The ability of foresight in a role player is, to me, the single most crucial factor when it comes to fighting. The ability to plan and think ahead, make those plans concise and follow them through, and being quick-minded enough to re-apply thought when that plan perhaps fails. I attribute just about any win I've gained to being able to properly predict, and therefore in a sense control the flow of the fight.
Gun Member
Ðℯṧ℘ℯяαḓo
- Last Seen: 4 yrs ago
- Joined: 11 yrs ago
- Posts: 350 (0.09 / day)
- VMs: 0
-
Username history
- Gun 11 yrs ago
Status
User has no status, yet
Bio
User has no bio, yet
Most Recent Posts
Yeah, this is definitely a case of metagaming rather than interrupting, and has a pretty straightforward answer and result whereas interrupts and where they should or shouldn't be is super suggestive. But your sentiment is the same, and I thank you for sharing in my pain xD
Edit: That rhyme at the end? Toootally intentional.
#Bars
Edit: That rhyme at the end? Toootally intentional.
#Bars
@Takashi Hmm, I'm actually not entirely sure about that one. It doesn't sound like he actually prevented any action from happening, or even interacted with the ball. Now if he declared that he was swinging right, then was suddenly swinging left, then yea, bs. But from just what I know in your explanation, if doesn't sound too terrible or too much of a stretch. That was just micrometagaming, which literally everyone does, usually subconsciously. What it sounds like happened, is he was swinging, then changed the direction of it mid-swing. Now without any kind of processing power to speak of, I would again call bs.
I didn't argue with them at the end of the day, because those guys are far worse about defending interrupts than anyone I've met here so far. However, I did agree that his character was calable, and that wasn't my issue. Sure, ya gonna turn my vacuum against me? Fine. I can easily manipulate those present factors and recover. But my actions were A)Nulled because REASONS, and really flimsy(imo) pretenses as to why doing so was oh-so-logical, and B)resulted in my death.
I wasn't even offered an opportunity to deal with it. I told him I wasn't exactly cool with the action for the above reasons, which turned into judges, which ended in me being dead... Because reasons. Because he can just, at will, interrupt anything he pleases. Like I said, it wasn't even the action, it was how it was carried out, and why it was allowed to be carried. And the short answer to me came down to 'interrupts' yet again. I lost a match(and was endlessly irritated in those i won) because of the Willy nillyness, and freedom the interrupt system provided, hence why I have an established separate system. My question was 'well shit, if he can interrupt that legally, what the hell CANT he interrupt?'
That interrupt falls into the 'stupid uses' of interrupts to me as opposed to mechanically fair and logical interrupts that you and I touched on earlier with the sword strike scenario.
Note: we were using the ol' one attack rule. So the vacuum and fire were not two separate actions, but one continuous action(which also came up to the judges, but was ultimately ignored), which is why I was so upset he could just slap it out of the air with virtually no work put in other than maybe googling how vacuums work. He killed me by 'countering' an attack that never occurred lol, hitting every interrupt cliche on the way down from 'reflex speed' to the ever-old 'i iz not gunna stand dere while you do stuff that took literally half a second.'
Shit, maybe there's just some lure or secret to it I'm not getting. I have fought plenty of people with interrupts without any issues, and then ya get stuff like the above, bit when stuff like the above happens, it never, ever feels fair to me as a combatant.
I wasn't even offered an opportunity to deal with it. I told him I wasn't exactly cool with the action for the above reasons, which turned into judges, which ended in me being dead... Because reasons. Because he can just, at will, interrupt anything he pleases. Like I said, it wasn't even the action, it was how it was carried out, and why it was allowed to be carried. And the short answer to me came down to 'interrupts' yet again. I lost a match(and was endlessly irritated in those i won) because of the Willy nillyness, and freedom the interrupt system provided, hence why I have an established separate system. My question was 'well shit, if he can interrupt that legally, what the hell CANT he interrupt?'
That interrupt falls into the 'stupid uses' of interrupts to me as opposed to mechanically fair and logical interrupts that you and I touched on earlier with the sword strike scenario.
Note: we were using the ol' one attack rule. So the vacuum and fire were not two separate actions, but one continuous action(which also came up to the judges, but was ultimately ignored), which is why I was so upset he could just slap it out of the air with virtually no work put in other than maybe googling how vacuums work. He killed me by 'countering' an attack that never occurred lol, hitting every interrupt cliche on the way down from 'reflex speed' to the ever-old 'i iz not gunna stand dere while you do stuff that took literally half a second.'
Shit, maybe there's just some lure or secret to it I'm not getting. I have fought plenty of people with interrupts without any issues, and then ya get stuff like the above, bit when stuff like the above happens, it never, ever feels fair to me as a combatant.
@Rilla Thanks for still trying to get a grasp on everything here. Now onto your inquiry. I've experienced both time weavers and serial interrupters, and I dislike them both equally, but my primary issue with most interruptions I've come across are that they are used handwavy as hell, almost as a way to 'legally' timeline, and get away with it.
Your scenarios are not interrupts insofar as the definition I gave them when they are used illegally(retroactive prevention of an opponents actions), your scenarios are entirely fine by me, actually. I'm pretty sure I said earlier that simultaneous actions don't count as 'interrupts' to me. As in, I swing my sword twice(or at least attempt to) and you clash with my first strike, that's just simple action and reaction.
So essentially, I hate it when people take interrupts to such an extreme that they are essentially time traveling, and that's majority of what I encounter. A recent example was over on Valucre where I created a vacuum, and then I believe something involving fire thrown at the enemy. The enemy then used my vacuum oh-so-cleverly to cause an explosion at point-blank range, completely nullifying the second half of my actions(fire junk). My fire never became an issue, because it never happened, because he stopped it from happening, though he also stood by the 'i iz not gunna watch you do junk. Das stewpid!' when my action was both unprepped, and fast as hell, and all the judges shared his opinion. You see in your scenario, the guy didn't prevent the sword strike from happening, he just... Actually dealt with it lol.
Note: It should be stated that when in cqc situations, my idea of interrupts is a bit more lax, because of the nature of cqc itself. Most times people aren't just going to do a literal single punch or kick, because fights would last hours lol. So doing things like 'interrupting' some dudes 30 punch barrage is also fine with me. But doing something like 'as soon as his arm flexed, I punched first.' thereby changing everything, isn't. And that right there? The whole 'reflexes' excuse to get away with it is the most general reason given.
'I have fast reflexes, so I see you about to move, and instead of preparing and reacting accordingly, I'm gonna argue that my speed and reflexes together would make my interrupt entirely ok and logical.' not that there isn't a defense for that, but I just find that its majorly used as a way to sneak out of unfavorable situations, at least when they were fighting me.
'man, that attack is kinda deadly and I don't really got too many answers for it. OH. I KNOW. ILL JUST STOP IT FROM HAPPENING.'
Your scenarios are not interrupts insofar as the definition I gave them when they are used illegally(retroactive prevention of an opponents actions), your scenarios are entirely fine by me, actually. I'm pretty sure I said earlier that simultaneous actions don't count as 'interrupts' to me. As in, I swing my sword twice(or at least attempt to) and you clash with my first strike, that's just simple action and reaction.
So essentially, I hate it when people take interrupts to such an extreme that they are essentially time traveling, and that's majority of what I encounter. A recent example was over on Valucre where I created a vacuum, and then I believe something involving fire thrown at the enemy. The enemy then used my vacuum oh-so-cleverly to cause an explosion at point-blank range, completely nullifying the second half of my actions(fire junk). My fire never became an issue, because it never happened, because he stopped it from happening, though he also stood by the 'i iz not gunna watch you do junk. Das stewpid!' when my action was both unprepped, and fast as hell, and all the judges shared his opinion. You see in your scenario, the guy didn't prevent the sword strike from happening, he just... Actually dealt with it lol.
Note: It should be stated that when in cqc situations, my idea of interrupts is a bit more lax, because of the nature of cqc itself. Most times people aren't just going to do a literal single punch or kick, because fights would last hours lol. So doing things like 'interrupting' some dudes 30 punch barrage is also fine with me. But doing something like 'as soon as his arm flexed, I punched first.' thereby changing everything, isn't. And that right there? The whole 'reflexes' excuse to get away with it is the most general reason given.
'I have fast reflexes, so I see you about to move, and instead of preparing and reacting accordingly, I'm gonna argue that my speed and reflexes together would make my interrupt entirely ok and logical.' not that there isn't a defense for that, but I just find that its majorly used as a way to sneak out of unfavorable situations, at least when they were fighting me.
'man, that attack is kinda deadly and I don't really got too many answers for it. OH. I KNOW. ILL JUST STOP IT FROM HAPPENING.'
@yoshua171Well, retroactive means retroactive in the sense that its used lol. By that, I mean while actions may be occurring simultaneously, by interrupting and stopping an action from ever having occurred when it was stated previously as currently happening, then you have, quite literally, time travelled, or at least manipulates it grossly. Actions have been entirely removed from the timeline, and is therefore 'retroactive'.
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
@yoshua171 Nothing to really discuss insofar as mechanics, because honestly, you hit every nail right on the head. Your understanding of the system is pretty spot on, bud.
you are yet again going to passively make jabs at me while trying to get the last word.
Ditto.
Ugh, making me rub my temples, man. That is exactly what I'm suggesting, given I stopped talking to you and interacting with you, yet you continued to keep my name in your mouth hours following my sign-off from the issue. If you were as mature as you consistently imply you are, you would have just accepted both of my previous resignations from the issue and maybe not responded yourself? Its a two way street. But anyway, we've both got whatever were gonna get out of it. So unless you are yet again going to passively make jabs at me while trying to get the last word, then yes, we are done here.
Edit: Actually, that isn't what I'm suggesting lol. I am not trying to keep the board clean in some attempt to prove maturity. I just literally wanted you to talk about me in pm's if you absolutely had to. I just don't feel like constantly reading your remarks about me, and I feel others give even less shits about it.
Edit: Actually, that isn't what I'm suggesting lol. I am not trying to keep the board clean in some attempt to prove maturity. I just literally wanted you to talk about me in pm's if you absolutely had to. I just don't feel like constantly reading your remarks about me, and I feel others give even less shits about it.
Well extensive prep is essentially just standing there charging up for a timeframe that stretches a bit too far to just be ignored. No different than preps being able to be stopped under the interrupt system if the guy is blatantly doing it or something.
© 2007-2026