d3v
[10] Knight
Ideally, every character should be able to output that amount of damage of a launch. Do that, and the FGC will lessen the complaints about holding out of stun.
Dead or Alive 5 Ultimate
- Thread starter UNDERX
- Start date
BT_Johnny
[10] Knight
New character: Rig
http://shoryuken.com/2012/06/26/famitsu-reveals-rig-dead-or-alive-5s-newest-fighter/
He's a Canadian fighter that specializes in Tae Kwon Do. He looks so cool!
Edit: oh yeah, somebody already show Rig in this thread. My bad. :s But, yeah: he's really looks so cool! *-*
http://shoryuken.com/2012/06/26/famitsu-reveals-rig-dead-or-alive-5s-newest-fighter/
He's a Canadian fighter that specializes in Tae Kwon Do. He looks so cool!
Edit: oh yeah, somebody already show Rig in this thread. My bad. :s But, yeah: he's really looks so cool! *-*
Most, if not all, of the matches from IPL's youtube channel were attached to the FSD Media Library. Since most of FSD watched the stream, there was no real reason to specialize Rikuto's matches on the front page as discussions of the matches went on in different forms.
Still waiting to see Rig and Bass in action.
Still waiting to see Rig and Bass in action.
d3v
[10] Knight
Quick piece of trivia. If not for Ian seeing it on the mailbox, I was about to make that article myself based on seeing the scan in this thread.
SolidSonic
[09] Warrior
I wonder what Mila's fighting style will be. Hopefully something I never heard of.
Age_of_Truth
[12] Conqueror
Ok well thanks for bringing this up here. I am starting to see what you guys are getting at, especially thanks to this line by Mr. Wah
Mr.Wah said:
This is a really elegant explanation that actually covers half the problems I had with some of the general consensus opinions I was seeing on FSD and elsewhere. And it helps explain what you're saying about avoiding the forced guessing game. In a SC context, Mitsurugi's close range 50/50 game is pretty stressful and not much fun to deal with, and so you want wherever possible to avoid him being able to impose that situation on you. And I can see now how DOA very rarely if ever let's you avoid that situation.
I will register on FSD soon but wanted to clear some things up first, or else I could see myselkf getting into flame wars and arguments with loads of members on there from the beginning, which is something I very much want to avoid.
I hope this post doesn't end up too long cos I am already thinking of way too many things...
OK, so your Good Bad Ugly article on FSD. I still disagree with a number of things:
Critical Burst Sit-Down stuns - your rationale for these being good is that the opponent cannot recover from them, i.e. damage is guaranteed. I have a SERIOUS problem with this concerning risk reward. Imo either an option should be highly risky and highly rewarding, or little risk and carrying little reward, and so on with options on a scale. It's OK to make some options better or worse than others, e.g. by making some characters have less risky and more rewarding options at a certain range or given a sufficient advantage, because this allows you to create more diverse characters and allows players to devise more interesting strategies. But giving characters options that are very high reward and very low risk, that can be used in a lot of situations, is in my opinion really really bad.
For example, SCV can be a pretty fun game, but I have a problem with certain attacks that have so many strong properties that literally the best thing for you to do is use them as often as possible, i.e. to spam them to death. Within the context of the game, there are certain attacks that are most if not all of: fast, safe or even + on block, hard to evade, long range, and lead to a very high damage combo. The problem with these attacks is that the best players will spam them, because their risk/reward ratio is so skewed that it is exactly the right thing to do in many many situations.
To me it looks like these stuns and CB attacks meet that criteria. Attacks that lead to guaranteed damage must be balanced to avoid them being spammable. If every time you put me in a stun, I have to guess "will he do CB or not" and then I guess wrong, and 70% of my health bar is gone as a result of one wrong guess, I just don't think that's gonna make a fun game. Same with sit down stuns, if they guarantee a huge combo, then of course you will want to do these over and over again.
I would have no problem with these options if actually making them happen was a very difficult and risky thing to do. But otherwise, I really don't see how it can be a good thing. Getting hit by one attack and then watching your opponent do the same 70% combo you've seen 3000 times before is just not fun.
Guard Breaks and NH launchers - similar issue to the one before. Basically it's to avoid spam being the main gameplay option. If an attack launches on NH, or causes a guard burst with guaranteed follow-ups, I would at least like it to be very slow, very unsafe, or have terrible range, or a combination of those things.
There are exceptions to the spam rule. For example. SCIV Astaroth was very much designed to be able to spam Bullrush. It was inherent to the design of the character, a big monster who appeared to be a ranged monster, but could also be devastating charging in to close range, attempting to grab his opponent. It made him a unique and interesting character who played very differently to the rest of the cast, and his style created a unique set of mind games for that match-up. And importantly, Bullrush didn't lead to a 35%+ combo on hit.
Another example is Ryu fireball. This attack is slow, does little damage and is extremely risky, but is a fullscreen attack that does chip damage on block and is a perfect zoning / mindgame tool. Again the design of the character makes the move spammable while still making the match-up interesting.
But if DOA5 characters have GB and launch options like you described, leading to solid damage, and carry little risk or too much application, we're just gonna see them spammed, without any sort of real strategy being present behind them other than going for max damage. I can't see how this could be a good thing.
Frame Data - I disagree on a technical point here. If disadvantage is -11, the only thing that should happen is that an ordinary 21f attack from the defender should trade with an ordinary 10f attack from the attacker. I don't really see why attacker's 10f attack should be guaranteed. Demanding this just seems lazy on behalf of the player not bothering to learn the system.
Free Cancelling and String Delays - I understand your point on free cancelling. I don't entirely agree, but would like to see how the game would play if free cancelling were limited as your suggest. It might improve it but might also make it more clunky.
About String Delays, these are the things that make DOA a fluid and fun game. I think the distinction between the casual gamer and the pro gamer is not properly made, and casual gamers not only massively outnumber the pros but also vover a lot of different types of players with different opinions on things. I understand that casual players should not have much input on the system mechanics. But I also emplore you to consider that first and foremost, DOA5 must be a fun game to play.
Football (soccer) is a fun game. CoD and Mario Kart are fun games. Not everybody likes them, but they are tremendously successful games, primarily because they are fun for everyone to play. Any software developers that start making games just for the hardcore community are going to die a horrible death. Games are meant to be fun, they have to be fun. Changes to the system that just make the game simply less fun to play for most people will cripple DOA from the start. If loads of people play the game and love it, a few will have the talent, time and dedication to take it to a pro level, but you have to start with a good game to begin with. Football or chess of CoD would be nothing if you had to be a grand master to get any enjoyment out of the game. And with DOA competing with existing franchises in a market (FG) that isn't all that popular anyway, I think it is supremely important to make sure that old fans, existing fans and potential new fans are catered to as best as possible, and that hardcore adjustments are made in tamdem with these primary goals.
Hmm way too long like I thought, I might post this on FSD as I'm not sure SCV players who second as DOA fans will really want to read all this...
Reave
[13] Hero
I read it and I agree with all of it.
DrDogg
[09] Warrior
As I said before, I wouldn't go that far.
Well, we already know that isn't the case. Christie can barely get 30% off most launches and even that's a stretch. If you look at the 7 character exhibitions, it's easy to see how the characters handle damage output. Bayman and Tina dish out way more damage than most of the cast.
The way CB works right now, you will always have at least two opportunities to escape before the CB stun. You can avoid getting hit with the first attack (or you can simply counter it), and you can counter the CB attack or sit down stun attack (if they go for either as the second attack). Also, not all CB attacks stun on normal hit, which means you can't get to the proper CB stun until at least the third hit of a combo (at best you can only do it on the second hit).
Sit down stuns you can currently struggle (slow escape) out of. However, I'd like to see that changed as it just presents more of a guessing game. Most attacks that put the opponent in a sit down stun have to hit on counterhit. the few that grant a sit down stun on normal hit are generally unsafe.
If you get hit counterhit, or you fail to escape the combo by the second or third hit, I think that's enough reward for the big damage you'd get off of a CB stun. And it's rarely going to be 70% unless you have some environmental hazards going on (which would mean you didn't move to avoid being put in that situation).
It seems to me like it's pretty well balanced as it is. The risk is there, the reward is there, and a lot of it falls on the defending player to simply play better defense.
If you removed CB from the equation, you are left with a situation in which you are stunned and now you have to guess what the offensive player will attack you with. There's no difference except that you may have yet another chance to escape AFTER getting hit if the offensive player doesn't go for a launch and instead attempts to extend the stun. Same thing happens if you can counter out of a sit down stun.
It sounds like you want Dead or Alive 4. A game in which nothing is ever guaranteed, everything is unsafe, and it's always a guessing game.
No matter what fighting game you're playing, some attacks are going to be better than others. There's simply no way around this. Even in DOA4, where almost everything was unsafe, there were still certain attacks that got spammed because they were better than the rest. You'll never have a fighting game in which every attack is equal.
A guard break is generally slow. In fact, most of them have to be charged or are negative frames on hit. Just about every NH launcher is unsafe and launches at the minimum launch height, limiting the amount of damage that can be had.
This was more to make it easier for people coming from any other fighting game. It's basic math. If my opponent is at -12, I should be able to connect a 12-frame attack unless they're pushed away too far. If I'm at +12 and my 11-frame attack can be blocked, that simply doesn't make any sense, mathematically or otherwise. Frame data is nothing more than math. I don't think it's lazy to request that the math actually works.
The problem with the string delays is that it supports the forced guessing that's a huge problem in DOA. If you can delay 90% of the attacks in the game, I never know when you've stopped attacking and when you're just delaying. How am I supposed to mount a proper defense without guessing every single time? How is that fun?
Fun is a relative term. Under almost any circumstance, what is fun for the casual player is not fun for the competitive player. I don't have fun getting booted out of SC5 rooms because I use throws and go for ring-outs, but removing those aspects of the game is fun for a lot of casuals.
There's room for both casuals and competitive players, but there's no reason to dumb the game down just to make it more fun for casuals.
Age_of_Truth
[12] Conqueror
Ok well thanks for coming back so quickly.
In which case, it's not a mix-up of 'which attack will he do, a CB or another one?' with an element (however basic) of strategy. It's literally 'will he do CB, or will he do delayed CB' naking it a straight up 50/50 with the risk of taking massive damage for guessing wrong.
It seems like it would be, P1 and P2 attack each other, one gets hit, now 50% guess for massive combo. Over and over and over and over and over again. The same combo. It sounds really dire.
Well there is a difference, these little 50/50s don't add up to stupid damage.
Believe me, if you are playing a FG and one failed read means you lose a chunk of your health, and it's from the same attack and ensuing combo over and over, the game will be boring, and it will be a joke.
Yeah I know, I said it's good for some attacks to be better, just not so much better that it obscures the need for 90% of your other options. The guaranteed argument is going nowhere. And unsafe attacks mean you have to be carfeul how you attack, rather than just attacking recklessly.
Ok sounds good.
There's no nice way to say this, your argument seems to show you don't understand the system in your own game. What is the problem with being able to block before you can attack? Your argument seems to be based on the fact that you want the system to satisfy your own desire to play numbers games that you understand. I will admit I was quite shocked when I read this. I hope I misunderstood / you didn't articulate yourself correctly.
It's the flow of the game that comes from the string delays. It's what makes the game unique and exciting. Not just playing a turn based game where 'you, attack, I attack, you attack..." Personally I find it very fun and I'm sure a lot of other DOA players do too. It's how the game works.
Defense in any game involves guessing. You can only react to so much. Anything unreactable must be guessed. When you are playing a spacing game or a frame trap game, the whole basis of the choices revolves around guessing. The good thing about string delays is that at least the options are relatively few, which makes the risk/reward more simple and the guesses more strategic.
This is improved my the fact that a lot of completed strings are unsafe, right? So finishing your string is itself a risk. It's part of the mind game and I don't see how it is different or worse than other fighters. ESPECIALLY as the counter system makes this style pretty risky.
You're banding casuals into too small a bracket. It's a classic thing that 'pro' fighting game players do, they consider the casual gamer beneath them, and then ascribe to the casual gamer all attributes of those few people they don't like.
Casual gamers aren't just the guys online who rage and troll. In fact many of those players are more like pros themselves, as they dedicate huge amounts of time to the game and demand to win all the time. The difference with this kind of player is that they refuse to learn and adapt to the game system. But this isn't most casual players.
May I also add that complaining about string delays, holds, and free cancelling is not so different to whining about throws and ring-outs. These are fundamental parts of the game's system.
Yes fun is relative, but you have to make a fun game first and foremost. I got into these games because I loved playing them full stop, I loved the fluidity of control that FGs give you that no other game can, I loved the beautiful graphics even back in the SFII days and the attention to detail given to every unique character. And as I played them more, I grew to love the competitive aspect too, which added a whole layer of depth and enjoyment to the experience. But if these games weren't fun to begin with, I wouldn't be playing them, and neither would you, nor anyone else.
You want this game to do well, to be played in huge tournaments for years to come, then you need it to be worth it for Team Ninja. If they're designing a game that only existing tournament players can enjoy (however many or few of you there are) then they're thowing away their money. More than that, you'll see the hype from the game die away pretty quick.
Honestly I want the game to be rewarding and competitive at the highest level, but a lot of the complaints I see levelled at the game have no logical sense. They are, in my opinion, the product of a mentality that seems prevalent amongst fighting gamers, that is the mentality of the sheep, whereby if others say the game is bad, most will follow, to appear knowledgeable and to avoid being the holder of unpopular, 'scrubby' opinion.
Please understand I am not saying that DOA4 was good, I am saying the reasons people claim that DOA4 were bad are not properly thought out and very few constructive points are being made for either side. In short, I don't think most people arguing this stuff are really making enough effort to understand the consequences of the things they are suggesting.
I really think that depends on how much damage we are talking. I don't think it really matters that you got put into a stun - stuns are massively prevalent in this game, can happen from a mid jab on CH. The problem is, I assume that your CB will still work if you hit your opponent while they are attempting a hold?
In which case, it's not a mix-up of 'which attack will he do, a CB or another one?' with an element (however basic) of strategy. It's literally 'will he do CB, or will he do delayed CB' naking it a straight up 50/50 with the risk of taking massive damage for guessing wrong.
It seems like it would be, P1 and P2 attack each other, one gets hit, now 50% guess for massive combo. Over and over and over and over and over again. The same combo. It sounds really dire.
Well there is a difference, these little 50/50s don't add up to stupid damage.
Believe me, if you are playing a FG and one failed read means you lose a chunk of your health, and it's from the same attack and ensuing combo over and over, the game will be boring, and it will be a joke.
Yeah I know, I said it's good for some attacks to be better, just not so much better that it obscures the need for 90% of your other options. The guaranteed argument is going nowhere. And unsafe attacks mean you have to be carfeul how you attack, rather than just attacking recklessly.
Ok sounds good.
There's no nice way to say this, your argument seems to show you don't understand the system in your own game. What is the problem with being able to block before you can attack? Your argument seems to be based on the fact that you want the system to satisfy your own desire to play numbers games that you understand. I will admit I was quite shocked when I read this. I hope I misunderstood / you didn't articulate yourself correctly.
It's the flow of the game that comes from the string delays. It's what makes the game unique and exciting. Not just playing a turn based game where 'you, attack, I attack, you attack..." Personally I find it very fun and I'm sure a lot of other DOA players do too. It's how the game works.
Defense in any game involves guessing. You can only react to so much. Anything unreactable must be guessed. When you are playing a spacing game or a frame trap game, the whole basis of the choices revolves around guessing. The good thing about string delays is that at least the options are relatively few, which makes the risk/reward more simple and the guesses more strategic.
This is improved my the fact that a lot of completed strings are unsafe, right? So finishing your string is itself a risk. It's part of the mind game and I don't see how it is different or worse than other fighters. ESPECIALLY as the counter system makes this style pretty risky.
You're banding casuals into too small a bracket. It's a classic thing that 'pro' fighting game players do, they consider the casual gamer beneath them, and then ascribe to the casual gamer all attributes of those few people they don't like.
Casual gamers aren't just the guys online who rage and troll. In fact many of those players are more like pros themselves, as they dedicate huge amounts of time to the game and demand to win all the time. The difference with this kind of player is that they refuse to learn and adapt to the game system. But this isn't most casual players.
May I also add that complaining about string delays, holds, and free cancelling is not so different to whining about throws and ring-outs. These are fundamental parts of the game's system.
Yes fun is relative, but you have to make a fun game first and foremost. I got into these games because I loved playing them full stop, I loved the fluidity of control that FGs give you that no other game can, I loved the beautiful graphics even back in the SFII days and the attention to detail given to every unique character. And as I played them more, I grew to love the competitive aspect too, which added a whole layer of depth and enjoyment to the experience. But if these games weren't fun to begin with, I wouldn't be playing them, and neither would you, nor anyone else.
You want this game to do well, to be played in huge tournaments for years to come, then you need it to be worth it for Team Ninja. If they're designing a game that only existing tournament players can enjoy (however many or few of you there are) then they're thowing away their money. More than that, you'll see the hype from the game die away pretty quick.
Honestly I want the game to be rewarding and competitive at the highest level, but a lot of the complaints I see levelled at the game have no logical sense. They are, in my opinion, the product of a mentality that seems prevalent amongst fighting gamers, that is the mentality of the sheep, whereby if others say the game is bad, most will follow, to appear knowledgeable and to avoid being the holder of unpopular, 'scrubby' opinion.
Please understand I am not saying that DOA4 was good, I am saying the reasons people claim that DOA4 were bad are not properly thought out and very few constructive points are being made for either side. In short, I don't think most people arguing this stuff are really making enough effort to understand the consequences of the things they are suggesting.
SolidSonic
[09] Warrior
I dunno man...if Sarah Bryant was a hit and now Rig is real, the only no-shows left would be Pai and Mila (boss?).
If this was just a bunch of returning characters I might be inclined to agree that it's not sufficient but we're talking new faces here (characters we wouldn't be able to expect otherwise).
I could even be charitable and give you the benefit of the doubt, saying Sarah isn't a "surprising" addition (she is probably one of the more well-known Virtua Fighter characters) but, at least for me, Rig nails it down beyond all argument. His inclusion stands that the list is to be trusted.
DrakeAldan
Follow the rules!
I'm a little confused here.
There is block punishment in this game, right? Or no?
I know in at least one game (i.e. Tekken) you can be at severe advantage without having things guaranteed, but it's a very "niche" situation. Does this happen multiple times in DOA?
DrDogg
[09] Warrior
Yes, it would still work... unless the CB was held.
You just made note that a mid jab can stun on CH. But the key word is "CH". That means that I hit you in the middle of your attack. Had you been playing better defense, either the attack would not have stunned (NH) or you would've simply blocked it. Why do you need a chance to escape after you already messed up? Not only are you given that chance, but even in the fastest CB situation, you're given TWO chances to escape (the most common situation will be 3-4 chances).
How many chances do you need for you to feel it's fair?
I don't think you understand how the CB system works. Using a CB is really no different than launching someone. In most cases, if you're going to use a CB it's going to look like this:
1st attack: Stun (you can counter this)
2nd attack: Extended the stun (you can counter this)
3rd attack: Critical Burst (you can counter this, unless the 2nd attack was a sit down stun)
4th attack: Launch
If you remove the CB from the equation, you'd end up with this:
1st attack: Stun
2nd attack: Extended the stun
3rd attack: Launch or maybe extend the stun again
4th attack: Launch
Keep in mind, even in the CB scenario, I can simply launch at that point instead of using a CB, especially if I think you're going to counter the CB. I'm not seeing how this is significantly different than the second scenario here. In fact, the only difference is that instead of having up to 4 chances to escape AFTER getting hit, you have 3 in the CB scenario.
It's not one failed read. It's at least two in the fastest CB situation, and three or four in most CB situations. I think if you failed to read the opponent 2-4 times, you should lose 50%. Can you name any fighting game in which that isn't a possibility? Even in DOA4, if you failed to read the opponent 3-4 times, you were losing a chunk of life.
Right now, roughly 90% of the attacks in DOA5 are unsafe. It's not about being careful rather than attacking recklessly.
Do you understand frame data? If not, then I can understand your confusion. I understand the system just fine. I'm not saying the math needs to give me guaranteed attacks. I'm saying the math is incorrect and should display correctly.
If I'm at +12 and I use an 11-frame attack, it makes no sense that you can block it. Math states that you should not be able to do anything for 12 frames, so if I attack with an 11-frame punch, it should hit. It's not about being able to block before you can attack. It's about how frame data is universally read.
If I'm at +12, you can't do anything for 12 frames. You can't step, you can't duck, you can't block, you can't attack, you can't do anything. If you can block in 11 frames, then I'm not at +12, I'm at +11 and the game should state that.
The specific situation I was referring to is with Akira. Against a wall his 2P+K leaves him at +12. However, the only attack I can connect is his normal P, which is i10. If I use an 11- or 12-frame attack, it can be blocked. That doesn't make sense. If all I can get is an i10 attack, then it should state that I'm at +10, not +12. Again, basic math.
And it's one of the reasons why there's no competitive scene for DOA. All of the changes/adjustments I'm proposing are strictly to give the game some competitive life. If you drop the number of delayable strings from 100% down to 50%, very few people are going to say, "This game isn't fun anymore because I can only delay half of the strings." But it will make the game far more appealing to the average competitive player.
There's a difference. In pretty much every other competitive fighting game, I'm not forced to guess at every interaction. There are instances where my opponent can put me in a 50/50, but it's not all the time, and I have ways to stop myself from getting into these situations. In DOA, it's a 50/50 100% of the time. That's not appealing to competitive players.
This is not true. When I put the opponent in a frame trap, there's no forced guessing involved. They can block and avoid anything I can do from that frame trap, or they can attack and get hit. They have the OPTION to guess a duck or step, but it's not a forced guess. They can block and not take any damage.
In addition, not every attack puts the opponent in a frame trap. It's only a select few attacks and therefore even that optional guess is limited to only a few situations.
The same thing goes for the spacing game. When am I guessing? I'm moving around in an attempt to get you to whiff. If you whiff, I punish that whiff. There's no guess involved. From the opponent's perspective, they attacked outside of their attack range. That wasn't a forced guess, they made a mistake by attacking at the wrong time. If they guessed when to attack, it's their own fault for guessing in a situation in which they did not have to guess.
This is also incorrect. When you combine string delays and free canceling, the options are limitless. They can free cancel instead of delaying, then go for any attack they want. You can't determine when a string is being delayed so you have no idea if they free canceled or if it's just a delay. You're forced to guess every single time the opponent starts a string. That's not good for competitive play.
Mind games are not the issue. It's the fact that it's ALWAYS a mind game in which the only way to win is to guess right... in every single situation. That's not competitive. No effort was required to put the opponent into that mind game, and the only way out is guessing. It's essentially random, and random is rarely good for competitive play.
You're making assumptions. The casual player is the most important player. Without them we'd never get these sequels. If Tecmo-Koei was not interested in the competitive player, then I wouldn't be writing these articles because it wouldn't matter. However, they are interested and they are listening. They want to see DOA5 played at tournaments. They want a much better competitive scene than DOA has seen in the past.
The changes I'm suggesting would not change how casuals view the game. It has a minor impact on casual play, but a huge impact on competitive play.
So what do you think was wrong with DOA4?
I'm not saying what's right or wrong about the leak, just that it's a bit too soon to be saying it's 100% accurate. You should probably just trust me on this one. ;)
Primary punishment in DOA is throws. The average neutral throw is i5 and breakable. The average command throw is i7 and unbreakable. So anything -7 of above is unsafe and allows for guaranteed punishment.
Guard breaks give most characters anywhere from -2 to +12. In most cases you don't get anything guaranteed off of them because you can't throw an opponent in block stun and the fastest jabs are i9.
My issue is not with something being guaranteed from a guard break, but that the displayed math is incorrect. At +12 I should be able to connect a 12-frame attack, but at best you can only connect a 10-frame attack (meaning you're actually at +10, not +12).
Age_of_Truth
[12] Conqueror
I don't want to hijack this thread, but it's probably looking like that's what I'm trying to do, so I will make an FSD account and continue the conversation there. Sorry if I'm coming across as rude, I appreciate that you're coming to this site to try and reason with me and the other players. But I disagree with so much of what you said. Will continue on FSD.
EDIT: ah damn I just deleted the main point I was trying to make. I can't be bothered to type it all again... maybe a mod can reinstate it? In summary:
yes I can understand frame data, I did all the initial testing and completed frame data for two characters on the SCV official guide, so that the other authors could do the frame data for their characters.
But from what you wrote regarding DOA frame data, it seems you don't understand the game system for DOA, which is amazing for someone who is (presumably?) considered an expert. It also seems that you don't understand high-level fighting games especially well, based on what you said about guessing in relation to frame traps and spacing.
EDIT: ah damn I just deleted the main point I was trying to make. I can't be bothered to type it all again... maybe a mod can reinstate it? In summary:
yes I can understand frame data, I did all the initial testing and completed frame data for two characters on the SCV official guide, so that the other authors could do the frame data for their characters.
But from what you wrote regarding DOA frame data, it seems you don't understand the game system for DOA, which is amazing for someone who is (presumably?) considered an expert. It also seems that you don't understand high-level fighting games especially well, based on what you said about guessing in relation to frame traps and spacing.
Norik
[14] Master
So...
Who do you guys want to main? I think I'll stick with Bayman and Leon, but I must admit that that Rig guy looks interesting.
Who do you guys want to main? I think I'll stick with Bayman and Leon, but I must admit that that Rig guy looks interesting.
Sett
[14] Master
I'll start with some wrestler dude then try a random blonde girl and stick with her because I don't like wrestler dudes.
TsunamiBye
[14] Master
Kokoro and Zack. But I'll dabble around a few others I deem interesting.
d3v
[10] Knight
They shouldn't have the option to get out of being stunned/comboed in the first place.
From a competitive point of view, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the same attacks over and over. If you are unable to adapt to someone using the same moves or options everyting, then that is your problem, not theirs, not the developers. To quote Sirlin "Play to win, not to do "difficult" moves".
Some of the best, deepest, most competitive fighters ever to hit the tournament circuit, ones that have been played for decades on one, allow you to do this and more.
-Super Street Fighter II Turbo
-Marvel Vs Capcom 2
In Super Turbo, this match-up is interesting precisely because Ryu shuts down almost half the cast, once he gets that fireball trap running, it's pretty hard to get out. It's interesting because it forces players to learn to use whatever tools their character has to get in and beat Ryu. For example, Blanka almost has zero chance of getting in, but in the hands of a good Blanka player, once he does get in, they can still wreck shop.
This happens in every fighting game that's played competitively. People will always use the best options available to them. Taking those out or trying to make everything a "best option" simply leads to a game where randomness is rewarded, which is terrible from a competitive point of view. The only valid reasons to drop a max damage combo are to either reset to get past damage/hitstun scaling or to set your opponent up in a position where they'll end up eating even more damage (vortex).
The casual gamer cares nothing about how the game plays at high levels. They'll simply buy the game because of "lolbewbs." Appealing to the FGC means that the game finally gets to develop the competitive scene that it has needed for so long.
EDIT:
On the roster thing, Bryan (DrDogg) works for IGN, so we can assume that TN may have told them certain things that us regular folk aren't supposed to know yet.
- Moderator
- #999
Ghengis_John
[13] Hero
Uh, sorry. All I saw was Christie in a nightie.
DrDogg said:
The i11 should connect, the i12 should not. The only reason the i11 would miss is if the hit frame to reach the opponent's hurt box is on the 13th frame of the animation, meaning the first hit frame didn't reach the opponent's hurtbox.
An i11 attack is 11 frames of initial startup frames, you know this. It's not until the 12th frame of animation is a hit box registered. That's why the i12 would not be guaranteed and would be blockable as the 13th frame of animation is the first hit frame so that's appearing at the moment the opponent is able to guard for their first frame.