So it’s kind of like a reverse game in this sense, correct?
If I know what the other person wants to do and they are actively looking for it, I condition them to stop, and force them to play my game? Then that’s data I gather, because they attempted something which I punished, which is also data for them. So you both are reading each other at a fast rate, but the one who wins is the one who can adapt and quickly change the best?
Every interaction that occurs, whether win, lose, or draw, is data. And yes, both you and your opponent are privy to it, and whoever best adapts and takes advantage of this information is likely to win. But I guess I’d encourage you to not think of it in terms of “reverse mind games” or anything so complicated. It’s literally just a question of “what does he want to do and why, and how can I punish him for it?”
You’d be surprised how little of our past interactions I take into our sets. I remember what your general tendencies are, of course, and some of my play is tailored to capitalize on that information. But a LOT of it is very basic stuff, like “Ostrich doesn’t like to sit still on wakeup”, or “Ostrich doesn’t hold up in combo’s”, or “Ostrich is buttonsy and likes to jab when he’s neutral or positive”. Nothing fancy, just a general sense of player preferences and habits. Even very shallow observations like that can be very powerful if you know how to capitalize on them.
(Takes Notes Furiously with the speed of an ostrich escaping an animal’s lunch time)
Interesting. So it doesn’t really need to be that deep. It’s just more or less looking at what you do, taking a mental note of it, then countering it in a match?
Like for example, when I fight against you, you know I backdash a lot. But you know I’m backdashing to avoid your command grabs which works. So, you will opt for the standing Heavy to catch me, which puts doubt in my mind and fear that I can’t backdash now, but gives you data and probably some conditioning for me to sit still. By then, I’m forced to have a mental 50/50 with you whether I backdash or block next time the situation arises, therefore limiting my options.
Pretty much. “Opponent likes to do X”->“I shall punish X until he stops doing it”->“he stopped doing it, punish Y”.
The second-order mind game (where you’re now all freaked out about how to wake up), isn’t actually that important from my end. I merely want to make you learn simple things (no jumping, no backdashing), so that I can then begin to punish those instead. If my attempt fails, well that sucks, but I’m not losing sleep over it. In the meantime I did a lot of good damage, and by virtue of that I now have additional information and options the next time I knock you down.
Im upset.
I like game theory kind of topics and legit combed old threads for thoughts. How did i miss this?
Gonna go get dinner and do some reading.
OOOOOOH! do me now!!! 
Just found this thread. Good read. I don’t mean to detract from the discussion but there is a burning question of why this:
That setup beats backdash, DP, jump out, normal block, and crouch block all at the same time, and if you block the cross up then you have to deal with the unreactable tick grab into hard knockdown, and then we get to play the game all over again.
isn’t seen as a problem.
This has certainly been both interesting to read both because of the knowledge offered, but also because of the personal insight.
For myself, going back to the Juicebox video (and id recommend watching it near the beginning of this thread) kinda made me question myself as he was questioning the student. I had been thinking on just going character by character on their setups i experience and how to defend or break each one. More than just the “i do this and it generally works” thought. But that knowledge loses half its power if you refuse to make reads.
Im still green comparatively to any player that’s been around since S1 or S2. But i think that I’ve BARELY started this sort of thinking and when i realized it? It really opened a different way of playing KI to me. It took me, in one way, from being a sit-back type of player to thinking more. How did they just open me up? How did i allow myself to get opened up?
I can say that ive done a couple of different things to develop a read unconsciously. As Kim naturally being a high damage character, ive switched her to being more mixup based off cancels. I break first opportunity then do nothing next combo to be different. Done mp into tick dragon sweep. Played with her normal and dragon grab being her main offense starter. But i didnt ask myself “what am i seeking to limit?” Or “what information am i looking to gather?” It’s been more “xyz might come here, abc are my options.”
So now that im aware of it, more that ill need to consider of my game strategy.
Because these kinds of super nasty setups are actually pretty common across KI. Just off the top of my head, characters having common setups that beat DP’s, jumps, and backdashes where they also get an unreactable 50/50 if you block include: Sadira (light widow’s bite pressure), Mira (bats), Orchid (grenade setups), Glacius (hail->liquidize shenanigans), Fulgore (throw->meaty fireball pressure), Aria (bass assist pressure), Raam (kryll, various jump setups), Aganos (chunked), Riptor (carpet->headbutt), and even Jago (off of a throw).
KI is an overwhelmingly offensive game, and HKD’s give nasty pressure options across the cast. Hisako’s air-ORZ pressure isn’t particularly unique in being an option that covers a lot potential responses. It plays particularly well with her other options on wakeup, but the setup itself has numerous analogues across the cast.
Thank you for the response, but why did you edit what I said and respond in some kind of pseudo defense for Hisako having such a setup?
I realize where this thread is located, but it has already been stated in the thread that the discussion of the concepts herein can be extrapolated to the other cast.
I’m not trying to offend, but it’s bad enough when others take leaps in logic to indicate I’m saying something I’m really not, but could you please not edit the content of my response when quoting me to suit your own?
Once again and to clarify, Hisako aside as I actually didn’t mention her, why isn’t such a setup seen as a problem; for anyone in the cast (to be clear as possible)? The way I see it, such setups place an extremely unreasonable situation on the defending player. I’d submit that such setups are less about reading the opponent, and more about stripping them of viable options. For one thing, if the setup covers all those options and it’s a loss for them, and they DON’T KNOW it covers all of them, do you realize how many times they have to experiment with that one setup only to lose before potentially finding something that works?
I realized I am not a very skilled player, and many of you are not only much better than me, but you have better understanding of it. However, this seems much less a read, and more a calculated thing, that actually seems more inclined towards flow-charted play. Again, I could be wrong, and I likely am, as many of you are leaps ahead of me in skill.
I was reading this thread and thinking of some of the recent people who have left/quit, and now I’m starting to wonder if setups like this aren’t a driving force of that. That’s a debilitating place to be, stripped of multiple viable options at once. Sure, there might be a way out, after several failed experiments, but at some point the player is likely to ask themselves, “Is it really reasonable to expect me to deal with this?”
Edit: Oh and please, in the future, don’t edit my response, misquote me, or otherwise misrepresent what I’ve said. Thank you in advance.
Uh…ok then. Since you literally copied significant portions of my words (without attribution) to describe those types of hard-to-escape scenarios, then I thought you were talking about the same thing I was when I used them. Maybe next time use your own words, and then the author of them won’t misunderstand the context.
Hard-to-escape setups are certainly things that rub some people the wrong way in any game, and can contribute to them leaving. I tend to think that the other games players migrate to tend to be rife with similar things (virtually all modern fighters are), but there’s nothing wrong with leaving a game if something is genuinely just that frustrating to you (generic you, if that needs stating).
As to whether or not such setups are about “reading the opponent”, I think they occupy an important place in the discussion. They are ways to both condition the opponent and to get a sense of what he knows and wants to do on wakeup, and that information has applications both in future knockdown scenarios and in neutral. The setups aren’t the “reads” per se, but they inform them. They let you suss out how willing someone is to sit still defensively, how likely they are to reversal out of pressure, and a host of other useful data points that can be important as the match progresses.
Now onto other stuff.
This represents the entirety of what I omitted from my quote (the bracketed stuff was originally my own words anyway, so yeah, I’ll paraphrase that how I feel). As I’ve explained before, I don’t tend to do full quotes of posts if I’m not going to address everything in it. And there really isn’t anything in this to address. I’m glad you like the discussion and don’t want to derail it. That’s nice, but not terribly important to the question that was asked. I answered the question as best I understood it, the same way I’ve tried to respond to everyone’s posts and questions in this thread. How good you are or aren’t isn’t important; if I think I have an interesting perspective on a comment or question being raised, then I’ll do my best to address it.
I’m not going to stop pulling snippets from long posts and paraphrasing where possible (which I always indicate with brackets) - it’s annoying to read giant block quotes when people only wish to respond to a small portion of what someone said. I can stop responding to you here and elsewhere if you like though - it’s honestly not worth having conversations with you if every time I respond you accuse me of somehow misrepresenting you. It’s exhausting, and I’m honestly just tired of dealing with it. 
Oh, and the next time you lift significant portions of something I wrote, I’d appreciate a quote. Feel free to bracket out a paraphrase of some of the content if you need to.
I’m unaware how to quote a specific section of someone’s post. Which is why I had to make use of a colon, followed by a separation, your text (which was word for word, by the way), another separation, and then my text again.
You DO make regular practice of misrepresenting, or best case scenario misinterepting, the content of my posts to imply something they don’t mean. You can’t even be honest about adding leaps in logic to what is written, likely due to some kind of reflection from your experience with Hisako specifically. I didn’t ask to expand the discussion outside her. You guys did. Yet when it’s convenient, you want to reign it back in to her specific discussion? Had I wanted to discuss her specifically in the context of this discussion, then typically she’d be mentioned by name. God forbid, someone use a relevant example provided in discussion to extrapolate into a alternate concept for discussion.
I digress though. You still have not discussed the real core of the question. It’s not entirely relevant that similar setups exist across the cast, can be found in other games, or the games of yore had similar or worse scenarios. That’s deflection. The real question is it a problem or reasonable? If not, why isn’t it a problem? What kind of a read are you getting from a defending player who is likely cycling through several experiments to try and find something that works for one setup? As the defending player, what kind of data can you process and prevent the supposed read in a scenario where you’ve lost so many options? I’m sure there are all kinds of things that can come out of taking pause and evaluating such a scenario through these lenses.
I’ll say this though, if I include something someone else has written in my post, full length or otherwise, I have the courtesy to not change a damn word.
Highlight the words you want to quote->a quote button pops up->press the quote button->congratulations, you’ve now quoted someone.
My example was about a specific Hisako setup. You quoted my example about that specific Hisako setup (fun fact, that’s why it’s referenced as “that setup” in my initial post). You added no additional context to what I wrote and asked the “burning question” of why “this” (which I can only take to mean my quote, again referencing a specific Hisako setup) is ok. In what world is a reasonable person going to extrapolate from the little that you wrote that we are now having a cast-wide discussion? You quoted my words talking about a specific character, and then get huffy when I respond in the context of that character (because hey, that’s what I was talking about when I wrote it). If you wanted to discuss hard-to-escape setups generally, then use your own damn words and ask about hard-to-escape setups. Don’t take what I wrote, add zero additional context, and then get pissy when there’s a misunderstanding about how you’re using the quote.
I respond to you the same way I try to respond to everyone on these forums. Yet you are the only one who’s constantly got his hackles raised about me supposedly misrepresenting him and what he says. Get over yourself dude - no one’s out to get you or twist your words. Pretty sure the problem here isn’t me.
I have thoughts regarding why hard-to-escape setups are reasonable, interesting, and worthwhile in the context of both offensive and defensive reads, but I’ll let @Infilament or someone else take a stab at it. I’m sure I’d just misrepresent what you were really asking anyway. -rolls eyes-
Little tip about the quote does not appear to work on my phone.
Has the the thread already expanded discussion to be inclusive of the cast, yes or no? Has the thread already indicated these concepts extend to other characters? Yes? No? In light of that, did I make any specific mention of Hisako? You cite no additional content in my post and like to make use of universal nonspecific terms, yet have no qualms about adding your own content or take issue if I’m not specific enough. How hard is it to address the exact content of a post?
Take your own advice and get over yourself, seeing how you take issue yourself to someone using your words in a way you don’t approve, yet you expect me to be okay with it?
All of that, and you essentially pass the question off to someone else. I genuinely was interested in the discussion, but you just had to go down this path. I’d very much be interested in Infilament’s thoughts on it.
Whatever dude. I’m done talking to you, here or elsewhere.
On a phone, hold your finger over the text and it should become highlighted as well as a “quote” icon should appear over it. After that, you can drag highlight the text you want to quote, select the quote command, and then the reply box should pop up with it filled in.
At least on a Android phone with a Google Chrome browser anyways.
It works in iPhone as well
Well look at that! Thanks for being helpful. That would have saved me so much time, lol.
Edit: Apologies to the thread for the unintentional rabbit hole. Really good read guys!
Really loved reading through (most) of these posts. It’s an excellent subject of discussion and one which I believe should really benefit any player who doesn’t already take this into account.
I’ll admit this is something I haven’t thought of discussing in a long time. It’s something like second nature after a lifetime playing fighting games, and I tend to make the assumption that everyone has this sort of knowledge. I wouldn’t think of bringing it up, but I really believe that this is a basis that should be learned by any player who wants to take fighting games in any way seriously or competitively.
Knowing how to condition your opponent and adapt accordingly is an invaluable skill to have, IMO, and something that, thinking back on it, I feel is probably somewhat lost on players who are just beginning and applying the learn by copying method (which is, obviously, a very good method if you know what to watch and copy). I really think this discussion could benefit a lot of players out there.
As for the particular hisako setup, while it is pretty strong, it also comes with the package of a character who herself suffers really badly on wake up against good oki. That should definitely be taken into consideration when weighing how it is too strong or not. Also, consider that in her myriad of very oppressive oki options, if she doesn’t get the right read and her opponent guesses/reads right and avoids the setup, she is at worst very punishable (most of them) or at best negative, and relinquishes her turn. Most vortex characters who are really really strong don’t suffer from this, IMO. (something in which I believe shinsako is a whole other beast, but that’s an entirely different discussion to have).
I’m not entirely sure what I’ve been asked to give my opinion on. Whether the Hisako setup is too strong, or if ANY setup that eliminates multiple options from your opponent at the same time is too strong, regardless of character or game?