Online vs. Offline in DOA5: DOA4 All Over Again...
- Thread starter DrDogg
- Start date
- Status
Winning "one" tournament does not make you a top player. It only means that you are actually good since you proved it. A top player is someone who wins or places top 3 consistently in tournament play.
Berzerk!
Well-Known Member
Your example proves the opposite of what you intend. They are recognized because of their offline play. The offline wins are the measure of skill.
These are good players as shown - as you said - when it turns out they could compete at a real event.
Everything else is just practice. Good players are good players no matter where they play but only those willing to step up to a live offline tournament can be legitimately recognised.
Jefffcore
Well-Known Member
I'm gonna add to my last post because it sounds a little condescending.
I play Mila, and I know for a fact that a good portion of players don't know how to play her because she's new. Not to take anything from either of the players, but there are still a lot of unknowns in DOA5.
Also, the level of play in DOA has never been very high outside like 4-5 people. At DID 2 of those people came out above E-mann, and PL definitely didn't know his match ups.
At NEC people didn't know what to do against Helena.
Wait and see if these players keep placing top when the game's been out for a while before you judge. (Especially in a game where the more solid player doesn't get rewarded the way they should)
I play Mila, and I know for a fact that a good portion of players don't know how to play her because she's new. Not to take anything from either of the players, but there are still a lot of unknowns in DOA5.
Also, the level of play in DOA has never been very high outside like 4-5 people. At DID 2 of those people came out above E-mann, and PL definitely didn't know his match ups.
At NEC people didn't know what to do against Helena.
Wait and see if these players keep placing top when the game's been out for a while before you judge. (Especially in a game where the more solid player doesn't get rewarded the way they should)
DrDogg
Well-Known Member
Lmao this thread is hilarious. What happen to just playing games for fun? Thinking about who is better than somebody else would create more tension in the DOA community. Team Ninja didn't give me a handbook of who are the top players and what not to do/claim in this community. So I say everybody in the DOA community is a top player!
Please read the first post before you reply. I already answered your question and your post adds absolutely nothing to the conversation. Here's my response to you, quoted from the OP.
This is a great point. Thank you for replying with an intelligent, civil response.
You are absolutely correct that almost everyone at NEC played the game as if they were playing online. This is a BIG problem that results from DOA players limiting themselves to DOA and only DOA when it comes to competitive fighters. Instead of doing their homework and figuring out how to deal with online tactics and how to properly play the game (whiff punishment, punishing unsafe attacks, etc.) they just played the game like they always do.
I ran into Shade Swifteye the other day online. He played almost exactly the same as he did at NEC. He does not adjust his game when latency is no longer hampering his play. If the DOA community was larger and we had more of an offline scene (or good players from other communities made a real effort to become good at DOA), you'd see a much higher level of play.
Also, it's not impossible for an online player to be good. That was not what was stated in the OP. The issue is that a large number of online players assume that they're a top player because of online wins and only online wins. They think their online accomplishments have real meaning. EMann and Xbladez were not vocal about how good of a player they are. They let their offline accomplishments make those statements. Because while it's not impossible for an online player to be good, there are A LOT of online players that are not good, but still do well online.
prototypetom
Active Member
well, I agreed in a fundamental way with lopedo when he made this same point, and the guy who made it before that, and i agree with it now. and granted this ones a lot more eloquent, I appreciate the effort to make it balanced. So this is directed more generally at many posts i've read than at the good Dr's OP...
I'm completely sympathetic to the frustration the top, and handy mid level, tournament players must feel playing a spongy net-code and it's shortcomings - especially the resulting bravado and faux-scalp waving of players that haven't proven themselves on more refined playing field... But where is this injustice going on? I'm on this board every day and the only chest thumping i hear is this side of it (however factually righteous and justified it might be). It's really boring and demoralising constantly being told the only possibly way I can play this game borders on meaningless. polite or rude, it barely matters, complete sympathy only goes so far.
What really grips my gear is how so-called "competitive" players have claimed the word "competitive". Online is competitive, and anyone playing online who's trying to play win is a competitive player. It might be that I'm new to playing... erm... uncompetitive DOA, and it might be the established terminology - but if it isn't, I implore you to think of something that accurately distinguishes the point you're making. Online DOA is not uncompetitive because the details of the game-play are different to offline - strictly speaking, competitively it's just different, regardless of making a superiority judgement. Don't you see how this semantic failing undermines the authority of available facts? not to mention how cheap an insult it is to anyone playing the apparently inferior form of the game, it almost begs us online plebs to pick up our pitchforks and revolt against our divine and deserving 'competitive' masters any time someone spams a win against one. There's got to be a better expression.
The flaw isn't in people thinking online success is equal to offline - it's a failing of the way both sides try to quantify the comparison at all and everything that leads to. The following analogy isn't accurate, but to me it feels like asking who would win a fight between a bear and a shark, and when the question of "on land or in the water?" comes up, someone arguing 'on land is the only true measure' and someone else arguing 'it doesn't make any difference'.
The really sad part is how bloody pointless it is anyway. Any numbnut who can't work out the upshot of the facts for themselves isn't going change their mind once they've started unduly giving it large about beating a tournament player online. If they're inclined to act that way - it probably doesn't even matter if they know what your saying is basically true - it's pre-school psychology.
This makes it much like preaching to the choir when this is genuinely motivated to inform and educate. But I can't help but feel that, often, at best it's just reaffirming for those who already know it, and at worst it's communal back slapping for the offline elite - a bit of a mutual shoulder rub to make the online defeats more palatable. (which i think in moderation is fair given the extra effort they invest going to meets and doing well)
I'd love it if we could get away from the whole divisive drone. With a little effort the part of it that is fact could just be common knowledge and the bits that wind people up forgotten. I'd like to get more into this game and it's playing community, but one day being qualified to whine about the online game being totally second rate isn't much of a carrot.... nor is the undermining of the only form of the game available to me right now. I get that it feels important to not let the ignorant trolls get away with it, but at what cost?
oh and being "good for practice" isn't much of a consolation.
sorry for the ramble, its 5am and i'm full of christmas cheer if you know what i mean. ho ho ho
I'm completely sympathetic to the frustration the top, and handy mid level, tournament players must feel playing a spongy net-code and it's shortcomings - especially the resulting bravado and faux-scalp waving of players that haven't proven themselves on more refined playing field... But where is this injustice going on? I'm on this board every day and the only chest thumping i hear is this side of it (however factually righteous and justified it might be). It's really boring and demoralising constantly being told the only possibly way I can play this game borders on meaningless. polite or rude, it barely matters, complete sympathy only goes so far.
What really grips my gear is how so-called "competitive" players have claimed the word "competitive". Online is competitive, and anyone playing online who's trying to play win is a competitive player. It might be that I'm new to playing... erm... uncompetitive DOA, and it might be the established terminology - but if it isn't, I implore you to think of something that accurately distinguishes the point you're making. Online DOA is not uncompetitive because the details of the game-play are different to offline - strictly speaking, competitively it's just different, regardless of making a superiority judgement. Don't you see how this semantic failing undermines the authority of available facts? not to mention how cheap an insult it is to anyone playing the apparently inferior form of the game, it almost begs us online plebs to pick up our pitchforks and revolt against our divine and deserving 'competitive' masters any time someone spams a win against one. There's got to be a better expression.
The flaw isn't in people thinking online success is equal to offline - it's a failing of the way both sides try to quantify the comparison at all and everything that leads to. The following analogy isn't accurate, but to me it feels like asking who would win a fight between a bear and a shark, and when the question of "on land or in the water?" comes up, someone arguing 'on land is the only true measure' and someone else arguing 'it doesn't make any difference'.
The really sad part is how bloody pointless it is anyway. Any numbnut who can't work out the upshot of the facts for themselves isn't going change their mind once they've started unduly giving it large about beating a tournament player online. If they're inclined to act that way - it probably doesn't even matter if they know what your saying is basically true - it's pre-school psychology.
This makes it much like preaching to the choir when this is genuinely motivated to inform and educate. But I can't help but feel that, often, at best it's just reaffirming for those who already know it, and at worst it's communal back slapping for the offline elite - a bit of a mutual shoulder rub to make the online defeats more palatable. (which i think in moderation is fair given the extra effort they invest going to meets and doing well)
I'd love it if we could get away from the whole divisive drone. With a little effort the part of it that is fact could just be common knowledge and the bits that wind people up forgotten. I'd like to get more into this game and it's playing community, but one day being qualified to whine about the online game being totally second rate isn't much of a carrot.... nor is the undermining of the only form of the game available to me right now. I get that it feels important to not let the ignorant trolls get away with it, but at what cost?
oh and being "good for practice" isn't much of a consolation.
sorry for the ramble, its 5am and i'm full of christmas cheer if you know what i mean. ho ho ho
My stance on all this is pretty well-known, if only because I make a point to travel for tournaments quite frequently. I don't feel that I have anything terribly substantial to add to any of this that DrDogg didn't already spell out for everyone to read in the original post. Several folks have touched on a couple of other points that are also solid. But let's make sure we keep things focused, here.
This topic has traditionally been incredibly volatile in our community (and I still have no idea why other than pure ignorance) and the entire mod team NOT immediately locking this is likely due to the fact that not only do we agree with many of the points made, but we also agree that it's a conversation that should be allowed to happen in a constructive manner. None of us have really discussed it but that'd be my best guess. With that in mind, let's avoid sarcastic responses and non-responses. If you can't contribute to the conversation here in a rational manner, don't post.
If you post just to get the topic locked, my response will be a warning, your post being deleted, and letting things continue. I'll get more creative from there. None of us enjoy locking threads, except for me on Tuesdays and Rikuto generally all the time. But we've all been around long enough to see what happens when rampant stupidity becomes the norm, and anyone that's been a part of the community for longer than three or four years knows exactly what I'm talking about. The shadiness and behind-closed-doors-style management is gone. I'd like to think the community is actually better for it and that all of that shit is done. So let's keep this conversation going with the same level of professionalism it was started with and, for the most part, has continued with.
This topic has traditionally been incredibly volatile in our community (and I still have no idea why other than pure ignorance) and the entire mod team NOT immediately locking this is likely due to the fact that not only do we agree with many of the points made, but we also agree that it's a conversation that should be allowed to happen in a constructive manner. None of us have really discussed it but that'd be my best guess. With that in mind, let's avoid sarcastic responses and non-responses. If you can't contribute to the conversation here in a rational manner, don't post.
If you post just to get the topic locked, my response will be a warning, your post being deleted, and letting things continue. I'll get more creative from there. None of us enjoy locking threads, except for me on Tuesdays and Rikuto generally all the time. But we've all been around long enough to see what happens when rampant stupidity becomes the norm, and anyone that's been a part of the community for longer than three or four years knows exactly what I'm talking about. The shadiness and behind-closed-doors-style management is gone. I'd like to think the community is actually better for it and that all of that shit is done. So let's keep this conversation going with the same level of professionalism it was started with and, for the most part, has continued with.
I don't even play anymore because of this. There's barely anyone to play locally offline, and the DOA5 online is really bad. I've probably played 6 sessions of this game max at this point, it's really unfortunate. I don't think I'm that good right now, yet I probably could have been. It just feels that playing online would just make me worse at this point.
NightAntilli
Well-Known Member
Golden question. I have a feeling people here will avoid this question like the plague because they can't give an example. And in a way, they probably know they're deceiving themselves, due to some sort of superiority complex.
Before I go on, do not base the entirety of this post on the first few lines. Even though I disagree with some things, I also agree on others, so, before you go quote mining, make sure you read everything.
Ultimately, people who end up playing well online in a fair connection, have used the training mode to up their game. The core of their gameplay is still based on offline. That they used online gameplay to gain experience does not really matter that much. If anything, they train their anticipation more than the ones who play offline only, since like DrDogg himself said, reacting is a lot harder online. That is an advantage when going offline, not a disadvantage, or someone who 'lacks skill' or whichever BS way you want to pretend to explain it. What is skill anyway? Is someone who plays on reaction more skillful than someone who anticipates? Because that's what parts of his post seems to be implying, probably unintentionally. I think we all know it's not that simple.
In any case... Anyone who simply went online and played over and over while never using the training mode, will not be a good player. Doesn't matter if it's online or offline. The main issue I encounter when playing offline is that I buffer too early, since I got used to buffering that way so that things come out in time online and I don't get beat out while having the advantage. That is all. The rest, not that different. This whole online vs offline thing is nothing more than a cult and a bias in the community. Online has been demonized way too much. The "online is not a good measure of skill" talk has no real substance, especially when skill is something that's so intangible that it can be determined/measured in a different way the next day. If you can beat a lot of people online in a fairly good connection, and go toe to toe with the ones who've played in offline tournaments, you're probably gonna do well offline as well, unlike popular belief.
You still have the right to call yourself a good player in such a case. Just don't compare too soon, or say that you are 'better than'. No one plays perfectly all the time. We all have our ups and downs, so if you happen to hold your own one day, don't expect things to always go the same way. This is true for both on- and offline, especially when making the switch from one to the other. That's the reason why bragging is not only uncalled for, but foolish. And....
Should you get recognition for playing online? Well... Should you get recognition for playing soccer with your friends in a public field where everyone can just hop into the game? The answer is no. To get so-called 'recognition', you need to be in an official tournament or recognized by an official organization. Can you imagine how ridiculous it would be if you went up to someone like Messi and say that you're the best soccer player on that public football field close to your house and are therefore better than him, when he's recognized by FIFA and no one has heard of you? He'd laugh in your face. It's an extreme example, but, you get the point. Even though it is possible that someone playing soccer in their back yard is better than Messi, he proved he can reach the top while that person didn't. The whole recognition thing is part of imaginary games, since it's based on something abstract like 'status' or 'reputation' or 'achievement' that supports the claim of someone being the best, but that's how the world works. We have no hard physical factual skill measurement other than those things. Your results have to be recognized by the group you're trying to impress, which means you have to abide by their standards and not make up your own.
As of now, offline is the only place where you can say that things are 'official', where you can win some actual money, get 'status' and so on. That's the standard for fighting games. That'll probably stay that way for a while. Not because it requires more skill, but because that's where things can properly be verified by multiple parties and because that's how it has been decided, and for good reason since reliability and consistency is important. I just wish the whole 'skill' talk was left out in the OP, because it's not about actual skill at all (skill being defined as the ability to do something well). It's about the way people think skill should be measured in this game. You can find examples in this thread already. Look at iHajinShinobi's post. It's about how skill should be measured. Skill itself is inaccessible. Sadly, the whole skill talk coming from offline players, almost always sounds as if they think they are superior to everyone else, which really is a turn-off.
In any case... If you want to boast about how great you are, that's where you need to go, offline tournaments. I however would prefer that you would not boast at all. But if you really need to, keep the boasting about online leaderboards, online ranks, online wins and so on to your friends. Don't tell Lady Gaga you're a better musician than her when she's the one selling albums.
That is all.
P.S. I don't like either Lady Gaga or Messi. Just figured they're names people would recognize.
DrDogg
Well-Known Member
You're mainly debating semantics. We use the term "competitive" because that's what tournament players are generally called. This term came about long before online play was the norm and refers only to those players who are competitive (travel to tournaments) offline.
I totally understand some people not being able to travel, and only having online to play. I also understand those players wanting to participate in tournaments and confirm/test their skill. You can do all of this online, however you must limit your statements to online.
For instance, if I'm the best Bass player online and I win all of the online tournaments, I can safely say, "I'm the best online Bass player". Now on this site you may get a little bit of push back because so many people don't take online seriously, so you may want to add, "...I'm not saying anything about offline, only online", or something of that nature. I don't think that's asking too much.
Online lets you see some of the setups people are using, and right now a lot of offline players play just like they do online, so you can find easily exploitable holes in their game. As long as you know what's an online tactic and what would actually translate well to offline, you'll be fine. Since you have been an offline player in the past, I don't think it'll be an issue for you. I can say that online will be very, VERY frustrating at first.
I addressed it in my first post on this page... roughly an hour before you made your post.
Yomi is a big part of fighting games. It is a larger part of DOA than pretty much any other fighting game out there, but it is not the only thing that matters, especially at high levels of play.
If I train myself to be able to see every low attack in the game, then block/counter on reaction, I will have a MUCH better chance of winning matches compared to someone who anticipates a low attack. Likewise, if I can react to every low hold, when you anticipate a low incorrectly, I will punish you with a hi-counter throw every single time.
Now while it's not likely someone will react to every single low, it's a lot more likely to happen compared to someone correctly anticipating every single low. All of this is just an example, but I hope you understand my point.
I agree with most of your post, but this is really what stands out to me. Saying, "the rest, not that different" is completely incorrect. Let me give you my favorite example: Helena.
Online, when you block Helena's 33P4P, you can't interrupt her BKO 6P that follows. Even in a 5-bar connection with your neighbor, you can't interrupt that series of attacks online with any kind of consistency. Even if you somehow can, try it with a 15 frame attack (mid or low) and see how often you can interrupt that transition online.
Offline, you can interrupt that transition with any attack 15 frames or faster. In some cases you can even use a 16-frame attack. Online, most 12- or 13-frame attacks get interrupted. This allows Helena to mount a near endless offense that gives her a 10-0 match-up against pretty much every character in the game.
In a lesser example, take almost any attack that's -8 to roughly -10 on block and try to punish with a 7-frame throw online. If the opponent mashes out an attack from -8 or so, they'll beat out your punishing throw almost every time. This makes a lot of unsafe attacks suddenly appear safe online (and in some cases they have advantage), which completely changes the game. That's why online is meaningless to us for anything competitive.
Raansu
Well-Known Member
The biggest misconception people have with this whole retarded argument is that offline players ARE NOT calling online players bad. They are simply saying that if you want to call yourself one of the best then PROVE IT in the most optimal competitive setting which is an offline tournament where all the top players are competing.
shunwong
Active Member
I think the problem with online (and with the younger generation in their teens and early 20s) is instant gratification. They win = They are the best.
Good players are good players because they are consistent. They go to offline tournaments regularly and place top 8 regularly and do so over long periods of time.
This is my first year playing fighting games. I'm happy I can win more than 50% of my online matches in DOA5 and VF5FS (I wouldn't expect more, I was at 0% in January 2012). If, in a few years, I feel confident enough I might go to offline tournaments. I know it will take long, I don't expect to be good right now.
Good players are good players because they are consistent. They go to offline tournaments regularly and place top 8 regularly and do so over long periods of time.
This is my first year playing fighting games. I'm happy I can win more than 50% of my online matches in DOA5 and VF5FS (I wouldn't expect more, I was at 0% in January 2012). If, in a few years, I feel confident enough I might go to offline tournaments. I know it will take long, I don't expect to be good right now.
WebHead
Active Member
The offline guys are the ones with the problem. They cant deal with being beat by online kids like me or dragonsoul so they have to come up with excuses. Cmon bro, I dont complete unsafe moves online and Im not gonna do them offline either. Im gonna stun you, youre going to counter, im gonna mix up, youre going to guess wrong and ur gonna get damaged, online or OFFLINE!
Raansu
Well-Known Member
There is a difference between can't and unwilling. Good for you that you think playing an inconsistent environment makes you good.
There is literally nothing that can be said or any topic that can be made that will make people understand offline/online differences. The problem is that online problems become more and more noticeable and have bigger effects on the game as total cumulative skill level increases. A bad player is just not equipped with enough knowledge or experience to comprehend the differences. You can explain it a million times but without that basic comprehension they CANNOT understand.
No, actually, it's EXACTLY because the game has a higher ceiling for skill when being played offline. There's stuff that you can pull online and you will roughly never get punished for it, as the opponent often will not have the time to react to it. This is simply a matter of physics.
Light travels at a speed of roughly 300k km/s. This is the most optimal situation and solution for transmitting your data between two players. Let us, for the sake of this argument, NOT use the average reaction time of a human being (which is quite high), but that of someone who has extensively trained to improve upon this skill. Someone who plays fighting games a lot and was born with fast reactions and a high capacity for it to begin with. If you live even a bit further away from your opponent, that's a full _reaction's worth_ of delay you're giving away. The better your reactions are, the bigger this deal is. This can be mitigated _slightly_ with netcode that's trying to guess what players are trying to do, but never will it in your lifetime be eliminated. Quantum entanglement-based networking is nothing but a dream at this point.
In DoA3, you could hold wake-up kicks on reaction over 90% of the time after training and if you were gifted enough (obviously meeting other conditions as well, such as when playing on a CRT screen that has no input lag etc). You need to shave off only a ridiculously small amount of milliseconds off of this action to make it near-impossible to hold the kicks. It then turns to guessing. Read: Offline holds are possible on reaction, online holds are not. Which of these scenarios, in your opinion, reward skilled play more?
There's dozens of scenarios like this in DoA 5. They pile up. This is why people who want to play the game up to the highest possible potential a player can play it to (and the way it was designed to be played; certain things are punishable and other's aren't) say that offline is the true test of skill. I don't think anyone can claim that offline has a lower skillcap than online; this is why community validation happens in offline tournaments in pretty much every game, ever. Not just fighting games.
There's absolutely nothing wrong playing online. There's also absolutely nothing wrong bragging about being online king. They're just two different types of games with different metagame. Online simply rewards the characters more that wouldn't actually be safe after doing a move that's high payout but not quite safe, simply due to the fact that you can't punish these types of moves fast enough due to the nature of online gaming. The high payout move was not designed to be safe, online play just makes it so. And this all is fine, as long as you keep in mind that it's a different game with a different meta. If you get upset about losing to something online, that's only because you care about online - this is your own fault. If you want to play the online game and min/max it, play it as if you were actually playing the online version of the game and min/max accordingly to the ping between players. If you want to practice the offline game, then get some offline friends to play it with.
Online is still a goddamn good tool to practice most of your stuff with.
This all really isn't that hard.
- Status