Dead or Alive 5 Ultimate

[SolidSonic]

I wonder what Mila's fighting style will be. Hopefully something I never heard of.

 

[Age_of_Truth]

Sorry for the late response. I didn't realize there was a DOA5 thread here.

You're welcome to disagree with everything I wrote. However, we've seen what happens when DOA plays like it always has. It gets no tournament love unless there are large amounts of money involved, and even then it really doesn't get much love.

The changes I've suggested would not remove what makes DOA unique, but it would allow for the competitive players to remove some of the forced guessing and apply more conventional strategies. If you still want to play the old DOA4 stun game, you can... but it would be optional, and with these changes I'd be able to severely punish you for guessing wrong. Meanwhile, I would have a way around the forced guessing if you tried to impose that play style on me.

I don't think any of that is a bad thing...

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

]
"I would prefer a game that has less times where you're required to 'read'. It was really mentally taxing in DOA4 to have to 'read' so often. It's probably why I enjoyed DOA3 because they were more controlled instances with some breaktime in between."

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]

I read it and I agree with all of it.

 

[DrDogg]

So then, I think it's good to say that the leaked list is true.

As I said before, I wouldn't go that far.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Ok well thanks for coming back so quickly.

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)

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Ok sounds good.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.