Balancing Fighters – Japan vs. USA

D_Matt_Ma

D_Matt_Ma

[10] Knight
This discussion isn’t meant to only apply to Soul Calibur, but rather to all 2D and 3D fighters. And given the recent patch for Soul Calibur 5, I found this to be an opportune time to discuss MY PERSONAL OPINION on the difference in balancing philosophy between the two extremes in thinking- Japan vs. USA.

This is important, because most fighting games are designed in Japan. All balancing efforts are biased to the Japanese way of thinking. This is the status quo, and it won’t be changing in the immediate future. As players, we have to therefore try to anticipate and (hopefully… eventually…) adapt to this philosophy in order to gauge the direction of our respective games.

The US Philosophy:
The key to long term success in fighting games is match-up knowledge. Understanding the CHARACTERS and what they can and cannot do is essential to becoming a better player.

The Japanese Philosophy:
The key to long term success in fighting games is player knowledge (some refer to it as “Yomi”). Understanding the PLAYER and what they will do regardless of the situation is essential to winning.

Note that execution and difficulty is not a factor when balancing characters. Both communities have an understanding that with higher level comes higher standards on the player’s ability to perform.

The 2D and 3D track record
The Japanese philosophy has, for the most part, served the 2D community well. Yes, there are hiccups along the way (SSF4 AE comes to mind), but for the most part, balance efforts have moved the 2D franchises in the right direction.

The same cannot be said for 3D games. Over the years, the community has gotten more than its fair share of speed bumps. In some cases, these balancing problems have gotten WORSE with sequels rather than improving (Tekken 4 fan raise your hand). Why? Both communities have experienced and competent players. Both genre companies have competent game developers, designers, and, yes… testers. Why is the record of balancing 3D fighters so bad when the Japanese do it, yet so well implemented when done for their 2D counterparts?

Anticipation vs. Reaction
3D fighters tend to have more moves. A LOT more moves. Although this doesn’t remove the anticipation aspect of the game, it does reduce the effectiveness, as even small differences in move properties can lead to different counter options. However, it also shifts emphasis from anticipation, a highly looked upon skill in 2D fighters, to reaction. Reaction = punishment aka free damage (more on that later). So the next time you hear a 3D fighter gamer emphasizing frame data like no tomorrow, now you know why. Knowing frame data tells a player how to react after the fact and punish prepare accordingly.
 
3D means Evasion
The extra “D” in the genre means there is an aspect of evasion built into game system. This doesn’t mean that reading an opponent is less important. Rather, it means that every character has access to a universal counter against a list of moves that do not hit side-steppers. More importantly, this universal counter is part of character movement, so all characters have access to it fluidly without significantly extra effort. If you make a good read on my moment, can you punish? Sure. But you could get blocked, or worse, completely whiff, which is a lot more common due to the higher mobility of 3D fighters. The point is, making a good read to counter an opponent’s move becomes less important than knowing the correct move to hit a constantly moving opponent.

Stage positioning
Unlike 2D fighters, ring positioning is huge in 3D. Ring positioning can lead to ring outs, wall combos, and a never-ending list of wake-up shenanigans that can lead to losing with just one wrong guess. In this situation, reading an opponent is not that important. YOU KNOW WHAT THEY’RE GOING TO DO. And if you guess wrong, they are going to win. If you guess right, you just simply won’t lose. Understanding the character tools you have to escape and reposition yourself becomes more important than actually knowing what the opponent will do. Equally important, knowing the hard counters that can answer the seemingly unwinnable situation of having your back against the edge of a stage.

The Japanese way of Balancing
Problem: Player A knew exactly what Player B would do. Their response was subpar, and Player B continued to do the same tactics knowing the risk/reward is in his favor
Solution: The character Player A is using is not equipped with sufficient tools. We need to increase damage and improve safety. Player B’s character should have a damage reduction and reduced safety on the tools he has access to. This will ensure proper risk/reward on decision making

…compared to the way it’s done in the USA
Problem: Character A lacks punishers and anti-step moves. Character B continues to attack with unsafe moves that evade the majority of moves Character A has.
Solution: We need to improve the speed of certain moves and improve the hitbox of moves so that Character A can punish unsafe moves and either hit or evade incoming attacks from Character B

100% guaranteed- Why Japan is wrong


The Japanese balancing philosophy fails in 3D for one reason- PUNISHMENT. The concept of being put in an inescapable situation is foreign and, in most cases, flat out rejected by the Japanese methodology. The underlying premise is the person lost because he made a bad decision. If that bad decision had not been made, then there would not have been a punishment landing.


For those who have experience with 3D fighters, think about that for a second.

I’ve played fighters for a long time, and one thing I have learned is that the idea of memorizing punishment lists that last more pages than this entire article is a foreign concept to most of the 2D community. And yet, I can tell you the reason high level play for 3D fighters can get boring is because of that very same reason. HIGH LEVEL PLAYERS MEMORIZE THE PUNISHMENT LISTS.

“If a character does big damage and is safe to 95% of moves on block, does that make that character good?”

Any experienced 3D fighter player knows the above is a loaded question. It’s the 5% of moves that count, especially if that 5% includes a punisher that hits for 20%+ of your life. 95% of moves are safe on block. But what if I duck them? What if side step them? What if I jump them?

The Japanese philosophy would be, “The person made a good read, and punished the predictable player. He deserved to win in that exchange.”

But is that the correct attitude to take when balancing all fighting games? What if I memorized all your options and was going to punish you no matter what you did simply for accessing the 95% of your movelist that was in theory safe, but not to me? More importantly, I didn’t guess what you were doing. I reacted to it. I didn’t have to read your decision. I knew your decision and knew what you were going to even before you did it… because I know your character and I know mine.
 
Community Problem – Beginners
No, I am not complaining about beginners. I’m concerned how we as a community should be teaching them going forward given the status quo.

Beginner loses in his first tournament.
Person A: You should work on your execution. You got predictable towards the end. You need to mix it up and remember your basics.
Person B: Go into practice mode and study the character you lost to. Look up frame data. Ask advice from people on what do on the match-up.
Person A: Don’t listen to Person B. It’s not practical to memorize every situation for every character.
Person B: Don’t listen to Person A. All people play differently. But the moves they have will never change, especially the 95% they think are reliable.

I’ll leave it to you to figure out which opinion is right. You know where I stand.

Closing Remarks
Am I right? Review the balancing measures some of these 2D and 3D fighting games from Japan have had over the years. Do they fall into the same pattern as I am proposing? Or am I just completely wrong due to my incredible biasness that I am just as guilty as the balancers I am criticizing.

Note: I am writing this the same day the patch notes for SC5 came out. Needless to say, I am very disappointed and feel it takes the game in the wrong direction. I am venting. I am raging. This is the way an old man like myself gets over it. I’m not racist. I’m not elitist (not in this case at least). I’m just upset. Have a nice day.
 
i think it can be a mix of both philosophies, but changing speed and hit of certain moves might make or break a game imo, while changing safety on block won't have a drastic effect.
 
D_Matt_Ma said:
Beginner loses in his first tournament.
Person A: You should work on your execution. You got predictable towards the end. You need to mix it up and remember your basics.
Person B: Go into practice mode and study the character you lost to. Look up frame data. Ask advice from people on what do on the match-up.
Person A: Don’t listen to Person B. It’s not practical to memorize every situation for every character.
Person B: Don’t listen to Person A. All people play differently. But the moves they have will never change, especially the 95% they think are reliable.

I’ll leave it to you to figure out which opinion is right. You know where I stand.
Click to expand...
... They're both right.

Both camps aren't exclusive. Fighting the player and fighting the character are two sides of the same coin.
 
You got forgot some of the U.S. Philosophy friend. They also bitch and moan when they think something is cheap or overpowered and complain for patches.

JPN Philosophy: Find ways around the cheap tactic.
 
You kind of lost credibility really early when you said that execution isn't taken into consideration from either side. Not only have there been quite a few characters with high damage potential ignored by US players because of execution barriers - just recently it came out that the reason that alpha didn't get nerfed is that they don't believe anyone exists that can consistently hit his JFs. Kinda throws a rock in the face of your argument. :/
 
D_Matt_Ma said:
100% guaranteed- Why Japan is wrong


The Japanese balancing philosophy fails in 3D for one reason- PUNISHMENT. The concept of being put in an inescapable situation is foreign and, in most cases, flat out rejected by the Japanese methodology. The underlying premise is the person lost because he made a bad decision. If that bad decision had not been made, then there would not have been a punishment landing.
Click to expand...
This is hilarious. Japanese developers don't understand/don't believe in punishment? Punishment doesn't play a significant role in 2D fighters?

Amazing. FFS, the patch that just dropped made a number of once-safe moves unsafe and fundamentally changed backstep/dashing. Punishment is going to be way easier than it was pre-patch for just about every character.
 
janejana said:
This is hilarious. Japanese developers don't understand/don't believe in punishment? Punishment doesn't play a significant role in 2D fighters?

Amazing. FFS, the patch that just dropped made a number of once-safe moves unsafe and fundamentally changed backstep/dashing. Punishment is going to be way easier than it was pre-patch for just about every character.
Click to expand...

No I'm saying the idea of me winning without ever reading what you do and simply memorizing your entire movelist and punishing it is something the Japanese don't believe in.

I'm not refering to the system changes. I'm referring to character changes. Analyze the patch, and you will see exactly what I'm talking about. Their excessive nerfing on gimmick characters shows that they don't like memorizing match-up data.
 
The only balancing aspect that doesn't make sense to me, is why they didn't give Sieg some buffs, like, you know, FIXING HIS WHIFFING ISSUES!!!!

66A can go right through people at point blank range, no blockstun, no damage, no ducking, just WHIFF. Granted, I shouldn't be doing 66A at point blank range anyway, but still.
 
ghost333 said:
I play natsu so i should wine too? no?
get over it , learn to play,overcome it, win!
Click to expand...
More like learn to play a new character. There's really no overcoming these Tira changes as they made her super random and really really bad.

Natsu got like what 2 nerfs? I know one of them hurts her oki game a lot but whatever. Tira got a page of nerfs. Who was better before the patch?

Destinizish said:
just recently it came out that the reason that alpha didn't get nerfed is that they don't believe anyone exists that can consistently hit his JFs.
Click to expand...
What a bunch of fucking idiots.
 
I skimmed most of it. Then I saw something about ring positioning being irrelevant in 2D fighters.

lolwut

Likewise, the bit about constant moving is a joke. 8wr is great for evasion, sure.... but if you don't consider yourself just as mobile in a 2D fighting game then you're doing it wrong. The "extra D" (or whatever OP said) doesn't add mobility, it only adds another mechanic. To make the point clearer, I could say that 3D fighting games are less mobile because they lack air dashes. The omission of the mechanic does reduce the general mobility of a 3D fighter. One more dimension does not mean more mobility. Hopefully, that makes sense.
 
damn-I-Suck said:
The only balancing aspect that doesn't make sense to me, is why they didn't give Sieg some buffs, like, you know, FIXING HIS WHIFFING ISSUES!!!!

66A can go right through people at point blank range, no blockstun, no damage, no ducking, just WHIFF. Granted, I shouldn't be doing 66A at point blank range anyway, but still.
Click to expand...

.....lol well there you go stop 66Aing point blank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back