Improvements or changes you would like to see in SFV

[ArtVandelay]

How does that make the game better?

[d3v]

How does that make the game better?

Faster pace. More emphasis on fundamentals since making a mistake in the neutral leads to big damage.

[Projectjustice]

How does that make the game better?

Faster pace. More emphasis on fundamentals since making a mistake in the neutral leads to big damage.

Which will scare away new comers and we will be right back in the dark ages of the 2000s.

[ArtVandelay]

How does that make the game better?

Faster pace. More emphasis on fundamentals since making a mistake in the neutral leads to big damage.

Which will scare away new comers and we will be right back in the dark ages of the 2000s.

Dark ages of 2D fighters were just that.
Around the year 2000 games like Tekken, Soul Calibur and DoA2 were immensely popular and sold really fucking well.
It was the time where games transitioned from crappy looking 3D into nice looking 3D.

Couple 3D fighters being really popular at the time with Capcom not doing anything special with their 2D sprites in the SF3.
The game looks exactly like SF Alpha with different artwork, which isn’t a bad thing but I bet my ass that it turned off the casual player making the game look like 1992.
On top of that Capcom did nothing to promote the game in any way. I didn’t even know there was a SF3 until the Daigo parry video I watched 3 or 4 years ago.

If you think punishing, fundamentals based gameplay would be the reason why SF didn’t sell shit with SF3, how do you explain the crazy success the SF2 series had world wide and how do you explain the success that recent games like Demon’s/Dark Souls, Hotline Miami and others enjoy?

Hint: If the game is good people are going to play it, you don’t have to hold anyone’s hand in order to make people play your game.

[Naeras]

How does that make the game better?

Faster pace. More emphasis on fundamentals since making a mistake in the neutral leads to big damage.

Which will scare away new comers and we will be right back in the dark ages of the 2000s.

If there’s anything that scares away newcomers from an otherwise good game, it’s the complexity and learning curve of the game, not the pace or its degree of focus on fundamentals.

Or, to put it in another way: there’s a reason why so few players are getting into Tekken lately. The learning curve of that game, both technically and in terms of knowledge, is ridiculous.

[Projectjustice]

How does that make the game better?

Faster pace. More emphasis on fundamentals since making a mistake in the neutral leads to big damage.

Which will scare away new comers and we will be right back in the dark ages of the 2000s.

If there’s anything that scares away newcomers from an otherwise good game, it’s the complexity and learning curve of the game, not the pace or its degree of focus on fundamentals.

Or, to put it in another way: there’s a reason why so few players are getting into Tekken lately. The learning curve of that game, both technically and in terms of knowledge, is ridiculous.

Thats another thing that will scare away casuals that I agree with. 1 kill combos is not something that needs to make a comeback.

[Projectjustice]

How does that make the game better?

Faster pace. More emphasis on fundamentals since making a mistake in the neutral leads to big damage.

Which will scare away new comers and we will be right back in the dark ages of the 2000s.

Dark ages of 2D fighters were just that.
Around the year 2000 games like Tekken, Soul Calibur and DoA2 were immensely popular and sold really fucking well.
It was the time where games transitioned from crappy looking 3D into nice looking 3D.

Couple 3D fighters being really popular at the time with Capcom not doing anything special with their 2D sprites in the SF3.
The game looks exactly like SF Alpha with different artwork, which isn’t a bad thing but I bet my ass that it turned off the casual player making the game look like 1992.
On top of that Capcom did nothing to promote the game in any way. I didn’t even know there was a SF3 until the Daigo parry video I watched 3 or 4 years ago.

If you think punishing, fundamentals based gameplay would be the reason why SF didn’t sell shit with SF3, how do you explain the crazy success the SF2 series had world wide and how do you explain the success that recent games like Demon’s/Dark Souls, Hotline Miami and others enjoy?

Hint: If the game is good people are going to play it, you don’t have to hold anyone’s hand in order to make people play your game.

There are plenty of good games that endure poor sales. You cant compare the success of SF2 to what happened to SF3. One started an industry for god sakes. I love good fundamentals, which is why I love SF3 but I also love how things have changed with fighters compared to what it used to be like.

Things have changed, we all saw it in the 2000s and the return of fighting games since 2008. There are some things that need to stay in the past. Games arent cheap to produce, you cant just cater your game to the 10 people that want perfection. Nothing will ever be perfect anymore. Its what we have to deal with to keep having this community to grow with new games.

I dont see the Japanese bitch and moan that SF4 doesnt play like SF2. They roll with the punches and adapt to the new style and dominant it. You think i enjoy all the changes that happened with SF4 at first? Nope, I hated it but I got over it. I adapted and now I enjoy playing it.

[Romuska]

Can’t say much in terms of the mechanics but in terms of general improvements I don’t ever want to be forced to purchase more than one disc. I’ll take the digital updates with the option of purchasing the updated version on disc.

[FengShuiEnergy]

While I don’t think TOD combos for everyone is good, IMO damage should allow for 2-3 optimized combos to kill. That’s one of the things I loved about 3rd Strike, once they had meter, most of the good characters could output tons of damage, and put their opponents in disadvantageous positions (e.g. Chun could confirm into SA2, combo out of it, then get the reset into another SA2 for 80% damage).

Wouldn’t that fall under your slippery slope theory though?

I see more 3-4 combos=round over. Maybe 2 if somehow you poured all of resources into one combo then did another meterless combo to finish the job. Plus I think that if combos did tons of dmg it may force the community to start turning more since even the slightest of moves can lead to a near TOD and then the match is basically over. Whereas moderate dmging combos still give plenty of pressure but errors are slightly less hurtful since it allows you to bounce back once or twice. Without going “Well he does that TOD combo and I’m dead. Might as well quit the game then.” From a new player perspective they won’t bother with that. They’ll just quit right off the bat.

Fighters are about fighting…not having one person land one combo and that’s the game. This isn’t marvel (and I hope it doesn’t turn into one either). 3-4 combo’s could equate to a match.

[Projectjustice]

How about something new that has nothing to do with Parries and Focus Attack?

IMO the backdash in SF4 was a much stronger “in game mechanic” than focus attack. It changed approaches to certain match ups, and in this day, has changed the meta game a lot. Seems in high level play, as soon as somebody gets hit by a poke or something, they backdash away. I bet 4 would be more interesting if you couldn’t get away with that thanks to the invincibility and airborne frames. If you want to be airborne, jump. If you want to be invincible, use your cool reversal, spend the 2 bar, then backdash to safety.

But my bigger problem with if it’s included is seeing how gray health heals in this game is about as fast as focused damage, but it seems to be a bigger part of SF5’s offense game, and a backdash like we have in 4 would totally nullify it. Because some characters might have way faster backdashes that go further while others have backdashes that leave them way more vulnerable, so you wouldn’t do it anyway. But there’s been more than one time where I’ve seen a Zangief player backdash on wake-up into SPD or some garbage and it’s totally legit play.

Thx for the reasonable response @FengShuiEnergy‌ I’d approve of a compromise, but I just don’t want backdashing being considered a “mechanic” at all. You backdash to create space and that should be it.

I never liked how Backdashes worked in SF4. I was used to how they worked in SF3 and I always thought they should work like that in SF4. My guess is that the reason they do have invincible frames is due to how SF4 mechanics as a whole play. Vortexes, hard knockdowns, AA options arent as strong, FAs and ect… You have to look at the entire picture.

Personally I hope Backdash goes back to SF3 style with SF5. Which hopefully lead to a different play system mechanics in SF4. I really do believe every SF game should play somewhat different from past main series entries.

[Alexisdabomb]

Fuck it, just bring back 3S universal mechanics sans Parries.

[IglooBob]

nothing exists in a vacuum and I think it’s pretty pointless to talk about things as if they did.

for instance, one hit kills - there is only one super that allows a one command grab -> death in 3s. and here’s the best part - it’s not even her best super! Seichu is better in almost every matchup. getting a tool that tacks on 1/3 of your life damage off a lot more situations is better than a guaranteed kill off one situation. the fact that every Makoto player doesn’t automatically play Tosa tells you that the value of “you can kill him off one command grab” is overstated.

no other characters can kill you off one combo. Chun if she has two bars (IOW spends all her resources) can super you once, then run a mixup and maybe get the other super. even that won’t kill vs most characters. most of your life gone yeah, but she spent all her resources after a confirm + a correct guess on mixup after. but watch recent Japanese footage and you’ll find most time after post-SA2 jump short resets Chun goes for 50/50 legs more often than landing the other super because it’s not worth losing the threat of SA2. Chun sucks without a super stocked. why would you blow your resources and be in a shitty situation next round and probably lose? not worth it.

there are a lot of factors that go into how any game plays. it’s kinda pointless to have a false argument about whether one hit kills are a good thing to put in a game/whether it caused games to fail when you aren’t looking at the big picture.

[Eternal]

For the jabs into whatever. I was referring more towards the SFxT scene then SF4. As for throws…I’d rather them weaker and less people use them easier to sneak them in since everyone wouldn’t bother with them anyway.

I’m not a fan of seeing jabs confirm in 20-30%. More like 10-15% would be good.

Throws that are weak means harder to open people up means weaker frame traps means more timeouts and in general a much much much much slower paced game. Especially given the fact you’ve said yourself you don’t want big combos or high damage even from footsies you want it to cap out at 40% for using all your resources.

You’re looking at a game that is less chess and more checkers, once a very simple play is made it’s basically over because the opponent has all of the options via down back and there isn’t even much risk of being opened up via a frame trap or mix up. You don’t need to worry about losing the round once you get the life lead. It becomes a poorly balanced game in terms of risk vs reward.

The only way it’d be balanced to have very weak throws would be if guard crush was added and a viable high low game that leads to some reward. You can’t have a game be all risk no reward, not only would it not be popular but it would not allow for much variety of play styles.

That’s why SFxT is a faster paced game then SF4 despite throws being weaker…right? I’m saying they shouldn’t be SF4 lvls but buff them up from SFxT. That nice middle ground. then there’s guard crush. Most likely won’t be characters specific either. And if it’s true then that theory goes almost out the window. And I said 50% max with all resources. Why should matches (and characters) all have these mega 60-100% dmg combos? This isn’t marvel or anime fighters where one touch does retard dmg.

A fight shouldn’t be 1-2 combos and game over. 3-5 I think would be perfect. Room for error, room for space, for mind games and the like. I’m not a fan of drawn out fights but I’m also not a fan of quick 1, 2’s either.

Generally speaking, SFxT isn’t much faster. The only reason it is AT ALL faster is because of much higher damage combos in general due to the juggle systems. SFxT has a lot more viable ways to convert a poke into 1/3 - 1/2 health as well as corner control when it comes to specific characters. This is thanks to comboable overheads, boost combos allowing ANY normal to convert, and the juggle system. However for most situations the game is much slower. Walk speeds and normals are slower. Player interactions happen less often as combos last much longer thanks to juggles + long animations.

HOWEVER the ability to convert to 1/3rd to 1/2 health is assuming 1 character and no tags. Once the opponent tags out then that combo is now the equivalent of a 1/6th - 1/3rd combo thanks to the addition of another 1000health into the pool via a new character as well as the regenerating health of the tagged out character, but that combo took twice as long to perform as SF4.

If you recall, the joke name for SFxT is JabxTimeout, that may not be as true post 2013 but it’s still got pacing problems.

[FengShuiEnergy]

Juggle system was important in SFxT. And since SF5 borrows that same system it will already be faster then SF4 by a mile. But we’ll see. Here’s hoping my wishes come true for SF5.

[Projectjustice]

Juggle system was important in SFxT.** And since SF5 borrows that same system** it will already be faster then SF4 by a mile. But we’ll see. Here’s hoping my wishes come true for SF5.

Whoa slow down there buddy. We dont know exactly what system it uses.

[FengShuiEnergy]

Juggle system was important in SFxT.** And since SF5 borrows that same system** it will already be faster then SF4 by a mile. But we’ll see. Here’s hoping my wishes come true for SF5.

Whoa slow down there buddy. We dont know exactly what system it uses.

True. And it’s only been one trailer. But I have confidence that the juggle system will function exactly like SFxT’s or similar. Of course capcom can always throw a curve ball and do something completely different. But I’d wager on the former.

[Doopliss]

I think we can all agree that SFIV’s scaling system is pretty bad. I’m hoping for something like this:
100%
100%
(90%?)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
20%
20%…

And supers cap at something like 25%-40% minimum, 80% maximum when comboed into. Various installs could affect scaling as well. Maybe someone has an install where they can’t perform cancels, but scaling is ignored as well. Or an install where the first hit deals more than 100% and following hits scale more severely, rewarding single hits and quick resets/mix-ups.

[Projectjustice]

Juggle system was important in SFxT.** And since SF5 borrows that same system** it will already be faster then SF4 by a mile. But we’ll see. Here’s hoping my wishes come true for SF5.

Whoa slow down there buddy. We dont know exactly what system it uses.

True. And it’s only been one trailer. But I have confidence that the juggle system will function exactly like SFxT’s or similar. Of course capcom can always throw a curve ball and do something completely different. But I’d wager on the former.

Honestly that Chun Li extra hit looked like the last hit of her Super move. With SFxT being a the failure that it is in the FGC I don’t see them burrowing much from that game.

[d3v]

How does that make the game better?

Faster pace. More emphasis on fundamentals since making a mistake in the neutral leads to big damage.

Which will scare away new comers and we will be right back in the dark ages of the 2000s.

Yet most of us agree that, at mid-levels, an old game like 3rd Strike is much more accessible than Street Fighter IV. A good part of this (lack of unnecessary OS aside), is because of how much easier it is to deal damage in 3S. In IV, you’d maybe get 40% while spending tons of meter and doing an unintuitive cancel just to combo into Ultra. In 3S, just hit confirm out of low-fucking-forward into SA2, and then mash super jump and hit fierce twice.

IMO, this kind of “mid-level accessibility” (for lack of a better term) is more important since it means that it’s easier for folks to start learning stuff needed to be competitive and go to tournaments.

[Projectjustice]

How does that make the game better?

Faster pace. More emphasis on fundamentals since making a mistake in the neutral leads to big damage.

Which will scare away new comers and we will be right back in the dark ages of the 2000s.

Yet most of us agree that, at mid-levels, an old game like 3rd Strike is much more accessible than Street Fighter IV. A good part of this (lack of unnecessary OS aside), is because of how much easier it is to deal damage in 3S. In IV, you’d maybe get 40% while spending tons of meter and doing an unintuitive cancel just to combo into Ultra. In 3S, just hit confirm out of low-fucking-forward into SA2, and then mash super jump and hit fierce twice.

IMO, this kind of “mid-level accessibility” (for lack of a better term) is more important since it means that it’s easier for folks to start learning stuff needed to be competitive and go to tournaments.

Trust me I know the pain of not dealing damage feels like. I’m a Bison player. Lol

I’m not against this mid level accessibility. I love that about 3s, it’s one of the reasons why I’m excited about SF5. That low forward into Super had jumping up for joy!

We just don’t need 1 or 2 combos sequencing ending the match again.