But at the same time, we have to temper that with what we do know and what is already part of the game’s base design.
From a building perspective, there are plenty of times when a player is forced to chose from either building more meter or choosing some other option. Even the more “passive” methods of building meter is just another benefit for choosing set option and is taken into consideration when weighing between them. It’s only “artificial depth” if you just didn’t bother to think about it when you made your decision.
Firstly there should only be one meter in SFV. Used for the elemental activation stuff, EX, and super. That means there is a lot of management right there, and I don’t think there needs to be meter carry as long as meter builds generally fast (only for offense of course, and zero meter gain for whiffing and taking damage).
I like the overall direction SF5 is taking with regards to meter. Though, I’m not a huge fan of the revenge meter mostly because now I can’t launch my super at max power unless I’m near dead but that’s easily worked around (I like my cinematics). I love the joy of meter management. Forcing people to burn their meter in a round and knowing I have a good chunk of my meter left over for the next round is a nice feeling. I already have an advantage right off the bat and it was all because of player choice and not the game’s.
As for meter reset per round…it’s ok. It can make everything virtually the same like in the first round. You could pull a complete deja vu (it’s happened but it solemnly happens) which is fine but I prefer a more “unrestricted” match. Because with meter reset you could end up just wanting to turtle your way to meter each and every match if you wanted too and if you were good at it then there isn’t much worry (5 seems to be trying to diminish turtling without killing it outright).
But like I said, I do enjoy meter management. Because if the opponent doesn’t watch how they use their meter it just means one more advantage for me.
I like meter carrying over between rounds because I want there to be a penalty for doing Yolo super right at the end of a round. If someone makes a low IQ decision I want them not only to lose the round but also have no resources next round.
Also if you lose a close round but your opponent had to spend all his resources to do it then it’s not so bad next round.
What meter carry over adds to the game is definitely better than what it takes away imo.
Can’t do no option selects, because it isn’t something the programed into the game on purpose, it’d just the byproduct of the programming. One frame link are also there partly because of the byproduct of programming and partly to balance the game. A character like E. Ryu would be extra broken if his higher damaging combos didn’t require multiple 1 frame links
Disagree.
As I stated in that thread in FGD, execution is not a way to balance a character.
All this means is that only a few players are able to play Evil Ryu properly - at his highest level of play. But since a game’s overall balance is measured at the highest level of play, that execution barrier is not taken into account.
It’s the same with how not many players can truly utilize Makoto in 3rd Strike, yet she’s still considered top 4 because of what those top players can do (i.e. her TOD). Or how even before he started winning alot majors, people already considered Zero as the best character in UMvC3.
The latter is a great example because eventually, people did get his execution down - any sort of “balancing” done via execution is pointless because eventually people will be able to negate it just by getting the execution down.
Execution is such a cop out for balance. Yeah it should be CONSIDERED but it’s still a cop out to make a character intentionally have all of these amazing tools and somehow say that they balanced because it’s hard to do their more difficult stuff that makes them go from average to top tier. It’s one thing when the difficult to do thing goes from “hard” to “impractical bordering on impossible to do consistently” like the difference between Abel/Chun’s infinites and El Fuerte’s run stop fierce loops or Viper’s FFF. Also considering things like human reaction speeds. A character balance should be considered based on their play at the highest level of human capabilities.
Call me weak if you want, but I have a tendency to play as the characters whose design I like the most AND have the easiest execution.
Hence I play Juri and Chun Li (but I’ve played Chun since 92’). Sure they both have difficult moves at times but once you figure it out they are stupid easy compared to other cast memebers.
I’d love to play as a couple more characters, but the execution they require make me just go back to what I know, haha.
inb4 Capcom makes Chun Li non charge but execution intensive as Viper in SF5, well see how long your signature last. Kappa
Burn kick is just a tatsu motion dude.
His comment is void anyway - Chun Li player for life regardless of circumstance.
Plus his comment, “well see how long” I think you mean "We’ll see how long"
XD
Lol
I would like to see your Chun Li madskillz in SFV 
I certainly plan on getting the beta and seeing what she can do. Hopefully a few of my buddies on steam will be down for taking turns as training dummies.
Might as well get some Beta BNBs lol
(From the General thread…)
Street Fighter V seems to be heading that way.
For an example, imagine that P2’s applying a blockstring on P1, and P1 attempts a DP reversal. How many frames should P1 have? If the blockstun’s increased, then - due to the reduction in available reversal frames - the DP becomes harder. But you don’t care for demanding execution? Let’s also get rid of IV’s input shortcuts and assume that we’re playing with 3rd Strike’s.
Would you be happy with 3-frame ‘links’? How would you make P1’s DP reversal hard, without restricting its available frames or enforcing strict inputs? I understand the dislike of 1-framers, but I can’t separate tough reversals from that same high-execution family. The only workaround I can think of is a rock-paper-scissors approach, based on prediction. That is, you get plenty of time to input your reversal, but it has to be a good guess. Virtua Fighters are geared that way, and Tekken’s tried to address it with crush properties.
At least if Street Fighter V is slower, that might promote a greater focus on light-medium-hard priorities.
(I like the idea of crush, but I find it too basic in application. Hopkicks should beat lows, but some of them are like EX moves.)
Still missing the point. A tighter reversal window only makes execution hard for reversals, not in neutral or in combos. You can have an 18 frame input window for DPs in general, but have a tighter reversal window (e.g. attack input must be input within 2-3 frames of coming out of blockstun/wakeup).
But how isn’t that also positive discrimination in favour of those with good execution?
Because lowering the execution barrier isn’t the only goal. The other issue that the statement addresses is one of pace. Easy reversals slow the game down and make it more defensive (see SFIV in all its incarnations).
Meanwhile, the situation I described above (18 frame DP window, but 2-3 frame reversal window) doesn’t make DPs any harder - they still have 18 frames to input the motion. If your game allows sloppy DPs (ending in forward/6) then they can still do a sloppy DP to reversal. The difference is that players can’t just mash DPs to get reversals.
If SF5 reels in the dumb input standard set by IV we’re going to see the greatest exposé of the modern age. It grows a bit dull identifying opponents as mash happy and trudging through matches baiting out their reversals and phoned in wakeup nonsense. I mean, it’s great reading into an opponent’s style and adjusting to snatch a win by exposing this kind of crap, but I feel it detracts a lot from people making an effort to improve as a whole (on both sides of the mashing coin). Defence? To hell with that, I’m just gonna spin my stick with reckless abandon and hope for some flames and shiz.
This is probably the main aspect of SFIV I don’t like and I really hope it doesn’t find it’s way into SF5. I suspect it’s a side effect of Capcom intentionally making inputs more accessible to beginners in SFIV, though the problem is that it’s an across the board mechanic. I was entertaining the idea in a conversation a couple days ago about SF5 perhaps having a “normal” and “beginner” input option at the character select screen. Beginner inputs obviously being a little more lenient, but the player being ‘shamed’ somewhat by having their chosen input method displayed in matches (perhaps with a baby’s pacifier icon next to their handle) and it also coming with some kind of resource penalty such as reduced meter gain or whatever. The idea being that the alternate ‘normal’ input option is considered a tournament standard that beginners need to transition into.
Personally, I’d prefer they don’t bother and instead just make inputs less lenient than SFIV and have them basically ask players (new or otherwise) to apply a bit of old fashioned practise and grow better at the game, period. I’m not talking ST-style input strictness, but certainly nothing as patently retarded as SFIV.
The first thing I really hope regular folks test with SF5 when they are given the opportunity to play it is this very aspect. That is, have a blocking Ryu player mash for his dinner whilst an aggressor tries his hand at varied pressure strings and so on.
However Skullgirls does its inputs, SFV should do that. So precise that you always get what you want out, lenient enough that even people who never played a fighting game before can do every special/super 100% of the time.
Yeah and reversals…essentially the point is you should get one chance at it. If this means lowering the window, then so be it. A reversal should be a calculated timed decision, not…let me mash the move as fast as possible, as many times as possible while in blockstun.