I have a legit question this time. Tell me what you think of it.
Now, WHAT IF
1. Holds were removed from stun
AND
2. The stun system was toned down to something like this:
I've been wondering, what if the stun threshold was reduced to ONE level/stun. What I mean is, depending on the properties of the move you are using, and depending on whether you get NH CH or HCH, you are only allowed to stun your opponent ONCE. After you successfully stun your opponent your only option will (should) be to launch your opponent and juggle him and depending on the damage revision and the height of the launch, the damage output will still be fair. Or knock him into a wall or partition if you wish, otherwise any other attack you use will either cause knockback, knockdown, or reset the stun to neutral, etc. I'm going to use Jan Lee as an example to explain what I mean.
Now let's say I use his
. On NH it's only a small stun, it barely phases my opponent.
On CH it will cause a deep stun, and at this point I have a few options to launch. I can launch with
,
,
,
,
, or even
again and follow up with the
ender for a small juggle. Or if you wanna be cool you can free step to your opponents back and YEAH you know what's next.
On HCH it will cause a small launch and I can follow up with either the
ender or
Now let's try his
NH does nothing
CH will cause a deep stun > LAUNCH
HCH will cause a deeper stun > LAUNCH
So basically, NH = nothing (unless NH launcher or stun). CH = medium launch, HCH = HIGH LAUNCH
Now these three scenarios are generally for attacks that cause deeper stuns. In the case of lighter stuns (jabs for example) however, the stun threshold can extend once more, 2x max depending on the move properties. Here's an example using Jan Lee's
On NH it obviously doesn't do much.
On CH and/or HCH, the 1st 2 punches will stun and the 3rd punch will grant a small launch like it used to in DOA2 and 3. Obviously you will have to follow up with a juggle, preferably
for maximum damage.
Now just in case you're not following my logic here, this is basically what I mean in a nutshell. I honestly believe there is no reason to further extend the threshold more than it needs to be. I do not see the logic behind, "oh fuck i got stunned, oh FUCK i got stunned again, WTF stop stunning me!" It's too long, keep it short and simple. The purpose of a stun is to grant you advantage over your opponent as a reward for making a good read, pressuring your opponent well, whatever. And it is up to the attacker to either pick up that advantage or drop it, unless the defender manages to SE fast enough. And this is basically what happens in VF. If you get stunned REALLY good you know your ass is about to get punished with a juggle, and DOA should do the same thing. I think it would help properly balance the triangle system IMO.
Strikes will become a more powerful/viable form of punishment without the fear of all the 50/50 bullshit in stun. Reward will replace risk.
Throws will have less emphasis but will still be good for punishing unsafe attacks, incorrect reads, and of course blocking.
Holds will be reduced to more educated guessing, forcing you to make proper reads instead of relying on luck. (If you look at VF you'll notice reversals are rarely used)
Now just to be clear, the scenarios I gave above are merely examples. Obviously it won't work the same way in every situation because there are many different stun types and all moves have their own properties. But I think the 2 suggestions I mentioned above can work pretty well together if done properly. What do you think?
