was forcing improv and comebacks as a standard a good or bad idea?
if you can, please provide couple of words why.



/there was some nice and warm conversation with hax and his ?buddy?, as allknowing visionary of self claimed "wushu community"( idk wth is that even ) and "big boys of wushu", so i thought, you know, may be it's time to ask people and see? lol

comebacks were a good idea, but introducing orthodox comebacks and sort of forcing them onto players with the tiers was not. I think a lot of players are too limited into what they think is a good idea, by what the tuts say is proper. Forcing improv was great for daily play, but the creation of openers, not their use, should have been encouraged more. Creating openers is an invaluable tool for learning to maximize attack speed.

just a notice: we are talking about comebacks in general, orthodox or not - another question

I think what is forced here is the view of the fair-play in wushu.

yeah we can use this term to describe it

Well, its not really forcing, more of pushing someone. Same thing like how I wouldnt push someone off a bridge, I'd nudge em ;>. Anyway back to wushu, your "forcing" of using only improv and always trying to comeback actually helped me become better at wushu. I used to be able to only use a simple sweep opener when I first tried wushu out, then you told me to use improv only and work on coming back so I did. I practiced comebacks for like 3 months and I just started using improv decently well as of about 2 months ago.

Can't really force anyone to do anything so i can't really give a legit vote there. As far as i know this community is consistent of players that agree upon a certain codex or code/ way of playing, according to that there is no force really necessary as the players themselves will *want* (which isn't the same as forcing them) to uphold that value if they want to stay in the org. Might've been a misread on my part since i think you sense that yourself.

To the point, however:
Comebacks - yes
Improv - is a difficult one to answer, since by defninition of improvisation which is in general, non-casual and/or spontaneous movement in this case (very, utterly, generalized "definition"). In that case you'll be doing that during the match either way as you work up towards some kind of goal, so it's kind of hard to *not* achieve that. So that leads to openers. Personally i have nothing against the use of openers and i've let my own fellow mates practice them however they so desire. The only thing here is to not abuse them to the point where it will make you look like a bland douche and when it will begin to work against you as you become more predictable. The only reason why i haven't bothered to use any of mine is solely because i'm too lazy to memorize the joints, as well as i just want something new.
I know you mean the same with openers probably, but so that you could contain the possible drawbacks you throw an instant "no-no" on openers, plus it's not exactly something you can control/enforce, unlike comebacks which are essential to our "creed".

well, improv force person to learn how to set up from unoptimized position, so it's good for setups and therefor comebacks. my logic

You'll get into unoptimized situations well and well beyond counting ingame, so you'll be forced to learn either way regardless of how the first 1~3 turns began.

Comebacks are important, there's no arguing that.
On the other hand, pressuring newbies to abandon openers in favour of improv was a bad idea from the get-go. The more complex openers have some underlying mechanisms which, once understood , can differentiate the "pros" from the common player further down the road. Making them "uncool" might have discouraged some from actually making their game better this way.

Also, the question in the poll isn't a yes/no question.