why.
That goes against the philosophy of the game. You get super meter way too quickly in this game for every EX move to chip kill you. You might as well not have the chip kill protection then.
They want you to have to land a neutral hit or burn out your super to win. Itâs supposed to be something that you have to land something clean or risk all your bar on. They want you to land the clean or traded hit/throw and the super is the one extra trick card they give you if you need to chip out. So the idea is if you have spent your meter on nothing for a lot of the round, then you have access to the chip kill.
If you wanna old school chip kill save your meter or build up that last bit you need if you want the OG chip kill. Otherwise with a game built around pressure like SFV, youâre going to have to push for that hit/throw. If your super is a grab based super then you also have a way to bypass the chip kill by just simply going for an unblockable, untechable grab.
Sim in this game with chip normals (heavies) would be interesting. His zoning game would be serious.
I love playing against Sim dudes and find it a very unique and challenging matchup provided the Sim player has a solid handle on the character. Nash would be potentially difficult for him (fast tele mixups, etc).
If you fall into a position where you canât avoid a loss by chip damage it is because you were out played. You knew it was possible all along and yet ou failed to take the step necessary to avoid the situation. The solution is to not get trapped.
if you get someone to a pixel, and the game doesnât allow for you to chip them to death, and you lose from there you also get outplayed - potentially just as hard, if not harder, since the opponent would have to reverse a disadvantageous situation. you knew it wasnât possible to chip kill but didnât calculate your damage to KO and then proceeded to lose to the character at a pixel despite any throw, trade, or light attack KOing. the solution is to not lose to someone at a pixel or do chip before burst damage.
(that format of argument should not be a valid argument for or against either one)
Yeah I like the idea of people having to manage their combos or general offense distribution so they dont leave people at pixels. I can see people commentating referring a lot to which players are good at managing their combos so they dont leave people on zero pixels unnecessarily.
Characters should get their clothes ripped off on special/super defeat like in AOF series or KOFXIII AOF characters. And make that bug for Chun Liâs and Cammyâs chest on P2 side a real feature of the game. And apply that to the guys as well.
Agreed, it can be looked at both ways for sure. Itâs a very interesting change and definitely something bound to crop up in high stakes matches from time to time.
It actually reminds me a lot of Marvelâs magic pixel aspect, which lends itself to some pretty intense situations.
While I didnât like the no chip kill idea at first, then I remembered that any situation where the round is already over, but everybody has to spend time playing out the enactment anyway, just in case somebody makes a dumb mistake is something to be avoided if possible, so now Iâm cool with it.
I definitely could be wrong, but in my limited experience with old school games, they had the ability to have multiple supers stocked, so chipping with super was a less all or nothing affair.
Iâm not really in favor of no chip kills because it takes away from the consistency of the games internal logic. Chip works a certain way until youâre in a 1% health situation, wherein it acts suddenly very different.
I agree with the idea of EX moves chipping out, because that makes it feel like a similar investment to chipping with super in older games, like 3S. Meter gain happens very quickly, but that still means that itâs a matter of meter management.
Iâm just really not personally fond of how the game reaches this weird stalemate when one character reaches such low health in a zoning or pressuring situation. Having good defense in traditional fighters is not at all just about good blocks. Thereâs a lot of other factors that seem, to me, less important with the inclusion of no chip kills.
Edit: Upon further reflection it seems like the game wants games to be dynamic and end after a few mixups, which is good, but I think no chip kills are counter to that.
Itâs been brought up relatively often that the comeback mounted from a no life, unchippable situation seems novel, but what it comes down to is a drastic slow down in game pace that doesnât otherwise factor into the more midrangey game theyâre trying to make. I understand wanting games to end in one awesome, fatty, combo, but with the current system in place, if that combo leaves you a bit off of a kill, the opponent gets to enter a strange hyper meticulous comeback, that really only exists within the context of the mechanic. Otherwise a comeback would demand a different kind of meticulous play.
I suppose making chip damage still kill would let fireball characters chip out on wakeup, but thereâs no hard knockdowns in this game besides off of super, and the grounded player gets to choose between neutral stand, and a slide back stand, which must have somewhat different timing, so wouldnât that make fireball chip out victories at least more trying of an endeavor for both players, and less guaranteed?
And once you get past the wakeup situation, most characters have a way to deal with, or circumvent fireballs. It just seems like it would be a more legitimate argument within the context of another game with less anti fireball tech, and a heavier focus on hard knockdowns. Currently, that doesnât fit SF5âs design though.
How do you guys feel about OTGs being removed from the game?
Well they were ground bounces and they werenât removed 100%. They look the same as Birdieâs can how they do the little flop on hit. Iâve seen people get a 2 hitter there with sweep off the can, might be to low for anything really damaging.
Honestly the thing Iâm saddest about is Chun getting her air kick move removed, it looked so cool : /
The no chip kill advocates making good clutch reads. It is very experimental but it will definitely test the mettle of new and old players alike. I like it for this reason, it will make players better at avoiding random attacks and knowing when to punish/trade on reads.
Sign me up!
I donât really agree with the argument âpeople will just manage the health so that they donât end up with their opponent on the magic pixel.â for two reasons:
-
youâre purposefully giving up optimal damage to avoid a bad situation. basically you are punished for capitalizing correctly. itâs like âtry to beat your opponent⌠donât beat him too hard though, or youâll regret it!â itâs pretty counter-intuitive.
-
it doesnât have to be the magic pixel only. once the defensive player is down to the amount of health where a throw will kill him, thereâs really no difference between having one pixel of life or seven pixels of life left. in a previous SF game youâd give those other six pixels of life value (thatâs six special moves youâre allowed to block before you die) but in this situation they donât have any more value than having one pixel. eating an attack will kill you, taking a throw will kill you, but you can block forever. so the offensive player can fiddle around with how much damage they do, but at some point the defensive player hits a certain threshold where they can start playing for the last pixel.
the usual disclaimers apply. Iâm sure it works okay in some games like you guys say, Iâm sure we need to see the game in action to see if the theory fighter applies to the actual game. this might be a complete non-issue when we actually play the game, and itâs just not obvious yet. but the idea of it definitely rubs me the wrong way.
This is correct too. A win is a win.
Maybe my post lacked clear context. I was arguing against the idea that rounds in SF won by chipping the opponent to death with special moves are somehow illegitimate or less reasonable. If the game allows it, its fine. The player has to avoid losing no matter how much they dislike their opponentâs strategy.
Remember Vanilla SFIV? Sagat DP FADC Ultra comebacks when he had like zero health? Think about trying to chip Birdie. You canât because you just spent meter on draining his health to zero, which earned him a full bar of V-Trigger which he then activates and kills you with jab-headbutt-super because he tagged a limb.
I donât consider the fact that I gave the opponent a tool to drain more than 50% of my health bar simply by beating him âoutplayedâ.
Iâll wait it out before making a decision on how I feel about no-chip-kills but at the moment I feel that there needs to be more ways to chip-kill than from super alone.
The way they implemented gray chip damage through blocking in a lot of normals is already overwhelming due to the fact you can loose it on a quick confirm.
If you add up the factor that chip could kill you (ultras/V arts supers/character specific exceptions) then it will become an overwhelming chip system. I think as it is right now from the current videos it creates a great balance where it encourages players to take active roles in both defense and offense back and forth.
If chip kill even with ex skilsl were to take place, it would be too much and it would create this meta game to revolve rounds and games based on chip damage rather than footsies, neutral, confirms and reads which is what SF has itâs foundations upon.
Think of a situation where you could actually die on a block string and thereâs nothing you can do about it, i think it would sound unfair to some perspective.
A solution would be to given an optional defense blocking mechanic such as the popular barrier used on Arcsys games where you could get chipped out and die, however thereâs a barrier that costs resources to prevent this chipped death.
I think with how the game currently is it already addresses this matter instead of implementing an extra layer of defense and thus why no chip kill unless it costs all meter ultra makes sense.
You want chip kill? All resources or nothing. Donât have resources? Use your neutral. This is what Street Fighter is all about in my honest opinion.
Itâs really not that bad. You regain the health before the opponent gets a chance to attack again.
Due to the fact that the damage output and gray damage dealt in this game is making it a lot faster I like their idea of having no chip kills, kinda.
Like everybody else has said, the fact that you have to manage damage when an opponent is low so you donât give them V-Trigger isnât going to benefit the pace of the game much, thereâs going to be sweet spots characters start looking for that enable them to kill with a confirm without netting the opponent a V-Trigger, and that just seems like a bad direction for the meta to swing, imo at least.
I like the idea of EX moves chipping and I do think we need more ways to chip kill, they look like theyâre trying to stop the unavoidable death scenarios where youâre at a pixel and get stomped by an SRK o a fireball on wake-up but I feel like theyâve gone a little too overboard with it. Itâs all theory crafting at this point though as weâve only seen a small amount of gameplay and itâs hard to tell what direction the game will go in from here. Losing to a 65% Birdie super confirm would have me balling my eyes out thoughâŚthat looks infuriating to play against because you HAVE to get into his face to finish him off and risk that insane amount of damage, seems stacked in the losers favour at that point.
I dont really understand the argument that because there are no chip kills that people will do crazy and stupid shit to steal a round. People already do already do crazy stupid shit in games with chip kills because they dont want to be chipped out. I feel like there are more hail mary situations from having chip kills because you get so many situations where you have to guess if the aggressor will do something to initiate a chip kill. Imagine the situation where you can die to chip and you jump over Ryuâs fireball at around 3/4 of the screen. The range doesnât allow Ryu to DP you but he can still do a small walk up into c.MK when you land. You know that if he lands that c.MK he will cancel to Hadoken to kill you (lets assume itâs a true blockstring). At this point you have to guess and throw out a DP/Super/invincible move in order to counter his c.MK or choose not to do it if he decides to block.
You could then argue that the wrong decision was to jump forward in the first place, which is true, but there are so many situations like this that it feels like at some point you are going to have to make a hail mary guess in order to not get chipped. Try to reflect on your own experiences where you have had to throw out and DP or Super when you know there is a high chance of it just being blocked because you dont want to be chipped killed. At least not having chip kills takes away that do or die situation and both parties have to play solidly. Yeah there will be times when someone will comeback from the brink of death when they could have been chip killed, but at least they came back by earning it to some degree by playing some real street fighter and not just by pressing panic buttons out of fear of chip.