Xbox360 1.03 patch delayed until February

[Skilletor]

Actually, basic theory would suggest it would make the game less random, not moreso, if the players had a reaction time. But that's not really what has the bearing in the more stratified results you'd see in other games.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion, but whatever. lol. I hit you = I GET damage as opposed to I hit you = I have a CHANCE to do damage is pretty much by the definition of the word chance, more random. This argument is tired. There's a reason DoA struggles to maintain a healthy competitive scene. There are several obvious reasons why.

 

[CrimsonCJ]

I don't see how you come to that conclusion, but whatever. lol. I hit you = I GET damage as opposed to I hit you = I have a CHANCE to do damage is pretty much by the definition of the word chance, more random. This argument is tired. There's a reason DoA struggles to maintain a healthy competitive scene. There are several obvious reasons why.

More consecutive actions to act upon ease out randomness in a system. Any system. Which is why, read literally, your argument above would suggest the exact opposite of what it was intending. Of course, it just misreads the entire set-up.

 

[Skilletor]

lol. Okay.

 

[Dr. Teeth]

I cannot believe some of the shit I'm reading.

 

[Kronin]

You can do all that in a real fighting game to.

Sure, it wasn't my intention say that this is something proper of Doa, just that this aspect is further reinforced by the Doa' system; according to me this is a positive meaning of 'guess' in this kind of games. Anyway I know that this isn't a focus of an ordinary fighting game

 

[Brute]

Mind if I save this and drag it out whenever needed? Because it can't be emphasized enough.

Nope.

It's funny that what in any other game would be called yomi becomes instantly called luck in DOA. It's just bizarre. If you had an eminently obvious action plan that beat out all others and it was a matter of execution of that strategy, DOA essentially becomes DDR-with-punches. The fact that it isn't makes it something of a strategy game. But you still have to be able to anticipate an opponent's strategy, and any strategy can essentially be wrong.

Agreed. DOA gives the defender more chances to turn things around, which requires more persistent strategy on the aggressor's part to be constantly compensating for that ability and to improvise. See my section later in this post about what "strategy" means.

Your analogy is flawed, because if you choose rock instead of scissors in SF, SC, VF, Tekken, Skullgirls, Mortal Kombat, Blazblue (burst permitting, but those can be baited), etc, etc. You are getting hurt. Your opponent has an opportunity to perform a combo on you without interruption or fear of taking damage.
In DoA, you get to try and choose Rock again. And again. and again.

If you guess wrong in DOA, you also get hurt. And if you do choose rock over and over and over again, it's only the aggressor's fault if they're stupid enough to then choose scissors.
Also, in SC or any other fighting game, you can choose rock over and over and over again as well. You just have less chances to do it. But you can get back up and use the same tactic over again.

Actually, basic theory would suggest it would make the game less random, not moreso, if the players had a reaction time. But that's not really what has the bearing in the more stratified results you'd see in other games.

Basically this.
So we're clear, there are two definitions of "strategy." One you will find in the dictionary which goes something like: "any move made to advance towards or achieve victory." The other is brought to us by game theory, which goes something like: "Any move or action made that anticipates the actions of others." By the latter definition, DOA actually has more strategy as you have to anticipate your opponent with nearly every attack.

If your definition of what makes a fighting game good is "mess up once receive a ton of damage," that's okay. You should probably play divekick, as it maximizes the punishment for one mistake. But, that does not mean it's more strategic.

 

[Matt Ponton]

I cannot believe some of the shit I'm reading.

Welcome to my life, now multiply that feeling 100x each day.

 

[Chaos]

I hope we don't get this patch at the end of February. Most of us don't have the patience.

 

[DR2K]

The longer the patch the better, the longer we play the ultimate version of DOA5.

 

[Chaos]

Better pray that they don't screw it up this time.

 

[o Kid Frostie o]

hmmm....

 

[NightAntilli]

Not with the "luck" thing again. Any game can be oversimplified to that. For example: In SF, I chose rock (QCF K) instead of scissors (block) I get hit. This oversimplification is absurd and does not accurately portray ANY fighting game I know of.
If psychologically you can't shake the feel that DOA is more guessing for some reason, I still don't see why you're still playing it. I wouldn't keep playing a game I felt didn't rely on player skill at all. And yet if I faced Master or Mr Wah or whoever, I think I'd get my butt kicked (I fight Rikuto once and lost about 5 or 6 times before beating him once). And no, it's not because they're "better at guessing every single time" than I am; it's because the game does reward player skill. If it didn't, I can't fathom why the same people would be winning each tournament. Guessing=random=unpredictable results. We typically see consistent results.

Anyway, I do think DOA could benefit from a 6-point hold system, and I also think low holds should use a standing animation.

Yes. The game rewards player skill, but only up to a certain point. In most fighting games, the better you get, the more your skill comes into play when fighting a good opponent. With DOA, the better you get, the more random it gets when fighting a good opponent.

Say you stun an opponent. You have to wonder what to do next, because you can't just keep going. When your opponent is in stun, you can choose to attack with the risk of being held, you can choose to grab with the risk of getting hit in the face, you can choose to wait and see if a hold is coming, practically reducing (or even completely losing) the advantage you were supposed to have, while still keeping the same possibilities of being held or hit in the face.

Being afraid to attack after you just hit someone is the biggest problem of this game. Too often I fight someone and after I get a great stun, I choose the wrong thing, and that makes the effort I made to attack completely useless, since it gives the opponent momentum against me. Guess that's why so many 'good' players end up playing like turtles, because going on the offensive is too risky. It shouldn't be that way.

 

[Dr. Teeth]

When I hear shit like "DOA gives the defender more chances to turn things around," I'm pretty sure that's code for "I have shit defense and this is the only game that doesn't expose me because I can guess my way out of a bad situation." The thing that's bad about DOA is that defense shouldn't be allowed to be played AFTER YOU GET HIT. In every other fighting game under the sun, if I hit you that means that I have successfully broken your defense. You deserve every single bit of damage that you are receiving. Why should you get a second chance? You made a mistake and I outplayed you. DOA should be no different.

 

[grap3fruitman]

Oh look, people making sense. I guess it's time for the thread to get derailed.

 

[Chaos]

Yes. The game rewards player skill, but only up to a certain point. In most fighting games, the better you get, the more your skill comes into play when fighting a good opponent. With DOA, the better you get, the more random it gets when fighting a good opponent.

Say you stun an opponent. You have to wonder what to do next, because you can't just keep going. When your opponent is in stun, you can choose to attack with the risk of being held, you can choose to grab with the risk of getting hit in the face, you can choose to wait and see if a hold is coming, practically reducing (or even completely losing) the advantage you were supposed to have, while still keeping the same possibilities of being held or hit in the face.

Being afraid to attack after you just hit someone is the biggest problem of this game. Too often I fight someone and after I get a great stun, I choose the wrong thing, and that makes the effort I made to attack completely useless, since it gives the opponent momentum against me. Guess that's why so many 'good' players end up playing like turtles, because going on the offensive is too risky. It shouldn't be that way.

That's why we want guaranteed setups to reduced the problem.

 

[Omegan Eckhart]

When I hear shit like "DOA gives the defender more chances to turn things around," I'm pretty sure that's code for "I have shit defense and this is the only game that doesn't expose me because I can guess my way out of a bad situation." The thing that's bad about DOA is that defense shouldn't be allowed to be played AFTER YOU GET HIT. In every other fighting game under the sun, if I hit you that means that I have successfully broken your defense. You deserve every single bit of damage that you are receiving. Why should you get a second chance? You made a mistake and I outplayed you. DOA should be no different.

So removing holds from stuns is the right way to go then? This wouldn't even be DOA if that were done. It's much safer to block and punish than to hold when not stunned so with that holds are completely useless.

What you are suggesting would completely vaporize any identity DOA has. The counter system is the only thing that sets it apart from other fighters. You would have it so if Gen Fu hits you with 6P he can land CB with no way out for the person who got hit? The balance in this game would be completely fucked up and every match would be over in 10 seconds.

I still don't know why people even play this game if the counter system bothers them so much. I don't play Street Fighter, you know why? Because you can mash DP out of almost everything, it annoys the shit out of me so I don't play the game. I don't play the game and keep asking that they are removed I just say, "I think this game is stupidly designed and I don't want to play it".

 

[CyberEvil]

So removing holds from stuns is the right way to go then? This wouldn't even be DOA if that were done. It's much safer to block and punish than to hold when not stunned so with that holds are completely useless.

What you are suggesting would completely vaporize any identity DOA has. The counter system is the only thing that sets it apart from other fighters. You would have it so if Gen Fu hits you with 6P he can land CB with no way out for the person who got hit? The balance in this game would be completely fucked up and every match would be over in 10 seconds.

I still don't know why people even play this game if the counter system bothers them so much. I don't play Street Fighter, you know why? Because you can mash DP out of almost everything, it annoys the shit out of me so I don't play the game. I don't play the game and keep asking that they are removed I just say, "I think this game is stupidly designed and I don't want to play it".

First, because it's the least relevant, you cannot just mash SRK out of everything in Street Fighter. That's utterly ridiculous and it's obvious you don't play for reasons other than that. Moving on, removing holds from stun would not completely make DoA a different game than it was before. There are already situations where you can't hold, so increasing the amount of those situations really doesn't change much of anything besides the amount of get out of jail free cards you get.

I would agree that removing holds from stun completely should NOT be done, however. The game would become too punishing at that point and we'd start to lose players. Removing holds from certain deep stuns, like sit-downs, would be a good thing in my opinion, but that's been discussed to death.

 

[Omegan Eckhart]

First, because it's the least relevant, you cannot just mash SRK out of everything in Street Fighter. That's utterly ridiculous and it's obvious you don't play for reasons other than that. Moving on, removing holds from stun would not completely make DoA a different game than it was before. There are already situations where you can't hold, so increasing the amount of those situations really doesn't change much of anything besides the amount of get out of jail free cards you get.

I would agree that removing holds from stun completely should NOT be done, however. The game would become too punishing at that point and we'd start to lose players. Removing holds from certain deep stuns, like sit-downs, would be a good thing in my opinion, but that's been discussed to death.

I said you can DP out of almost everything. When I have someone blocking it doesn't mean anything because at any moment they can just DP you, because of that the game feels extremely unrewarding. On top of that even if you bait the damn thing and block it they will mostly likely FADC it and put you back in another guessing game. It's not like characters like Ryu need to burn meter anyway.

At least in DOA counters are universal and you have to know what to counter instead of going for a one attack beats all approach.

I'm all for more unholdable stuns, but this idea that counters are the thing holding this game back and should just be disposed of is retarded. If such as huge part of the game bothers people why do they play it in the first place?

 

[shunwong]

The problem is not with counters/holds. The problem is with holding from stun and the prevalence of the stun game, which did not begin until DOA4.

 

[Haipa Sonikku]

This is not entirely true. If you all are gonna do comparisons, do correct comparisons which is other 3D fighting games. Tekken also has state escapes (Hold Forward) as well as especially Virtua Fighter.