The problem of group vs group combat

[Roac]

Splitting this topic off of this thread, since it fits better here, but that's what got me started.  Quick background on the problem: most MMOGs have a 'problem' where in group vs group combat, it boils down to each side having one guy calling targets in the opposing team who promptly gets assaulted by tremendous odds (10-20 to 1, or worse).  Usually this results in the death of the called target within seconds.  I say problem because although some see it as a viable strategy (and it is), it is also not very much fun for the victim.  It's not all that great for the participants either, since their sense of control needs to be surrendered to the group leader.  Individual participation is largely removed, since any efforts of strategic combat are largely voided by simple mass.  No need to worry about attack/counterattack when the combat is often over in one shot.

* removed /tar and blue dots - intention was to slow down large fights and to give glass classes a bit more chances in a large fight. It ended up brining stacks back in force and made numbers even more important

This is a problem in almost all games, and is a consequence of characters with 1% health being just as effective in delivering dps/healing/etc as someone with 100% health. 

Eve devs have noted this as well, and are considering adding damage-based penalties to targets, so that a ship with 1% hull does not operate at 100% effectiveness.  I think approaches like this are incorrect (as are removing /tar or equivalent).  People who are losing a fight don't need to lose it even *more* by being less effective.  If the desire is to stop people from calling targets, then calling targets needs to be rendered ineffective. 

I would like to see a mechanic where there is a softcap on DPS relative to the number of attackers.  The idea is that as more people start hitting on you, the actual damage done by each is diminished by some amount based on the amount of damage and number of aggressors.  That is, if two people do 10dps each, and both attack the same target, their total dps is 18, not 20.  The total damage done to the target should still go up with each new participant, but in a diminishing returns fashion.  You will still take down a single target quicker by calling, but at the group vs group level your group will do far less dps total if you focus on one than if you spread yourself out. 

It would also open up additional mechanics, if desired, for bonuses/penalties: some weapons/skills/classes could do better or worse when stacked, and some targets/armor/skills may increase stacks used against them.  A rogue class for example may not have high dps or tankability, but compensate for that by highly penalizing anyone who would call them as targets due to dexterous skill at multifighting, for example.  Or, archery may not be penalized at all by stacking while melee is (you just can't get 20 people close enough to one guy to all swing at him at once). 

A MMOG which wanted to utilize sticky combat and real formations would have an even better time at it.  They could for example, state that any target can only have 4 points of melee (front, back, left, right).  Formations would then serve to cover one or more of those points, so that whoever is in the middle of a box formation (healer, mage, etc) is unable to either deliver or receive melee attacks.  Likewise, no player is ever able to be the target of more than four melee attacks at any point which potentially can both limit your offensive capability (your four slots are taken, and you really want to attack some other fifth person) and enable a defensive one (formations/flanking maneuvers). 

[Margalis]

I agree with the latter part of your post.

In real life why don't 100 guys attack 1 guy all at once? The answer is they would if they could - but they can't.

Once you get 3 or 4 guys around someone swinging swords the 5th guy is as likely to hit his own teammate than the enemy. And any guy standing back with a gun is also likely to hit his own teammate.

I don't like scaling back damage with number of attackers because it seems so artificial.

[tazelbain]

GW has spells that say no attack can do more than X% of a person's life.  These can handle most "spikes" of damage.  GW doesn't have large spikes like SB, but a spell like that can still make spikes less inefficent and encourage more tactical play.

Also I'd like a front line and less running around.  There is no time to make tactical decisions while everyone running in circles like idiots.

[Roac]

It isn't high percent damage that's the problem though (although I would think they are from a balance perspective regardless): it's that if I can inflict 1% of your hp in damage every second, and there are 20 of us, you are dead in 5 seconds instead of a minute and a half if it were just you and me.  You wouldn't expect much different if it were 20 on 1, but in group vs group combat this occurs even when each side is roughly equal.  The result is that the combat experience is not nearly as fun for those so victimized, and in my experience, not all that thrilling from the aggressor's side either since combat is far too brief to allow for any form of tactics or strategy. 

[Nebu]

Dumb questions:

1) If effectiveness were to decrease with damage, wouldn't ae damage become ridiculously overpowered? 

2) Wouldn't it become a better strategy to just damage every enemy target rather than killing them one at a time?  I guess some of this would be determined by the damage/effectiveness decay algorithm chosen. 

[Margalis]

Wouldn't it become a better strategy to just damage every enemy target rather than killing them one at a time?  I guess some of this would be determined by the damage/effectiveness decay algorithm chosen. 

One question is what effectiveness would be lowered? *All* effectiveness? For example if I am at half health and a healer do my heals only heal half as much? Or take twice as long to cast? Or have half the range? Or take twice the MP?

My guess would be even with "more damage taken = less effectiveness" you would still want to gang up. Because for one thing a non-dead target can always be healed, whereas a dead target can't. In addition living targets can still cast spells, use abilities, use items, etc. If you each attack one guy the healer can throw healing over time spells on every teammate and effectively double team HP.

I like the idea that you can only attack with X guys at once because it is fluid. You have to be paying attention, it isn't rote. If one of your 4 attackers goes down you have to realize that and take his place.

In addition you can do things like archers have some chance of hitting their own guys, or mages can't cast offensive spells on targets if someone is in the way. (Both heals and offensive spells) I think that would lead to pretty active combat with guys circling, moving around, shifting targets, etc. Or arrows/spells can miss and hit the next guy in line. Things like that.

A lot of numbers makes combat a mess. That is what needs to be reflected.

[Roac]

1) If effectiveness were to decrease with damage, wouldn't ae damage become ridiculously overpowered? 

Depends on how much dps the aoe ability(s) do, what the range is, whether there is a target limit similar to what SB impliments (-ed?), whether aoe effects affect group mates and/or friendlies, whether it is targetable, and all in relation to how much of a decrease we're talking about with an increase in numbers, and whether aoe effects count toward that limit or not. 

2) Wouldn't it become a better strategy to just damage every enemy target rather than killing them one at a time?  I guess some of this would be determined by the damage/effectiveness decay algorithm chosen. 

Not really.  You would be left with a tradeoff; you still have the desire to get kills, because a 1%hp target is still as effective as a 100% target.  However, strategically you have to think beyond just one kill, and instead over the course of combat.  Depending on how much of a dropoff there is, the devs could have significant control over ideal tactics.  They could set a goal, so that your optimum is around 1-2 per target, or 3-4, or whatever.  Instead of measuring damage over time, strategy would be also measured in kills over time which while similar concepts, aren't identical.  The point isn't to make all combat 1v1, but to break the habbit of ganging huge groups on one guy at a time. 

Eve offers a good example on how this can work, albeit with modules.  Ships can be fit with different hardware to increase performance, although sometimes with diminishing returns.  For example, a unit can be added to increase weapon damage by say, 30%.  A second unit can be added for a total gain of 50%, not 60%.  A third can be added to grant 60%.  A fourth may only boost it up to 65%.  You can keep adding for as many slots as you have available (1-8, 8 being on the largest ships), but anything beyond 2 or 3 is a waste not because it ceases to add returns, but because other modules can be added for better overall effectiveness (strategy) even if they don't relate directly to dps.  Some ship loadouts call for none, one, two, or even three; strategies which play into this penalty are still viable and successful, but within practical limits.

[Roac]

One question is what effectiveness would be lowered? *All* effectiveness? For example if I am at half health and a healer do my heals only heal half as much? Or take twice as long to cast? Or have half the range? Or take twice the MP?

In the case of heals, I would think the easiest (perhaps not best) approach would be to consider healing just negative damage, and applicable to the same limits.  That is, the penalty applied is a ABS(x) function so someone healing you would add into the damage done, potentially allowing you to take more damage (at worst, negating part of the healings done).  If healing is all that's being done, the amount hits a similar softcap on the positive side incase it matters.

[Trippy]

One of the big problems with MMORPG PvP combat is that there are few disadvantages if any to turning your back on one enemy and focusing on another. This is why melee gangbanging works and trying to protect "squishies" with tanks does not. In real life weapon combat I would imagine that trying to rush past the guy standing in front of you with a sword to get to the person behind him or her would mean a pretty quick death for you. D&D has the "Attacks of Opportunity" concept but even that I don't think models how dangerous it should be to try to run through some defenders to try and engage the casters in back.

[Arrrgh]

I like the risk of hitting each other idea above.

Why not just make it an escalating chance to hit a friendly? The more people piled on the higher the chance of a friendly fire accident.

[Roac]

Why not just make it an escalating chance to hit a friendly? The more people piled on the higher the chance of a friendly fire accident.

Likely for the same reason that most MMOGs disable any sort of collision detection with other players; hideous performance.  Another because it likely wouldn't be that fun.  Dying because a groupmate randomly rolled up you as the target instead of his target would suck - it turns everyone in the group/area into a random victim.

[Arrrgh]

Nothing to do with collision detection, just range and games already track range.

If the person getting piled on cast an AE the game would know quite well who to hit with that AE. That same group would be the possible friendly fire accidents.

Seems far more reasonable than just picking some arbitrary amount to scale back damage.

[pxib]

Worse yet, it'd be ideal for griefing as it allows you to kill that holy grail of grief... people who can't fight back: your own teammates.

Also if archers and spellcasters are able to attack in groups while melee is not AND they are immune to friendly fire penalties, I imagine melee classes get pretty darn rare in GvG battles even if they're immensely powerful, and making any class immensely powerful doesn't help your game balance, even if they have very specific disadvantages.

[Hoax]

I've always been of the personal opinion that the future of the standard auto attack + hotkey combat should/could look something like this:

Every attack is a hotkey, all attacks hit multiple targets in one form or another (pbaoe, targeted aoe, chain lightning, cones, arcs of various degrees etc. etc.)

Everyone can hurt everyone.  Toss in collision detection for terrain and players and you've got a solid combat system if the balance is done right.

Not only would this make good individual tactics stronger, but I think it would address the issue of zerging to a small degree as well as the whole calling target phenomenon this thread is about.

[Strazos]

In that case, a lot of my attacks would have to be overhead arcs and straight ahead thrusts.

[Rithrin]

I know a lot of people hate collision detection, but I think at least a form of this would be a step in the right direction. As much as I didn't like most of DDO, I think they made the right choice with collision detection. You can only fit so many people in one spot at a time, same goes for mobs as they aren't exempt from this. It allows for an amazing amount of tactics - Blocking a doorway with two shield warriors determined to hold their ground, pinning the other group's healer into a corner because their melee combatants were off doing the wrong thing, if you try to range attack the robe wearer behind the front line you'll hit the frontliners instead, it limits AoE power without arbitrary target limits or damage scaling, etc etc.

This is a lot like the original suggestion of combat sides, except instead of putting a direct number limit on how many attackers can be on you (four), its limited by the size of you and your opponents.

Now, I think the ultimate solution would be to design a game around actual formations. Each group has its own formation, let's say one has five people on each side. No matter how many other groups you try to pile on top of it, you'll only get 1 or 2 people at most fighting each member of the 5 on the sides because really you can't fit more than 6 or 7 seven people against the front of a row of 5 people.

[Alkiera]

Rithrin has a point, in that D&D 3.x has this problem licked, between the AoO system, and the fact that it's very rare for more than one person to be in a 5'x5' square... and ranged attacks into melee are at a penalty.  A normal person can have exactly 8 people around them, no more.  There are cover penalties for peopole standing in the way for ranged attacks, and flat penalties for firing at someone in melee combat.

And tactically makes sense.  If you have 3 fighters, and a healer behind them, to get a shot at the healer, an enemy has to get past the fighters.  Either use movement speed to run around (either wide around, for more movement, or close around, risking opportunity attacks), or take out the fighters.  Tumble can help you avoid the AoO's too.  But either way, it's not quite like the issues of today.

Frankly, IMO when in combat, most games are paced too fast.  Attack too fast, move too fast.  In an FPS game, it's somewhat okay, because you can't outrun a bullet.  But a sword is easy to outrun... In a game like WoW, you can attack just as fast whether running or not(melee).  Running makes you no easier or harder to hit with ranged attacks.  While some attacks are positional, there is no general advantage to attacking someone from behind over from the front.  There's no reason not to run around in circles mashing your best special attack... And there should be.

[Margalis]

Yes that has always bugged me mightily. In real life running in a circle swinging it a great way to accomplish very little.

It makes some sense for a gun, because while movement effect accuracy it won't effect damage. With a sword moving very much effects damage, especially if you are moving away from your own swing and into someone elses.

[Rithrin]

Yes, I've never understood why most games love to have combat be lightning fast and as unrealistic as they possibly can, which leads to all the aformentioned problems of group vs group combat. While D&D doesn't neccessarily have an amazing combat system (as it lends itself to catassery if unchecked), it sure does have the right idea when it comes to penalties and bonuses while fighting. Something's in the way? D&D: Well, its going to be a lot harder to hit him. (Most) MMOs: No problem. Realism need not apply. Repeat with countless other situations.

Movement tactics are nearly nonexistant, there is no advantage in these games to not just bull rush your target head on regardless of whether he's got allies around him or not. "Outmanuevering" has become simply who can run in the shortest line.

But these are just going to be beaten to death, I would just like to point out that adding at least one modicum of realism to some of these games would yield great benefits.

[sinij]

I think if you want to decrease mass targeted 'gankage' you need to introduce set of short invulnerabilities and short damage reflection powers.
Friendly fire idea mentioned above is also seems promising - more people attack single target more attacks miss or hit random targets.

Decreasing usability of a user interface in hopes that people will not be able to coordinate well enough will result in poor interface and 3d party programs that will still allow people to do that.

[Stephen Zepp]

Most of the collision issues regarding making tactical positioning appropriate are now excuses in my opinion. You aren't talking free poly or per pixel collisions here, you're talking box to box (or better for realism, cylinder to cylinder at least for humanoid models).

Both client side (authoritative) hit detection and no collision at all are, again in my opinion, "old school" developer techniques to avoid performance issues that are no longer needed--the combat designs just haven't caught up to performance yet.

The networking in an MMO-style 100v100 pvp fight is by far the most difficult performance optimization, and even that isn't going to kill you with strong and optimized networking.

[idm13]

All of the above is correct, but the root of the problem is Hit Points...with Hit Points come the need to focus.  You take hit points away, apply basic anatomy models, some basic humanoid health controls, and you remove the need for focused fire.

You can not even begin to achieve realism until you have a realistic humanoid design mechanic.  And the MMO player base doesn't want that.  They want HPs.  So no design change is going to alter that.

In short, there is no modern or historical reference I can think of that supports focused fire.  It defies weapon vs. armor technology since the beginning of mankind.  The only two instances I can think of are the transitions between the modern main battle tank and WWII era battleships.  Sure, opponents needed to focus fire, but that was more about accuracy and getting the right weapon load to the right spot.  The Sherman tank didn't need to be focused on, one round from a german tank gun would take it out.  A Sherman needed all his buddies to help take down a Tiger, not because he needed to "whittle" down the Tiger's HP, but because he needed a large volume of fire to ensure one of his smaller rounds would penetrate the weakest spot on the Tiger.

But in modern RPG game design, and the offshoot of MMO design we see HPs being the basis of balance.  The reality is that it takes only marginally more force to kill a 6"3 230lb human than it does to kill a 5'1" 100lb human.  A dagger strike with the same amount of force to the same location would kill them both.  A longsword slash to the exposed thigh, with the same force, would provide a critical wound to each.

The point is that game design is fantastic.  Because it is, you can not add reaslistic controls to it and expect a realistic outcome.  All you will be doing is shuffling the problems around.

1.  Focus'd fire is unrealistic against single point targets.
2.  Hit points provide an unrealistic base mechanic to the entire design.
3.  Weapon damage is irrelevant, it is about force generated versus armor or hit location.
4.  Without true collision, there is no tactics on the field.
5.  When skill is the same, conditioning determines the winner.
6.  Fights between equal opponents should last a long time...fights between unequal opponents will last mere seconds.

Those are just the basics.  But if a game system was designed around those concepts...people would play it...but it would never achieve a good market share....


idm13

[Furiously]

All of the above is correct, but the root of the problem is Hit Points...with Hit Points come the need to focus.  You take hit points away, apply basic anatomy models, some basic humanoid health controls, and you remove the need for focused fire.

You can not even begin to achieve realism until you have a realistic humanoid design mechanic.  And the MMO player base doesn't want that.  They want HPs.  So no design change is going to alter that.

In short, there is no modern or historical reference I can think of that supports focused fire.  It defies weapon vs. armor technology since the beginning of mankind.  The only two instances I can think of are the transitions between the modern main battle tank and WWII era battleships.  Sure, opponents needed to focus fire, but that was more about accuracy and getting the right weapon load to the right spot.  The Sherman tank didn't need to be focused on, one round from a german tank gun would take it out.  A Sherman needed all his buddies to help take down a Tiger, not because he needed to "whittle" down the Tiger's HP, but because he needed a large volume of fire to ensure one of his smaller rounds would penetrate the weakest spot on the Tiger.

But in modern RPG game design, and the offshoot of MMO design we see HPs being the basis of balance.  The reality is that it takes only marginally more force to kill a 6"3 230lb human than it does to kill a 5'1" 100lb human.  A dagger strike with the same amount of force to the same location would kill them both.  A longsword slash to the exposed thigh, with the same force, would provide a critical wound to each.

The point is that game design is fantastic.  Because it is, you can not add reaslistic controls to it and expect a realistic outcome.  All you will be doing is shuffling the problems around.

1.  Focus'd fire is unrealistic against single point targets.
2.  Hit points provide an unrealistic base mechanic to the entire design.
3.  Weapon damage is irrelevant, it is about force generated versus armor or hit location.
4.  Without true collision, there is no tactics on the field.
5.  When skill is the same, conditioning determines the winner.
6.  Fights between equal opponents should last a long time...fights between unequal opponents will last mere seconds.

Those are just the basics.  But if a game system was designed around those concepts...people would play it...but it would never achieve a good market share....


idm13

You don't need focused fire because one hit from an arrow to the chest will kill you and so with a whack from a great maul to the head. Then again, they didn't have clerics casting complete heal.

[Hoax]

I still haven't seen a viable idea for removing hit-points.  People have dogged on them for some time and for good reason.  But removing them and replacing them with any other system that isn't most-hits-auto-kill/maim will do nothing to break the focus fire cycle.  The only thing less fun then being the first target called is a game where everyone dies in .5 seconds and it really comes down to who sees who first.

[Strazos]

Gemstone IV has a hybrid system where you still get HP, but the cap is Very low. Also, you have full anatomical targetting, so a mighty whack to the head will at least daze you. If you're good and know what you're doing, you can 1-shot practically every mob you fight.

I'll forever  that game.

[Trippy]

In short, there is no modern or historical reference I can think of that supports focused fire.  It defies weapon vs. armor technology since the beginning of mankind.  The only two instances I can think of are the transitions between the modern main battle tank and WWII era battleships.  Sure, opponents needed to focus fire, but that was more about accuracy and getting the right weapon load to the right spot.  The Sherman tank didn't need to be focused on, one round from a german tank gun would take it out.  A Sherman needed all his buddies to help take down a Tiger, not because he needed to "whittle" down the Tiger's HP, but because he needed a large volume of fire to ensure one of his smaller rounds would penetrate the weakest spot on the Tiger.

That makes no sense at all. Anytime you have ranged combat you have the opportunity for focused fire. And HPs are a perfectly reasonable approximation of how much damage something can absorb in many situations. Since you used WW II in your example I'll give two counter-examples from the same period: dive bombers attacking a carrier (or other ship) and fighters attacking a bomber.

[Scadente]

How about limb specific hit-points?

Back in they day we play this pen-and-paper RPG called Drackar och Demonar (Dragons and Daemons). You had a HP pool, but you also had limb specific HP. You could cut a foes arm of, and he'd be incapacitated. This might be a bit hard to calculate in fast moving PvP combat, and it could be way to random. But it could force skill, ie. targetting specific limbs, cut of a leg and leave your opponment there, bleeding to death.

As for more strategy and tactic in mass PvP, collision detection is a step in the right direction.

[Yoru]

How about limb specific hit-points?

Back in they day we play this pen-and-paper RPG called Drackar och Demonar (Dragons and Daemons). You had a HP pool, but you also had limb specific HP. You could cut a foes arm of, and he'd be incapacitated. This might be a bit hard to calculate in fast moving PvP combat, and it could be way to random. But it could force skill, ie. targetting specific limbs, cut of a leg and leave your opponment there, bleeding to death.

As for more strategy and tactic in mass PvP, collision detection is a step in the right direction.

The MUD I code for has pretty much this system of limbs/limb-HP, and you can sort-of aim for limbs (it's character-skill-dependent). This includes the ability to both partially incapacitate (make unusable but healable) and destroy (unhealable except by extraordinarily character-skilled players).

It makes combat faster and more brutal, since a destroyed head is lethal (and the side-effects - unconsciousness - of a disabled head will likely be lethal). If it's character skill-based, then people will attempt to pump their aim skill and go for headshots. If it's player skill-based, see Counterstrike for reference.

[tazelbain]

Alternate schemes for hp are not implement, not because of the load on the computer, but because of the load on the player.  Right now "bar goes up/bar goes down" is simple to understand, to visualize, and to interact with.  Any alternate scheme going have to be the same otherwise you screw up the noob factor and the fun factor and your game is dead to everyone but grognards (sp?).  Just look at the SWG HAM system barely more complex than straight hp and people hated it.

[Strazos]

I never understood the HAM system hate.

[Samwise]

The HAM system wasn't hated because it was overly complex, it was hated because it was very poorly balanced - having certain classes only being able to target certain pools, having one of those pools impossible to heal and difficult to buff (and therefore the only one worth targetting), having a certain type of buff that was 20x more effective and 100x more long-lasting than all the other buffs in the game, et cetera.

As with most of SWG's mechanics, the basic idea was reasonable enough, but whoever worked out the actual numbers was a blithering retard.

[Nija]

Likely for the same reason that most MMOGs disable any sort of collision detection with other players; hideous performance.  Another because it likely wouldn't be that fun.  Dying because a groupmate randomly rolled up you as the target instead of his target would suck - it turns everyone in the group/area into a random victim.

The ONLY fun thing I remember from AC2 was friendly fire. Which, by the way, was patched out in the 2nd monthly patch. Which was when everyone quit Darktide.

I think the answer to your question is enabling friendly fire and line of sight type stuff. The thing is with Eve, being in space, you really have a full 360 degrees to attack a target. If you had a gate camp going with players at 6 literal locations around the gate (N, S, E, W, HIGH, LOW) - they could all fire at the same exact target and hit it without injuring one another.

I'll describe a scenario in AC2 which I witnessed several times, and what we took advantage of. I'll explain it because (hopefully) very few people played that pile of shit.

When a mage would shoot a war magic spell at a target, you didn't get the option to "lead" them. IE point in a direction and press fire, and whatever it encounters along the way it hits. You had to select a guy then begin casting, and your character would turn in place and when the spell casting timer reached full, the spell would go off.

So what we'd do is attack people in this popular dungeon (a popular place for twinking, Rasix can add to this 'cause I know he saw it) from the end of a hallway. You'd pop around the corner and fire a bowshot or toss a spell. If someone started casting towards you, you'd just strafe back behind the corner.

Their line of sight would be broken, but the spell would continue to cast (unless they cancelled it) - and if you timed it right their projectile magic fireball or whatever would hit the walll, trying to make a perfectly straight line towards you. When the spell hit the wall, it would "splash" and damage those near it - which more often than not were the mages melee buddies that were chasing after you.

Also if you were a mage and you started casting (somewhere else, outside or something) and your melee buddy wasn't paying attention - if he runs in front of you right as the spell goes off, it'll hit him and blow up in your face, literally.

Mass multi games try to be real ping sensitive but I think that really needs to change, to provide more interesting gameplay at the least. It's '06, get broadband.

Friendly fire in Eve could be cool though. Despite space being really fucking empty, it could change tactics a bit.

Enough to "fix" teamspeak called targets? Eh, not really. They could enforce some arbitrary rule where the max damage a person could sustain would be X dps, period, and anything above that would be ignored, but people would freak the fuck out. For good reason, too.

Now, if they STARTED with those arbitrary numbers for each ship in place, well, I could see it working. Pushing those kind of changes now would be like dropping a nuke on a beehive the size of Africa.

[tazelbain]

See I wonder game developers, you could phase changes like that over time. If you goal was 30dps max you could start off at 300dps slowly work down and let people adjust.  Maybe stop 45dps if you get the effect you want. Instead when these guys nerf, they just lop your balls off and are stunned people get upset by it.

And, No, I am not bitter DAoC's Smite Cleric changes.

[Nija]

I still haven't seen a viable idea for removing hit-points.  People have dogged on them for some time and for good reason.  But removing them and replacing them with any other system that isn't most-hits-auto-kill/maim will do nothing to break the focus fire cycle.  The only thing less fun then being the first target called is a game where everyone dies in .5 seconds and it really comes down to who sees who first.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YZ9ER1j0V2M

I always liked that game better than Street Fighter, but I'm obviously a minority because SF is still wildly popular. Bushido Blade? Not so much.

[Strazos]

I liked Bushido Blade more as well, though that video was cheesey sploity crap. Me and my friend went nuts in VS mode with that game. A lot of our matches either came down to who broke a standoff first and attacked, or who was the first to misjudge their range and whiff hard.