Kind of the nature of fighting games though that the trailing player needs an offense boost a lot more than they need a reset to neutral. Most pure defense tools are always going to favor the player with the lead. There are work arounds to that, but they come with their own set of problems.
Why does the trailing player need a boost exactly?
The slippery slope in fighting games is very shallow. You don’t lose many options (if any) for being behind. For the most part your ability to play perfect is the same at 1 HP as full HP.
This is why I think comeback oriented mechanics are not a great fit for most fighting games.
I mean that for a pretty limited definition of the word “need”.
Which is to say that the circumstances that lead to being the trailing player in the first place don’t change from a neutral reset, whereas they might from an offense boost. So if you give them a choice between the two…
I am not saying that the games need to provide that choice though. That’s a different discussion.
Gotcha.
Other options to make v reverse better I can come up with are, reduce the cost, make them generically better.
However, offense in SFV is generally pretty shitty. It feels strong mostly because defense is poor. If you did things like buff v reverse it might waterfall more than expected.
Lots of reasons:
The player in front can now win by doing nothing and going for a timeout where they need to take few to no risks. That alone is one of the biggest reasons.
The winning player need no longer take risks because of the timer.
The player losing, if they gain no meter from getting hit, now has even fewer resources to try and make a comeback. This leads once again to the winning player having a huge advantage.
The player in the lead need not move forward at all, meaning hitting them is going to be harder since they can always be in block.
All this basically means that once a lead is established the winning player need no longer “play the game” and can win by timeout or overly defensive play.
To keep things dynamic and interesting, low damage games need comeback mechanics almost as a rule.
There is no “one punch ko” like in boxing where the losing boxer can get a lucky punch and win the match.
It’s like pro games where one team is so far ahead that everyone knows that the other team can’t win. Those games are boring and everyone leaves before the game is done. But a game where the result is in question the entire time is much more fun and enterta8ning for both sides.
I may be oversimplifying. But basically, you are saying that a player in the lead can play defensively… and that’s not fair?
I would argue if the strategy of being defensive is so strong that it need entire mechanics to overcome, then the game has other issues that need be addressed. If being safe and defensive were that strong I think that would be the default play style. So a limited extent that’s what happened to SFxT.
Super meter has always been a very mild comeback mechanic, to fix that would take something like… an auto regenerating meter (see MK11 coincidentally).
I love when main stream fighters try different mechanics, everyone is so scared to try anything nowadays
Aaand that’'s why like high damage in my games. No need for comeback mechanics if getting touched 2-3 times in the wrong situation will get you killed.
4 Likes
In team games where entire teams play simultaneously, like Overwatch, bans do a LOT to increase character diversity in the meta.
I don’t think it’s going to do shit in SF though, except fuck with character specialists.
Might have been okay if something like SFxT teams mode had caught on.
Yeah character bans in a fighter is not whats up.
1 Like
SF5 wouldn’t need such heavy handed comeback mechanics if the characters could do big boi damage without dumping meter or VT.
What do you consider high damage though? SFV has some pretty explosive damage for most of the cast, even without a trigger. SFxT has gigantic damage and is one of the most defensive slow games of the last decade (sidenote: I like SFxT quite a bit).
Also, higher damage brings its own issues. Think about UMvC3 or even SF4 with its vortex, where one bad read/guess can put you basically in the ground.
I think this is somethings that’s very hard to get spot on, and I don’t want to imply that I could do better. I’m just providing my 2 cents.
1 Like
Character bans is eSports dumb shit.
3 Likes
Characters in team games generally require far less specialized knowledge than characters in FGs though. If someone bans my best hero in Dota I can still pick someone reasonably similar for the same role. If someone bans my best character in an FG I can generally just put the controller down.
3 Likes
Character bans only work well in games where deciding who to ban is a real choice. If it’s just “ban Cammy because she’s the best” you really haven’t added anything interesting to the game, and just hosed Cammy players.
I enjoy it really, to read the discussions on this board.
90% of the time it seems like a hoard of chicken running in circles and tries to reach a non existing goal.
Sirlin had a good point about this in one of his podcasts.
This guy is the best player of this character. But you won’t get to see it because his character got banned.
10/10 very eSports experience. Imagine if you could ban players in football or basketball It’d be just as dumb.
That character ban option is pretty fucking stupid. As others said it makes sense in League/DotA/OW/the dumb mini games I play because while there is still skill to playing those games it isn’t as intense to learn a new character.
Teams should just chain ban Fang in protest.
Saw Glass and I fucking loved it, nice conclusion to the trilogy… honestly even though the ending may be divisive (personally I liked it) I still loved the film. I loved how different it was and that it went against expectations along with it being slower paced like Unbreakable… it’s so nice to have closure in this weird and unique trilogy.
MenarD and Problem X will be screwed 
Well, it’s a North America team competition, so I don’t think Problem will have a problem. It’s not the CPT, separate things entirely.