Which is exactly what the implication is. I don’t know why you’re disagreeing with me. -_-
Game design theory doesn’t always give you the expected results in practice.
Mike Z is not the be-all and end-all on the topic. Neither is Sirlin or anyone else. They are obviously right about a lot of things, but so what? Anyone can pick out the flaws without going through actual process to see what the alternatives produce.
I don’t fully agree with Mike Z. I think both combos and reversals should be easy. Making one of them hard does nothing except separate people with execution skills from people without as much, even if both would be equally good players otherwise.
What do people have against easy reversals?
As I said before, there’s no rule that says X should be easy and Y should be hard. This is just another one of those unfortunate quotes that people read and now consider gospel, and worse still, post every 5 minutes in every thread about new games.
The gist is that offense should be harder than defense. That’s it. This doesn’t refer to strategy.
Consider: Let’s make reversals 3f. That’s not really hard, right? But now let’s remove hit invincibility on the active frames. Suddenly reversals are still easy and close up offense is still strong.
Attackers get rewarded for good reads, and defenders still have options vs non-meaty attacks and grabs.
Is this a good design decision? Noone knows. You have to look at the rest of the game. Again, there are too many factors to consider.
Taunts need to return and actually do something like 3rd strikes’
They could expand on it though. Durational buffs like damage, defense, speed, meter increase, grey health recovers quicker etc.,
each character has multiple taunts so different effects for each taunt.
However, NO auto blocking and NO auto teching BS
those gems pretty well ruined my desire to play SFxTk
But then that leads into one situation most of us don’t want to see, DPs trading with air-to-airs. I mean, we’ve already identified that as one of the reasons AAs are weak in IV. Why bring that same issue back into V?
You can have things not trade by just giving them better hitboxes. Look at a game like 3S where reversals don’t have that much invincibility. Noone complains about stuff trading.
In GG Xrd some characters don’t even have practical reversals. Bison in ST can’t do anything against meaty tick setups without super. These games have 2f and 1f reversal windows respectively, but even if you make them 10f the situation won’t change for them
Principles like “combos should be easy and reversals should be hard” should not be used as a design philosophy. There are lots of other things to consider.
A properly placed AA DP doesn’t trade. That’s the point of applying them deep.
But then you risk going into the opposite end of the scale where DPs/AAs are too easy to do and end up either killing jump ins and/or offense. Look at how easy it is to reversal out of knockdown in IV. I honestly think that one of the reasons we get bad hitboxes on DPs/AAs, hard knockdown on stuff that isn’t supers that makes vortex/safe jump timing easier is the devs trying not to make easy reversals totally kill anything after knockdown.
Take away really long hard knockdowns and easy safe jump or vortex setups and give reversals/DPs good damage (like some of us want for V) and combine them with a wide window and easy shortcut, and we might end up with a game where knock downs devolve into just waiting for your opponent to stand up (reset to neutral) or hoping for a whiffed DP you can punish - which was basically one of the complaints of Vanilla SFIV before people started figuring out vortex and set-play.
Missed the the first time out. Charge motions actually have gameplay implications since there is a time element involved, half circles do not since most people can actually pull them off in the same amount of time as you can a quarter circle. In fact, the distinction between them is lessened in most Capcom games where you can actually start from down+back or down+forward to do them.
All doing needless motions like half circles (and z motions, pretzel motions, etc.) do is just add an arbitrary barrier to performing the move that just makes it harder for people to use the character, and this might even just frustrate someone to just drop the character (and even the game). Heck, sometimes it’s not even an execution thing. I’m sure all of us who’ve played in arcades have memories of playing on worn out sticks. In those cases, the first characters to be dropped where those with more complex inputs that were affected by those sticks.
But then you risk going into the opposite end of the scale where DPs/AAs are too easy to do and end up either killing jump ins and/or offense. Look at how easy it is to reversal out of knockdown in IV. I honestly think that one of the reasons we get bad hitboxes on DPs/AAs, hard knockdown on stuff that isn’t supers that makes vortex/safe jump timing easier is the devs trying not to make easy reversals totally kill anything after knockdown.
Take away really long hard knockdowns and easy safe jump or vortex setups and give reversals/DPs good damage (like some of us want for V) and combine them with a wide window and easy shortcut, and we might end up with a game where knock downs devolve into just waiting for your opponent to stand up (reset to neutral) or hoping for a whiffed DP you can punish - which was basically one of the complaints of Vanilla SFIV before people started figuring out vortex and set-play.
Missed the the first time out. Charge motions actually have gameplay implications since there is a time element involved, half circles do not since most people can actually pull them off in the same amount of time as you can a quarter circle. In fact, the distinction between them is lessened in most Capcom games where you can actually start from down+back or down+forward to do them.
All doing needless motions like half circles (and z motions, pretzel motions, etc.) do is just add an arbitrary barrier to performing the move that just makes it harder for people to use the character, and this might even just frustrate someone to just drop the character (and even the game). Heck, sometimes it’s not even an execution thing. I’m sure all of us who’ve played in arcades have memories of playing on worn out sticks. In those cases, the first characters to be dropped where those with more complex inputs that were affected by those sticks.
Case in point: KOF13. That game has a 10 frame reversal window(~25 frames for supers) and far easier meterless BnBs for 90% of the cast than SF4. It’s still far less common to see people randomly DPing on wakeup or through blockstrings in that game, and it’s still considered a far more executionally technical game than SF4.
I’ve never heard about a complaint in any game that AA’s are too easy to perform. The one exception may be Law in SFxT, but that’s only because it beats cross-ups and he is only one character in a game known for bad anti-airs. If AA is too easy, chances your jumps are too floaty, and/or jump in attacks are too weak.
Knock-downs, set-play etc have got nothing to do with my point. But so what if it’s easy to reversal out of a knockdown in SFIV? Wake-up reversals were a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. The bigger problems were reversals out of block/hit-stun. And even that’s an easy engine fix - just make reversals harder out of hit/blockstun and make inputs more strict. GG Xrd has a 2f reversal window, but against a competent opponent I know that if he wants that reversal, he’s going to get it. So in that situation it won’t matter to me if the reversal was 10f wider.
Again, you simply can’t judge (or build) a game by applying design principles in a vacuum. Even the idea that “offense should be harder than defense” makes no real sense when you apply it to specific situations. By default, defense is easier. Just hold back to block. In a game like SF, holding back usually defends against 18 of the opponent’s attacks excluding specials, focus, supers etc. In some 3D games you don’t even have to hold back - you just leave the stick in neutral. This automatically means the attacker has to explore more options to beat your defense.
I maintain that when it comes to game development the proof is always in the pudding. If players like it, it’s a good game. If they don’t, then it sucks. That’s why I strongly support the idea that the games should be play-tested by complete noobs and tournament players.
The problem with this is that it means that certain bad mechanics end up getting a pass just because people like the game.
Stuff like (and to be fair, this isn’t just stuff from SFIV) reeling hurtboxes on hit/blockstun, cross-ups that push back away from the player, throws and non-throws that hit on the same frame, timer in cinematics, other inputs being accepted during throws, true unblockables, hitboxes that only hit one object on the same frame, etc. get a pass just because the games they’re found in games that are considered good.
Guard Meter
No Parries (they’d be fun for an Omega mode on SFV)
I’d want a small cast to start that would gradually grow
I’m not that much of a fan of red focus so I wouldn’t mind seeing that go
They want to market it for kids though, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they add in some bullshit simple combo buttons like in MvC3.
It’s 100x better than good mechanics ending up in a game that noone plays.
If they really want to go for “kids” they’ll fail at it. “kids” are to trendy and they’ll always want something simple hence COD running rampant with 8-13 year olds.
So what I see happening is an easy input mode such as Auto from Alpha or EO from CvS2.
I pray to God of course that those options are turned off for Ranked and only available in Endless lobbies (hopefully with the ability to turn it off there as well)
I really don’t want to play some 10 year old pushing the analog stick a certain direction and spamming supers and specials one after the other.
That would make online play so annoying and then you’d have decent players using it to troll and that’d be dumb as well.
Look no further than SFxTk for examples.
i like the easy reversals in sf4 but i dont like the low recovery time on many blocked reversals
also many people talk about how bad the shortcuts are in sf4 and that they get wrong moves because of it
and dont want them back
what is the point of that?if your execution is on point you get your moves to come out with shortcuts or not
so example you get in sf4 and ex dp instead of ultra without shortcuts you would also not get all the time the ultra
but on the other hand shortcuts helps beginner alot imo
and one big thing i wish for sf5 is that you cant select different stuff manually
lets say like with rollback netcode the delay or input tolerance for shortcuts
stuff like that is not good for a fair competition
Aside from good netcode (I mean, it NEEDS some good netcode), what I’d really like is some real matchmaking (particularly if there’s a ranked mode but I don’t really give a shit if I see big numbers next to my name).
In most competitive multiplayer games with an online component, the game tries to figure out your skill level and match you against people of roughly the same skill. You’ll sometimes play people fairly worse than you, sometimes play people fairly better than you, but it’ll never be extreme. Slowly but surely over time you should be able to climb the ladder. Obviously you DO need to play against worse players to test out new tech, combos and characters, and obviously you need to play against better players to actually improve faster at the game, but if you could just get a big PLAY button to get a decent match that could go either way, that’d be nice.
As it is in USF4, it’s alright but you play against completely random people. When I hit the loading screen and I see the other guy have 200PP, I really don’t need to play that match to test my skill, I know I’m going to win it. When I see the other guy have 4000PP, I don’t need to play that match, I know I’m going to lose it. There’s benefits to playing with either player but neither is going to make for a very good match IMHO, for either player.
That could be key to getting more of the hordes of people who will buy this game and play it casually, to keep it and actually stick with it. The #1 reason I hear for people who try to play a fighting game, then drop it anywhere from a week to 3 months later is that they got very discouraged from 30 losses in a row. It makes the community seem very top-heavy, even more than it is. Some people can run the gauntlet, stick with it and manage to get good, but there will be many, many others who can beat all of their friends and family but still lose every online match/match against people who really know how to play.
Well, a lot
Don’t forget an online training mode.
But wouldn’t it be better to have good mechanics in a game that’s bound to be heavily played?
I mean, think about what you’re saying - it’s basically saying that it’s okay for Street Fighter to be full of shitty design decisions because it’s gonna sell alot anyway, which to me is ass-backwards.
On a related note, I think that this would be a bad look on Capcom and Sony’s part, considering that Microsoft’s big exclusive (KI) has had more than a few guys from the FGC involved in it (Ponder, Mike Z, Keits), a couple of who are great nitpickers who’v made it a point to tweak things and add certain mechanics that, while many players wouldn’t really notice, contribute to making KI a great game.
[quote=Alexisdabomb;10110352"
Don’t forget an online training mode.
[/quote]
To this day, Arc System Games still have the gold standard of training modes with their pages worth of options, including character specific ones.
Now with the stance/V-trigger/trait/element system, Capcom really needs to consider this level of detail on their training mode menu.
For example, since Ryu can change the number of hits on his fireballs, he should have the option to change how many hits they do on the training mode menu (without having to manually activate stance).
Another option I’d like to see, is the ability to play recordings on reversal. This makes it easier to practice blockstrings, frame traps, and offense in general.
In addition to this, I’d like to see the option to keep the recording from changing directions as soon as it gets crossed up (and instead leave it up to autocorrect). This allows people to test timings against autocorrect, allowing them to try out different timings against it to see which ones result in autocorrected stuff or not.
Finally, slow motion. Just to help people practice combos and/or check out if certain things might be possible.
And before anyone asks, all of the above are already present in other games’ training modes.
Many good players rarely play Ranked and thus have low PP.
You have no idea you’re going to lose just because a player is high ranked. Sure, it’s probably more likely but you can’t go into the match thinking “I’m gonna lose.” I’d consider myself around a mid tier player (I under stand the game I just have poor reactions and have trouble memorizing setups for some reason. Plus I just don’t really grind it out, more interested in tech / analyzing matches than actually competing) however I beat XsK Samurai in ranked a while ago and had a close match vs PR Rog (and also a horrible ass beating from PR Rog on the first match I played him :P).