|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:53 pm
But shouldn't creativity include both? I mean, using your example, it'd be creative to freeze the floor underneath your opponent's feet and would be in the realms of an ice freezing ability. But if it's ultimate ineffective, should it really count?
I guess this is the whole trap setting thing. And I personally love passive abilities like stun resist, they're so open ended.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:05 pm
Ryu Blazer Vintrict They're related, but one is broad and the other is specific. One is based on execution and the other is based on the "wow" factor. Is there a specific hate against the using of defense in a major setting to lure opponents in for a devastating attack? No. Actually, that would be favored, as LONG as you are able to follow it up with something punishing. For example, presetting some spikes at the bottom of a pit, then creating the pit and having the opponent fall in, that's proper use of traps. The issue with you was that 1) your opponent and 2) I think you could have done a little bit better in using your techniques. Everything looked a bit sloppy to me. Not saying it was a bad idea, just, it's one of those things where you have to sit down and think beforehand of how you can make use of your skills without them being so easy to get past. @Kamiha: It's this: if the ability failed to do what it was suppose to do, then it's a mark against you, unless the judges saw that it was more logical than whatever the opponent's logical defense was against it. You're still given creativity for it, either way (assuming it was creative). Creativity, however, is one of the most biased of the categories, so it's up to either judge's interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:07 pm
Vintrict Ryu Blazer Vintrict They're related, but one is broad and the other is specific. One is based on execution and the other is based on the "wow" factor. Is there a specific hate against the using of defense in a major setting to lure opponents in for a devastating attack? No. Actually, that would be favored, as LONG as you are able to follow it up with something punishing. For example, presetting some spikes at the bottom of a pit, then creating the pit and having the opponent fall in, that's proper use of traps. The issue with you was that 1) your opponent and 2) I think you could have done a little bit better in using your techniques. Everything looked a bit sloppy to me. Not saying it was a bad idea, just, it's one of those things where you have to sit down and think beforehand of how you can make use of your skills without them being so easy to get past. @Kamiha: It's this: if the ability failed to do what it was suppose to do, then it's a mark against you, unless the judges saw that it was more logical than whatever the opponent's logical defense was against it. You're still given creativity for it, either way (assuming it was creative). Creativity, however, is one of the most biased of the categories, so it's up to either judge's interpretation. Even so wouldnt it still be wether or not others could recognize the initial setup as a trap setup?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:08 pm
What do you mean by that? Be more specific.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:20 pm
Yay! Results are finally in! whee
Looks like I have some improving to do for the next round, some to do with style, some to do with fighting. Overall I'm glad that I got some bad negative input towards my style this time ((as ironic as that is)).
Okay! Time to get myself ready for the next round!
-skitters off somewhere for a while-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:25 pm
Vintrict What do you mean by that? Be more specific. For example my raising of the wall wasnt just as a defensive means. It was part of the setup for the trap. Yet in the judging most saw it as merely being on the run. I was hoping first off he ran through the wall and allowed himself to be covered. However, I covered for the chance of it not happening by splattering him with mud bullets. It was all to go to the major buildup of his liquid compress ability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:30 pm
Ryu Blazer Vintrict What do you mean by that? Be more specific. For example my raising of the wall wasnt just as a defensive means. It was part of the setup for the trap. Yet in the judging most saw it as merely being on the run. I was hoping first off he ran through the wall and allowed himself to be covered. However, I covered for the chance of it not happening by splattering him with mud bullets. It was all to go to the major buildup of his liquid compress ability. I at least saw you explain that well. And I was watching to see if you would close in on that. However because your character didn't do anything further past that point in terms of capturing the judges' attention of it being a trap that was successful, it did end up making it as a defensive measure. Provided, Reach's autohit had made the match seem screwy as he seemed to past over a three foot gap perfectly, along with the hand things. It was why I figured you would win. But, I cannot speak for the other judges on that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:31 pm
About that, I was curious which auto hit you were referencing...
The tackle, or...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:33 pm
Reach About that, I was curious which auto hit you were referencing... The tackle, or...? The psychic hands grabbing at his body and the head. It was a bad habit to say in your post that the attacks hit anyway. Even though there was a timing issue from the look of things, I didn't like the way it was worded. To me, it would have been better to just flow with it. We judges are reading this all from all points of views, so if something isn't right, we'll notice it. Then again, the distance issue made matters worse since it couldn't be justified if you was wrong or right. So we just had to judge mainly on what was there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:36 pm
I believe it was the catch at the very begining. The tug at the leg.
@Vin: I see. It seems like I lost alot of points because of the fact that Ryu sticks to defesive lines and trap making. I thought I had made it clear for all but i guess not. Just something to work on i guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:36 pm
That's when we were both going on with NO U's or was that the grip after our schenanigans? Because we decided Ooc that the wall would happen, the mud bullets would happen, and the grips would happen.
Fairly certain that I stated that in the thread...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:44 pm
Ryu Blazer Is there a specific hate against the using of defense in a major setting to lure opponents in for a devastating attack?
[Eyes squint.]
Wait.... [Grabs a can of soda and squeezes its contents out.] Wait.
I REMEMBER YOU!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:49 pm
Has anyone seen Tykat the past few days?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:52 pm
Still grounded so far as I know.
She makes it on at the library on occasion, but yeah.
THE GROUNDING.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
