All Round Escape (ARE)

Well, I haven't read most of this thread so far, so I'm not sure what everyone has been talking about up to this point. But to answer Myke's question, based on what shou explained to me in NY, the evade~P~33 works to beat throw when you're at a small disadvantage of -3 or less, and still get the MC dodge if they attack. Where doing evade~33P won't beat throw. I haven't really tested or played around with it much, and it sounds a lot like what Myke posted originally, so perhaps they're the same thing, and some information was misunderstood somehow in NY.

 

It's for real...

..and I'm uploading the movie to prove it /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Your first inclination when you see the movie will probably be to think "creed's a scrub and is just fucking up his throws by entering them late".
All I can say is keep watching. ARE works all the way up to -7 situations. I can't be scrubbing up the throw THAT badly.
edit - further testing revealed this is incorrect, it works up to -5

It is exactly as srider described it. I'm getting an attack blocked, entering , , ... really quickly and with a certain timing. It's almost like entering u+P, crouch dash.

When it works, you will do your FC uppercut or whatever other move during the opponent's throw with absolutely ZERO dodge animation. In my opinion you do not dodge at all, the game is interpreting what you did as a modified upper.

When the opponent attacks, you of course dodge. At small disadvantage you will dodge, crouch dash, and smack them with a low punch. Interestingly, at a large disadvantage you will simply dodge and then crouch dash, the game "forgets" your punch. I don't know why.

In any case, if anyone (hi alucard!) really really doesn't believe it, try this test. Record kage doing stuff like elbow, ARE or sidekick, ARE. Keep practicing until you see NO animation between your attack and your FC move. When you think it looks absolutely frame perfect, play it back on yourself and try to throw kage, or attack him. You will magically get beaten every time.

Neat technique! I plan on practicing it and throwing all other stuff out the window /versus/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Oh, you'll want the video link. It shows ARE working at -4 (blocked elbow), -5 (blocked sidekick), -6 (blocked FC upper), and -7 (jeffry d+K+G hitting).
edit: the last two are actually -5 frames, not -6 or -7. Sorry!

http://media.virtuafighter.com/media/ARE_full.avi

 

Re: It's for real...

Heh... you are so funny. When did I say that dodge --> is the same as ECD --> FC move(or ARE)? The "ARE" technique(first post) Myke posted is exactly the same as ECD--> FC move, thats a fact, I merely pointed it out.

The technique(termed "ARE" by Arcadia) posted by Myke is NOT the same as dodge -->. If this technique does indeed work up to -7, well...cool. "ARE" certainly does not, as I've said.

Anyway, thanks for the vid and info, I'll test it myself and report back if I find anything different.

 

Re: It's for real...

Yes, it appears myke is posting something else entirely. It's not quite ECD into a FC attack because in myke's example punch is entered twice. Once to get a low punch in case of throw, again to get a double palm in case of a successful dodge.

What I'm doing is something mentioned in chat, and the discussion revolved around myke's post. I read about doing punch before the crouch dash motion. I guess the punch-first technique should have its own name (though all-round-escape is a very accurate name for it since it works at a larger disadvantage than the ECD lowpunch/dbpm trick myke's posting).

 

oops. Not -7. Or -6.

Sorry! I posted incorrectly. The trick actually doesn't work at -6 or -7. I'd mistakenly had kage's uppercut as a -6 move in my head, and jeffry's d+K+G is only -5 on hit, not -7. Thanks to shou for clearing that up.
I tried several times to do it at definite -6 and -7 situations (goh's standing K is -6, jacky's new f+K is -7) and couldn't get it even once. Or rather, I got it, but a perfect quick P+G throw still nabbed me. If you delay the throw by a frame or two then you may miss.

Some side notes -

When lau does it perfectly at -5 he gets a df+P (downknife) and not a lifting palm. Bummer.

When akira does it, he gets a low punch, not yoho. Bummer (but not really).

The timing seems harder the more behind you are in frames. But that's probably my imagination. In reality, it's likely that you have a little more room for error at -3 and -4, while -5 needs to be frame perfect and -6 can't work at all.
I remember testing to see if modified moves are truly instant and found that they seem to need 2 frames to come out no matter what. Maybe that 2 frame restriction is also the reason why this technique won't work at -6 and -7 ... you're TRYING to do a modified attack but you have that two frame window to wait through first.

 

Re: It's for real...

Interesting...so dodge attack appears to be a wholly different technique than dodge , even from a functional perspective. I'm still very puzzled as to why no dodge comes out in a throw-attempt situation, however. I'll experiment with this when I get home.

Creed, have you tried setting it up so that it's the CPU that does the throw or attack when +3 to +5? I.e., get CPU Akira to do a DE, throw as one action and DE, DE as the other action (make sure you're buffering in the second command so it's immediate). Set the two actions at 50% each, purposely get hit by the DE so you're at -3, and then experiment with dodge .

The less complicated the CPU's required actions, the better since we don't really know how exactly the CPU interprets and replays commands. In your video it's the CPU that's doing the ARE, so there may be something funky going on in that process that's causing the dodge not to appear (and punch to disappear, etc.).

 

Re: It's for real...

Well, here's the deal... from myke's explanation of ARE, which is essentially a from crouch attack tacked onto the motion... I'm doing the first part of ARE in a different order. But whether you do CD motion --> punch or punch --> CD motion, the gist of it is that by adding the punch, you are tricking the CPU somehow to get an attack in situations where E,CD,FC move will fail (-3,-4,-5).

It's entirely possible the game is accepting two ways of inputting the same thing. It's also possible (but to me doubtful) that I am entering really shoddy inputs and what I -think- is 8,P,33 is actually 8,33,P. But I'm really making a point of hitting punch first.


I have yet to try +5 situations. I could allow the CPU to hit me with a jab, and 50 percent of the time do a knee and 50 percent of the time do a throw, and see if I can 8P33 out of it reliably. The problem is that I can't do this technique that well (don't let the movies fool you) and it wouldn't prove anything if my crappy pad skills kept me from avoiding a throw or eating the knee.

Anyway -
It seems pretty clear that having the CPU play the action back is a safe and reliable test because I know the CPU simply plays back your exact inputs (without regards to the situation, i.e. if you program the CPU to low kick by pressing d+K, it will play that back while knocked down and do a rising sweep)

 

Re: It's for real...

Well, the difference is that if you dodge attack you WILL see the dodge in either situation (i.e. if the opponent throws or attacks)--Myke and I tested this and came to the same conclusion independently.

Based on your movies, it seems that you don't get the dodge at all if the opponent throws. This leads me to conclude they are two different techniques. Also, as far as I am aware, dodge attack works only up to -4; I haven't personally tested it at -5, but Alucard's earlier post suggests that he has and that it doesn't work at -5. Your experiment's conclusions suggest that dodge does work at -5 and that would make it a superior technique.

Anyway -
It seems pretty clear that having the CPU play the action back is a safe and reliable test because I know the CPU simply plays back your exact inputs

Well I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't have a specific example in mind but I do remember plenty of times when the CPU did not do exactly what I had recorded (i.e. was a little bit late in executing, or nothing came out at all, etc.), especially when the sequences were complicated and frame sensitive.


EDIT: Whoops, sorry, forgot that DE normal hit leaves you at +2. Use + instead. (Tested with both and started with DE first to make sure I can at least do it in easier situations).

 

Re: It's for real...

So to underline it all -

ECD + no attack: works up to -3 in old versions but will lose to throw in evo.
ECD + attack: works up to -3 in all versions but no further. Always has at least one frame of dodging.
ECD+low punch input: Works up to -4? -5? Results in low punch or dodge. No dodge frames.
ARE: ECD+low punch input+FC attack, which adds value to a successful E-CD sequence. No dodge frames.
CreeD's weirdness: works up to -5, may just be the same as ECD+low punch input, and should be confirmed through other tests + input display. No dodge frames.

Things to check out:
Why does a successful execution of the above weirdness result in a FC attack for kage and a df+P downknife for lau? Why do I get ECD, low punch sometimes and just ECD other times? In the jeffry example I don't even get the CD.
With this in mind, can I get added value to my weirdness technique by tacking on a big move at the end? Can I get akira to option select between low punch or E-bodycheck for example?

re: CPU recording - I know of specific instances that proved to me that the computer is paying attention to inputs rather than attacks. I also have seen it fuck up at least once when trying something relatively simple. So we agree there. My initial test for -7 was going to be jeffry's db+P+K. Jeffry would do a standing upper if the db+P+K was blocked, and would only do CreeD's Weirdness if the db+P+K hit. So the inputs were subtly changing based on factors that shouldn't matter at all.

Still, I know the game interprets things but input and not by attack. If I record lau doing df+K,P,P and then I play shun and lie down, lau's df+K will turn into a ground stomp. Stuff like that happens all the time, I record PP, delay, K+G and the CPU will do PP (I dodge and end up behind) TT kick. You get the picture.

 

Re: It's for real...

creed,

aren't you still, in the above post, making the mistake of saying that ARE is a ECD-into low P followed by a FC attack?

as myke pointed out, the attacks tacked on to the end of ARE are standing attacks, which only come out in the case of a successful dodge (you can't cancel the successful dodge with a CD, so the CD low P is eaten during the dodge); i.e. Akira's Standing Palm comes out from the b, f+P, not a DblPm.

Spotlite

 

Re: It's for real...

I guess I was 1 frame off. I guess what I was trying to advocated initially is that what myke described at the very beginning did not seem to be a new technique that Arcadia would name ARE. What he posted initially seemed just like ECD->attack. This is why I was kind of going off on how ARE is really something else. Sorry if I made anyone mad or confused, it's just frustrating sometimes when people don't understand what I'm trying to say. Thanks to Creed and all those other people who put the time and tested out this technique.

oh.. and thanks for not putting me off, those of you.

/versus/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

Re: It's for real...

Ok, I've tested all three techniques. My "findings":

1. I think I know what "ARE" is right now. Its actually a more powerful variation of ECD -->FC move.

When ECD--> FC move is done correctly, you will get the FC attack when your opponent tries to throw you, and dodge when he goes for a linear strike. The problem is that(as Myke has said), nothing comes out after the dodge if you do ECD-->FC move and your opponent attacks. "ARE" solves this problem because essentially, an attack has been buffered into the end of the technique. Of course, anything can be buffered into the end, in Myke's example, its .

Conclusion is ARE is almost the same as ECD--> FC move, the only difference is that with ECD-->FC move, you get nothing if you dodge(opponent attacks), with "ARE", you get the buffered or whatever you like.

2. This technique works up to -5, not -4. My mistake. I read about this technique months ago on a Jap BBS, and they were saying that at -5, its virtually impossible. I tried it several times then and I couldn't get it even once. I tried it again earlier and I was able to do it twice. I recorded as Kage, did sidekick(blocked), then proceeded to do dodge, . I then played it back on myself. I was able to beat out both throws(mashed +) and strikes(mashed ).

IMHO, the timing is too difficult to be useful at -5. I can do it about 80% of the time at -4, but I had to try about 50 times before I could succeed once at -5. Its probably possible to pull it off at -6 or even -7, but I think its also probably humanly impossible.

3. I then proceeded to try dodge-->. I couldn't pull it off even once at -5, but could do it a few times at -4. I'm sure its just me, because the timing for this is totally different from dodge, . I think I'm too used to the conventional method. I'm sure it will work at -5, if its done properly.

My conclusion is that both input methods work reliably to beat nitaku situations at -4/-3, but it gets too difficult(IMO) at -5 and above.

Myke:
Yeah, there is a 1f or so dodge animation. Heh... hard to spot without motion display.

 

Re: It's for real...

Yeah, this has been explained to me now a couple of times...the confusion came about because the testing I've done with my punch-first technique causes a full E CD if the opponent attacks. The dodge isn't cancelled but a crouch dash comes out anyway. The reason for that is probably that I'm spamming the crouch dash input instead of making it just once.

 

Re: It's for real...

So what is ARE now? /versus/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

This is what I understand from what I've read in Arcadia...

First, I'd like to point out that ARE is the common name used for the dodge - CD - attack concept. The order listed isn't necessarily the order in which you do it (dodge first all the time though). The important thing is that you can use this technique to avoid the throw/attack (usually mid) nitaku situation when you're at a disadvantage. When you do an ARE technique correctly, if the opponent attacks, you get a MC (sic) dodge. If the opponent tries to throw, you stop it with an attack. That's it. /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ok, I haven't really said anything that people haven't posted about already. However, with all this discussion about how ECD->FC, ECD, ARE etc is different/same/better/faster/healthier/suckier, it seems that most people have been trying to classify ARE in relation to similar techniques (namely ECD->FC) and somehow making it a point to keep all these things totally separate. There is overlap... a lot actually. It makes sense to keep these things separate in your mind since you want to use the best technique in a given situation but I don't think it's particularly necessary.

Anyway, in the example that Myke gave, the + at the end isn't part of ARE (as described by Arcadia). That was just an example of what you can counterattack with when you do ARE and you get the dodge instead of attack. Basically, it's just explaining that if you enter + and get the dodge, then you pretty much get an automatic counter attack (with the CD, being eaten up in the dodge as Spotlite mentioned). That's true for MC (sic) dodges even if you don't do ARE, so it's just extra icing on the cake.

WIth that said, I say that ECD->FC is an application of the ARE concept. Why? Because as another person said, if you do it correctly, you get FC if the opponent tries to throw and a dodge if the opponent tries to attack. That's the definition of ARE.

Now, the most common attack (easiest?) used in ARE is likely +, but Arcadia states that you can do other stuff besides down P. Arcadia defines this as "ARE attack". You can do ARE standing ... which is dodge ~ (or ). That should look familiar (The technique demoed in NY). ARE elbow is possible too... hard as hell for me though. I believe I've even done ARE single palm with Akira. Hmm... that's a FC move... so the input would be dodge +. Isn't that ECD->FC?

Anyway, I believe you can do ARE "any attack" as long as you're fast enough... given that you're able to input the command within the time you're at a disadvantage... so usually between 3-6(?) frames.

I wonder if it's possible to do ARE standing palm? So if the opponent tries to throw, you palm them... if you dodge their attack, buffer the standing palm to hit them that way. /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'll need to experiment with that. The more I think about the possibilities with ARE, it almost seems like you're at a disadvantage if you manage to set up a nitaku situation. hehe. Time to use those circular attacks!

Anyway, that's my interpretation of what ARE is and how similar techniques are in fact specific applications of ARE... based on what's in Arcadia.

 

Re: It's for real...

On a side note.. I still think Arcadia might have messed up somewhat by saying is ARE, since that looks like ECD to me.. but maybe it's another way of inputting .

I think it's clear to everyone by now (or this should now be clarified once again...) that ARE is NOT ECD->attack. The difference here is that ECD->attack will only beat out a throw attempt under so much disadvantage. ARE, however, breaks that barrier. I personally believe that if you can do the command fast enough, you "should" be able to ARE even at a -7 situation. Creed's testing shown that it's possible up to -5, but something tells me that number depends on the move and character both applying the nitaku situation and the move used as the or attack in the ARE. (such as Lau doing FC or his ).
Anyways, I think generally, ARE will be your best option in a nitaku situation. The only thing that would prevent you from doing ARE is it's difficulty, assuming that you're not playing theory fighter here. (I don't care about ARE not working for crescent attack or delayed attack cause statistic wise ARE will win the most) It should also be emphasized that when you do NOT get a MC evade, doing ARE will allow you to attack with almost no delay from the canceled evade. (I don't know if there really is a delay from the canceled evade but I KNOW that it's a lot less than if you do ECD) So in the case of someone doing a delayed attack, such as akira's , there is a chance that you will beat it.

But like what vf4akira said.. there are so many things that overlap between ARE and ECD that it's hard to quantify the difference. All of these things now I have stated before, but I guess to be clear I'll sum it up for ARE

1) ARE will get you a MC dodge when you are at frame disadvantage if the opponent does a linear attack.
2) ARE will get you a or attack if the opponent goes for a throw when you are at frame disadvantage.
3) The attacks done with ARE is either a normal standing or unless your character have FC moves. (this is important as this is a distinction between ECD and ARE where ECD you are attacking from a CD position where as with ARE it is not the case)
4) The threshold of frame disadvantage at this point as test by Creed have shown is -5 frames. I personally think this is still to be determined.
5) If you do get an unsuccessful evade, AND your opponent does not react with linear attack or throw, your character will do the attack done with ARE.

It's hard to classify ARE as an attack with evade properties... or an evade with attack properties, but if you do ARE in a neutral situation, it is an attack as your character does just a or or in special cases an instant FC attack. I hope this clears things up a little. The only uncertainties now is whether ARE will work beyond the -5 frame threshold (which I believe it's possible), and that if Arcadia did mess up or that is really the same as .

 

Re: It's for real...

re: the -5 barrier... alucard did his own testing and it took 20491029 tries to get it at -5, and nothing further seemed possible. I tested -7 (blocked jacky f+K) forever. I always lost to throw, even when I appeared to do a flawless ep33. That's the nickname by the way for dodge, punch, CD. E (dodge)+P(punch)+33(df,df) = EP33, or "epee". Cute eh? Godeater came up with it.

I think I mentioned this to you, but the reason ARE can't beat -7 is possibly because a crouch dash is not truly an instant crouch. It takes 2 frames (from my experience) to crouch. So your character is STARTING to do a modifed whatever move... but they simply get thrown before they can legally crouch.

Theory fighter is a good term to apply to all this - At -1 or -2 you should be doing motion cut, it's easier and gets the job done. At -5 and up ARE is too hard and you are better off just guessing or EDTEGing. So ARE and epee are only truly handy at -3 and -4 specifically. That's a small handful of moves in any given character's arsenal. And it's very easy to fuck up in game conditions even if you DO remember to try it at -4 or so.

 

Re: It's for real...

I have to agree with vf4akira, after more testing, that they do seem like the same technique. I'm not even going to bother eyeballing whether or not a dodge comes out...as long as they are both functionally equivalent who really cares whether there's a 1-frame. Personally, using ECD -> attack at -4 was pretty difficult and -5 was near impossible, whereas the "EPEE" method felt so awkward to my fingers I had trouble pulling it off at -3, much less -5.

(I'm calling them both ARE).

Anyway, this is a pretty powerful technique when used appropriately and is another example (if put in the game on purpose) of how VF4 widens the gap between an advanced player and an intermediate player much more than VF3 ever did. A player who doesn't know about ARE will be amazed at how accurately his opponent is able to guess between a throw and an attack at small to medium disadvantge situations.

Cheers to Myke for posting this, and shame on those who knew about this technique but didn't care to share it.

 

Re: It's for real...

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if I made anyone mad or confused, it's just frustrating sometimes when people don't understand what I'm trying to say

[/ QUOTE ]

Srider, one suggestion that you may or may not want to take is to note the tone you're using when you post, especially when the point you are arguing is basically one of semantics (i.e. what is ARE). Your responses to Alucard in particular were uncalled for, especially considering that Alucard was trying to be polite--until he couldn't take it anymore...then OK, gloves off.