Dime_x, I agree with some of your points, and agree to disagree on some others.
Yep. This beautifully sums it up. I liked sfiv, and felt like I’d become relatively good at it. I had a naturally defensive/reactive style as a rose main which isn’t immediately rewarded in sfv online. Sure the game had flaws but it’s still the comparison someone like me uses for sfv and the longer rounds that allow for more adaptation is what I’m used to and prefer -for me.
I like sfv also which is why I’m playing it. But I believe both games have flaws and positives to me and this is my personal opinion of sfv’s.
high damage vs low damage is the same thing as single game format vs like a FT10. one tests how well you play with very limited information, the other tests how well you can adapt over time. they’re different skillsets and there’s no way of objectively saying which is a better test. but we can at least say most people give more value to long sets - no one ever says “I’m definitely better than you, let’s FT1 for $10000.”
on the flip side, that’s part of the appeal of Japan 3v3 tournies. in a FT10 maybe the better player wins every time but if you only have to beat someone once, anything can happen.
I don’t know, I feel SF5 has both low and high damage…mainly due to ridiculous Crush Counter combos.
Maybe it’s because I played too much anime and other games with similar systems but have something of a safety net if it happens(Dead or Alive, Blazblue, Guilty Gear), seeing it in SF5 with no real way to stop it past wasting precious for some characters V-Trigger on TOP of the fact that just like with any other game with a “Counter Attack”, it can be baited and added for more free damage or pressure.
High Damage vs Low Damage is a matter of asking how many times should somebody be allowed to fuck up before they lose or how much you want to reward a good read/decision.
After that realize that not every game can be the same or every iteration of a game the same. Its meh all around, I could take certain things said by the creator of the this game seriously if it weren’t for a lot of the things actually in it. There’s very little room to convince me that normals were legitimiately well thought out or much of anything else after a certain point.
Where does this statement that SF4 has lower damage than 5 come from? You can compare every normal and special move and in the majority of cases SF4 wins.
Ryu far standing heavy punch does 120 damage in 4, and that is just one example. Its mostly the same thing with special moves like DP and Tatsu. In SF4 you have to actively search for special moves (non-projectile of course) that do <100 damage, where in 5 a lot of characters have them.
And this is before we acknowledge that SFV damage scaling is more severe than 4, excluding Super Scaling. You also have the fact that unsafe moves are easier to punish in 4, and AA specials dont inexplicably do less damage when AA’ing.
Now you could argue SFV competes because meter builds faster, but im not sure that makes up for the DP FADC Ultra you guys swear happen every single round, sometimes more. And most characters in 4 can do damage that SFV chatacters need to burn meter for without burning a stock.
Posts like these make me wonder if my SF4 experience was that much different than everyone else’s. Because a lot of the shit i hear people parrot about the game is blantly false to me.
Actually they do. It’s the same between SF4 and SF5; an AA special move, like an uppercut, does less damage if it hits later in its active frames. Likewise in both SF4 and SF5, anti-airs do less damage on their designated anti-air hitboxes (at least on the mexican uppercut types).
Was this true for the single hit DP type moves too (Cannon Spike, Flash Kick, etc.)? And even if it is, it makes little difference to my overall point because the moves do less damage in general anyway.
Sfiv damage was less, because you didn’t get to use your heaviest damage in a combo mostly unless it started with lights or was a guaranteed punish. There wasn’t as much fishing for big counterhits off a point blank heavy because it was usually negative on block. Bnbs were way less, ryu safe confirm jump-in bnb in sfv is s.MP confirm to c.HP x HP dp for example. You only have to watch any high level sfiv match to see the longer rounds in general , longer because they required generally more openings before you killed the opponent.
Jumping was also weaker which slowed it down, partly because all you gained off a jump in was a bnb unless confirmed well in advance to go heavy. Also pressing a million buttons was done less because whiff punishing was so strong, another thing that makes sfv rounds quicker and more of a slugfest
I certainly understand the concept of longer rounds to equate to longer sets, however, I don’t think lowering damage is the best option to achieve that. Yes, the rounds will last longer, but it also means that when those smarter players are making those correct decisions, they are getting rewarded less. This game is not going to get such a thing, but if they were ever going to make a fighting game which offered longer fights, I would prefer it to be something achieved by correct usage of systems within the game. You could design a whole character/game around the concept of lengthening round time, regaining health (correctly, not SFIV Elena nonsense) or what have you to drag fights out longer. Not going to happen in SFV however.
There’s always going to be players who do better in sets, that’s just how it is. Generally speaking, yeah, a set is where you’re more or less going to be showing that you are better than said person, because at the end of the day, if you cannot win consistently against someone, then are are not better than them. It’s unfortunate for those set players who really don’t adapt fast enough in a tourny setting, but that’s just how it has to be. Longer sets just aren’t practical for a tournament environment. This is coming from someone who is a set player. I’ve won hundreds of FT10/20s in 3S after going like 2/7 at the start and then downloading completely and rolling through all of the remaining games.
Not everyone plays well when all of your tools are known, and some people – even amazing players, have bad habits which they will repeat endlessly but that they won’t even realize until it comes out during long sets and really gets exploited. Those are the kind of problems you don’t really notice until you watch replays back and you’re like “Oh, I did the same reset like… every single time, no wonder he blocked it so much.”
Personally, I don’t think SFV’s damage is a problem, other than that the risk-reward for doing certain things is skewed. Which is less a problem with damage, and more a problem with the tools you can use to achieve damage during moments where that risk-reward is skewed. If I have a problem with SFV’s damage, it’s actually that I don’t like the universal damage output between character normals. I think some normals should have different damage/stun then they do, I don’t like that near all fierce moves hit for the same damage/stun, seems like a wasted opportunity for more move differentiation, and just playstyle choices. I miss having high stun/low damage moves.
I’m pretty sure the last thing spectators would want to see is less impact in matches by lowering the damage. I don’t even want to imagine Chun-Li mirror matches with lower damage output.
If anything, the game needs more emphasis in having cheap things that makes something stand out to a point where the other players will try to prep up in any way possible to have counters for it (while having cheap things for themselves). You’ll probably see different aspects of playstyles due to this where they will find other uses in their (hypothetically) good toolset… but as of now, there are the few that has bs (a big portion being good buttons rather than good signature moves/punishes/pressure), and then there are the rest that has cheap stuff too, but it doesn’t doesn’t shine too much as it should. Thus, most of the time, it usually revolves on who makes the better decisions with the basic SF gameplan.
Oh side note, about my creativity post comment… another example I can say with that is trying to tell the difference between players and their distinct playstyles. SFV seems to have a direct outlook of having the game approach basic SF without much cheap stuff until the supposed V-Trigger comes in place… Consequently, I felt that it affects certain playstyles (Daigo’s mindset, for example, definitely will have some disadvantage in a sense). If I were to watch MOV and GO1 play and someone told me which player is using which character in the set, imo, I couldn’t really tell which one is playing either character.
There’s nothing wrong with the damage in 5 and the stun bar adds further mind games. It’s the fact that all the action between characters is done at point blank because the mid range is just so fucking risky it’s not worth it.
I’m going to poke you for 70 damage …but you might crush counter me for 220? Yeah …no. It’s basically focus attack but better because you could stop focus attack. How many times are we seeing things like Rashids heavy buttons go unpunished ? That should be bread and butter shit for a pro.
The other thing is they deliberately made it difficult to time meatys so what happens is on your advantage there’s every chance you might eat a wake up jab combo. We saw that today in the finals between Rashid and Chun again.
Basically the skill in this game now is stealing turns or keeping your turn and turning a hit into bigger damage. All of the action in this game is super close to the characters.
Yeah, true. Of the ranged moves in the game few are really good. There’s Ryu, Nash and Chun fireballs… And like not much else.
If it were just infighting that wouldn’t be so bad, but it’s also the fact that the infighting is also nerfed to shit with weak throws, weak overheads and weak low attacks.
The game is made to force players to commit, but that’s exactly why it feels bland. Who wants to commit to doing unsafe shit for some huge payoff? Not me. I’d rather attack safely and take my reward. Capcom is basically trying to force players to like bad players. Bad players commit to shit. Good players don’t. If yup want to beat a good player you have to force them to commit to something… But in this game everything has a mixup. An obvious rote mixup, but a mixup nonetheless. It just tends to start to feel very rps at all times, not just advantaged, not just neutral, not just disadvantaged… It’s basically like that at almost all times. The only thing that can salvage this game for me is of p,ayers start to actually do 1 hitconfirms. If that happens then this game will start to resemble streetfighter again and not this weirdo random commitment mixup no spacing game.
