"scrubs" and "spammers" do exist. Those words are just thrown around all too often by idiots.

If you lost to a "scrub" or "spammer" then who the fuck are you? Your not anyone in a position to call anyboy that, thats who.

>>338413105
>Scrub
Scrub is someone who makes their own rules about how the game works. IE: Someone who uses the word "cheap".

>Spammer
Someone who does the same move over and over again. In theory, these people are easy to beat, with some exceptions (Ivan Ooze, really bad matchups). People who complain about spamming are normally scrubs.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

>>338415612
To be fair, when playing local matches for fun against friends, it's legit uncool to spam. If you know you can beat them with one move, you can likely beat them with more moves, and should at least make it seem like you're trying.

Also, anyone can lose to a scrub. Scrubs tend to use playstyles that can random people out. The difference is that Scrubs don't win consistently, because their tactics always have a huge weakness, and they'll whine when you exploit it.

>>338416026
If I'm playing a fireball character and I've got the life lead and someone can't get in on me I'm going to keep throwing fireballs. It makes absolutely no sense at all to just stop and walk up to them, both from the perspective of "I want to win" and "I want them to improve", no matter what the setting is. Same goes for when I can tear them apart with any other single attack, unless it's some shitty game with built-in priority values, but I wouldn't bother playing such a thing.

>>338416026
>when playing local matches for fun against friends, it's legit uncool to spam

That sounds like you both dont know how to play. Just messin around for funsies. In that case yeah dont find your 'good move' and be an asshole.

And yeah you can lose to scrubby random players, but a good player will adapt and adjust. shouldnt be too hard.

The reason people spam something is because it's hard to beat. It takes a disproportionate amount of skill over your opponent to beat spamming. The average person can be someone who ONLY does one move over and over again like they would beat through a training dummy set to do that move over and over again. It takes someone really good to beat anyone who puts some tact in their spam.

>>338413105
>Is "scrub" and "spammer" a legitimate critical analysis of a fighting style?
yes
>If you keep winning, why change?
you don't necessarily have to and it's hard to know what to change if everything works. that's why you should try to play better opponents that your current tactics don't work against.
>If you keep losing to a spammer, why aren't you learning?
because you suck. practice more, think more, git gud, etc.

>>338416684
its really not that hard to beat a 'spammer'

Unless you dont know how to play the game

>>338417147
Yes, it's not hard to beat someone who is programmed to get as many fireballs out there as possible. However, when you mix the idea of "I'm going to abuse this powerful move that has few flaws as much as I can" with a skilled player's mindset, you need to be much, much better at the game than them to touch them, because they know spacing, they know your moves, they know what you are going to do to try to stop them, and they know just what to do when you try.

>>338417450
ill use your fireball spammer example. If the dude is only using fireballs, then he is in constant threat of being jumped in on. SO anytime you are jumping distance away, thats some extremely dangerous shit hes playing.

And if hes the type to actually think about what hes doing like you said. He will stop throwing fireballs as you get closer...

>>338417864
He'll do some anti-air shit on you and go back to doing fireballs. Being a good player, he knows how to ensure that he can keep doing what works without eating shit. The only way to dodge the fireballs is to jump; jumping forward gets you closer to him so he can anti-air, jumping in place is pointless and if he has health lead he will gladly keep doing that, and jumping away might just be jumping into the projectile on top of being pointless. There are a few characters who have huge gap-closing ability that might be exceptions to this rule, but that's what they are; exceptions. Removing this one move would make the rule apply to them again.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I used to be a scrub/spammer/etc and I'd like to know what sort of strategies I should have moved to to improve.
Back in the day when I played Street Fighter 2: Hyper Fighting, the go-to strategy was to spam projectiles with Ryu/Guile/Sagat and use your shoryuken/flash kick/tiger uppercut when the opponent tried to jump in. I never figured out the way to beat that and could only match it by using the same strategy. How does one beat that?

>>338418612
>He'll do some anti-air shit on you and go back to doing fireballs

If you jump in at the right time (as hes throwing a fireball) he wont be able to anti-air and he'll eat a whole combo.

Even if you dont jump in. Characters have moves that are projectile invincible, characters have moves with armour, some supers will go through fireballs

And if were talking streetfighter 5. just about every single character has multiple anti-projectile moves/ v-skills. EG- ryus parry, charlies absorb, cammy spin knuckle, necalli charge, vega spin, bison reversal

>>338419219
At some ranges, you can jump over fireballs, and the opponent cannot anti-air. Also, using anti-air at this range is risky, because they're normally close enough to wiff punish.

So if all a player does is fireballs/DP, the goal is to get within this range, and wait for a DP. After that, you punish the DP with a sweep (or grab), and punish the knockdown.

Of course, moving away from the opponent will keep them outside of the "can't anti-air" zone, but if you get in the corner, you're as good as dead. Eventually you need to play neutral game, unless you make good reads in the "can't anti-air" zone, or use different fireball speeds and spacing to prevent them from getting there in the first place, but those both require making good guesses consistently, which is hard.

>>338419219
this applies to you too I suppose
>>338419363