DOA5 E3 Build: The Good, Bad and Ugly

[Lei]

I deleted it because it didn't add anything to the discussion, it was just me vocalizing how tired I was of reading your condescending jibber jabber. Everything you write is condescending and usually has absolutely no effect on the betterment of the conversation.

Don't worry, I wont respond after this.

As condescending as it is. It is the horrible truth. If you are at disadvantage there needs to be a definitive disadvantage(outside of punishment of on some normals). Like wise if there is an advantage there needs to be a definitive advantage.

With the questioning of the reward from blocking and getting "nothing" it does actually show how much you do know about these deeper aspects let alone the mindset and knowledge in a situation for example where you have a normal that is advantage on block but gets nothing on hit. On block or on hit their reaction to that situation provides a lot of what information is in the player matchup and allows you to takes the higher risk/rewards options later.

Believe it or not Dogg's statements do affect the betterment of not only people reading so if they don't already know they can get informed on things but also the development of the game competitively. I am not riding Dogg and I have had things in the past from a long time of reading his and even Rikuto's posts that I haven't agreed with but starting to read their statements and others from my young age of playing the game has made me better as a player and I have transferred that to other games.(Since I was about 9-10 I started reading and playing doa competitively and started playing at 8) Since being now I actually agree with both Dogg on Rikuto on a lot of things they see and believe it or not you shouldn't view it as a condescending thing but more of a fill of knowledge that you don't yet get.

Under the same thing, you aren't contributing to the betterment of anything getting mad because something offends you.

 

[Jefffcore]

I agree with all that, that wasn't where it started. Getting advantage or not, I was saying if the person never stopped; if they just blocked everything you did, you'd have to throw at some point. I don't know if anyone noticed, but that bit about throws was in the form of a question because I don't know anything about Tekken. That was completely ignored of course.

I'm not getting into the rest of it. Like I said, I more or less agree with all the OP, nothing else matters.

Under the same thing, you aren't contributing to the betterment of anything getting mad because something offends you.

That's why I deleted my original message

 

[Matt Ponton]

I like to be able to play as safe as possible and as technical as possible. I don't like taking risks, and I'm very successful with that play style. If I am forced to guess all the time, it's impossible for me to play that way.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but your preferred play style is to have a low-risk/high-reward game?

 

[akhi216]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but your preferred play style is to have a low-risk/high-reward game?

I think that any high reward that DrDogg would get would be attributed to his gameplay and understanding of the game rather than by game design; he was just saying that how he plays (low risk) he's very successful with it, and he doesn't like to constantly guess what his opponent is up to.

My take is that DOA is all about guessing 100% of the time when playing at a high level, pre DOA5 that is. I ran into Awesmic a couple of times on DOAD, and I enjoyed playing him because me and him were both guessing constantly.

 

[Matt Ponton]

I think the issue Dr. Dogg is trying to say is that the amount of times you're forced to 'read' the opponent is too much. The problem he has is he lumps this into a pretty vague term of 'guessing' and it just confuses people into thinking he doesn't want any sort of mix-up at all.

I would prefer a game that has less times where you're required to 'read'. It was really mentally taxing in DOA4 to have to 'read' so often. It's probably why I enjoyed DOA3 because they were more controlled instances with some breaktime in between.

 

[d3v]

First of all, you play way too many 2D fighters, and compare them just a little too directly. The fundamentals are the same, yes, but typically 3D fighters are slightly different in terms of fundamental execution.

I was using chess analogies, what does 2D fighting have to do with that?

Second of all, DOA mechanics in general don't reward just for having the better neutral game in many occurrences. To do this, everything would have to stun or counters would have to only be able to counter the first hit of a string. In DOA you don't only have to play good neutral game, you have to continuously play mindgames with your opponent even when you're on offense. I'm assuming that's unacceptable, though. No?

As Rikuto has stated in multiple posts time and time again, that type of game design tends to be very frustrating and does not jive well with the competitive player's mentality (that is, to find the most efficient way to win).

I understand why you disagree, though. Even Soul Calibur follows your mix-ups post hit confirm rule. DOA does not, and personally, I don't think it should. To me, one of the most appealing things about the game was that offense was more difficult. To the extend that DOA4 was in terms of what happens when you get held in combos was ridiculous, but I always liked that defense, outside of backdashing, (and sidestepping for DOA4) was always pretty strong.

The problem with this is that, on a whole it's easier to be good at defense that it is to be good at offense. It is the attacking player that has to try to get in and open the defending player up. The defending player on the other hand just has to wait for the attacking player to mess up so that they can punish.

 

[DrDogg]

I agree with all that, that wasn't where it started. Getting advantage or not, I was saying if the person never stopped; if they just blocked everything you did, you'd have to throw at some point.

All throws are breakable on reaction in Tekken (aside from back throws). At high levels, you don't open an opponent up with throws. You do so by having superior spacing, frame traps, a solid poking game and other various tech that's sorely lacking in DOA games.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but your preferred play style is to have a low-risk/high-reward game?

I'm fine with low-risk/low-reward, but that's not really how fighting games work. Take Yoshi's iMCF in SC4... it's safe and low risk but if it connects on CH Yoshi gets big damage. The damage you can get has been toned down in SC5, but you can still get a ring-out from it if you're close enough to the edge.

The way I play Ling in Tekken is very low risk. There was a time during the Tekken 4 and Tekken 5 days when I was known as the "Anti-Flash" Ling because I was one of the few Ling players that wouldn't go for all of the flashy movement in an attempt to confuse the opponent. I just used her superior pokes and kept frame advantage as much as possible.

I can win in most fighting games just by having solid defense. That's difficult to do in DOA because blocking only gets you so far since throws are extremely fast, have ridiculous range (in some cases), and can't be broken for the most part. Not to mention everything stuns, and once you're stunned your primary escape option is a counterhold.

 

[AKNova7]

Your Post

Time out. Question. Do you read the conversation between the post you're replying to and the conversation that happened since then? The last two times I've replied to your post, I feel like I've responded to something I've already been asked since then.

Also, the hit confirming part was the part in which I think you play too many 2D fighters. You've mentioned it multiple times, and I've thought that every time. No, that's not a bad thing, just my opinion. Just hope there's a middle ground between them, here.

 

[DrDogg]

Also, the hit confirming part was the part in which I think you play too many 2D fighters. You've mentioned it multiple times, and I've thought that every time. No, that's not a bad thing, just my opinion. Just hope there's a middle ground between them, here.

There's hit-confirming all over the place in 3D fighters...

 

[Skilletor]

How do you play "too many 2D fighters"?

 

[AKNova7]

There's hit-confirming all over the place in 3D fighters...

A little different compared to, say, Skullgirls, though. Of course, it's still called hit confirming in 3D fighters, but that's what my mind jumps to the most, possibly because that's one of the stronger versions of hit confirming versus the 3D fighters that I play.

How do you play "too many 2D fighters"?

Symptoms may include taking snide comments literally.

 

[Skilletor]

A little different compared to, say, Skullgirls, though. Of course, it's still called hit confirming in 3D fighters, but that's what my mind jumps to the most, possibly because that's one of the stronger versions of hit confirming versus the 3D fighters that I play.



Symptoms may include taking snide comments literally.

Your snide is my stupid.

And hit confirms, by definition, are the same thing across fighters.

 

[AKNova7]

Your snide is my stupid.

And hit confirms, by definition, are the same thing across fighters.

Pretty hostile there.

And, of course it's the same, though the reward for them is very different. For instance, in Skullgirls, you get more reward in that game for hit confirming moves than say, Soul Calibur. As such, many people who play 2D fighters frequently mention hit confirming more because it's very important to those games. So, by him mentioning hit confirming in that reference, it's not too much of a leap to take a guess that said person may play 2D fighters a lot, when mentioning in the context that it was mentioned.

 

[DrDogg]

And, of course it's the same, though the reward for them is very different. For instance, in Skullgirls, you get more reward in that game for hit confirming moves than say, Soul Calibur. As such, many people who play 2D fighters frequently mention hit confirming more because it's very important to those games. So, by him mentioning hit confirming in that reference, it's not too much of a leap to take a guess that said person may play 2D fighters a lot, when mentioning in the context that it was mentioned.

I think your view is skewed because you're not as well-versed in 3D fighters as you may think.

In Soul Calibur, I have to hit-confirm iMCF. Once I hit-confirm it, I get 30% and a potential ring-out (even more in SC4). If I don't hit-confirm, I can get punished. That's just one of many examples in SC. Astaroth and Ivy can get upward of 50% with a hit-confirm. I don't play Skull Girls, but I have a hard time believing the hit-confirms aren't similar.

 

[Skilletor]

I think your view is skewed because you're not as well-versed in 3D fighters as you may think.

In Soul Calibur, I have to hit-confirm iMCF. Once I hit-confirm it, I get 30% and a potential ring-out (even more in SC4). If I don't hit-confirm, I can get punished. That's just one of many examples in SC. Astaroth and Ivy can get upward of 50% with a hit-confirm. I don't play Skull Girls, but I have a hard time believing the hit-confirms aren't similar.

It's exactly the same. A hit confirm is a hit confirm.

If I seem hostile, it's because I'm tired of people hiding stupidity behind sarcasm. Also saying you play "too many 2D fighters" is a derogatory statement in my eyes.

 

[akhi216]

Furthermore, personally, I think there should be a control scheme where sidestep can be 2_8F+P+K. I said can be instead of only be because this would be really nice for pad players, but awful for stick players. 22_88 isn't bad, but definitely requires a little more anticipation than the first command.

I think this is a good idea because it won't mess up the people play DOA.

 

[d3v]

I think your view is skewed because you're not as well-versed in 3D fighters as you may think.

In Soul Calibur, I have to hit-confirm iMCF. Once I hit-confirm it, I get 30% and a potential ring-out (even more in SC4). If I don't hit-confirm, I can get punished. That's just one of many examples in SC. Astaroth and Ivy can get upward of 50% with a hit-confirm. I don't play Skull Girls, but I have a hard time believing the hit-confirms aren't similar.

This.

The most basic purpose of a hit confirm is to combo into a move that would otherwise be unsafe by the simple virtue of the fact that, since your opponent is already in hitstun (due to the initial poke), they cannot block the move.

Also, the rewards you get out of hit confirms aren't generalized whether it's 3D or 2D. Some games just have a higher damage reward for hit confirming into combos (Marvel, Skullgirls, Tekken, etc.) while for some (SFIV), it's lower.

 

[AKNova7]

I think your view is skewed because you're not as well-versed in 3D fighters as you may think.

In Soul Calibur, I have to hit-confirm iMCF. Once I hit-confirm it, I get 30% and a potential ring-out (even more in SC4)...

No, I know what you're talking about. I just never thought of stun-launch combos as hit confirms (remember in Blazblue, etc, it's ABC), so I tended to ignore something like CH iMCF RCC 3B A(G)B+K in terms of being a hit confirm.

But, I guess it would be, just like hitstun combos in Skullgirls, etc. Because Yoshi's 3B is unsafe and couldn't be blocked in that situation.

Also, the rewards you get out of hit confirms aren't generalized whether it's 3D or 2D. Some games just have a higher damage reward for hit confirming into combos (Marvel, Skullgirls, Tekken, etc.) while for some (SFIV), it's lower.

Well yeah, of course, it was more of a generalized statement. Blazblue likes their hit confirms I've heard, similar to Skullgirls. I've seen some good ones in Tekken as well, but for me, that game mostly gets dodged.

It's exactly the same. A hit confirm is a hit confirm.

If I seem hostile, it's because I'm tired of people hiding stupidity behind sarcasm. Also saying you play "too many 2D fighters" is a derogatory statement in my eyes.

A bit black and white, don't you think?

And, that's derogatory? Next thing is I'll show my distaste for a console and I'll be committing a video game hate crime.

 

[Rikuto]

George Bush does not care about PS3 owners.

 

[AKNova7]

George Bush does not care about PS3 owners.

You're going to get me in more trouble with Skilletor. Haha.