well..people can at least choose to ignore me complaining here, rather than say...somebody bein' an assmonkey throughout the tourney. I know even you, would have to admit me, lee, john, and ricky were on good behavior. I'm pretty sure u were the only one bashin, sport.
and ur right, lee did 2-0 me in RR, but that was after i found out..it didn't matter wether i won or not..because he already had enough points, and i just played stupid, cuz it made no difference. But i shouldn't of given up so easily though. Me 2-0ing lee just won't happen, due to the nature of us counterpicking and knowing each others weaknesses. I'm glad though he can acknowledge i was just playing carelessly against him, and proud that he won the tournament.
oh yea..so are we still going to SA7?..isn't that like in 2 weeks?
shyguy. on the topic of mindgames, it got me interested in thinking about it.
The way it sounds, you're implying u just lack technical skill and confidence to perform these impressive mindgames, something perhaps flarefox, you're comparing, has in opposite.
Whose to say, we too dont possess those mindgames as well...but also don't have the neccessary level of control to implement them? heck, if i had perfect execution of everything i wanted to do in battle, i'd suspect i'd crush everyone, but that just isn't the case...w/out execution its just our playstyles and ability to adapt that matters.
Playstyle break down, IMO 'course.
Lee
I'd say Lee's mind set specializes in more of less, a safe mid distance game and alteration between patience and secure offenses. Not much of a risk-taker, he prefers to keep his defensives and offenses simple and rely only on the basic foundations of the game. Though the fundamentals can't hurt his playstyle, he lacks advanced technical control and ability to be flashy. He manner of movement is only what is neccessary. If technical-overwhelmence can't suffice, out-mindgaming him is the only real option.
Cyphus
My game mostly revolves around dancing alot with feints and then trying to overwhelm the oponent with offensive pressure when they're not expecting it. My ideal situation is to take advantage of a random opportunities and throw them off guard. Oponents who try too hard on capitalizing on patterns will most likely jump in only to be thrown out. But keen players can find situational holes and be careful enough to exploit my impatience, which is benfefited and hurt with flashyness and risk.
JohnWu
John's game is a solid defense concentrating on safety and obvervation. Instead of concentrating on combos, he waits and looks out for oponent weaknesses such as missing a tech or teching improperly due to a cut-short combo. He is good at slowly back oponents into corners. For what he does, his safety is tops and playstyle frustrating to go against. His game is weakened by patience though, if the oponent can force him to be offensive and bait him into using laggier moves.
Taylor
His game's strat is don't give you're oponent room to breathe. Ideal situation for him, is that the oponent turles and eventually tries to retreat such as rolling, where he can continue to capitalize on their panic. Unready DI will lead to ugly combos as well. His confidence is in his technical efficiency for secure offenses but if the oponent modifies his spacing, the windows in between his attacks are taken advantage and throw off his groove since a precise defense is absent from his game.
Eet
His classic style of play is a solid state of awesomeness. If being awesome isn't enough(which it always is, anyway), he'll alter his playing into more awesomeness to offset the oponent's grasp of what awesomeness really is. And the first level of awesomeness is usually his safe bet at giving them a false sense of security, which actually is impossible, because it was too awesome in the first place.
)
