So I was supposed to do this 2 days ago but school stuff got in the way. I’m gonna ask our Texas Bar Fights Director if he can give me some data from the last two Bar Fights regarding the length of the average marvel 2/3 and the average SF set and KOF set. Whenever he replies back I start sending it out to well known players via twitter or facebook.
Honestly I’d rather go nto options and lower the damage if that’s something that TO’s are willing to consider. You get a better game all-around that way, but I’m not going to complain about either option. They’re both steps in the right direction. The game is random as it is. There’s no reason to rely on crapcom to fix it when the options to do so are right in front of our faces.
Should be, but honestly the main problem with that is the time required for those extra rounds…
You dont get a better game lowering damage. You just make the stronger characters stronger.
This will never be an option.
All lowering the damage does is make it so the characters that already do big damage do a little less (though still pretty big) while the characters that don’t do even less.
It makes it so Zero doesn’t die in one combo. I don’t want to play that game.
He already doesn’t die in one combo sometimes because of his floaty ass hit box. Why is he harder to combo than Strider but has more health and damage LOL?
Still a strong supporter of 3/5 Marvel.
Someone’s going to have to explain this further, because I don’t see how making every character do less damage makes better characters stronger than they are now. Every character has to expend more resources and employ more mixups to kill a character. It just makes the game more forgiving, which is the same thing 3/5 is advocating. My guess is people just don’t want to have to retool their gameplay in relation to the damage change and would rather stick with the option that does something they’re already familiar with. I’d like to try lower damage, personally.
Lowering the damage causes the tier list to break apart due to the top tier characters being top tier due to them having the best mix ups, and resets.
This is absolute hogwash. Statements like this lead me to believe people aren’t even thinking about this. Ignoring the fact that you’re referencing an unstable artifact that fluctuates due to public opinion; you’re just furthering my point - in regards to the actual game, nothing changes. The better characters will be better the change is for competitive player satisfaction. I don’t buy that somehow, lowering the damage across the board will make the better characters even better, necessarily.
Okay, I will explain it. Let’s say to win a match of MvC3 on default damage, you have to hit your opponent a certain number of times. The lower that number is (or the higher the damage output), the better chance a character with poor mixup options will have. As you decrease the damage, and raise the number of times you need to open your opponent up, the more powerful characters like Magneto and Spencer will become because it’s only a matter of time before they hit you.
the longer a match lasts, the chances of you defending against characters with good mixups drop dramaticly. whereas the power of straight forward characters stays the same. I can sit in a match against Hsien Ko for 99 seconds without attacking and never take damage, the amount of time doesn’t make her more of a threat, but if I manage to hit Zero, he needs to die because I’m not likely to get another chance.
I’m sorry this is the same thing Crimson stated and it’s still hogwash. I think I can demonstrate it more clearly when I have more time. You’re essentially saying playing an opponent longer weakens the strength of mixups and lower tiered characters - an argument that can easily be leveled against 3/5 matches too!
Who wants to play a game where Zero DOESN’T die in one combo? Cause I don’t
Playing more matches does NOTHING to change what happens during A MATCH. It has no effect whatsoever on how the character interact.
If you truly dont understand this, then explaining why lowering damage makes the good characters better is probably a waste of time, unfortunately.
I’m saying playing an opponent longer amplifies the strength of mixups, which inherently hurts lower tiered characters. Let me try an example. Let’s say we have Magneto vs. Captain America as both player’s point characters. Captain America has no way to hit his opponent that is hard to defend against, you pretty much have to make a mistake to lose to him. Magneto on the other hand, has a deadly mixup of tri dash high or low plus the threat of throw which you dont actually have to make a mistake to be hit by, you just need to be limited by the reaction time of the human mind (which most of us are).
On the current damage settings, at least Cap has the security of knowing that he only has to land one hit in order to take magneto out. The odds may not be in his favor, but it can happen. If you decrease damage to the point where each character has to land two hits or more to win, the odds get less and less in Cap’s favor.
This is not the same as lengthening the match via 3/5 matches. You’re basicly suggesting that we should play one long ass match. That’s a bad idea because once you lose your first character (and an assist, and a dhc option) your odds of winning go down by a huge margin. That shouldn’t decide the entire set even if that first character had a lot of health.
I’ve been saying since week 1 Vanilla that “low” needed to be the tournament damage standard if they want to keep the 2/3 3/5 game standards for tournaments.
The only other reasonable alternative imo was pretty similar to the generalized idea of running 3/5s, but I got a little more specific about it and tried to adapt it in such a way that would function more broadly.
That is, it would be 2/3 outside of top 16/32 (depending on size of the tournament) and then migrate to 3/5 with FTF going for grand final matches.
I don’t know how many people watched “Bar Fights,” but I feel like a whole lot more gets “proven” with more matches to be played (See Bar Fights Fanatiq Vs. Clockwork). I do understand the issue of time constraints though, which is why I’d still leave 2/3 in place for pools play and lower positioning fights.
Time constraints should not be an issue for a properly planned tournament running UMvC3 at 3/5. 3/5 in UMvC3 almost always takes less time than 2/3 KoF13 or SFxT.
I’m sorry my monkey brain can’t fathom character interaction in a vacuum to support an argument so seemingly arbitrary. Because the game, quite literally, plays itself.
Yes, don’t waste anyone’s time.
How is this not dismissive, internet, theory-craft at its finest? Not only does all this theory ignore the players completely - it doesn’t even take Assists into consideration.
As for the bolded portion, specifically, assuming lowering the damage scales the damage back across the board a uniform percentage: the “odds” for Captain don’t change! If it scales the damage back 10% (i.e.), Magneto’s life essentially becomes 935,000 and Captain America’s life becomes 1, 155,000. So if Captain needed only one touch to kill Magnus before the 10% decrease, assuming he’s using an optimized combo (either via Assist extension, or DHC, or Final Justice) - he still only needs one touch!. Point vs. Point, Captain can one touch Magnus. He might have to use more resources than before, but that won’t be a problem, since characters living longer = more meter. If the Captain player doesn’t have a one touch available, he can choose to gamble with a reset and still effectively kill Magnus, with less resources. Captain is forced to weigh more options which is more interesting, IMO.
Magnus on the other hand, as far as I’m aware would have to reset Captain at least once to kill him without X-Factor or Level 3. If it’s point vs. point, Magnus probably doesn’t even have the luxury of the former, unless the battle is drawn out, but at that point, Cap’s life would be lower anyway, so it wouldn’t even matter. In XF LvL1, Magnus might be able to barely kill Captain and that’s a large gamble regarding resources to kill a character like Captain America. Even if Magneto zones, chips or stray hits Captain down 950,000, Magneto still needs a really good fucking combo involving resources to one touch him. If he’s going to dictate the pace of the match, his most solid option would be to have 1 or 2 very strong reset options to get rid of Captain. In a point vs. point scenario, that adds pressure to Magneto and it’s not like Captain in neutral is trash in this game - especially backed by Assits like Arrow, Tastu, Unibeam.
So yeah, I don’t think this is as simple as you guys seem to want it to be. I like 3/5 but lowering damage doesn’t equate to “one long-ass-match” and I find it makes the game more interesting judging from the hand full of times I’ve actually played it this way.
If you admittedly don’t understand or even like the game, why do you bother arguing. You can’t be all aggressive, lose, and then say “I don’t care anyway”. I hope you don’t take that attitude towards your opponents.
What the hell? How am I being “aggressive”? Where have I stated I don’t like this game? I love this game. Me being in disagreement doesn’t not equate to misunderstanding. “Don’t care”? WTF are you talking about?