for a while longer than normal of course.
These things plus learning how to understand what opponents might do after whiffing a move is really attractive to me right now and the benefits sound very rewarding, but very difficult to practice ;p
https://youtu.be/tHwoB3ujnps?t=606 (you vs hbox, the situation I'm looking at ends when you hit hbox with the nair). so I counted the dashes which made me think that it isn't always about just the number of dashes one does. It was also your spacing and what you do in response to hbox whiffing a bair. was this kind of nair a read that he might come in with another jump after whiffing? To me this is impressive. that seems like such a difficult kind of punish to pull off compared to what is conventionally spoken of in how to play matchups.
Well, the truth is that there are other reasons for using few dashes. It already has very great depth in itself because you can cut one dash so many different ways, and then you add that for two dashes, as well as what can be done out of each cut, and then you have different jump drifts and analog jumps....etc. There are other reasons, but I follow the rule too when I can(with occasional exceptions). Keeping it simple lets you have more purpose for each individual action you do and that is ultimately what we are looking for here. Instead of waiting for someone to give us something we can approach with, lets pressure them with Dtilt vs Fair threat on movement in and make them give us something. And so on. Let me know if any of this makes sense.
Your example is a pretty good one. I made different decisions within my dashes and was switching modes with them. It wasn't just doing a number of them before going in(though I didn't adjust them as much as I probably should have, which is why the example is a bit uncomfortable for me to use...I'd rather use my dashes at the very beginning as opposed to that part). And yes I go for punishes like that a lot lol, if I feel I got the manipulation I wanted I'll just commit. This is a way to kind of break much of the rules even I put out, so I would not recommend it so much until you simplify things and learn how your actions threatens the opponent more before trying.
Paying attention to the cut of the actual dash input itself was something I probably was not consciously aware of. Getting to know the feel/when to/why to full length dash and to cut your dash with another input like a jump or a wavedash could also be something I should practice. Not to be invincible or untouchable, but to cut down on the amount of times I may mindlessly run into a move in neutral. Yes, purpose with each individual action is 100% what I'm working for. " Instead of waiting for someone to give us something we can approach with" - Yes, I'm with you here. " lets pressure them with Dtilt vs Fair threat on movement in and make them give us something" I think I need some clarification on this part, even though I think I sort of get what you're saying? I'm trying to dissect that sentence but I think I just need further explaining of what you mean by that to make sure I get it.
Your movements carry threats with them. When you move forward, you carry a Dtilt vs Fair(vs grab too kinda) mixup. That is, if you've established it well anyway. When you move backward you may threaten a pivot Fair or grab or something else. WD gives you other options. Run gives you other sets of them. The point is to link these threats in simple ways so that you can control your opponent using knowledge of these threats. In the end you're no longer waiting, you are manipulating, changing. Changing between these linked threats out of similar starting actions(dash into Dtilt vs Fair vs dashback for example) is basically what conditioning is, and it's the way to practice shadowboxing, or practice neutral in other words.
Ohh okay, just didn't quite get what the "VS" Part meant, now that makes sense! So you're kind of establishing the threat of multiple moves out of movement forward and movement backward and they may not know which one it can be? So it's not like at any given movement I can only be threatening with Nair or only be threatening with Dtilt. If one has ONLY been threatening with Dtilt in neutral, then yes that can be exploited by their opponent. If one establishes things right like what you said, then it's way more of a mixup?
That's right, but you have to prove you're willing to do it as well as mix them up. To add one other thing: there are ways to figure this out without taking big risks and getting hit. If you fake going in, then you get to see what they were expecting with how they respond. This is basically a free read.
Yeah as you'll see, it doesn't really feel like waiting since you'll be doing stuff much more. Whether that's going in more like I did in that clip or just gaining info or purposefully zoning/playing defense it's up to you.
While I think I understand what the author is trying to achieve in their mentality, they argue using several premises I disagree with; I think they oversimplify/misrepresent the positive role emotions take in fueling a person's play.
At the beginning of the article, the author says:
"Traditional psychological skills training in sports uses methodology including goal setting, imagery, mental rehearsal, arousal control, self-talk, and pre-competitive routines to enhance performance by attempting to reign in peak states to a replicable routine as well as reduce anxiety and negativity, psychological roadblocks. However, these approaches carry subtexts implying a) that negative internal states must be controlled or reduced before a positive internal state can take their place and set the stage for flow and b) that flow is a fickle mistress impossible to achieve without perfect preconditions. Neither of these hold up to recent research and these traditional methods have been demonstrated to have no or even negative empirical support (i.e. they don’t actually work lmaooo)."
Both points 'a' and 'b' seem to be false assumptions, because 1) the difference between a "positive" and "negative" internal state is relative to the manifestation of that state in a player's gameplay (like what we talked about awhile ago, with anger sometimes helping to play with a clear head instead of being overwhelming). This invalidates point 'a' because it makes a dichotomy between "positive and negative internal states" meaningless. I also think 'b' isn't grounded in reality when many conditions that aren't "perfect" can trigger entering flow, but it's been shown that routine can do so consistently (I've seen this in myself).
I dislike how the author seems to delegitimize the emotions of a player with statements like:
"Thoughts and emotions are just flashes of chemical/electrical activity not so different from other sensations such as sounds, touches, gravity, temperature, balance, vision, etc. ... They come and they go. They are inherently temporal."
It doesn't sound very helpful or healthy to regard emotions as "just" products of chemical reactions that will pass - imo it undermines their value in teaching us about ourselves and how we react to certain situations. I think being in touch with what we feel is much more liberating long-term than ignoring our emotions and feelings, because it lets us understand what we feel and why, which can remove the feelings of helplessness that would otherwise put us in a downward spiral in bad situations.
They also make remarks such as, "...the emphasis of MAC is to engender the skill of maintaining your focus despite internal states"; "Thoughts aren’t reality, they’re just thoughts. Feelings aren’t reality, they’re just feelings." I have a problem with these, because however you look at it, the thoughts and feelings you have during a game are occurring in reality. It seems silly to me to waste the learning opportunities presented by questioning and challenging and understanding your emotions by regarding them as irrelevant or an obstruction to finishing the task at hand. Take the author's example:
"Imagine yourself in a last stock last hit scenario. You feel psychological arousal, fear, excitement, anxiety. Now you’re going to make a choice between correct behavior (clutch) or letting your emotions dictate your focus and behavior (choke)."
This is a blatant false choice; it assumes feeling these emotions leads to being controlled and choking, ignoring the positive role they play in helping a player to clutch out a last stock last hit situation. As an example, the excitement and anxiousness we feel produces adrenaline, which primes our muscles to react more quickly. Given previous definitions by the author, the "correct behavior" would be to win this situation "despite" the emotions felt, which is nonsensical. I mean, hell, without emotions, a player wouldn't be motivated to get to/through that situation in the first place.
This leads into the next point made about "values." I don't think it's arguable that values literally come from feelings and emotions, or the "internal states." But the author creates another false choice between "commitment" and "avoidance," or an allegiance to values or emotions. Given emotions are what fuel our values and are what push us towards our values, this is another meaningless distinction.
I think what's missing fundamentally in this article is the realization that everything we experience is an opportunity for growth, and cherrypicking particular aspects of our humanity to serve as a compass can't work, because everything is interrelated. But if we're able to take advantage of all our growth opportunities and understand and harness them, I think that liberates a player to really focus on the game and readily achieve flow.
I don't think it's possible to flow when you don't understand, and that it's the biggest mental block to players; whether it's understanding emotions, game situations, or how to execute a technique, not understanding what's happening is when we tilt. And I think to not understand willfully, means giving up growth opportunities, and setting oneself up for long-term disappointment when your emotions eventually get the best of you, and you're not equipped to deal with them, because you didn't invest the time to understand them.
So yeah, lol. I just wanted to write up my thoughts on that article and see what you had to say, because I particularly like your mental game insight.
What are your thoughts on shield stops? When i first started trying to learn it I thought it seemed super useful but then i realized I already jump in place out of dashes easily without it and can drift pretty much the same distance. I mean it might be useful to be able to stop in one spot for a split second to time moves better where you want them but still i dont feel like they are as useful as they initially seemed
" I think being in touch with what we feel is much more liberating long-term than ignoring our emotions and feelings, because it lets us understand what we feel and why, which can remove the feelings of helplessness that would otherwise put us in a downward spiral in bad situations." " I mean, hell, without emotions, a player wouldn't be motivated to get to/through that situation in the first place." I agree with this at least
My experience so far has been like...I've read a bunch of stuff on topics like this over the two years and I still am.(reading a Tony Robbins book atm) I still lost at tonights local but I went into the event telling myself "I really want to win vs" or "I really want to beat ____" before matches. I've spent TONS of locals with the mindset of " I really dont want to lose to ___" or just "I dont want to lose". the words "Loss/lose/lost" were not in my internal vocabulary tonight, even though I did lose, the matches that I lost I was satisfied with my effort. I've felt what it's like to have a poor mentality a billion times so it's easy for me to understand what it personally feels like to be on the opposite side and have a great mentality, so I hope I've explained this right because honestly it's super 100% possible to go into tournaments like this. I'm not delusional though, sets against genuinely tough opponents whether they're at your level or above you are going to be challenging. I'm not saying approach a tournament as if everything is going to be fine and dandy. I just believe that there's immense value in getting excited about the challenges themselves, which can be hard but it's 100% doable.
"I don't think it's possible to flow when you don't understand, and that it's the biggest mental block to players;" Yeah, I personally did not start having moments of "flow" until after tons and tons of practice. In those moments I'd still be getting hit and losing stocks too. Those moments would come from being genuinely excited to strive for the win even if it meant getting hit/losing stocks/making mistakes
Dr Peepee
deserves credit imo here cause there was a post awhile back where he responded to someones question and basically said something like watch the way you phrase what you want
also in friendlies, was practicing all we talked about. It's tough lol like we've said before, I was definitely losing neutral way more often than not but it was soooo rewarding whenever I won neutral and saw myself not flailing about on inputs I want to write more on what it was like with further questions but I'm sleepy so later lol
Hey PP (or really anyone that knows how to properly analyze sets), trying to back into the swing of analyzing games. Here's my average breakdown: lets say I get cornered by fox and naired or drill shined or something, I play back about 5-10 seconds and see exactly how I got cornered, what I could've done differently, and depending on how good the punish was, how I could've DI/SDI'd/etc better to avoid such a heavy punish on myself for future reference. If I drop combo/edge-guards, same thing, I just look at how I could've punished different depending on opponents DI or asdi, slide off, whatever the case was.
Other than that, I can't really think of anything else to look for when I'm analyzing my play, I feel like only looking for "what could I have done differently" is too.. one dimensional? Obviously that's the whole point of analyzing, but I feel like there's something big i'm not doing that I would like to incorporate into my set analysis. Any help from anyone would be appreciated : - )
Hey PP (or really anyone that knows how to properly analyze sets), trying to back into the swing of analyzing games. Here's my average breakdown: lets say I get cornered by fox and naired or drill shined or something, I play back about 5-10 seconds and see exactly how I got cornered, what I could've done differently, and depending on how good the punish was, how I could've DI/SDI'd/etc better to avoid such a heavy punish on myself for future reference. If I drop combo/edge-guards, same thing, I just look at how I could've punished different depending on opponents DI or asdi, slide off, whatever the case was.
Other than that, I can't really think of anything else to look for when I'm analyzing my play, I feel like only looking for "what could I have done differently" is too.. one dimensional? Obviously that's the whole point of analyzing, but I feel like there's something big i'm not doing that I would like to incorporate into my set analysis. Any help from anyone would be appreciated : - )
Do you study on a player by player level in your region? For example you could see how different players react to one option (say a dtilt) and then if you find a player that consistanly reacts with an option you know how to punish, bait it out and hit them hard for it. I know you probably do this mid game already but coming to the set with that stuff prepared is really helpful.
Do you study on a player by player level in your region? For example you could see how different players react to one option (say a dtilt) and then if you find a player that consistanly reacts with an option you know how to punish, bait it out and hit them hard for it. I know you probably do this mid game already but coming to the set with that stuff prepared is really helpful.
Naw idgaf about that stuff yet, I do mid game adaptations for that sort of stuff, although I know how most of the PR'd players react to stuff (like ridz, for example, or how Envy tries to push out of corner, etc). But I'm less focused on studying other players to beat them than I am studying myself vs character (as opposed to myself vs player) so I can improve. Studying the ins and outs of how Player X can certainly help me vs Player Y, but not to the same extent as studying myself vs character to learn the options of that character against marth. If I study how to space around and beat Falcon #1's overshot dair, it'll help me learn how to work around Falcon #2 or #3's same option, where as learning Falcon #1's dash patterns may not help me as much vs Falcon #2 or #3. (If that makes sense, I think I over explained, but not sure if I explained it well)
I suppose it's just the way I look at it, I care more about improving as a whole than I care about improving vs a particular player, unless that player obviously just has my number.
While I think I understand what the author is trying to achieve in their mentality, they argue using several premises I disagree with; I think they oversimplify/misrepresent the positive role emotions take in fueling a person's play.
At the beginning of the article, the author says:
"Traditional psychological skills training in sports uses methodology including goal setting, imagery, mental rehearsal, arousal control, self-talk, and pre-competitive routines to enhance performance by attempting to reign in peak states to a replicable routine as well as reduce anxiety and negativity, psychological roadblocks. However, these approaches carry subtexts implying a) that negative internal states must be controlled or reduced before a positive internal state can take their place and set the stage for flow and b) that flow is a fickle mistress impossible to achieve without perfect preconditions. Neither of these hold up to recent research and these traditional methods have been demonstrated to have no or even negative empirical support (i.e. they don’t actually work lmaooo)."
Both points 'a' and 'b' seem to be false assumptions, because 1) the difference between a "positive" and "negative" internal state is relative to the manifestation of that state in a player's gameplay (like what we talked about awhile ago, with anger sometimes helping to play with a clear head instead of being overwhelming). This invalidates point 'a' because it makes a dichotomy between "positive and negative internal states" meaningless. I also think 'b' isn't grounded in reality when many conditions that aren't "perfect" can trigger entering flow, but it's been shown that routine can do so consistently (I've seen this in myself).
I dislike how the author seems to delegitimize the emotions of a player with statements like:
"Thoughts and emotions are just flashes of chemical/electrical activity not so different from other sensations such as sounds, touches, gravity, temperature, balance, vision, etc. ... They come and they go. They are inherently temporal."
It doesn't sound very helpful or healthy to regard emotions as "just" products of chemical reactions that will pass - imo it undermines their value in teaching us about ourselves and how we react to certain situations. I think being in touch with what we feel is much more liberating long-term than ignoring our emotions and feelings, because it lets us understand what we feel and why, which can remove the feelings of helplessness that would otherwise put us in a downward spiral in bad situations.
They also make remarks such as, "...the emphasis of MAC is to engender the skill of maintaining your focus despite internal states"; "Thoughts aren’t reality, they’re just thoughts. Feelings aren’t reality, they’re just feelings." I have a problem with these, because however you look at it, the thoughts and feelings you have during a game are occurring in reality. It seems silly to me to waste the learning opportunities presented by questioning and challenging and understanding your emotions by regarding them as irrelevant or an obstruction to finishing the task at hand. Take the author's example:
"Imagine yourself in a last stock last hit scenario. You feel psychological arousal, fear, excitement, anxiety. Now you’re going to make a choice between correct behavior (clutch) or letting your emotions dictate your focus and behavior (choke)."
This is a blatant false choice; it assumes feeling these emotions leads to being controlled and choking, ignoring the positive role they play in helping a player to clutch out a last stock last hit situation. As an example, the excitement and anxiousness we feel produces adrenaline, which primes our muscles to react more quickly. Given previous definitions by the author, the "correct behavior" would be to win this situation "despite" the emotions felt, which is nonsensical. I mean, hell, without emotions, a player wouldn't be motivated to get to/through that situation in the first place.
This leads into the next point made about "values." I don't think it's arguable that values literally come from feelings and emotions, or the "internal states." But the author creates another false choice between "commitment" and "avoidance," or an allegiance to values or emotions. Given emotions are what fuel our values and are what push us towards our values, this is another meaningless distinction.
I think what's missing fundamentally in this article is the realization that everything we experience is an opportunity for growth, and cherrypicking particular aspects of our humanity to serve as a compass can't work, because everything is interrelated. But if we're able to take advantage of all our growth opportunities and understand and harness them, I think that liberates a player to really focus on the game and readily achieve flow.
I don't think it's possible to flow when you don't understand, and that it's the biggest mental block to players; whether it's understanding emotions, game situations, or how to execute a technique, not understanding what's happening is when we tilt. And I think to not understand willfully, means giving up growth opportunities, and setting oneself up for long-term disappointment when your emotions eventually get the best of you, and you're not equipped to deal with them, because you didn't invest the time to understand them.
So yeah, lol. I just wanted to write up my thoughts on that article and see what you had to say, because I particularly like your mental game insight.
I actually think their A assumption is good, because even though anger can be used in a positive manner, it is too dangerous to consistently rely on as I've said before. It is much more likely to be a destructive emotion, as are sadness and other such states that we'd think of as negative and hurt our play. However yes I'd agree that B is pretty ridiculous lol. As a competitor it's your job to find a way to snap yourself into state and train yourself to get there whenever possible. You're wasting your time if you didn't prepare in all ways appropriately.
Yep, reductionism isn't healthy in any area of study, and certainly not when it comes to emotions either. I don't think fleeting can easily describe emotions though, when sometimes things that happen stay in your body for a while afterward(the feeling of a hard loss for example). Knowing yourself is vital as you said.
The author is mistaking the in-game reality for total reality. In order to make the in-game reality the total reality, you must train your mind and body so that you can effectively make that the case. If you ignore it then you're certainly going to alter reality in a way I doubt you'll like.
Agreed more or less with the false choice paragraph. I do think there's a choice to be made, but the choice is whether you fear the result or you want the win/go back into the game.
To be honest, I see this type of alienation from the game in one way or another from players all of the time. I worked with a player most or all of you know, and he said this top player had told him that mental game didn't matter, but he had to ask "if that's true, then why do I watch him choke every time in tournament?" People, guys especially, try to deny their feelings so hard that they will turn it into biochemistry, or say its nonsense because they don't realize how they thought to get ahead or because admitting it's unknowable at the moment is terrifying. Fear of failure, personal insecurities, encouragement and enabling and example setting from others around them....there's no shortage of ways to prop yourself up against having to look at the fear you have about feeling inadequate that the game can bring. Facing that is truly liberating as you said, but I cannot deny that it's hardest thing a person to do, so I don't expect this to go away any time soon.
What are your thoughts on shield stops? When i first started trying to learn it I thought it seemed super useful but then i realized I already jump in place out of dashes easily without it and can drift pretty much the same distance. I mean it might be useful to be able to stop in one spot for a split second to time moves better where you want them but still i dont feel like they are as useful as they initially seemed
They're good in CGs, sometimes in tech chases because stopping your momentum is important. Maybe neutral too, whether that's to give the shield cue, or to stop momentum. However I don't think taking shield frames is worth it personally when you have so many analog jumps and can control drift so well. Just feels clunky to me personally, but if it works for you, do it. CGs have the most benefit with shield stopping based on my experience.
Dr Peepee
deserves credit imo here cause there was a post awhile back where he responded to someones question and basically said something like watch the way you phrase what you want
also in friendlies, was practicing all we talked about. It's tough lol like we've said before, I was definitely losing neutral way more often than not but it was soooo rewarding whenever I won neutral and saw myself not flailing about on inputs I want to write more on what it was like with further questions but I'm sleepy so later lol
Yeah you're going to be unlearning stuff that got you free hits from people just flying into you eventually, but like you can tell the new stuff will be way stronger and wayyyyy more satisfying. Keep going man!
Hey PP (or really anyone that knows how to properly analyze sets), trying to back into the swing of analyzing games. Here's my average breakdown: lets say I get cornered by fox and naired or drill shined or something, I play back about 5-10 seconds and see exactly how I got cornered, what I could've done differently, and depending on how good the punish was, how I could've DI/SDI'd/etc better to avoid such a heavy punish on myself for future reference. If I drop combo/edge-guards, same thing, I just look at how I could've punished different depending on opponents DI or asdi, slide off, whatever the case was.
Other than that, I can't really think of anything else to look for when I'm analyzing my play, I feel like only looking for "what could I have done differently" is too.. one dimensional? Obviously that's the whole point of analyzing, but I feel like there's something big i'm not doing that I would like to incorporate into my set analysis. Any help from anyone would be appreciated : - )
There's lots you can do. You can tie things together(are there patterns in how I got hit or how I got hits?) in games or in sets(did they not adjust this between sets and if so why? what about other players did they ever adjust it and if so why?) or characters (is this something that seems to work generally on any character or just certain ones, or certain types of players and why?). Oh, you can also look at every possible option and not just what worked or didn't to expand your understanding of a position.
Analysis is great not just for an individual position, but from looking at how so many factors are integrated as you go deeper and deeper.
Naw idgaf about that stuff yet, I do mid game adaptations for that sort of stuff, although I know how most of the PR'd players react to stuff (like ridz, for example, or how Envy tries to push out of corner, etc). But I'm less focused on studying other players to beat them than I am studying myself vs character (as opposed to myself vs player) so I can improve. Studying the ins and outs of how Player X can certainly help me vs Player Y, but not to the same extent as studying myself vs character to learn the options of that character against marth. If I study how to space around and beat Falcon #1's overshot dair, it'll help me learn how to work around Falcon #2 or #3's same option, where as learning Falcon #1's dash patterns may not help me as much vs Falcon #2 or #3. (If that makes sense, I think I over explained, but not sure if I explained it well)
I suppose it's just the way I look at it, I care more about improving as a whole than I care about improving vs a particular player, unless that player obviously just has my number.
Yeah I'm the same way, but once I get to your level I figure it'll be easier to study up on people just because there will be less people there that can actually beat me/be worth studying (I still struggle with like Komodo and OC Mike level players sometimes). The Lad set was meh, all I really got from it is if you're not hitting your fastfalls to grab ledge when you get shined you're gonna lose to fox. Game 2 was really close but yeah wasn't happy with how I played.
I actually think their A assumption is good, because even though anger can be used in a positive manner, it is too dangerous to consistently rely on as I've said before. It is much more likely to be a destructive emotion, as are sadness and other such states that we'd think of as negative and hurt our play. However yes I'd agree that B is pretty ridiculous lol. As a competitor it's your job to find a way to snap yourself into state and train yourself to get there whenever possible. You're wasting your time if you didn't prepare in all ways appropriately.
Yep, reductionism isn't healthy in any area of study, and certainly not when it comes to emotions either. I don't think fleeting can easily describe emotions though, when sometimes things that happen stay in your body for a while afterward(the feeling of a hard loss for example). Knowing yourself is vital as you said.
The author is mistaking the in-game reality for total reality. In order to make the in-game reality the total reality, you must train your mind and body so that you can effectively make that the case. If you ignore it then you're certainly going to alter reality in a way I doubt you'll like.
Agreed more or less with the false choice paragraph. I do think there's a choice to be made, but the choice is whether you fear the result or you want the win/go back into the game.
To be honest, I see this type of alienation from the game in one way or another from players all of the time. I worked with a player most or all of you know, and he said this top player had told him that mental game didn't matter, but he had to ask "if that's true, then why do I watch him choke every time in tournament?" People, guys especially, try to deny their feelings so hard that they will turn it into biochemistry, or say its nonsense because they don't realize how they thought to get ahead or because admitting it's unknowable at the moment is terrifying. Fear of failure, personal insecurities, encouragement and enabling and example setting from others around them....there's no shortage of ways to prop yourself up against having to look at the fear you have about feeling inadequate that the game can bring. Facing that is truly liberating as you said, but I cannot deny that it's hardest thing a person to do, so I don't expect this to go away any time soon.
They're good in CGs, sometimes in tech chases because stopping your momentum is important. Maybe neutral too, whether that's to give the shield cue, or to stop momentum. However I don't think taking shield frames is worth it personally when you have so many analog jumps and can control drift so well. Just feels clunky to me personally, but if it works for you, do it. CGs have the most benefit with shield stopping based on my experience.
LOL it's all good man. Did you learn anything?
Yeah you're going to be unlearning stuff that got you free hits from people just flying into you eventually, but like you can tell the new stuff will be way stronger and wayyyyy more satisfying. Keep going man!
There's lots you can do. You can tie things together(are there patterns in how I got hit or how I got hits?) in games or in sets(did they not adjust this between sets and if so why? what about other players did they ever adjust it and if so why?) or characters (is this something that seems to work generally on any character or just certain ones, or certain types of players and why?). Oh, you can also look at every possible option and not just what worked or didn't to expand your understanding of a position.
Analysis is great not just for an individual position, but from looking at how so many factors are integrated as you go deeper and deeper.
So you mean kind of like flowcharting out what can happen? Like just take each option out of whatever happens and break it down until I can't anymore sort of thing?
Yeah I'm the same way, but once I get to your level I figure it'll be easier to study up on people just because there will be less people there that can actually beat me/be worth studying (I still struggle with like Komodo and OC Mike level players sometimes). The Lad set was meh, all I really got from it is if you're not hitting your fastfalls to grab ledge when you get shined you're gonna lose to fox. Game 2 was really close but yeah wasn't happy with how I played.
Yeah, I too struggle with the fast fall to ledge every now and then if they mixup the shine timing. Like if I think a straight shine is coming but they drill or double shine or something, it can mess it up. Dw though, not being happy with your play just means there's stuff to work on, right?
I actually think their A assumption is good, because even though anger can be used in a positive manner, it is too dangerous to consistently rely on as I've said before. It is much more likely to be a destructive emotion, as are sadness and other such states that we'd think of as negative and hurt our play. However yes I'd agree that B is pretty ridiculous lol. As a competitor it's your job to find a way to snap yourself into state and train yourself to get there whenever possible. You're wasting your time if you didn't prepare in all ways appropriately.
That's true. My point was what we often perceive as an inherently negative state might not actually be negative in the right circumstances, but in retrospect that doesn't really contradict the statement there needs to be a "positive" state, because in the example of anger, the negative becomes a positive - in that specific case, anyway.
To be honest, I see this type of alienation from the game in one way or another from players all of the time. I worked with a player most or all of you know, and he said this top player had told him that mental game didn't matter, but he had to ask "if that's true, then why do I watch him choke every time in tournament?" People, guys especially, try to deny their feelings so hard that they will turn it into biochemistry, or say its nonsense because they don't realize how they thought to get ahead or because admitting it's unknowable at the moment is terrifying. Fear of failure, personal insecurities, encouragement and enabling and example setting from others around them....there's no shortage of ways to prop yourself up against having to look at the fear you have about feeling inadequate that the game can bring. Facing that is truly liberating as you said, but I cannot deny that it's hardest thing a person to do, so I don't expect this to go away any time soon.
This is veryyy true, and I definitely see it in the actions of some really good players, unfortunately. I really don't want to be that way in my approach to this game (or in anything, really), though I still struggle with it. Just another thing I have to work really hard on I guess, thanks for your thoughts PP.
Speaking of working really hard though, what you were talking about with Kopaka on intention has had me thinking all day. Is my understanding of intention correct in summarizing it as, "what are they going to do?" Because this seems like another one of those things that's simple, but so deep it's overwhelming lol, and I've been considering all the ways I could break it down, and then all the ways I could break those down too and I'm just not sure where to start. I want to experiment with your rule of just doing 1-2 dashes before making a decision, but... I'm not sure why I'm doing it? I assume it's because it gives me more options (I'm not committed to an endless string of dashes and WDs, and there's what you mentioned about all the different ways to cut a dash and stuff), more time/space to react to my opponent, and it doesn't force me to turn my back every other second, but idk. The issue is I just don't know what to do after those 1-2 dashes, I guess. I understand the threats I'm carrying in a vacuum, but, ughhh there are so many possibilities on their end. I also have to understand what I'm looking for in my opponent, how to look for it, what to do once I've found it, and how to do what I'm supposed to do when I've found it.
I think I'm struggling with overwhelming myself, because I can see how interrelated skills in Melee are to one another (for example adaption, mixups, intention, and conditioning), and they start converging in my head and I have a hard time separating them to work on just one. I know at some point it's natural for them to converge, but I had always thought that should be after I've developed a good understanding of them all. Do you have any advice for something like this?
Lol I'm thinking about and seeing all the pointless actions and inefficiencies in my neutral game and all these skills I haven't developed at all and it's this weird mix of feelings frustration, excitement, and anxiousness. I hope these are feelings of growth.
Dr Peepee
Yesss unlearning is exactly what I'd call what I felt! Totally felt like I was relearning matchups, especially the ditto. At least very very much so the neutral game part. I'd be like...losing neutral nearly every time, and then I'd win neutral and take a stock off of it and was I just was like "yessss that's exactly what I wanted but it took me like 50 neutral exchanges to get it"
Speaking of working really hard though, what you were talking about with Kopaka on intention has had me thinking all day. Is my understanding of intention correct in summarizing it as, "what are they going to do?" Because this seems like another one of those things that's simple, but so deep it's overwhelming lol, and I've been considering all the ways I could break it down, and then all the ways I could break those down too and I'm just not sure where to start. I want to experiment with your rule of just doing 1-2 dashes before making a decision, but... I'm not sure why I'm doing it? I assume it's because it gives me more options (I'm not committed to an endless string of dashes and WDs, and there's what you mentioned about all the different ways to cut a dash and stuff), more time/space to react to my opponent, and it doesn't force me to turn my back every other second, but idk. The issue is I just don't know what to do after those 1-2 dashes, I guess. I understand the threats I'm carrying in a vacuum, but, ughhh there are so many possibilities on their end. I also have to understand what I'm looking for in my opponent, how to look for it, what to do once I've found it, and how to do what I'm supposed to do when I've found it.
For me it ties into cutting down on "all the pointless actions and inefficiencies in my neutral game " like you said. I sometimes would put myself in great positions while having my opponents in not so great positions, but I'd be doing something like wavedashing four times in a row and during those inputs I'd be missing out on critical opportunities to keep them off stage. Sfat once told me something like "it's great that you're technical but you need more intention in your moves" and that was basically the final straw for me so I decided I really wanted to learn intention and purpose in neutral game and cutting down on excess. Along with PP telling me pretty much the same thing after EVO, I felt I no longer needed to ask better players for advice since they'd all be basically telling me the same thing. (The topic of HOW to do that is only something I've ever been taught here so <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 this thread)
I spent a ton of time just getting to the point where I had tech skill and could move around really fast, but then I hit the point where I had too much speed and too little intention.
Have you gotten a chance to go into practice sessions with people with the sole purpose of practicing these things yet? I would say you're feeling things that could definitely mean you're going to be growing as a player. It's great you've recognized that you want to change how you play and broaden your understanding. There might even be players out there who could be better than you are, but do not understand these things very well. Try not to get discouraged! Not many people reach this kind of recognition so I see it as a blessing Plus yes, these things are very difficult to understand. I sometimes refer to it as "Improving Backwards" referring to how many times I'd be losing in situations I might otherwise win in practice because I'm focusing on these concepts instead of auto-piloting with my old ways.
So you mean kind of like flowcharting out what can happen? Like just take each option out of whatever happens and break it down until I can't anymore sort of thing?
That's true. My point was what we often perceive as an inherently negative state might not actually be negative in the right circumstances, but in retrospect that doesn't really contradict the statement there needs to be a "positive" state, because in the example of anger, the negative becomes a positive - in that specific case, anyway.
This is veryyy true, and I definitely see it in the actions of some really good players, unfortunately. I really don't want to be that way in my approach to this game (or in anything, really), though I still struggle with it. Just another thing I have to work really hard on I guess, thanks for your thoughts PP.
Speaking of working really hard though, what you were talking about with Kopaka on intention has had me thinking all day. Is my understanding of intention correct in summarizing it as, "what are they going to do?" Because this seems like another one of those things that's simple, but so deep it's overwhelming lol, and I've been considering all the ways I could break it down, and then all the ways I could break those down too and I'm just not sure where to start. I want to experiment with your rule of just doing 1-2 dashes before making a decision, but... I'm not sure why I'm doing it? I assume it's because it gives me more options (I'm not committed to an endless string of dashes and WDs, and there's what you mentioned about all the different ways to cut a dash and stuff), more time/space to react to my opponent, and it doesn't force me to turn my back every other second, but idk. The issue is I just don't know what to do after those 1-2 dashes, I guess. I understand the threats I'm carrying in a vacuum, but, ughhh there are so many possibilities on their end. I also have to understand what I'm looking for in my opponent, how to look for it, what to do once I've found it, and how to do what I'm supposed to do when I've found it.
I think I'm struggling with overwhelming myself, because I can see how interrelated skills in Melee are to one another (for example adaption, mixups, intention, and conditioning), and they start converging in my head and I have a hard time separating them to work on just one. I know at some point it's natural for them to converge, but I had always thought that should be after I've developed a good understanding of them all. Do you have any advice for something like this?
Lol I'm thinking about and seeing all the pointless actions and inefficiencies in my neutral game and all these skills I haven't developed at all and it's this weird mix of feelings frustration, excitement, and anxiousness. I hope these are feelings of growth.
It's more like "what do we want to do, and how am I going to make them go for my plan instead?"
It would probably be better to not think of everything someone could do in response to your actions, but rather what they probably will do based on your best guesses/things you've seen. So maybe you do two same-length dashes and then Fair in place. Would you expect the opponent, if they didn't come in before the Fair, to stay in place, or to run toward the Fair lag, or move in some, or shoot a projectile, or something else? Trying to consider everything at once is pretty overwhelming, and for most players you really only have to worry about a couple responses or so. Keep it simple is another rule of mine don't forget!
Dr Peepee
For me it ties into cutting down on "all the pointless actions and inefficiencies in my neutral game " like you said. I sometimes would put myself in great positions while having my opponents in not so great positions, but I'd be doing something like wavedashing four times in a row and during those inputs I'd be missing out on critical opportunities to keep them off stage. Sfat once told me something like "it's great that you're technical but you need more intention in your moves" and that was basically the final straw for me so I decided I really wanted to learn intention and purpose in neutral game and cutting down on excess. Along with PP telling me pretty much the same thing after EVO, I felt I no longer needed to ask better players for advice since they'd all be basically telling me the same thing. (The topic of HOW to do that is only something I've ever been taught here so <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 this thread)
I spent a ton of time just getting to the point where I had tech skill and could move around really fast, but then I hit the point where I had too much speed and too little intention.
Have you gotten a chance to go into practice sessions with people with the sole purpose of practicing these things yet? I would say you're feeling things that could definitely mean you're going to be growing as a player. It's great you've recognized that you want to change how you play and broaden your understanding. There might even be players out there who could be better than you are, but do not understand these things very well. Try not to get discouraged! Not many people reach this kind of recognition so I see it as a blessing Plus yes, these things are very difficult to understand. I sometimes refer to it as "Improving Backwards" referring to how many times I'd be losing in situations I might otherwise win in practice because I'm focusing on these concepts instead of auto-piloting with my old ways.
Yeah, I have pretty much the same issue as you, where I'll get into a good position but waste it on committing to something unnecessary when I don't have to. But I'm not discouraged at all, honestly. I'm going through these feelings constantly lol, and they're exciting because it feels like I'm always developing a new understanding of the game that's just a little deeper than my last. (This thread is so sick dude, I know.)
It's more like "what do we want to do, and how am I going to make them go for my plan instead?"
It would probably be better to not think of everything someone could do in response to your actions, but rather what they probably will do based on your best guesses/things you've seen. So maybe you do two same-length dashes and then Fair in place. Would you expect the opponent, if they didn't come in before the Fair, to stay in place, or to run toward the Fair lag, or move in some, or shoot a projectile, or something else? Trying to consider everything at once is pretty overwhelming, and for most players you really only have to worry about a couple responses or so. Keep it simple is another rule of mine don't forget!
Oh okay, that makes sense, and it seems to encompass a lot of neutral game elements when put that way. I need to think about this - making opponents follow my lead has always been such a cool concept to me, and I want to explore it.
Ugh, yeah, I was thinking about this earlier. Okay, will try to keep it simple, and not make myself frustrated covering options my opponent isn't going to use. So the exercise is to try 1-2 dashes, and then have a very clear purpose in my subsequent action, right? I'm excited to try this.
Whats the purpose of a wdb-> dash in place? Is it to get the opponent to react to the startup frames of the dash and make them think that you will move in that direction? If so shouldn't it be useless if the opponent learns that a dash in the opposite direction to a wd won't move them very far if at all
I notice when playing against Peach I tend to get naired a lot out of my combos. Should I be trying to combo her to play around the range of her nair? Or should I be comboing her to keep her in hitstun to not be able to nair in the first place?
Whats the purpose of a wdb-> dash in place? Is it to get the opponent to react to the startup frames of the dash and make them think that you will move in that direction? If so shouldn't it be useless if the opponent learns that a dash in the opposite direction to a wd won't move them very far if at all
Honestly, it's a really wonky technique that isn't worth recommending. I only did it occasionally as a goofy shield pressure/momentum-extending technique and I've never seen anyone else try anything different with it.
I notice when playing against Peach I tend to get naired a lot out of my combos. Should I be trying to combo her to play around the range of her nair? Or should I be comboing her to keep her in hitstun to not be able to nair in the first place?
Tipper Fair her more or Nair her more. If you don't know the ways to do these things such that you can stun her longer/avoid range of Nair then just play around the Nair.
Dr Peepee
) - It's more like "You're becoming a lot better at making decisions and you make them quickly because you only need (some small number) of dashes (or maybe sword moves) to have a sense for what kind of decision you feel you need to make" and then you're a lot better at responding to what they do in response to the type of movement one might be doing in neutral?
so <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 this thread)
