Mental frames
The description is just... Not accurate.
The wording of the passage is really confusing, the numbers just don't add up, influences on a move's mental frames are weirdly ordered without elaboration. Mainly blockstun, like how can it even contribute besides just the toggle between too short for them to attempt anything, acceptable, and so long that it's interruptible, and even being interruptible there can be mental frames. Reaction speed describes reacting to the follow up, which is the wrong way to do it, if you see the follow up, you already lost the mental frames. And if the thing is about reacting to the string not happening, then why is there no reacting to recovery instead.
Giving the exact numbers can lead someone to believe that the mental frames are calculable, and they are very much not. They are a construct.
Also String page might not be the page to describe mental frames
--Hating Mirror (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- The reason blockstun and not recovery is important is because the situation is caused by the defender not acting right away, and the defender is affected by the blockstun, not the recovery. Consider a move with 15 frames blockstun and 20 frames recovery, i.e. -5 on block. If the defender takes 20 frames to react, the mental frame advantage effectively adds 5 frames to the blockstun, making it +0. Now decrease the recovery to 15, i.e. it's +0 on block. The mental frame advantage still adds 5 frames, making it effectively +5, i.e. changing recovery has no effect on the mental frame advantage. Now instead increase the blockstun by 5, making it again +0 on block. In this case the mental frame advantage disappears, because now the defender can react before they've recovered. Summary: Changing either will affect the actual frame advantage, but only changing the blockstun affects the mental. RogerDodger (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, this isn't a very clear explanation, but I got it, and again, it is very not clear in the original passage. Hating Mirror (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- The text with precise numbers given is in a paragraph starting with "For example". Seems dubious to assume this would be interpreted as if it were saying the mental frame advantage is constant. Well, you say calculable, not constant, but that's what I assume you meant. It is calculable—if you have a probability distribution for the defender's reaction times, i.e. a feeling for how fast they generally react. RogerDodger (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- "For example" doesn't convey certainty or uncertainty of the example, it just states that the example is an example. Words like "around", "generally", "generally speaking", "can be said" convey uncertainty. And doesn't fix that 19 - 7 doesn't equal to 13. Also the fact that follow up can be seen from frame 7 doesn't mean that the lack of the follow up can be seen from frame 7.The section needs the disclaimer that it's not necessarily +3 in that situation with their reaction time being 20, that first of all it's around 20, more likely around 19-23, making it +2 to +6. Then we add the uncertainty of the reaction to lack of happening, no way of really predicting that, but let's say it's 2-5 extra frames, so it's around +4 to +11. But what if opponent did decide to at least partially option select, no harm in just ducking, mental frames still do apply, but now the opponent will most certainly spend more than 6 frames to enter ws, but who knows, so the range is +4 to +17, and at this point it's better just to say that the move because of mental frames becomes plus. Hating Mirror (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Frames 7 to 19 is not 19-7 frames, just as frames 7 to 9 is not 9-7 (=2) frames. Writing weasel words in an example defeats the entire point of an example, which is intended to eschew generalities in favour of specifics for the sake of clarity. The text preceding the example are what explains the concept in generalities. Always ducking to move into crouch while reacting to a high extension is just an option select and the text already mentions how these are distinct but related concepts. RogerDodger (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- This text does not attempt to specify how quickly one should expect opponents to react. That's a whole topic in itself and quite a can of worms, but one I plan to write eventually at, say, Reacting. Perhaps this section could be moved there at that point, but even then I'm not sure about it, since this only occurs with strings. RogerDodger (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- "For example" doesn't convey certainty or uncertainty of the example, it just states that the example is an example. Words like "around", "generally", "generally speaking", "can be said" convey uncertainty. And doesn't fix that 19 - 7 doesn't equal to 13. Also the fact that follow up can be seen from frame 7 doesn't mean that the lack of the follow up can be seen from frame 7.The section needs the disclaimer that it's not necessarily +3 in that situation with their reaction time being 20, that first of all it's around 20, more likely around 19-23, making it +2 to +6. Then we add the uncertainty of the reaction to lack of happening, no way of really predicting that, but let's say it's 2-5 extra frames, so it's around +4 to +11. But what if opponent did decide to at least partially option select, no harm in just ducking, mental frames still do apply, but now the opponent will most certainly spend more than 6 frames to enter ws, but who knows, so the range is +4 to +17, and at this point it's better just to say that the move because of mental frames becomes plus. Hating Mirror (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the section is long enough to warrant its own page. It has a redirect for linking to it (mental frame advantage), and it could be moved there if it were longer. RogerDodger (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I meant as if it might belong to another page, like frame advantage page Hating Mirror (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)