There is no debate because your whole stance is “because i said so”. You still haven’t said what benefits chip kills would add to the game.
I’m talking about the argument being made, that people will manage their opponent’s health so that the situation doesn’t come up. presumably this means something like:
they have 45% health left. you have a combo that does 44% or a combo that does 35%. you choose the one that does 35% so that the chip death situation never comes up and hope that you can convert something else that does another >10%.
if I’m misunderstanding what people are saying then let me know, but that’s how I’m reading it.
I bet OTGs were pissing off the regular/casual player “You can’t hit a man when he’s down!” so Capcom took it out, recalling all the courtesy duff outcry that SF4 brought.
Also fuck chip kills. Some ultras in SF4 had gnarly chip damage, that you had to be using the right character to counter ultra to avoid. And even then you’d have to time it right. Likely if you played the game seriously at all, it’s part of what you considered when deciding on a main. That’s just nonsense.
The guy at 1% life won’t be making a comeback most of the time. That’s not plausible.
What is more likely is what Dime said. If you get to 1% you go into super turtle run away mode and either build meter for the next round, or see if you can get the guy with the lead to do something stupid or fall asleep during the next 60 game seconds or whatever.
It’ll be shitty gameplay, but also the smartest strategy for losing.
What happens if both players are at the magic pixel and neither has a round up on the other? Who is going to move? Why would either of them move when the absolute best option is to hold down/back at opposite sides of the screen until the time runs out and get a draw?
I know, implement a negative penalty mechanic into the game where if a player is blocking too much or not walking forward or attacking enough they lose a bit of health. So if you’re on the magic pixel then you’re forced to go on the offensive or drop dead. Sarcasm.
I would probably get a lot of hate here from saying this but I think negative penalty is legit as hell. Now before everybody here comes on a crusade after me with pitchforks I’m going to say that loosing health is extremely harsh.
I’m thinking more of drain meter out or something along those lines. The reason why i think so is because one of the things that puts me off so much from SFlV is the lame game and turtling that can exists on SF. There is always a time to attack and to defend, but when stuff like running away becomes an abuse is not fun at all.
Now I don’t think this is necessary for SFV since the normals doing gray chipping already addresses this issue somehow already.
Off topic I guess. But I used to absolutely hate negative penalty on merit alone. I still don’t like it in principle, but I’ll have to admit that I basically never get negative penalties in GG if I’m playing the game in a slightly aggressive fashion. And since i basically always do I never get penalized. Even when I backdash 3 times in a row or jump backwards a bunch of times, it doesn’t happen. In order to proc it you have to be REALLY defensive above and beyond the ordinary.
The one problem I’ve had with negative penalty is that in certain aspects it has spoiled me… At times when my opponent is being really defensive it pisses me off that they don’t get negative penalized… So I be all like “man where was the negative penalty that round”
But yeah, a bad idea on paper that works surprisingly well in game.
Right, so, here’s another situation:
They have 30% health left, you can do a combo that does 30% that costs a bar or a combo that does 50% and costs all 3 bars. It’ll be good meter management to only use the 30% if there are more rounds.
Or maybe they have 31% health. That situation would make players have to have really good judgment to win the round more cleanly; more skill.
The situation where someone would choose 35% over 44% vs a player with 45% health left implies that 35% uses less resources and may be the optimal choice if any subsequent hit afterwards will deal the remaining 10%. So, there is more resource management involved, rather than just choosing the most damaging combo.
If no chip kills is there because heavy normals do chip, I have to ask, what is the purpose of normals doing chip? I would really like to know which mechanic was thought up first. It seemed like they wanted the gameplay to progress quickly. If that’s the case then how could no chip kill be a countermeasure(as some have posited)? You want the rounds to be quick except for the last bit?
If no chip is there because of heavy normals doing chip… I can’t understand why the ability to kill via chip isn’t just restricted to heavy normals…
It doesn’t need to also extend to specials.
I was thinking about it, and my guess is that it’ll reward use of block strings into throw or a good frame trap poke. I’m not sure how a block string into a blocked special for chip pans out. Like does the chip take off all the gray health from blocking normals? or is all the gray health retained? If blocking chip takes off your gray health, then people are going to learn right quick to use up their reversals so they never eat chip even though they can just block it for days. I saw Bison’s psycho wave(?) do a tonnn of chip damage. Like more than SF4 Honda headbutt. But it looked quick also and can kind of be used as a poke. I’m not sure how effective it’d be to V-reversal against it. Probably more reliable than just eating the chip again and again.
Because like I have stated before, the meta game shouldn’t revolve around killing your opponent through chip. The game should revolve around footies, confirms and reads.
Is very lame when you survive to realize no, you actually didn’t because chip kill is very accessible. So why did you survived in the first place then? Is over redundant so lets get over with it. I die or I get another chance.
If you have both normals that cause gray chip and death chip from specials (non ultras included) then it will too overwhelming.
In my humble opinion the way they have it now is fine because it encourages dynamic play on offense and defense back and forth instead of overly focus defensive gameplay. Balance is the key factor in my arguement, not one extreme or the other.
I’m not trying to convince anybody since everybody is entitled to their own opinions and “fun” is subjective. I just hope my point get across and undertood pal 
I wasn’t responding to you. I was asking a question to the thread. Regardless, you haven’t really answered it. You did not answer why normals have to chip.
The meta has never revolved around chip deaths. It was just part of the game that a certain demographic of players dislike. When has Street fighter never revolved around footsies? Also, putting chip damage opposite footsies, confirms and reads is a false dilemma.
Are you familiar with the term “checkmate”?
Can you provide an example of what you think of as overly defensive play?
Talking about having an opinion is a thought defeating cliche.
Well, the reason why I think is a good idea that some normals should have gray chip is because like I stated, it encourages a balance between offensive and defense. As of now with SFlV as far as I’m concerned the game relies too much on the defensive side and turtling. In a game that relies heavily on footies rather mixups etc to open people up, is going to encourage to play very defensive.
As of right now on 4, there’s very little penalty for just blocking everything and focus attacking through stuff. Now I understand patience is important, however it makes the pace really slow sometimes.
Normals doing gray chip addresses this issue since building a chunk of chip damage that could be lost if a confirm happens soon and will encourage players to be pro active and engage on offensive roles when their turn to pressure comes up.
Also the rewards of reads could be heavily influenced based on this mechanic but I have yet to gather more information to be certain of it.
I’m not familiar with the term you mention but maybe I understand the concept. Could you please elaborate on it?
WOW
“We want to encourage offensive play, but also want to reward people that sit in downback with no health”
I… Well… Seriously…
Man… Smh
Another peep by the name of Darklightjg1 suggested in another thread that it is unfair that a person could cling and exploit the turtling because of no chip damage kill.
He/She suggested that it does seems unfair and also mentioned that a good way to fix the unbalance would be to make the person gain no meter while blocking in the pixel state.
While I agree with the idea, I think a modification should be made. Not gaining any meter at all seems really radical. But I think that the amount of meter gained by blocking should greatly be reduced. That way the player on advantage should be rewarded with a faster way to build the full meter to actually have an attempt at chip kill through the ultra super.
The idea will be suggested and it has my support for sure. I would encourage you to look at the post on the general discussion and rate it up so it gets some relevance.
If their is anyone that played sf5 at e3, do you think a guard bar would’ve been a better idea than normals that does chip damage?
That’s a start, but tbqh that isn’t the actual problem. It is an exacerbation of the problem for sure, but it isn’t the problem.
The problem is many pronged and I’m not going it list all of them here because I’m basically pissing in the wind in this forum. But I will say this:
Take a player such as myself. I will down back JUST TO SPITE YOU. I don’t need any incentive other than that to hold downback. I’ve already lost the round barring a miracle depending on how much health the opponent has left. At that point my only real chance to win is to annoy the opponent so much that they do something stupid and give me the round.
Assuming they aren’t that dumb, and simply sit back and don’t open themselves up, I’m just going to be killing time in downback at the opposite end of the screen contemplating my strategy for the next round. Time be damned. Game be damned. My opponents and the audiences (if there happens to be an audience) feelings be damned.
This is why it is a terrible design. It doesn’t FORCE anything. People in this thread are assuming that it will make things more dynamic when in the end it will be anything but. Players will just bulldog forward taking no chip if they have a chance to win like the opponent near the corner or the opponent being low on life, but if there is likely no chance to win like the player with no hp is cornered and the opponent has like more than 50% hp… Well fuck it… Troll them. It would be stupid for the leader to attack me at that point and risk losing what is essentially a sure thing… So I get a license to troll for the next 20-30 game seconds. Meter be damned.
Yeah, great game.
I’m old school. I’ll play a game to the least common denominator that it allows me to. I will wall dive vega people to death, I will tick throw people to oblivion just to show how stupid the game is.
Don’t pick a WW character against me in SF anniversary edition because once they get knocked down they might as well let go of the controller since they can’t do wakeup reversals and can get thrown in blockstun and have no throw escape mechanism. Fucked up? Yeah. But it’s in the game so why not…
This is what I don’t think people understand. I think people think that the mechanic will make the guy with no hp go offensive for the win… And sure sometimes that will happen, especially if it’s the last round. But a lot of times it won’t happen that way.
I also think that people think that it will make the zoner go in… But nope. There is still not a lot of reason for the zoner to go in if they are already winning. As things stand the time is running out and every tick of the clock brings the zoner closer to victory.
This is just a mechanic that invites random bs at low hp levels, and turtling at higher hp levels. It’s all bad and very little good.
But as I said, I’m pissing into the wind on this forum so w/e
As if it’s impossible for a game to reward both good offense AND good defense? It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
The game has huge damage, huge stun, less damage scaling, chip on normals, no legit crouch teching, and V-triggers that increase damage EVEN more. Offense is just fine. Heaven forbid they add ONE extremely situational detail that occasionally helps you on defense, lol.
Having no chip kills make the ends of certain matches more engaging. That’s it. They aren’t a huge deal. They’re just different.
I find the gray chip quite similar to guard bar in Guilty Gear. In general, guard bars punish the defender for blocking too much, by eventually removing the ability to block via guard break or whatever mechanic is in play, but the guard bar in Guilty Gear only adds damage to the next few attacks as long as the guard bar is high.
This leads to a system that only punishes turtling if a player is unable to correctly block. If the defender blocks correctly and finds a way out of pressure, the guard bar will return to normal and the defender will not be at a loss. Gray chip works in the same way in that you take the gray chip damage only when you’re hit and if you have good defense you aren’t punished for blocking. In my opinion, this is a great way to encourage offense AND good defense, while increasing the pressure on turtling players making for a more offensive paced game. (Which seems to be the goal of Street Fighter V, so good for them!)
I also believe the situation @Dime_x described where the opponent will turtle when he has no health because he does not fear chip will not be any more advantageous to the defender than turtling at a neutral situation. Remember, Street Fighter V intends to make throwing a much stronger tool with the attempted removal of crouch teching and the shortened window to tech. A turtler wary of a throw is going to be much more willing to stuff attempts to throw, creating a footsies situation. If the defender can really defend against everything without committing at all, perhaps the offensive toolset in Street Fighter V is lacking, or the defender is outplaying the offender and deserves to have a chance at a comeback. In the case that the player on offense is zoning, if the incentive to not lose by timeout isn’t enough for the defender, then I don’t think the defender would’ve been able to pull off a no-chip damage comeback anyway. Immature people will troll you when they’re losing at no matter what health they realize they can’t win.