Informal Ramble: The Deal with Advantage State & Why There's Discourse Surrounding Cross Canter.

This write-up is not meant to address whether or not cross canter is too strong of a mechanic. This is meant to explain why you may have seen so much discussion about it. *Why* are the reactions to this mechanic so strong? Why did the dislike for it seemingly come out of nowhere?

 

Although I haven't been playing much Them's Fightin' Herds recently, I have kept up with the discussions surrounding the game's system mechanics. Cross Canter has been a hot topic, and I have seen a regrettable amount of misinformation about the option's use in the developed metagame.

First, let me address a few stray misconceptions about Cross Canter.

Some players want cross canter removed!

I've heard this sentiment expressed, but I suspect that it's an outward frustration of a different problem. what players want has little to do with the removal of cross canter and more to do with the greater issue of advantage state. Remember, cross canter is only part of the pie regarding advantage state. Meter gain, tech options, backdash, and reversal design are all involved in this problem.What makes cross canter stand out is how visibly problematic it is in developed play. There can be other, less obvious factors contributing to its strength. The most obvious example is meter gain. The meter economy in 2.0 is so inflated that cross canter is constantly available. Would changing the meter gain affect how strong we perceive it to be? What if forward rolls weren't as strong to make offensive cross canter less egregious? You probably don't have immediate answers to these; neither do I. That's because this is an extremely complex issue with tons of other systems at play!

Cross canter isn't overpowered, people just haven't figured out how to counterplay it yet.

If this is your viewpoint, it's actually a valid stance to have. This is an entirely real possibility; there is never a moment where you can count out future meta developments in a fighting game. There's always the high likelihood that we look back on our conversations and wonder why were approaching it in such a witless manner. However, the current snapshot of the game isn't very promising. Counterplay to cross canter absolutely exists, usually in the form of options that are higher commit or require resources. Some characters are better at it than others (with Velvet having the most straightforward callout and Pom's natural offensive structure making it easier to work around).

But let's get to the real discussion question of this: not the "what," but the "why." WHY is there such a vocal minority of players who dislike cross canter, and the general flow of advantage state, so much? 

I have engaged in a lot of discussion about this, and the conclusion I have come to is that it messes with the expected game flow. If TFH is your first fighting game, this might be a little challenging to explain.

The expected flow of a fighting game is that winning neutral leads to some form of advantage state, in which the risk/reward will favor you in most situations. Players like being on offense because they get to express themselves in a more open environment, using techniques and strategies that they have practiced outside of the game. It's similar to a combo in the sense that it's your reward for winning some other aspect of the game, usually neutral. Of course, we don't want one neutral win to be absolute security for the round, that usually isn't particularly fun or interactive and turns people off to the game.

Anyway, the point is, it's desirable for most players that the defender has options, but the attacker still has the advantage in terms of risk/reward. But maybe that appears backwards to you, right? Shouldn't the situations be as balanced as possible in order to make the most balanced fighting game? I can't count at that possibility, but the fact is that many competitive players stick with fighting games because of how dynamic different gamestates can be. Removing some of those dynamics may hurt the quality of the game. If you've ever heard me (or others) complain about the state of modern fighting games, it's because they don't have as many dynamic situations with which to express yourself with.

There's another reason, though, and it is not easy to articulate. The general jist is that not having a defined advantage state actually hurts the value of winning neutral. Neutral situations are generally wide and full of possibility, with freedom to move and express yourself, barring some extreme exceptions. Your reward for winning neutral is an advantage state and some damage. Or at least, that's the expected gameflow. Them's Fightin' Herds is a fighting game where your advantage state is often at the mercy of the opponent's defensive tools. Covering even a strong portion of them is usually very challenging on a soft-knockdown, so you're often left to guess in high stakes scenarios. In North America, the strongest players are generally using their knockdowns to disengage and reset to neutral in order to avoid committing. Contrast those matches to ones where the opponents don't choose this, and often times the position of the attacker and defender are switched. By having a less definitive advantage state, you're actively making the reward for winning neutral worse.

And sure, you can reset to neutral and play neutral again through disengaging. Isn't that still putting value on neutral? Well, sure- it puts value on the damage that comes from neutral wins, but it doesn't put value on the follow-up situation that comes from the reward of winning neutral. This takes away a large portion of variety, and that actively huts the enjoyment of the game in the ways that it deviates from the expected game flow.

There's a sweet spot for most players. Most players find Type Lumina's shield mechanic to be too much of an advantage for the defender. Meanwhile, Guilty Gear Strive players feel that defensive options are so limiting that it's impossible to control any form of the attacker's tempo without taking huge risks. Them's Fightin' Herds current meta (and I must emphasize that I'm saying the meta, because the possibility of evolution always exists), leans closer to the side of Type Lumina.

I must emphasize, again, it is very much not that players don't want to interact on their offense. It's that players want to interact while the risk/reward still favors them, because they won neutral, and the follow-up situation should be an advantage. You don't have to subscribe to this fighting game philosophy by any means. Some people like the turbulent, swingy aspects of offense and defense. But it's a pretty common source of enjoyment! People like strategizing to keep their opponents stuck on offense, or using the defensive mechanics to make new opportunities and escape situations that are just plain hard!

Now, circling back to cross canter- cross canter is such a low commitment from the defender and such a high commitment from the attacker to bait, that it actively makes the advantage state on a blockstring favorable for the defender. It actively creates the opposite dynamic that I just explained many players enjoy!