Whenever KI players talk about risk vs reward, I think about this match of SF4

People have been talking mess about SF4 for a while but so, so many good matches came out of it. This has always been one of my favorites.

I don’t wanna hear anyone say giving the opponent a chance to break or going for a counterbreaker is “too risky” ever again. :v


Without even clicking on the topic, I thought “I bet it’s the Daigo vs Gamerbee match at Dreamhack”


Daigo was an absolute monster in that match. Stuff like that is a good reminder of why he’s so famous.

To compare this to KI is also interesting, because if Daigo gets one of those blocked, Gamerbee has like 100 frames to do an easy FADC ultra combo for a bazillion damage, and Daigo’s reward is really just about 160 damage + mental damage to Gamerbee (which is very important).

In KI, you have like 40 frames to punish a counter breaker, maybe less, most people usually just throw you for 8% damage because it’s hard to suddenly think about pressing a heavy normal there, and your reward is usually 60% damage plus just as much mental damage as the SF4 thing (because you get rewards for doing heavy auto-doubles or shadows later that your opponent just simply can’t discount, whereas Gamerbee has multiple varying OS options to defend against risky DPs that he can go to if he is scared, forcing Daigo’s next read to be really varied if he wants to succeed). And people still don’t wanna try.


Also notable that daigo (in this match as well as many others) favors the heavy uppercut, which is less invincible than the medium, only one hit, and can’t be FADCed. I imagine he does it mostly for the mental damage, but also because it’s a chunk more damage on counter hit.

It’s not just the uppercuts, either; daigo’s insistent use of 6HP in the second match, eventually baiting the uppercut, would easily lose to gamerbee just pressing a button. In the next round, that stubborn repeated use of the move lets him set up a throw the next time he uses it.

1 Like

I actually won a set against a Killer rank player in Ranked (which feels good, as a Gold, even though I hit Killer once before) because of a couple of balsy counterbreaks while I was on the brink of death.
This kinda gives me that vibe, apart from the fact that the players involved are obviously a lot more skilled than I am, but I can definitely respect the decision making.
Whether that’s just because growing up on First Person Shooters made me an Instant Gratification sort of player or because KI just makes taking risks the most fun way for me to play is probably up for discussion.

Related to the video though: EVO Moment *37 comes to mind for me. Daigo parried Chun-Li’s super and took the extra risk of jumping into the last kick to parry it for the meter he needed to finish with a super of his own. That’s probably one of the coolest things in the history of E-Sports, and it happened before E-Sports were really a thing.
*Edited for factuality

37 is the number you’re looking for :stuck_out_tongue: and honestly while that moment is impressive I don’t think it’s really the same. The risk in that play mostly fell on the execution side of things, which isn’t the same as the risk you take when you commit to a damaging option your opponent can just block. When you’re talking about the interactive, me-vs-you kind of risk, I’d say the situation in moment 37 is a lot less risky than many of the DPs he does in the dreamhack clip–if you watch daigo’s movement, he knows the super is coming well in advance, and preemptively attempts to parry many times. Because parries have no recovery animation, there’s very little risk in doing this.

Moment 37 is probably the most well-known fighting game event to people outside the scene, and it is pretty cool, but I think it also showcases two of the most questionable design decisions in third strike–near risk-free parries, and the absurd power of chun’s super.

1 Like

Thanks for fixing the number for me, m8 :stuck_out_tongue:

But yeah, I’ve seen some pretty similar risk/reward stuff across a lot of games.
Just from my experience in shooters, weapons that are really good have to have some sort of drawback. Either they’re incredibly specialized or situational (Sniper Rifles, Shotguns and even Rocket Launchers come to mind) or they have some other drawback hurting their performance (heavy recoil or meager damage, for example). It becomes a matter of choosing what’s more important in the situation you’re getting into. You may not be ready for every kind of engagement, but there are some engagements you’re essentially guaranteed to win.

Same goes with fighting games. Let’s use the example of a DP as used here. If you’re right, you blow up literally anything your opponent is trying to do and get a nice chunk of damage. If you’re wrong, you’re free as a bird to let the opponent do basically whatever they want.
Where as a safe move usually gets you some reward if you’re right, since their utility comes from their safety.
And of course this goes into the “To counterbreak or not to counter break” discussion.

Same principle, different genre.

Off topic, but in more modern shooters I generally find myself attracted to shotguns because I find their drawback of short range much less frustrating than dealing with automatic weapons with high recoil that you have to use ironsights to hit anything with. In more classic-style shooters I’m fine with with using miniguns or lightning guns because the weapons are way more accurate with less damage, as opposed to the common modern design of assault rifles that kill in 2-3 shots, but are incredibly inaccurate while moving.

Not super relevant to the talk of risk vs reward, I just feel the need to vent my frustrations with what standard modern shooter design has become. Even shooters I really, really like suffer from this.

1 Like

Three thoughts:

  1. Turns out you can take risks and win in a fighting game

  2. Notice the commentators not saying “holy cow Daigo is playing so random and YOLO. Look another guess DP!”

  3. I could never FADC into super to save my life…

1 Like

I’m sorry…it’s been awhile since I played SF4…what does FADC mean?

Focus Attack Dash Cancel

1 Like

What sneerful said. Basically a technique that spends meter to make moves safer and/or extend combos.

1 Like

I always liked focus attacks, but hated FADC

Closest thing we have to FADC in KI is RAAM’s Kryll Shield.

1 Like

Funny, most people are the opposite, disliking focus but appreciating the FADC mechanic.

Yeah, I liked using them as “parry”, but didn’t liked the FADC uses.

I don’t know, I was never fond of them :frowning:

I don’t really like the large-scale effect it has on the neutral when every character has it but my dislike for it is much more mild than how most people feel about it. I think it’s just an unfortunate thing in an otherwise good game.

I suppose I like it because “somehow” it reminds me to parries, which I loved.

I was pretty average on SFIV. I only played with friends of similar level(not a great one), and never improved into more technical stuff. I just had fun playing the game at basic level, an enjoyed reading attacks, using focus to take my friends’ attacks, and punish them with any follow up. It was fun.

They called me “el enfocusao”, which translation would be more or less “the focused” XD