This doesn’t mesh with the files at ALL. I’m very confused. Files show zero change to his close LP. None. I thought since I had to do Evil Ryu’s unlisted changes by using the json .txt files and running a text comparison program that maybe I’d missed something but just reading the files side by side as well as running a text comparison shows that there has been no change to Evil Ryu’s close LP (or any of his jabs for that matter)
Yeah I tested this with AE2012 and USF E.Ryu.
AE2012 Ryu could cs.LP > shoryuken. USF4 E.Ryu can’t.
I’m not sure why they did it but at the very least I wont get a fireball when I do cs.LP > cs.HP xx MK Axe kick
Here is the thing though, can Evil Ryu do ANYTHING else? Close LP - Fireball? Cls LP axe? cls LP - Tatsu? clsLP - Super? Close LP - EX FADC? did you try ALL of those?
Found the source and why it doesn’t work. clsLP wasn’t changed whatsoever. You still can cancel close LP no problem.
You just can’t ever perform close LP 
They added R5LP to the “Ground” cancel list. The R stands for “Rapid” e.g. chained. Because of how the move list is laid out the chained versions of normals are always a higher priority on the move list.
What happens when you try and do 2 moves using the same input? It uses the higher priority one.
Chained clsLP has a higher priority than normal clsLP. Now that you can perform chained sLP at any time (instead of only when canceling another light attack). The chained version takes priority over the normal version and every time you hit LP you get chained sLP instead of normal sLP thus preventing special or super canceling.
It was an EXTREMELY subtle change (literally 4 letters near the middle of a document with 98412 characters.)
Updated main post as well as the bug list thread to include this. Good eye @dddvg4 !
OMG…That’s the reason…
How come they are so irresponsible…
They should hired you to debug/test. Eternal, you are gdlike
By the way, I think Sako should have noticed this because he use cl.lp into shoryu a lot in certain matchups
If he didn’t tried it yet and try to go for that combo at EVO…LOL
The point for Dudley target combo counter hit damage should be removed. The calculation in Ultra is correct. Capcom said that they buffed all the target combo base damage by 10 and they did. They did it by having the 2nd hit of all target chains do an extra 10 damage. Since the first hit of all Dudley’s target combos do the same damage as the previous version of the game, it appears they just added 10 damage on counter hit when instead they actually just buffed the damage on the 2nd hit, which never gets the counter hit bonus damage.
If you break armor with an attack it grants a counterhit. You can do target combos to break focus for example.
Yeah, that’s a way to do it, but even in that case the 2nd hit gets an extra damage calculation too. I was just saying for the typical counter hit scenario. However after breaking it down they may or may not have just add 10 damage on counter hit which is the claim in question here. I tested all his target combos and the results are funky.
So if you get an initial counter hit setup you get the correct 25% damage boost.
For example, TC 1 (f st. lp > st. mp)
Base Damage: 25 > 40 = 65
Initial CH: 32 > 40 = 72
AB CH: 25 > 48 = 73
They just rounded way up from 6.25 to 7. Now on the case of armor break it does 25 > 48. That means that it’s toned down to an equivalent 20% damage boost. Let’s check AE 2012 values:
Base Damage: 25 > 30 = 55
Initial CH: 32 > 30 = 62
AB CH: 25 > 38 = 63
AB CH damage is correct, rounding up 37.5 to 38 damage. Back to Ultra:
For TC 7 (st. mk > st. hk> st. hp), the only case where his 2nd hit doesn’t do 40 base damage.
Base Damage: 65 > 50 > 1616 = 147
Initial CH: 81 > 50 > 1616 = 163
AB CH: 65> 60 > 20*20 = 165
So initial calculation is correct there as well. AB CH scenario damage is once again only a 20% damage boost.
Let’s check the AE2012 values again:
Base Damage: 65 > 40 > 1616 = 137
Initial CH: 81 > 40 > 1616 = 153
AB CH: 65> 50 > 20*20 = 155
AB CH damage is correct again in AE2012. 10 damage is a 25% boost.
I then used Guy’s st. mp > st. hp as a control to test damage.
Base Damage: 60 > 40 = 100
Initial CH: 75 > 40 = 115
AB CH: 60 > 50 =110
Everything checks out with Guy’s numbers.
This means that it’s an incorrect damage boost percentage value only on armor breaking counter hit setups in Ultra for Dudley.
Long story short, the initial counter hit TC damage values are correct. It just looks like they added 10 damage to them because they did in fact add 10 damage to the hit not affected on initial counter hit TC’s. There however can be an argument that they just added 10 damage to the armor break counter hit numbers. It’s hard to say with these small numbers since they have stretched the math before, like rounding 6.25 to 7. So I would specify that only the armor breaking TC counter hit values are incorrect instead of saying all TC counter hit values are incorrect. I think I could figure it out for sure though if I tried Dudley’s TC 7 on a move with 2 hits of armor.
Armor break counterhit values are the same as regular counterhit values (damage of attack done X 1.25). You are trying to make it way more complicated than it is.
All that matters is the damage on the counterhit. You don’t count the full combo. It’s never been that way. Target combos aren’t 1 move, they are a series of moves that start from a normal attack.
Here, let me make it simple.
The hitbox data for TC1_5MP does 30 damage base and 38 damage on counterhit in AE2012. Capcom always rounds partial numbers to the nearest whole(sometimes up, sometimes down.)
30*1.25 = 37.5 rounds to either 37 or 38. Either would be considered “correct”
In USF4 TC1_5MP does 40 damage base and 48 damage on counterhit
40*1.25 = 50. 50 is already a whole number. It should be doing that much not 48.
Well I’m not trying to make it more complicated than what it is. I’m just making sure everything is out there as transparent as possible. I’m also aware that target combos aren’t 1 move. They are all the normals including the first normal. I understand how counter hits work. I agree that TC1_5MP should do 50 instead of 48 damage.
I’m just trying to say that you can’t specifically say “All target combos counterhit damage increased by 10. (They no longer do 125% damage on counterhit now as they just increased the damage a flat 10 instead of doing the math for the new counterhit damage.)” The part before the parenthesis is true. All target combos counter hit damage has been increased by 10. But the statement within the parenthesis does not hold true. As I shown above, all the 1st normal counter hit TC’s damage follow the 125% damage rule, therefore you cannot say that they all no longer do 125% damage on counter hit. I hate to be nit picky on wording like that, but I’ve worked on quality control before and they would be annoyed by a generalization like that. The only time when it doesn’t follow the 125% damage rule occurs during 2nd normal counter hit which mostly happens during armor break scenarios. If you don’t include the starting normal as part of the target combo then the entire statement would be true, but I consider the starting normal as part of the target combo and so does the command list in the game.
If the parenthesis statement was “If 2nd hit of target combos counter hit, bonus damage is flat 10 instead of 125% base damage” that would be true.
1st part of a target combo is the cancel after the initial normal. It doesn’t become a target combo until you perform the actual cancel. Just as you don’t count the move you canceled into an EX Red Focus and you don’t count chaining two Jabs together as 1 move. Target combos are nothing but a term used for a specifically allowed chain cancel to another move.
No disrespect meant. Perhaps you have a different definition but so far you are the only person I know whose viewed it that way.
I agree with Eternal’s definition, and so does the game. In trials where you need to do stuff like Chun’s Target combo, you only have to actually land the 2nd hit.
Okay I’ll even use your definition for TC.
Edit: I though I found something but I need more time to double check it.
Habenero dash doesn’t have a counterhit state so breaking armor doesn’t grant you a counterhit even with a natural armor breaker. Same with Guy’s run. Since they aren’t considered attacks I would assume it’s intentional. If you wanted the third hit of a combo to be a counterhit you’d have to do something like EX Dash canceled to one of the followups with specific timing to counterhit the followup.
Command dash type attacks universally do not have a counterhit state. Guy’s Run and EX Run, El Fuerte’s Habenero Dash and EX Habenero Dash, Ibuki’s Kasumi Gake, Abel’s Marseilles Roll, Dudley’s Ducking, Blanka’s Surprise Forward and Back, Yang’s Kaihou teleport, Rolento’s delta attack backflip portion, Vega’s backslashes, Decapre’s scramble, ect none of them have counterhit states.
It’s a bit different for command jumps though, they tend to vary unlike dashes.
Rolento’s Delta escape, Dan’s jump taunt and Ibuki’s Tsujigoe don’t have counterhit states, but Guy’s Bushin flip, Vega’s wall dive, M. Bison’s Devil’s reverse and Sakura’s Otoshi do (even though if you don’t hit any buttons there is no default attack from these attacks). Likewise Demon flip and Hooligan combination also have counterhit states but that is more understandable as they default to a slide attack if you don’t actually input a followup so no matter what there is an attack coming of some sort.
That is in fact why I edited my statement before you got to it. I thought about it not having counter hit status. I did the EX Habanero Dash with the sobat followup and was able to get the proper counter hit damage.
I’m just gonna sit back for the rest of the day and enjoy all the Ultra at Evo while watching for wacky stuff.
Updated OP with a new finding for Evil Ryu and a new finding for Yun.
Video of Akuma’s LK Tatsu buff for reference. Mostly noticeable on Blanka.
Eternal looking at Dantarion’s tool and the changes to E.Ryu’s sweep is the following correct?
AE
7/2/28 (-11)
AE2012
7/3/27 (-11)
Ultra
6/3/26 (-11)
It seems like it recovers faster on whiff overall but I have no way to test this.
Speed settings show it to be incorrect
Here is the move for Ultra:
Here is AE
Here is AE2012
A speed setting stays the same until changed or the move ends. I think whatever way the total frame data is read by Dantarion and Razor5070s total frame data thing in Ono gets confused because they added a speed setting that changes nothing in AE2012. Adding the 6-7F 2.0x speed doesn’t do anything when it was already running at 2x speed. As a matter of fact, if you add another 2X speed setting at 10-11F then the tool will try and claim the move has 8F startup instead of 7F but it’ll still be 7F in game.
The other way to prove that it’s incorrect is if you look, no change was made to the speed settings after the active frames end and no change was made to the interrupt frame. So how would it have less recovery?
Bananaken brought to my attention an unlisted Ken thing I missed and did some research and spotted it. Added it to the list.
Alright so I’ve found a potential unlisted change for E.Honda.
MP and HP Oicho now give more pushback after the move so you can’t use close normals anymore while maintaining a back charge.