SCV Ivy revealed!

Status
Not open for further replies.
If they change her up like they do every damn game, maybe claw has it's own stance now too, and SW/WP/CL ae gonna be new shit... you know how namco rolls.

-Idle
 
Ring said:
Yeah, it was actually the first thing I noticed.

Don't you guys think that she should finally get some attacks using only that arm with the gauntlet? I think the only one so far is SC3 and SC4 SW 66K, I'd give her a few more.
Click to expand...
That would be cool. Just, like, wind up and swing her arm from right to left, hopefully mid? something like that'd be cool.
 
.........Claw stance which can be activated while in SE , allowing her to actually NOT be a stitting duck while in SE.

A unique GI animation while in Claw Stance/SE which leads to a super attack.

A third variety to the SS/CS which can be activated while in Claw stance.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #24
Violent_Vodka said:
That would be cool. Just, like, wind up and swing her arm from right to left, hopefully mid? something like that'd be cool.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly! I always wanted to see something like that.

If they gave her a stance where she uses mostly her "armored" arm instead of the sword that would be pretty amazing, revolutionary even when it comes to this character :)
 
I want a stance for her camel-toe too, based around the annoying sound rubber outfits make when you stretch too much. Sonic attacks, and lots of mental guard breaks.
 
Ring said:
Yes, exactly! I always wanted to see something like that.

If they gave her a stance where she uses mostly her "armored" arm instead of the sword that would be pretty amazing, revolutionary even when it comes to this character :)
Click to expand...
That would be cool revamp her Coil-state moves, if they keep they current states. Still use the whip/sword, just not nearly as much. It would be very interesting. Though, now that I think about it, it gives off more of a "savage"-type feeling, and Ivy's pretty much the opposite.. quite classy.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #27
Well... it's been 17 years :P who knows what could have happened to her. I can only say that I can't wait to see what changes they have made in her gameplay. If she is just an improved BD Ivy I will be utterly disappointed.
 
Yeah, understandable. I was kind of hoping to hear that she's since settled down. or something.. Became a ranging lesbianholic..
 
You guys might have a new convert if she's decent in game. I didn't play Ivy in this because she didn't really have much of a (physical) design beyond her 1/3rd missing body suit. SC5 Ivy seems to actually has a bit of an intimidation factor so I might try her out.
 
WuHT said:
happy for the true ivy fans (all 3 of you) and mildly indifferent towards the tier whores.
Click to expand...
Is the tier whore thing me? I don't mean if she's good I mean fun to play. I play Cervantes, Zas, Cassandra, and Yun =\. If I like the animations and flow I play them, not their tier.
 
The the new design, but how come she always looks much better in the art than in the render? They always overdo the mouth and the eyes, make kind of look like a transvestite.
 
Loving the design, I don't have to sigh and roll my eyes every time I look at her now, leaps and bounds better than 4's P1 costume.
 
Well,

<-----

You need only look at that to see that I'm loving her new design. If I'll play her depends entirely on if her completely new movelist (Because we all know it'll undergo drastic ass changes... It's Ivy) interests me.
 
I'm seeing the word "manly" being stamped onto the most feminine woman in SC. Stop making fools of yourselves. Take a picture of a bodybuilder woman and put it between her 2d art and 3d render. You'll see the differences right away. She doesn't have nearly the muscle mass that a body-builder would and bodybuilders lack the, err, assets that Ivy CLEARLY possesses. I'm telling you right now, it's the pose in the artwork and render that are throwing you off. I'm seeing her body just as in the previous games.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back