Anyone else not buying into the SFV hype?

[AceKombat]

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.

I couldn’t care less about what some hypothetical spectators would want to see

I care about the game only as a player

Sorry, but in a forum dedicated for tournaments and the scene itself, spectating is definitely on the important side of things that makes the game shine for the art that it is.

Not taking consideration of the spectating side of things is a sure fire way to make the game stagnate (not regarding sales, as NRS games show otherwise). It’s important to get others to hop in the game to not only expand the lifespan of the game, but to grow the niche genre that is fighting games itself. Capcom obviously is heading for the direction of tournament exposure. If the game is boring to watch, what will make the viewers gain interest in joining tournaments/communities?

Perfect example in my case was Mortal Kombat 9. Game felt okay for me (before I learned about the P1 advantage nonsense), but it was definitely not fun to watch… hence, I didn’t really hang or supported their scene much when the time was needed (including streams), which is a bad thing for them.

Probably another example that can be brought up was Smash Brawl. Probably someone else can chime in on that, since I barely watch Smash… but from what I can tell, it is the worst of the series (possibly not 100% true, but vocally it seems to be the case) to both watch and play, not only for pacing reasons, but for other things (trip mechanic, etc.)

[Vhozite]

Except that SF5 is boring as shit to watch.

[Highlandfireball]

Except that SF5 is boring as shit too watch.

Unless it’s like today when both players go at it - Rashid and Chun was actually quite good

[Hawkingbird]

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.

I couldn’t care less about what some hypothetical spectators would want to see

I care about the game only as a player

Training stage finally got banned thanks to spectators. They are changing things for the better.

[Raging_Zoroark]

I’m the only one that doesn’t care at all about training stage being used on tournaments?

[Pertho]

I’m the only one that doesn’t care at all about training stage being used on tournaments?

Yes. After 4 years of that shit in SF4, training stage can go EAD. Learn spacing the proper way not cheating yourself by using the background.

[Highlandfireball]

I’m the only one that doesn’t care at all about training stage being used on tournaments?

Personally I only play on training stage, the less laggy shitty distractions the better. The stages in SF5 are not exactly eye catching, the new ones with the alternate lighting are better though.

[Vhozite]

I pick the Training Stage because I can’t stand looking at most SFV stages, or more specifically, the NPC’s. There is nothing appealing to me about shitty looking, poorly animated NPC’s dancing in the background of a fight.

Also, The Grid seems to load faster for me than any other stage. It was really noticable during the various beta’s, and it still seems to be the case now.

[Hawkingbird]

I hate the Grid because there is literally nothing to it. It has the blandest music in the game and every match that happens in it feels boring because of it. Many players use the lines on the stage as a clutch for their spacing. Is it so hard to chose a stage where nothing is going on with something there? It’s what the water fall and estate at noon stage is for.

[Arthuro_Ray]

I only pick the grid against people i have lag spikes with, music is usually first priority (almost all of them have good music btw),

The only stage i never pick is the Casino, that purple haze hurt my eyes.

[NG1313]

I pick the Training Stage because I can’t stand looking at most SFV stages, or more specifically, the NPC’s. There is nothing appealing to me about shitty looking, poorly animated NPC’s dancing in the background of a fight.

So you’d rather watch say a basketball game without any of the other spectators around, or is that different, somehow?

Or maybe this scene from Gladiator without any of the specators:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs

[vital]

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.

I couldn’t care less about what some hypothetical spectators would want to see

I care about the game only as a player

Sorry, but in a forum dedicated for tournaments and the scene itself, spectating is definitely on the important side of things that makes the game shine for the art that it is.

Not taking consideration of the spectating side of things is a sure fire way to make the game stagnate (not regarding sales, as NRS games show otherwise). It’s important to get others to hop in the game to not only expand the lifespan of the game, but to grow the niche genre that is fighting games itself. Capcom obviously is heading for the direction of tournament exposure. If the game is boring to watch, what will make the viewers gain interest in joining tournaments/communities?

Perfect example in my case was Mortal Kombat 9. Game felt okay for me (before I learned about the P1 advantage nonsense), but it was definitely not fun to watch… hence, I didn’t really hang or supported their scene much when the time was needed (including streams), which is a bad thing for them.

Probably another example that can be brought up was Smash Brawl. Probably someone else can chime in on that, since I barely watch Smash… but from what I can tell, it is the worst of the series (possibly not 100% true, but vocally it seems to be the case) to both watch and play, not only for pacing reasons, but for other things (trip mechanic, etc.)

The scene is going to locals and playing, not sitting around and just watching people play.

Tournaments are going to tournaments and entering to play. EVO is about going and giving it your best shot as a competitor first and foremost

Fighting games have never been and should never be “spectator first” - there is a big culture of “spectator first” in MOBA/RTS esports and honestly it’s the worst thing, we don’t need that

edit: I would also say that a fighting game that is extremely fun and rewarding to play is going to be fun to spectate as well

[Quark]

The scene is going to locals and playing, not sitting around and just watching people play.

Tournaments are going to tournaments and entering to play. EVO is about going and giving it your best shot as a competitor first and foremost

The people ‘sitting around and watching’ are the future of the community. If the game excites them and draws them in as a spectator, there’s a much greater chance they will get involved with locals or tournaments in the future. If they don’t get involved… well, there may no longer BE a “scene” in 10 or 20 years.

[BERSERKERRR]

I couldn’t disagree with this more. Low damage allows bad play to make it into a game. High damage forces better play because it allows for fewer mistakes.

Low damage allows slower players more time to get acquainted with a round, but why throw slower players any kind of bone… That just makes the game watered down by slower bad players.

i think that’s a pretty limited, silly and reductionist way of looking at it. if you don’t get his point, then allow me to clarify, because what you’re saying is fundamentally flawed. if someone can make fewer mistakes, the converse applies in that the opponent needs less openings, and the exact opposite argument of what you are attempting to make can be applied in this regard, invalidating your position (i.e. ‘needing less openings for a win rewards yolo players with no thought’) because if one is true, so is the other, and they’re both contradictory.

now, fighting game results are to a large degree based on statistical results; it’s why a single match vs. two players isn’t nearly enough to judge the skill differences. it’s a mathematical fact that the larger volume of sets you play, the more accurate your statistical results will be in terms of representing the actual skill differences. lowering damage and increasing health (aside from how it affects super meter dynamics with extended rounds) is essentially just the same as a longer set in practice, in which case it’s a guarantee the more consistently skilled player will come out on top.

to give an exaggerated example, what if a match was bo1, and some guy has a few gimmicks he can throw out that the other hasn’t seen him do. one of the gimmick mixups do 70% hp, the other does 30%, and he loses to it. the lower your sample size, the larger the possibility of something like that happening becomes.

so honestly, mathematically speaking, it’s the exact opposite of what you’re saying. high damage allows for gimmicks and yolo strategies to be more successful. additionally, ‘fewer mistakes allowed’ than what? because the only thing where it’d really matter if you had “fewer mistakes allowed” was if there was some sort of difference between you and your opponent. additionally, this isn’t very thought-through, because any mistake done by the opponent should be punished by you, right? and so if the opponent is allowed to make “more mistakes” that go unpunished, then that’s actually your fault in the first place! and so it doesn’t allow more mistakes; it only allows more mistakes if you let them, but then it’s actually you who’s making a mistake.

i mean for a guy who calls others ‘simpletons’ and seems to think you’re an authority on who’s intellectual or not, your entire position is completely unreflected and entirely disconnected from logic/statistics/maths.

[DevilJin_01]

You need a middle ground. You can’t have damage that’s too low or the game inevitably gets to a point where basic tools aren’t being rewarded enough and you drag on the matches for spectators. Especially with games becoming eSports now you can’t have the matches drag on for a long time.

Longer sets with the current damage should be fine. Just reward people who make top 32 with an extra match to play. That way you can still have a high damage game where putting buttons in the right place gives enough immediate reward while having more adaptation.

[Dime]

I couldn’t disagree with this more. Low damage allows bad play to make it into a game. High damage forces better play because it allows for fewer mistakes.

Low damage allows slower players more time to get acquainted with a round, but why throw slower players any kind of bone… That just makes the game watered down by slower bad players.

i think that’s a pretty limited, silly and reductionist way of looking at it. if you don’t get his point, then allow me to clarify, because what you’re saying is fundamentally flawed. if someone can make fewer mistakes, the converse applies in that the opponent needs less openings, and the exact opposite argument of what you are attempting to make can be applied in this regard, invalidating your position (i.e. ‘needing less openings for a win rewards yolo players with no thought’) because if one is true, so is the other, and they’re both contradictory.

now, fighting game results are to a large degree based on statistical results; it’s why a single match vs. two players isn’t nearly enough to judge the skill differences. it’s a mathematical fact that the larger volume of sets you play, the more accurate your statistical results will be in terms of representing the actual skill differences. lowering damage and increasing health (aside from how it affects super meter dynamics with extended rounds) is essentially just the same as a longer set in practice, in which case it’s a guarantee the more consistently skilled player will come out on top.

to give an exaggerated example, what if a match was bo1, and some guy has a few gimmicks he can throw out that the other hasn’t seen him do. one of the gimmick mixups do 70% hp, the other does 30%, and he loses to it. the lower your sample size, the larger the possibility of something like that happening becomes.

so honestly, mathematically speaking, it’s the exact opposite of what you’re saying. high damage allows for gimmicks and yolo strategies to be more successful. additionally, ‘fewer mistakes allowed’ than what? because the only thing where it’d really matter if you had “fewer mistakes allowed” was if there was some sort of difference between you and your opponent. additionally, this isn’t very thought-through, because any mistake done by the opponent should be punished by you, right? and so if the opponent is allowed to make “more mistakes” that go unpunished, then that’s actually your fault in the first place! and so it doesn’t allow more mistakes; it only allows more mistakes if you let them, but then it’s actually you who’s making a mistake.

i mean for a guy who calls others ‘simpletons’ and seems to think you’re an authority on who’s intellectual or not, your entire position is completely unreflected and entirely disconnected from logic/statistics/maths.

Yeah, having played both high damage games and low damage games… I’m no authority and you can argue math all you want but the better player wins the high damage games harder than they win the lower damage games.

As I said, high damage games are more psychological. You are funny that you use an example as a “gimmick” to try and make a point with stupid hypotheticals, but really, no one is losing to gimmicks in high damage games. You got outplayed by a mixup you didn’t know, which means you were in a bad situation to begin with. And you lost because of that.

There is of course the correlation that the more games one p,says the less variance there is… But that only supposes variance along those amounts of games. As I said. How low is low damage? How high is high damage? How many games need to be played for one player to know they are better? To me it’s ANY amount of games.

If it’s 1 game and both players know it’s one game… The they bring out their one game tactics. If it’s best of 10 then they bring out their stuff slower. Who’s better, they 100 meter sprinter that would get beaten by the marathon runner in a marathon… Or the marathon runner that would get beaten by a sprinter in a sprint.

To me… And this is the primary reason why I think this way, it’s all about the arcades baby. The best players were all bred in the arcades. The arcades were high damage ONE GAME. You lose you get back in line. You have to play fucking SOLID the entire time. Not get 3-5 chances to play bad, get a read, then make those 3-5 chances back up and take a win. I don’t understand how players think more chances equals better players or more skill, It’s beyond me. I think it’s just scrub speak for “I don’t want to die to fast” to be perfectly honest.

[BERSERKERRR]

yes, of course you got caught by a mixup, even if it’s a gimmick, but saying it’s “outplay” is ridiculous (outside of large sample volumes,) unless you are legitimately trying to say ‘gimmicks’ isn’t a concept? in which case i’d like to point out there are plenty of gimmicky mixups/shenanigans that can catch people off-guard occasionally, but won’t work when people are looking for them, or function as a consistent mixup. the prevalence of higher reward from such elements leads to a significantly lower skill requirement in order to have a ‘chance’ at winning a round or match. that’s what a ‘gimmick’ is, and if you think a gimmick mixup winning a match shows the difference in skill between players, then you and i see fighters very differently. *(edit: also, that can’t actually be the case, thinking a bit more about it. i have a friend who i can beat 10/10 matches, because he’ll always make some repeated dumb decision in the exact same situation and i’ll beat him out. but every now and again, i’ll expect him to learn, and i’ll try to next level him, but he just does the same thing and it beats me out, so i lose a match because of it.

that could happen in a bo1, as well, even though i’d beat him 20 matches straight right after, and so attempting to claim that guy was a ‘better player’ for that match would actually be retarded. and this is why a low sample rate in itself is dumb, and the same reason why higher damage reward, meaning fewer guesses required to win, also lowers the skill requirement for attaining a win against better players.)*

you can say “you can argue maths all you want” as if it invalidates what i said, but it doesn’t. what you’re saying is fundamentally not correct. your entire premise is based upon silly, subjective preconceptions you have about how things should or shouldn’t be, but the fact of the matter is a higher damage game, particularly within a genre that has concepts such as 50/50 guesses, where these guesses have significant impact, has a lower skill requirement for attaining a chance at winning a round against a better player.

you can argue against maths all you want, but at the end of the day, facts are facts. what you are saying is not correct in any sort of way, and i’ve demonstrated this by attempting an appealing to logic, and i’m not interested in responding to irrelevant tangents about arcade culture, marathon analogies or anything that doesn’t actually address what i said. and in the end, arguing against this is like arguing against 2+2=4 because it’s directly related to the properties of statistics and not a matter of interpretation or personal opinion.

[Pertho]

The people ‘sitting around and watching’ are the future of the community. If the game excites them and draws them in as a spectator, there’s a much greater chance they will get involved with locals or tournaments in the future. If they don’t get involved… well, there may no longer BE a “scene” in 10 or 20 years.

There are people who skip their local communities and go straight to Evo. So no, the chance of people separating and playing is really low where they are needed most: locally.

[Quark]

The people ‘sitting around and watching’ are the future of the community. If the game excites them and draws them in as a spectator, there’s a much greater chance they will get involved with locals or tournaments in the future. If they don’t get involved… well, there may no longer BE a “scene” in 10 or 20 years.

There are people who skip their local communities and go straight to Evo. So no, the chance of people separating and playing is really low where they are needed most: locally.

This seems like a generalization to me. Maybe there are some people who do this, but in general it seems to me that introducing new players is the only way to grow the scene in the long term. I don’t see what’s particularly controversial about that . Granted, some new players will only play online, some of them might go to evo and never show up anywhere else, but any time there is a big influx of new players you are bound to have some of those players get involved in their local communities. Not to mention that increased viewer count for events builds up hype around the game, so even if those viewers aren’t a part of the community yet they can still contribute to its growth.

How exactly do you suggest growing local communities other than by making the game more popular? I see people badmouthing stream monsters and esports all the time but nobody seems to have an explanation for how FGs can grow - let alone *survive *- without tapping into those audiences. It’s not like the arcade days where people got exposed to the game just by sharing the same physical location. These days, if you refuse to use esports/spectator appeal as a marketing tool than all you’re left is “word-of-mouth” and traditional advertisement, neither of which are terribly effective when your average gamer thinks that FGs are either a button-mashing fest or some obsolete relative of Smash. You need to show these people how awesome FGs can be before they’ll even consider sinking time into them. Spectator appeal is the best way to do that.

Incidentally I think a lot of the changes that would make SFV’s gameplay better would also make it more entertaining to watch (I think you said something similar too), so it’s not like I’m saying we need to throw players under the bus in order to satisfy spectators.

[DevilJin_01]

There’s no definite answer. If it happens it’ll happen through whatever means make it happen. Fighting games are a very one on one high learning curve thing. You can only expect so many people to actively locally get into that. Especially with eSports mostly focusing on online interaction in the pre lims for other genres.

Thats why Evo works and will most likely have 6 or 7000 entrants for V in 2017. Its a convention where people go for the spectacle and just enter simply to see how close they get. There’s not as much pressure as there is in a local scene where people are looking for you to perform and actively place. You just go for the experience and adult disneyland is around the corner to distract you from placing well any way.