Dead or Alive 5 Ultimate
- Thread starter UNDERX
- Start date
AKNova7
[10] Knight
I can agree with this to an extent, yes, but I feel the nerf of offensive damage in DOA4 wasn't because of low damage on offense, it was from high damage on defense. The hold system in 4 was very overpowered to compensate for the extra hold. In DOA3, the counter system was three point, meaning that offense could be more viscous, and that's how the game was balanced. I believe this is correct, the DOA3 style of balancing, because it accounts for decent defense (as far as holds) as well as offense to co-exist in the game correctly. Sure, many other 3D fighters don't reward for their parries, but DOA has a string versatility and speed that most those games don't have as well. I just want the game to be done well, and taking something from DOA4 that had such vast repercussions on the fighting system is frightening. Trust me on this, the offense in DOA5 is quite good, at least at the top end, as far as combo guarantees. But, more than just offense vs defense, a strong defense to go along with a strong offense adds for so much more than just combo players, like many DOA players are, outside of the competitive communities.
Age_of_Truth
[12] Conqueror
I don't really get why some of you guys care so much about guaranteed damage. The whole point of DOA is that it is constant high-pressure mind games. You read your opponent well, you get damage. Nerfing holds just means that you gotta pick your moments to use them more carefully. Spamming them becomes more risky, but making an accurate guess or using reflexes to counter should be rewarding. So if they're changing the holds system like they say they are, then it rewards good play and makes the game less spammy.
For me, watching the same launch combos over and over is just boring. If you are spamming parries in a panic, you should be punishable. If you make a good read, you should be rewarded. Predictable players are extremely easy to beat. It's all good.
For me, watching the same launch combos over and over is just boring. If you are spamming parries in a panic, you should be punishable. If you make a good read, you should be rewarded. Predictable players are extremely easy to beat. It's all good.
Guaranteed damage provides logic for decision making on what your opponent is trying to do. If you had every move in the move list do 10 points of damage and not be comboable to the next move item, would you be able to 'read' your opponent then? No, you both would be just playing a random guessing game. That's what DOA4 felt like to me, it didn't really matter what move I used, and since it didn't matter to me, the opponent couldn't 'read' me properly.
Launch combos are going to happen and eventually be static. Players will maximize the damage from the guaranteed opportunity to win the match. That's their reward for getting the launch to occur, and if they are repeatedly being hit by the same launcher then I'd question the player's ability to 'beat such a predictable player'.
Now you go into DOA3 where you have moves that are obviously 'better options' over other moves such as launching on normal hit, safe on guard, guarantee followups, and you throw in some positional space into the equation and you can logically point what would be 100s of options from the opponent to a mere 1-3 options that would be the optimum choice. In such a system, you could punish someone for just being stupidly random for random's sake like in any other instance of game theory, and the player who wasn't random but calculated instead would end up on top each time.
AKNova7
[10] Knight
Now, regardless of fighting game, quite personally, I believe that's a good thing, honestly. Not necessarily limited options, but calculated play, yes.
It's not the damage that we're concerned with. Even more importantly, not all the DOA's were as high pressure as the next, but, yes, it's been relatively staple throughout the series. Personally, I hated the damage output in DOA 4, and thought, while the system implementing them was bad, WAY too much damage was given out for guessing right. Furthermore, now, not only is there a bad system implementing them, but you get very little for guessing right, and you have to guess accurately timing wise. (which, I never did mind, but I do mind in the four point system with the same rules). If you wanted to make the game's holds less spammy, nerf the recovery time on the move so someone couldn't keep pressing hold-hold-hold and counter anything coming their way. It's that easy. The entire system doesn't have to be changed for that one reason.