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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Right now, roughly 90% of the attacks in DOA5 are unsafe. It's not about being careful rather than attacking recklessly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Defense in any game involves guessing. You can only react to so much. Anything unreactable must be guessed.
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.
When you are playing a spacing game or a frame trap game, the whole basis of the choices revolves around guessing.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
So what do you think was wrong with DOA4?
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.
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. ;)
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?
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).
