| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ssvegeta1010
Trick Member
Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Location: Keene, NH |
140.  Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dakota wrote: |
And wtf, we're talking about martial arts now? This has nothing to with DDR and no analogy can make a coherant relationship between the two. Stop trying to inflate your e-penis by 'impressing' all of us using karate jargon. |
In addition to his martial arts analogy, he also made the analogy of soldiers cutting off their limbs, about how that has nothing to do with making them more "courageous". That was a simplification that even you should understand.
Also, Kilroy mainly explained his feelings with this:
| Quote: | | Alright, fine. I admit I'm just fond of cockiness and undue stubborness in the face of adversity. |
And that explains it, and makes some sense. Going to a national tournament and doing 1x no bar when you know you are better 3-5x bar, and still trying to win, is just cocky. If you win, some people will respect what you did, others will see it as just plain cockiness. Being elitist about not using the bar is just cocky, because people like that seem to think that they are better than bar users with higher scores than them. Factually, they are just plain wrong in just about every case (since the bar isn't just an automatic 50% boost in skill for someone who never has used it before).
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Irish.MTA (Retired?)
Trick Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: Clemson, SC |
| 141. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | I think the fact that no one has yet been able to employ no-bar techniques with the same degree of effect and consistency as bar techniques to suggest barless techniques are more intriquite. |
Or perhaps inferior?
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | To use an example, I think someone who practices a highly complex, rigid martial arts system using only classical kata to be more impressive that someone who uses simple, easily developed and more powerful techniques that are much more effective. |
Funny, I would consider that first person to be an idiot. If you can do something simple that works better... isn't that more applicable to any situation that might call for its use?
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | I choose flash over function. |
Well that explains everything. You simply have a different objective when it comes to... well anything. You want to look impressive to people who don't understand what's happening.
I can shine up and modify the body of a car that has no engine and someone might see it and think, "Wow, that's a nice car," when it's hardly a car at all.
I can get a pretty case for a computer that doesn't work.
I can play no bar and... look silly and get worse scores... and... I guess that's a good thing?
I'd rather play bar and get higher scores because I prefer function to flash. Most people that play the game competitively play to get high scores. High scores win tournaments, not how cool you think someone is for playing no bar. Most people score better/more consistently with the bar so they play that way. It's the smart thing to do for most people.
I would also like to reiterate that Boochypa is the man and that Damien is correct in his statements regarding pizza and pizza related foods or activities.
_________________
The winds of change are oft unpredictable... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kilroy(ZTC)
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
|
| 142. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| z-Irizzle.sizzletgizzle wrote: | Or perhaps inferior?
|
It's already been established that non-bar techniques are generally only inferior for the command skill.
| Quote: | | Funny, I would consider that first person to be an idiot. If you can do something simple that works better... isn't that more applicable to any situation that might call for its use? |
Maybe, but it's not as interesting.
| Quote: | | Well that explains everything. You simply have a different objective when it comes to... well anything. You want to look impressive to people who don't understand what's happening. |
Not at all. I understand at least some of the implications of no-bar play and I still find it impressive.
| Quote: | | I can shine up and modify the body of a car that has no engine and someone might see it and think, "Wow, that's a nice car," when it's hardly a car at all. |
That's nice. We're talking about technique right now though. A car body isn't comparable to a car engine. If you're familiar with Initial D though, a good analogy to my perception of bar vs. no bar might be the use of the Sprinter Trueno against far better cars.
| Quote: | | I can get a pretty case for a computer that doesn't work. |
Again, a computer case isn't comparable to a computers function.
| Quote: | | I can play no bar and... look silly and get worse scores... and... I guess that's a good thing? |
Get close to the same scores less consistently, I think you mean. You look silly whether you bar or not. I think that barless playing is admirable because it shows a willingness to expend a dramatically extra amount of effort with less guarentee of payback.
| Quote: | | I'd rather play bar and get higher scores because I prefer function to flash. Most people that play the game competitively play to get high scores. High scores win tournaments, not how cool you think someone is for playing no bar. Most people score better/more consistently with the bar so they play that way. It's the smart thing to do for most people. |
I never said that competetive players should play barless. Barless play is done for different reasons. If a competetive player wants to play barless I think that is cool. Likewise if barless play is a tournament rule I think that is fine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CHUCK BASS
Trick Member
Joined: 26 Jul 2004
|
| 143. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
^So you can get close to Damiens *** on Summer no bar?
This I gotta see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Irish.MTA (Retired?)
Trick Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: Clemson, SC |
| 144. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
You said flash over function, the flash from a car or PC comes from the chassis, the function comes from the hardware that makes it run. I stand by it.
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | It's already been established that non-bar techniques are generally only inferior for the command skill. |
Generally, not always.
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | Get close to the same scores less consistently, I think you mean. |
No, I suck without the bar because I suck without speed mods. I have a playing style that you don't really see much outside the Southeast. I can't audibly time, so I have to visually time. I find that I visually time better when the arrows are moving faster (to a point) and I have very quick reflexes, so I play on really high speed mods. I don't do that well reading 700 BPM no bar and it's harder for me to double step without it. I play bar and I get much better scores much more consistently with it. Primarily, though, the shortcoming is my ability to read low speeds (less than 500 BPM), the bar use is stems from my need to read higher speeds (600 - 700 BPM) and the difficulty in reacting to those speeds without a minimalist style.
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | You look silly whether you bar or not. |
I would never deny that, but it neither matters to me nor has anything to do with... well... anything.
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | I think that barless playing is admirable because it shows a willingness to expend a dramatically extra amount of effort with less guarentee of payback. |
There's nothing wrong with barless play when you get right down to it. As a style it is, by and large, inferior. That's not to say people can't be good at it or that it's not impressive to see high scores done without the bar, but the only thing I (and I think most players) really care about is the score - bar or no bar is a comment you can make to go along with posting the score, but the score is the important part for most.
Again, though: It's a game. A game without explicitly defined rules. Do whatever you want, just don't tell anyone they're doing it wrong.*
*Unless they're trying to score and hitting gallops as stream or dumb crap that happens all the time at the beach.
_________________
The winds of change are oft unpredictable... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kilroy(ZTC)
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
|
| 145. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FTG_ZMatrix wrote: | ^So you can get close to Damiens *** on Summer no bar?
This I gotta see. |
I can't Damien probably can.
| z-Irizzle.sizzletgizzle wrote: | | You said flash over function, the flash from a car or PC comes from the chassis, the function comes from the hardware that makes it run. I stand by it. |
I was referring to the flashiness of the techniques, which by definition possess some degree of function. If you were flailing around off of the pad during the game and failed after 15 misses or whatever and you said that was the best way to play the game, then you would be an idiot.
| Quote: | | Generally, not always. |
I'm speaking in generalities.
| Quote: | | ]No, I suck without the bar because I suck without speed mods. I have a playing style that you don't really see much outside the Southeast. I can't audibly time, so I have to visually time. I find that I visually time better when the arrows are moving faster (to a point) and I have very quick reflexes, so I play on really high speed mods. I don't do that well reading 700 BPM no bar and it's harder for me to double step without it. I play bar and I get much better scores much more consistently with it. Primarily, though, the shortcoming is my ability to read low speeds (less than 500 BPM), the bar use is stems from my need to read higher speeds (600 - 700 BPM) and the difficulty in reacting to those speeds without a minimalist style. |
Interesting. The lack of a minimalist style is really what allows for inconsistency though, so I'm not sure why you're arguing that your non-minimalist bar style is better than someone elses non-minimalist no-bar style.
| Quote: | | ]I would never deny that, but it neither matters to me nor has anything to do with... well... anything. |
Sure it did, you brought it up as an example of why barless playing is foolish.
| Quote: | | Again, though: It's a game. A game without explicitly defined rules. Do whatever you want, just don't tell anyone they're doing it wrong |
I don't think I ever said using the bar was wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Irish.MTA (Retired?)
Trick Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: Clemson, SC |
| 146. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | Generalities. |
Kay.
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | I don't think I ever said using the bar was wrong. |
You didn't, and I didn't say you did. I said don't.
I really have no idea what points are even trying to be made anymore.
Pretty sure I'm done with this thread.
_________________
The winds of change are oft unpredictable... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
damienkc
Trick Member
Joined: 04 Jan 2005
|
| 147. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FTG_ZMatrix wrote: | ^So you can get close to Damiens *** on Summer no bar?
This I gotta see. |
hay that's supposed to be a secret, i'm bad at no bar remember?!
_________________
Hi there, asl pix? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 148. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | It's already been established that non-bar techniques are generally only inferior for the command skill. |
Unfortunately, command is both the most interesting and the most important skill in the game.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IHYD.DukAmok
Trick Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Location: Corona, CA |
| 149. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John Locke wrote: | | Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | It's already been established that non-bar techniques are generally only inferior for the command skill. |
Unfortunately, command is both the most interesting and the most important skill in the game. |
i beg to differ
the subsets of stamina and speed are far more impressive than command, in my opinion.
_________________
| Sappy_!?! wrote: | | just to answer, if someone who stands next to you watching you play PSMO but you get a D on it, versus somebody who understands perfect attacking and stuff, will think you suck. A player is considered good in my opinion when a player of a higher level comments about you or see's you triple A a song. Or if somebody looks up to you. Hope it clarifies. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 150. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I said the most interesting, not the most impressive. Stamina is definitely the most impressive. Speed is not a primary skill.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dakota
Trick Member
Joined: 28 Feb 2006
|
| 151. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Could I just say that every argument anyone could possibly make in this thread has already been argued by someone else in the past at least 10 times. Likewise, every counter argument that could be used against the other side has already been said by someone else in the past at least 10 times. And people are still arguing over this; online I might add. I've never had an arguement about bar/no bar in real life.
So who still cares?
_________________
...almost as cool as Cartoon Hero |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 152. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dakota wrote: | | Could I just say that every argument anyone could possibly make in this thread has already been argued by someone else in the past at least 10 times. |
My argument was from the statistic LUCK. Since I literally discovered that statistic three weeks ago, and since I am definitely the first person to discover it, this claim is totally false.
| Dakota wrote: | | Likewise, every counter argument that could be used against the other side has already been said by someone else in the past at least 10 times. |
Nobody has presented a sound objection to my argument. Please feel free to do so, or feel free to stop talking.
| Dakota wrote: | | So who still cares? |
Please continue to post frequently about not posting.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ihcw.stefank687
Trick Member
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
|
| 153. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Since we are talking about stats and skills? How much more EXP until i level up? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kilroy(ZTC)
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
|
| 154. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John Locke wrote: | | I said the most interesting, not the most impressive. Stamina is definitely the most impressive. Speed is not a primary skill. |
So since no-bar playing typically requires non-minimalist and therefore highly stamina based techniques you concede that barless playing is more impressive generally than bar playing (although not as interesting to you)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 155. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | So since no-bar playing typically requires non-minimalist and therefore highly stamina based techniques you concede that barless playing is more impressive generally than bar playing (although not as interesting to you)? |
I certainly do not. The stamina of a minimalist player is much more impressive then the stamina of a non-minimalist player. It's much more impressive to watch somone SDE Bloodrush with the bar then pass it without the bar.
Moreover, that would be like saying I find houses made of mud more impressive than skyscrapers, because they use worse building techniques. To say that I find cave paintings more impressive than Da Vinci, because they use worse materials and techniques. Or, to go back to our analogy of before, I find the kata of Ona-ha Itto Ryu most impressive because they are worthless. I don't.
I find the highest level of performance at an art the most impressive. That highest level, for In the Groove, involves minimalist playstyles and therefore bar use. I should add that I am not alone in this regard. Which sport gets televised: Major League Baseball or Sub-Saharan Stickball?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kilroy(ZTC)
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
|
| 156. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John Locke wrote: | | I certainly do not. The stamina of a minimalist player is much more impressive then the stamina of a non-minimalist player. It's much more impressive to watch somone SDE Bloodrush with the bar then pass it without the bar. |
I thought we were discussing the variance in command, not score. Also I think you are defining stamina differently than me. If it took twice the energy to play a song no bar than it does to play a song with bar (hypothetically), then if both a minimalist-bar player and a non-minamalist-non-bar player play the same number of songs then the latter has expended twice the energy. If they both attained the same score at any one time I would consider the latter more impressive, even though they cannot generally replicate this.
| Quote: | | Moreover, that would be like saying I find houses made of mud more impressive than skyscrapers, because they use worse building techniques. To say that I find cave paintings more impressive than Da Vinci, because they use worse materials and techniques. Or, to go back to our analogy of before, I find the kata of Ona-ha Itto Ryu most impressive because they are worthless. I don't. |
Frankly, I find the effeciency and simplicity of primitive adobe construction to be much more impressive than that of many modern skyscrapers. I don't particularly think these analogies are effective for several reasons though. First of all, we're comparing similar accomplishments using different techniques. You've stated command is the only technique which is guarenteed to suffer from non-bar use. The comparison, if we wanted to continue with buildings, would in my mind be the difference between a skyscraper built by hand and a skyscraper built by machine. Obviously machine built skyscrapers are built more effeciently and more consistently. However, if both skyscrapers are exactly identical down to the last bolt then I would be more impressed by the former.
Edit: On a similar note, which do you consider more impressive, the Taj Mahal or a Generic Skyscraper?
| Quote: | | I find the highest level of performance at an art the most impressive. That highest level, for In the Groove, involves minimalist playstyles and therefore bar use. I should add that I am not alone in this regard. Which sport gets televised: Major League Baseball or Sub-Saharan Stickball? |
I think the better comparison would be between major league baseball and minor league baseball. If two players from both major and minor league were to have comparable achievements, but the person from the minor league managed to attain his achievements through the use of lesser techniques, mightn't that suggest to you that he had a firmer grasp of his lesser techniques than the major league player had of his superior techniques? If a person has a possible variance from 60%-99% actualized ability, and another has a possible variance from 80%-99% actualized ability, isn't the former more impressive in the rare instance when they actually achieve that 99%? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 157. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | If it took twice the energy to play a song no bar than it does to play a song with bar (hypothetically), then if both a minimalist-bar player and a non-minamalist-non-bar player play the same number of songs then the latter has expended twice the energy. If they both attained the same score at any one time I would consider the latter more impressive, even though they cannot generally replicate this. |
I certainly wouldn't. It would be obvious through the playstyles that the bar player was the superior player, and the rigid discipline of his technique would be extremely impressive. The bar player would be doing exactly the minimum necessary movement to achieve his results, the no-bar player would be flailing around with a lot of inelegant needless movement and getting his results on a fluke. When Barry Bonds (who I select only because of his extremely minimalist swing, assume for the comparison his achievments are untainted) hits a home run by flicking his wrists, baseball players find it much more impressive then when, say, catcher Henry Blanco hits a home run by swining so hard he screws himself into the ground and getting lucky by a fluke.
Likewise, most swordsman would consider the Sasoku-Ken from Tennen Rishin Ryu (in which there is so little movement untrained observers don't even realize there is movement, but which is instantly lethal) much more impressive then a huge gumai-giri (in which the sword is swung at the absolute maximum arc and the body goes way off balance to support the overcommitment).
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kilroy(ZTC)
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
|
| 158. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is the disparity of techniques so great that for an expert swordsman to be killed by a gumai-giri would be a severe insult? Becuase if it is, I would find that to be an impressive fluke.
Edit: I'm not sure I would call the thing a fluke anyways. It's just one isolated instance of actualizing a skill perfectly. The perfection makes it impressive, not the consistency with which it is attained. In fact, if it is less probable that it can be attained then it is more interesting when it is. Didn't you bring up soushi's tri cut one time? Is that a comparably effective/consistent technique to other sword techniques? From the description it sounded like an impressive technique, despite the fact it has yet to be performed by any living swordsman. I assume that has something to do with the multi-tiered nature of the cut (you said it has three components). So it's obviously not a minimalist cut. Would you still consider it more impressive to see actualized than a more minimalist cut? I would.
EDIT 2: You also once said that you thought people should strive to make art movies despite the fact they are far less likely to succeed than commercial movies. So that's 2 contradictions, or at least that's how it looks from here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 159. Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | Is the disparity of techniques so great that for an expert swordsman to be killed by a gumai-giri would be a severe insult? |
No, it's just a worse cut.
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | it's obviously not a minimalist cut. |
Maybe you don't understand how I'm using minimalism. Souji's cut is so minimalistic nobody can replicate it. The reason he is capable of three cuts (and we are not) is because he had much less extraneous movement then we do. It's the most minimalistic move in modern swordsmanship. Minimalist technique on ITG is likewise much better, and harder, to perform.
| Kilroy(ZTC) wrote: | | EDIT 2: You also once said that you thought people should strive to make art movies despite the fact they are far less likely to succeed than commercial movies. |
I never said this. I said such movies are inherently better, not that people ought to make them. I don't tell other people what to do with their money.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
Forums FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
