When do you think DOA6 will be released and what do you want to see in it

[Argentus]

Fair enough, but you are talking about removing a core mechanic in the game. Can you imagine how unplayable DOA would be without the slow escaping mechanic? Let me do Jann Lee's H+K sit-down stun. BAM, Critical Burst! Let me do Rig's Bending Stance KK6K. BAM, Critical Burst! Like seriously, what are you thinking? Who cares if you need to mash buttons or not? Gotta make some kind of effort to reduce the amount of hitstun. Actually, what would be your recommendation as a replacement of the slow escaping mechanic? Because the entire removal of it would be even more stupid than the way you call it now.

Unplayable?
You're joking right?

I already go without it because its a hassle to be twirling the thumb stick that much, and trust me, the game is still plenty playable.

 

[Lulu]

A DoA game where every stun is Holdable.... now thats the dream.

I never really get why people never fully embrace DoA's Holds, they like them.... but they like the Unholdable Stuns too.....

Well I've had my fair share of being on the receiving end of guaranteed combos in other games.... its all or nothing for me.

 

[Brute]

A DoA game where every stun is Holdable.... now thats the dream.

It was called DOA4 and it fucking sucked.

 

[KING JAIMY]

Unplayable?
You're joking right?

I already go without it because its a hassle to be twirling the thumb stick that much, and trust me, the game is still plenty playable.

I admit, I was exaggerating. I meant to say that it would make the game unfair. People would just be abusing psuedo-guaranteed setups all over again because slow escaping wouldn't be there to prevent it. It might still be fair in casual play, but in competitive play it really makes a difference.

 

[Lulu]

It was called DOA4 and it fucking sucked.

That doesn't really say anything about the Holds..... or anything really...

I admit, I was exaggerating. I meant to say that it would make the game unfair. People would just be abusing psuedo-guaranteed setups all over again because slow escaping wouldn't be there to prevent it. It might still be fair in casual play, but in competitive play it really makes a difference.

All the more reason to get rid of the Corresponding Stuns the Stagger Escaping mechanic was made for.... problem solved.

 

[Aven Kujo-Gin]

A DoA game where every stun is Holdable.... now thats the dream.

 

[Lulu]

That doesn't really say anything about the Holds..... or anything really...

 

[Project Bokuho]

The holding system really was retarded in that game lol

 

[Brute]

That doesn't really say anything about the Holds..... or anything really...

Actually, it does. One of the biggest problems with DOA4 was that strikes would rarely ever match the damage potential of holds and throws because you could hold out of everything, so striking felt stupid and holds/throws were disproportionately favored, fucking up the "esteemed" triangle system in an abysmal way.

Knocked against a wall? Hold out.
Sitdown stun? Hold out.

It made the game horribly derpy, imbalanced and stupid. If strikes could lead to better damage that couldn't be derp-held out of, the game would have been a lot more playable (in many ways, it would play similar to DOA5).

It was called DOA4 and it fucking sucked.

 

[Lulu]

The holding system really was retarded in that game lol

I've heard the rumors..... appearently holding out of a stun give you advantage

But surely its much better in 5 right ? It increases your disadvantage.... with that problem fixed then I say try going Fully Holdable again....

 

[Aven Kujo-Gin]

It made the game horribly derpy, imbalanced and stupid. If strikes could lead to better damage that couldn't be derp-held out of, the game would have been a lot more playable (in many ways, it would play similar to DOA5).

Just a proof that his dream can be real.

 

[Lulu]

Actually, it does. One of the biggest problems with DOA4 was that strikes would rarely ever match the damage potential of holds and throws because you could hold out of everything, so striking felt stupid and holds/throws were disproportionately favored, fucking up the "esteemed" triangle system in an abysmal way.

Knocked against a wall? Hold out.
Sitdown stun? Hold out.

It made the game horribly derpy, imbalanced and stupid. If strikes could lead to better damage that couldn't be derp-held out of, the game would have been a lot more playable (in many ways, it would play similar to DOA5).

Well there you go... looks you you already solved the problem, just nerf the hold damage and increase the throw damage.

 

[Aven Kujo-Gin]

Well there you go... looks you you already solved the problem, just nerf the hold damage and increase the throw damage.

I recommend you to play the game. You will see how it feels when nothing(Seriously, nothing) is guaranteed.
DOA4 is a fun game, but is to damn casual.
The problems of this game cannot be solved by just increase the throw damage.

 

[Brute]

Well there you go... looks you you already solved the problem, just nerf the hold damage and increase the throw damage.

Yeah, I did already solved the problem. It's called DOA5, and I've been explaining why it's the valid solution for four pages.
The only real opposition still consists of "I don't like not being able to press a button for 1/3 of a second," in which case I advise you go play DOA4 and revel in its putrid shit before suggesting that the rest of the world be subjected to it again come DOA6.

 

[Lulu]

I recommend you to play the game. You will see how it feels when nothing(Seriously, nothing) is guaranteed.
DOA4 is a fun game, but is to damn casual.
The problems of this game cannot be solved by just increase the throw damage.

I played the demo back when I lost my copy of DoA5 Vanilla to fill the void..... the game felt completely Alien to me.... I couldn't side step, the holds were all wonky and my DoA5 Combo's didn't work.... plus it felt like the AI was cheating.

I'm pretty sure DoA5 is "just too casual" to every Virtua Fighter player too..... that doesn't even make sense: how did we wind up in a world where the ability to defend your self is too casual and guaranteed stuns are what ? Competetive ?

I think that type of thinking is flawed, since practically 90% of all the other stuns are Holdable does that make it only 10 percent competitive ? Since nothing in Street Fighter and Tekken is Breakable does that make them 100% Competitive.

So the Holds in DoA 4 were all wrong shouldn't they have just removed all of them ?

Heres my definition of a Competitive Game: A game that promotes competetive play.... if its a multiple player game then wouldn't the game that locks one of its player's out of interacting with it completely be less competitive than the one that merely disadvantages that player instead.

Inorder to compete you must actually be able to play.... I mean thats just painfully obvious I'm surprized I even have to say it, its so axiomatically obvious.... its only in this genre where this type of thing happens.

DISCLAIMER: Heres another thing I shouldn't have to say but I have to because of how deconstructive and flatout backwards the Fighting Game Community can be: I'm not saying that the the person put in stun should be get a get out of stun free card or they should not be punished for being put in stun by losing the neutral game.... I'm just saying don't lock them out from being able to play completely for that duration....

Another Disclaimer.... I'm not including the obvious stuns like The Critical Burst Stun.... again.... shouldn't have to say it.

Yeah, I did already solved the problem. It's called DOA5, and I've been explaining why it's the valid solution for four pages.
The only real opposition still consists of "I don't like not being able to press a button for 1/3 of a second," in which case I advise you go play DOA4 and revel in its putrid shit before suggesting that the rest of the world be subjected to it again come DOA6.

Played the demo....
All you did was explain what was wrong with how the Holds were implimented not what is wrong with Holds Existing....

Theres actually very very few mechanics that can ruin a game by merely existing in that game..... the problem is usually implementation and how it was executed. Not presence.

 

[Brute]

Played the demo....
All you did was explain what was wrong with how the Holds were implimented not what is wrong with Holds Existing....

Theres actually very very few mechanics that can ruin a game by merely existing in that game..... the problem is usually implementation and how it was executed. Not presence.

I never said that "Holds Existing" was a problem. I argued that implementing holds into every stun was a problem.
You are suggesting they be implemented in that way again. I am telling you that is a horrible idea.

You have a habit of telling me that I don't explain something immediately after I get done explaining the exact thing.
Semantic arguments are not generally the best rhetorical route to take with me since I don't approach opinions with the most charitable subjectivity.

 

[Lulu]

I never said that "Holds Existing" was a problem. I argued that implementing holds into every stun was a problem.
You are suggesting they be implemented in that way again. I am telling you that is a horrible idea.

That doesn't make sense..... what makes it okay to make 90% Stun Hold able but the other 10% Unholdable ? I made my argument the Way I did because you seem to have a problem with making that 10% Holdable instead of how making that 10% Holdable is implemented.... thats like playing 10 rounds of RPS and making a rule that says you're not allowed to use Paper every 2nd round.

You have a habit of telling me that I don't explain something immediately after I get done explaining the exact thing.
Semantic arguments are not generally the best rhetorical route to take with me since I don't approach opinions with the most charitable subjectivity.

Thats because your explanations don't hold up to even minor analysis.... its either that or I get the usual "its not competitive" song and dance. If you were as objevtive as you say you are then then you would agree that there actually is a difference between triggering a sit down stun and a throw besides the damage. That plus theres nothing objective about Guarantees being more competitive.... that one is abit of red flag of subjectivity.

 

[Argentus]

Badass combo is alright as long as the execution is hard. That way, only the real experienced player can execute it effectively.

If you want to balance, please balance Alpha lol. F*cking jelly bitch can take half of your health on a single counter or throw.
And with that, I hope that thing won't be in DOA6. Enough with clones. Go with more creative story writing please.

I still say they should merge alpha and phase 4. Teleports AND flight to really be different from Kasumi. And change her damn hairstyle. Why do clones always keep the same hair? I think Ben Reilly was the only time a clone thought to get a different hairstyle.

If half-health-taking attack/combo can be done by executing as easy as PPPP+K, then that means there's balance problem with that particular character.

Not necessarily true. If that move is slow and/or predictable, its balanced that way instead.

Execution isn't as important as what the move actually is.

I played the demo back when I lost my copy of DoA5 Vanilla to fill the void..... the game felt completely Alien to me.... I couldn't side step, the holds were all wonky and my DoA5 Combo's didn't work.... plus it felt like the AI was cheating.

I'm pretty sure DoA5 is "just too casual" to every Virtua Fighter player too..... that doesn't even make sense: how did we wind up in a world where the ability to defend your self is too casual and guaranteed stuns are what ? Competetive ?

I think that type of thinking is flawed, since practically 90% of all the other stuns are Holdable does that make it only 10 percent competitive ? Since nothing in Street Fighter and Tekken is Breakable does that make them 100% Competitive.

So the Holds in DoA 4 were all wrong shouldn't they have just removed all of them ?

Heres my definition of a Competitive Game: A game that promotes competetive play.... if its a multiple player game then wouldn't the game that locks one of its player's out of interacting with it completely be less competitive than the one that merely disadvantages that player instead.

Inorder to compete you must actually be able to play.... I mean thats just painfully obvious I'm surprized I even have to say it, its so axiomatically obvious.... its only in this genre where this type of thing happens.

DISCLAIMER: Heres another thing I shouldn't have to say but I have to because of how deconstructive and flatout backwards the Fighting Game Community can be: I'm not saying that the the person put in stun should be get a get out of stun free card or they should not be punished for being put in stun by losing the neutral game.... I'm just saying don't lock them out from being able to play completely for that duration....

Another Disclaimer.... I'm not including the obvious stuns like The Critical Burst Stun.... again.... shouldn't have to say it.



Played the demo....
All you did was explain what was wrong with how the Holds were implimented not what is wrong with Holds Existing....

Theres actually very very few mechanics that can ruin a game by merely existing in that game..... the problem is usually implementation and how it was executed. Not presence.

Simplified, it comes down to: if they can break your combos, its not competitive.

I only played online with doa46 but didn't have any issue because it was balanced by one fact.

Even though they can hold out of any stun, they still have to successfully LAND the hold for it to mean anything. Its just another opportunity to bait holds, to me. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong but whatever. I'm just for it because it gives the defender a chance to defend.

Sides with unholdable stuns, what happened a lot of the time is gameplay just funneled down to people trying to only spam the unholdable stuns. Force em to get better by breaking temptation.

 

[Brute]

That doesn't make sense..... what makes it okay to make 90% Stun Hold able but the other 10% Unholdable ? I made my argument the Way I did because you seem to have a problem with making that 10% Holdable instead of how making that 10% Holdable is implemented.... thats like playing 10 rounds of RPS and making a rule that says you're not allowed to use Paper every 2nd round.

The game is not equatable to RPS and I wish people would stop trying to equate it to that. Being stunned means that the person stunned messed up. Their next move should not have the same chance of success as the person who put them in the stun. If you want something as simple and straightforward as RPS, go play RPS. But DOA is not RPS. It's more nuanced than that and changing it to be that just seems ridiculous in the same way that turning a watch into a sundial seems ridiculous.

It's okay to make some stuns holdable and some unholdable because of the varying conditions that lead to them connecting. If all strikes had the same risk/reward balance, characters wouldn't have so many moves. And maybe you'd prefer each character have a movelist of about 10 moves, but I don't think most do and it would be considered a pretty drastic step backwards by most fans if they pursued that route (concept explained in more depth further down).

Thats because your explanations don't hold up to even minor analysis.... its either that or I get the usual "its not competitive" song and dance.

They do. You just need me to walk through every single step of it holding your hand, which I find tiresome and needless.

If you were as objevtive as you say you are then then you would agree that there actually is a difference between triggering a sit down stun and a throw besides the damage.

I explained there were differences in different areas, such as the time consumed to execute each one. Another is the chance of success, which blankets situation of appliance.

My repeated response has been that they are the same in the context of the argument you provided: where one was okay and the other was supposedly objectionable (ie: it's okay for throws to guarantee X damage but not strike stuns). Now, what are the reasons one would eb okay and the other not? Let's consider:
1) Strikes are too powerful balance -wise if they guarantee another strike
A: If this were true, you would be looking at raw damage numbers or post/contact conditions, all of which can be found in various throws (damage, KNDs, wall slumps, frame advantage etc.). If it was objectionable there it would be a problem in the triangle system if exhibited by another facet as well. But since you voiced no objection with throws exhibiting these properties, we assume that's not it (and really, some of these throw rewards are ridiculous for coming out in 7 frames and ignoring blocks, so don't start with the "a throw is harder to land than a strike" bullshit).
2) Visually, it's not okay to see yourself in a stun but not be able to hold out of it.
A: Visually the non-holdable stuns are distinct from the holdable ones, such as a throw is visually distinct from a strike stun that you can hold out of. So, can't be that, either. Besides, this is largely aesthetic, which will go nowhere if pursued.
3) I want to hit a button right now but I can't because the next strike will hit me after the last one did and I don't like not hitting buttons.
A: Like Ryu's 6T hitting you twice and you can't hold out of it? Seems stupid, but it can't be the other two, so I guess this is the objection we're having.

Presumably, it would be tolerable in the triangle system if a strike performed a single hit that matched damage with a throw, but the only objective difference between that and having two strikes to match that damage (one guaranteed after the other) is the time it takes, which, again brings us back to "I want to hit the buttons right now."
The new argument can't be "all stuns should be guaranteed or not just 'cause fuck it I like it that way" since that would negate the nuances involved in the risk/reward applied to each and every strike (speed, recovery, reach, string potential, damage, hitboxes, etc.). That would play out in one of two ways:
1) Make all on-contact discrepancies rely on immediate damage output.
2) Reduce the number of strike attacks you'll ever see to about 6 pokes on each character and call it a day.

I find both pretty stupid, and thus find the premise "all stuns should X or not X" ridiculous. You'd then have to make all stuns uniform, so that Ryu's 2H+K would net the same stun reward as his 6K (ludicrously inane suggestion). The current system works fine and makes for a more varied game.

That plus theres nothing objective about Guarantees being more competitive.... that one is abit of red flag of subjectivity.

If you want to play semantic gymnastics, let's go (@Argentus may want to tune in):
Something is "competitive" if multiple participants are competing against each other.
So yes, everything is competitive. But, some competitive things involve more thought than others. For example, it's perfectly competitive to play "Guess What Number Between 1 and 5 Billion I'm Thinking Of," but most people don't play that game since there isn't much thought going into it and the system feels less like it compares the skills/knowledge of each participant and more like it relies on dumb luck. Sure, it's not entirely luck, but it largely is and it's a pretty stupid game to play. So, when we say that something like Battleship (which still requires a fair amount of luck, but that also incorporates some more logic and pattern recognition) is more "competitive" than "Guess What Number Between 1 and 5 Billion I'm Thinking Of," it's assumed that everyone is able to recognize how the "subjective" word "competitive" is being applied with the conversational context. The only people who wish to argue that are people going through an epistemic crisis or someone who is trying to construct a straw man argument.

So, in a similar vein, we can assume certain conditions are applied to what is "competitive" in the context of a Fighting Game Community. They probably prefer things more like Battleship and less like "Guess What Number...". You can argue that the use of the word "competitive" is subjective, but every word is technically subjective unless you solved every conundrum involved in epistemology, and I guarantee that you haven't. With this context, you should understand why I'm not charitable to subjective nonsense. It's immobilizing and stupid.

Why are guarantees more "competitive" than the DOA4 style with this context of "competitive"? I have already explained it multiple times

You made the accusation that my "explanations don't hold up to even minor analysis."
Consider this my official rebuttal in the form of "You are not capable of even minor analysis."

 

[SoftCabbage]

Then how do you explain the PowerBlow or Rachel's
Powefull moves that only require a single simple command ?

The answer is below . I agree.

Not necessarily true. If that move is slow and/or predictable, its balanced that way instead.
Execution isn't as important as what the move actually is.