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

[Lulu]

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.

Yep pretty much..... even if the game is only has 1 exploit that exploit will be abused all the time..... hence why almost every character specific board has an "Unholdables" Thread.

I mean why even bother ? Instead of trying to play DoA like its VF.... why not just cut out the middle man play VF.

 

[Lulu]

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.

Okay lets go over the numbers..... against a stunned opponent.... the attacker has 2 in 3 chances of succesfully continuing an assualt... thats about 66% that you won't get held..... the stunned opponent only has 1 in 4 chances of successfully Holding an attack.... thats a 25% chance of getting out of a stun.....
Feel free to show me exactly where the attack and the defender have the same odds of success.

Moving on.... the reason people equate fighting games to RPS is because thats exactly what they are, and it doesn't just apply to fighting games: Everysingle Competitive Strategic Activity is based around simple Rock Paper Scissors..... its a system of perfectly balanced Counter Elements, all Strategies depend on Counters.... if a specific element can not be Countered then you have no strategy, this applies to Star Craft just as much as it applies to Street Fighter..... hell lets throw chess in there too.

What is DoA if not a real time, spacing dependent, fully animated and highly nuanced game of Rock Paper Scissors..... ?

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).

Yeah I didn't say anything about removing any character moves. Besides there's a finite number of moves you can actually use in the Stun Game some will knock down, some prematutrelt launch, one or two might reset and some might not grant you enough advantage to let you follow up with anyway. Or maybe thats just for some characters.... anyway I'm not saying theres only ten moves you'l be able to perform but the number is not as high as you make it out to be..... not all 80 of your moves are for the stun game..... they serve other purposes.

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

Yep pretty much, and I appreciate it.

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.

1) The really fast throws, the 5Frame ones are Breakable.... and throw speed within a 12~7 Frame Window are pretty Negated by the fact they all lose to Strikes regardless of what speed they are (except charge strikes). You can't throw a Stunned Opponent. If you get hit while striking then its a counter but getting hit while throwing results in High Counter and the differences are more than just damage, getting High Countered can result in Higher Launches, Jabs Gaining Stun Properties and natural combos becoming holdable....
Theres absolutely nothing similar about Strikes and Throws, they are entirely different mechanics in and out of stun.

2) The Differences between a SDS and an Unbreakable Throw go way way beyond visuals. See #1 for reference.

3) Ryu's 6T won't work If I'm stunned and can be beaten by literally almost any strike in the game..... I think I covered that in #1.

Holds were made to beat strikes and throws were made to beat holds..... your precious unholdable strikes are trying to fix what was never broken.... ontop of that they break the very system the game was built on.... they are doing more harm than good...
They have to go.... that might never actually happen but they genuinely do have to be removed.

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.

No argument here... as long both players actually get to compete then all is well.

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."

Your whole argument was based on on Unholdable Stuns being the same the same as throws..... don't know what the logic behind that is..... anyway I stick by my accusation.... regardless of how shitty you think it is there are genuinely pretty obvious holes in your logic.

Anyway.... here's an interesting article about about Rock Paper Scissors, its a pretty fun read. Just to give you some idea about how its possible to turn something based on luck into something strategic using simple psychlogy.

Whats cool is DoA already does this. Even if you're facing a player you know absolutely nothing about its pretty clear by simple value that Strikes > Throws > Holds.... you can't pretty much state with absolutely certainty that nobody is going to open with a Throw or a Hold.... this nuance adds strategy and depth to the game without ever changing its Balance....

As for the real reason why people like Guaranteed Combos.... well Richard "Kirby" Terrel was on top of that long time ago.

The answer is below . I agree.

That answer was meant for your post not mine... which makes it difficult to understand what your point is (since you never actually made one).

You could atleast rephrase to answer my question alil bit more accurately. .... if its not too much trouble.

 

[Brute]

Okay lets go over the numbers..... against a stunned opponent.... the attacker has 2 in 3 chances of succesfully continuing an assualt... thats about 66% that you won't get held..... the stunned opponent only has 1 in 4 chances of successfully Holding an attack.... thats a 25% chance of getting out of a stun.....
Feel free to show me exactly where the attack and the defender have the same odds of success.

There are six hit levels. High holds cover two, low holds cover four, mids and expert holds each cover one. This could be interpreted as "66% chance of success if attacker uses a mid," but it's obviously a lot more complicated than that.
Moves can be delayed, have different warm-ups and points of impact, etc. Certain animations can be reacted to (specifically in strings or with long-warm-ups) while other must be anticipated in advance. Some are far more likely to come out next (highs after light stuns, mids after deep stuns, etc.) while others are less likely (these vary between character as well, with some characters having little/no compelling follow-ups on certain hit levels once in stun). These odds can be calculated imprecisely to be more or less likely to occur depending on payout, scenario and opponent tendencies.
I'm not sure how you computed all of that to "Attacker has 66% chance of success," but I'm curious as to how that incorporated all variables and options. It applies mathematically in RPS, but not DOA.

Moving on.... the reason people equate fighting games to RPS is because thats exactly what they are, and it doesn't just apply to fighting games: Everysingle Competitive Strategic Activity is based around simple Rock Paper Scissors..... its a system of perfectly balanced Counter Elements, all Strategies depend on Counters.... if a specific element can not be Countered then you have no strategy, this applies to Star Craft just as much as it applies to Street Fighter..... hell lets throw chess in there too.

What is DoA if not a real time, spacing dependent, fully animated and highly nuanced game of Rock Paper Scissors..... ?

That's like saying "What is a computer if not a hunk of metal? Albeit, a highly complicated piece of metal attached to wires and chips and complicated electrical currents and nuanced construction?" It becomes so far detached from its base element the comparison just seems silly.

1) The really fast throws, the 5Frame ones are Breakable.... and throw speed within a 12~7 Frame Window are pretty Negated by the fact they all lose to Strikes regardless of what speed they are (except charge strikes). You can't throw a Stunned Opponent. If you get hit while striking then its a counter but getting hit while throwing results in High Counter and the differences are more than just damage, getting High Countered can result in Higher Launches, Jabs Gaining Stun Properties and natural combos becoming holdable....
There's absolutely nothing similar about Strikes and Throws, they are entirely different mechanics in and out of stun.

2) The Differences between a SDS and an Unbreakable Throw go way way beyond visuals. See #1 for reference.

3) Ryu's 6T won't work If I'm stunned and can be beaten by literally almost any strike in the game..... I think I covered that in #1.

Holds were made to beat strikes and throws were made to beat holds..... your precious unholdable strikes are trying to fix what was never broken.... ontop of that they break the very system the game was built on.... they are doing more harm than good...
They have to go.... that might never actually happen but they genuinely do have to be removed.

Think about it like this:
After Leon's 33P I get a 7P follow-up free.
Would there be an issue if 33P caused the stun of 7P with the damage of 33P combined with 7P?

If yes:
Making this change would cause the move to take odd priority on same-strike collisions due to damage trades, but would not affect how it falls into play relating to throws/holds. This would be a visual change and would look silly, but functionally it would be the same as it is now as a two-on-one. Thus, the functional objection would be rooted in the damage output of one strike netting the combined rewards of two. This would be a problem for anything a strike guaranteed damage-wise (for example: a juggle, bound or hard KND), so structurally those would need correction if the issue was merely that one strike ensured more damage than it could output in raw neutral same-frame trades. The idea is that the risk/chance of success involved with the respective strike correlates to its reward. But that has nothing do do functionally with a two-in-one, since one can assume that cutting each damage output in half on certain two-in-ones to make them similar to one strike would still have the same "no two-in-one strikes" people up in arms, despite having the same effect often times (think the last two strikes of Ryu's 3PPP).

If no:
The objection to the two-in-one must lie in the aesthetic process, and not functionality.

Your whole argument was based on on Unholdable Stuns being the same the same as throws..... don't know what the logic behind that is..... anyway I stick by my accusation.... regardless of how shitty you think it is there are genuinely pretty obvious holes in your logic.

No, that's merely a strawman you are grasping on to. I'm trying to explain a concept as if to someone who is not familiar with the standard rules of inference in traditional rhetoric and requires exposition. I extricate individual steps to demonstrate why independently they are not valid. This is a form of inductive reasoning that examines potential hypotheticals. However, you appear to view each independent one as a collective position, where they should be properly understood akin to troubleshooting procedures (which typically pursue independent possibilities as if on a figurative checklist, rather than following one after another in progression).

If this is still not clear to you then it never will be, so this is my last word on the matter.

 

[SoftCabbage]

That answer was meant for your post not mine... which makes it difficult to understand what your point is (since you never actually made one). You could atleast rephrase to answer my question alil bit more accurately. .... if its not too much trouble.

I agree with his point which going back at me. He means that no matter if there's a simple powerful attack, if let's say that attack is slow and very likely to get Hold, then there's a balance point right there. Which in your post earlier, you mention about Power Blow. Although Power Blow has a simple execution, it requires half-health (special attack), one time usage (special attack), needs charging, and is very predictable, blockable, and holdable - with a high risk, of course.

As for your Rachel case, since I'm not a regular with her, I can't speak further. But if that move is predictable and slow, that will balance the simple command execution.

 

[Lulu]

I agree with his point which going back at me. He means that no matter if there's a simple powerful attack, if let's say that attack is slow and very likely to get Hold, then there's a balance point right there. Which in your post earlier, you mention about Power Blow. Although Power Blow has a simple execution, it requires half-health (special attack), one time usage (special attack), needs charging, and is very predictable, blockable, and holdable - with a high risk, of course.

As for your Rachel case, since I'm not a regular with her, I can't speak further. But if that move is predictable and slow, that will balance the simple command execution.

Exactly.... its balanced by all those conditions..... not by inputs.
Which takes us back to why you want combos to be harder to execute ?

Anyway None of Rachel's Throws are Reactable.... they are all under 20 Frames.

 

[Dark-truth]

hmm in doa 6 i would want

- an interesting story
- new default costumes(like kasumi's blue ninja one getting changed to her ninja 2015)
- better graphics
- better online servers
- nicer people
- less swimsuits (unless they add more beach and tropical stages because its awkward to fight on street stage with a bikini)
- more stages
- better lip syncing
- better voice actors
- new hairstyles
- new glasses
- adding new moves for characters that have less moves
- better rank system
- more ranks
- new healthbar colors
- better and new powerblows
- cliffhanger punch, throw AND kick
- no free version of doa
- handicap matches like in the story
- tag cliffhangers

thats it

 

[Lulu]

There are six hit levels. High holds cover two, low holds cover four, mids and expert holds each cover one. This could be interpreted as "66% chance of success if attacker uses a mid," but it's obviously a lot more complicated than that.
Moves can be delayed, have different warm-ups and points of impact, etc. Certain animations can be reacted to (specifically in strings or with long-warm-ups) while other must be anticipated in advance. Some are far more likely to come out next (highs after light stuns, mids after deep stuns, etc.) while others are less likely (these vary between character as well, with some characters having little/no compelling follow-ups on certain hit levels once in stun). These odds can be calculated imprecisely to be more or less likely to occur depending on payout, scenario and opponent tendencies.
I'm not sure how you computed all of that to "Attacker has 66% chance of success," but I'm curious as to how that incorporated all variables and options. It applies mathematically in RPS, but not DOA.

You do realise all those points you made favor the attacker, not the defender.... the more likely something is the easier its is to bait it and punish..... thats why even in High Level Play you get people who don't Hold when they get Crumpled at Critical Threshold..... it takes serious insight to know when you're being set up for a throw. 66% is simply the Bare Minimum....

I'm glad you bring up the Reaction argument.... Shoryken Already Covered That one. Its one thing to react to a 30 Frame Move IF YOU KNOW ITS COMING but don't know when.... in which case it honestly doesn't matter how slow or faster it is within a 10~30 Frame Range.... if you know something is coming you can stop it using simple prediction, even if its 10 Frames.
The trick is How Fast You Can Recognize Something out of multiple possibities before you can actually react to it using the right counter out of multiple options.... in that case the totally reactable of a move can go all the way up to an entire second. Which I think only applies to a very select few players.

In my experience people tend to look back over their holds differently, they may hold a Critical Burst on Prediction and then look back and tell themselves that they reacted to it as if they didn't know it was coming. I'm fairly certain thats how it happens.

That's like saying "What is a computer if not a hunk of metal? Albeit, a highly complicated piece of metal attached to wires and chips and complicated electrical currents and nuanced construction?" It becomes so far detached from its base element the comparison just seems silly.

Well I did say "Highly Nuanced" didn't I...... anyway it maybe silly but that doesn't make it any less true.... that plus I don't see you disagreeing with what I said. So does that mean this particular issue is resolved ?

Think about it like this:
After Leon's 33P I get a 7P follow-up free.
Would there be an issue if 33P caused the stun of 7P with the damage of 33P combined with 7P?

If yes:
Making this change would cause the move to take odd priority on same-strike collisions due to damage trades, but would not affect how it falls into play relating to throws/holds. This would be a visual change and would look silly, but functionally it would be the same as it is now as a two-on-one. Thus, the functional objection would be rooted in the damage output of one strike netting the combined rewards of two. This would be a problem for anything a strike guaranteed damage-wise (for example: a juggle, bound or hard KND), so structurally those would need correction if the issue was merely that one strike ensured more damage than it could output in raw neutral same-frame trades. The idea is that the risk/chance of success involved with the respective strike correlates to its reward. But that has nothing do do functionally with a two-in-one, since one can assume that cutting each damage output in half on certain two-in-ones to make them similar to one strike would still have the same "no two-in-one strikes" people up in arms, despite having the same effect often times (think the last two strikes of Ryu's 3PPP).

If no:
The objection to the two-in-one must lie in the aesthetic process, and not functionality.

Thata much Better..... atleast you didn't compare them to throws. Anyway thats pretty much what they they did with Brad Wong's into Critical Burst..... they could have added an extra step inbetween and made it unholdable..... but they didn't..... if they could do that for him (and for Kokoro's ) then why did they suddenly change their tune for Leon ?

I'd think they had an actuall reason for doing so besides aesthetics..... I'm not familiar with Leon so I can't contest your argument.....

Ryu's Unholdable is a Natural Combo.... not an Unholdable Stun, I would assume its similar to Mila's 8 Hit Punch except that one does alot less Critical Damage than I thought for something that is 8 Hits.....

No, that's merely a strawman you are grasping on to. I'm trying to explain a concept as if to someone who is not familiar with the standard rules of inference in traditional rhetoric and requires exposition. I extricate individual steps to demonstrate why independently they are not valid. This is a form of inductive reasoning that examines potential hypotheticals. However, you appear to view each independent one as a collective position, where they should be properly understood akin to troubleshooting procedures (which typically pursue independent possibilities as if on a figurative checklist, rather than following one after another in progression).

If this is still not clear to you then it never will be, so this is my last word on the matter.

No its a regular argument..... you based your entire argument around Strikes being the Same as throws since this all started, pretty sure this would have been a whole lot shorter if you didn't.... tell you your straw man to suck on that.... pun intended..... unless if you meant the other type of straw.

Anyway its not clear but atleast you have me stymied...... THATS PROGRESS.

 

[SoftCabbage]

Exactly.... its balanced by all those conditions..... not by inputs.
Which takes us back to why you want combos to be harder to execute ?

LOL look, if a strong move is slow and predictable comes with simpler command, that means it's balanced, right? This is as said by Argentus.

But how could a move be balanced if a simpler command can launch a strong, fast, and unpredictable one? To balance it, this type of move should be harder to execute, right? Or otherwise everyone could spam it to win. This is where my first point stands.

My point wasn't entirely right and Argentus corrected it and I agreed

 

[Lulu]

LOL look, if a strong move is slow and predictable comes with simpler command, that means it's balanced, right? This is as said by Argentus.

If a strong move is slow its balanced..... it honestly doesn't matter what the command is..... its not going to change the move's balance. Thats what @Argentus meant.

But how could a move be balanced if a simpler command can launch a strong, fast, and unpredictable one? To balance it, this type of move should be harder to execute, right? Or otherwise everyone could spam it to win. This is where my first point stands.

If you make a move too fast and powerful then making it harder is only going to do is stop less dextrous from being able to use it.... it will still be unbalanced for the few people who can still do it....

 

[SoftCabbage]

If you make a move too fast and powerful then making it harder is only going to do is stop less dextrous from being able to use it.... it will still be unbalanced for the few people who can still do it....

And these few advanced player will fight another advanced players who also have more experience in DOA characters behavior in and out. That'll be balanced right?

If said advanced player fighting a noob like me, it'll be like fighting a sandbag, of course.

 

[Lulu]

And these few advanced player will fight another advanced players who also have more experience in DOA characters behavior in and out. That'll be balanced right?

If said advanced player fighting a noob like me, it'll be like fighting a sandbag, of course.

Its also pointless..... and I didn't say advanced, I said Dextrous. If a move is that strong then they don't to be advanced.... they can just spam the move forever and scrape together wins against people less dextrous.

 

[Brute]

I want Jennifer Hale to do the voice of Kasumi and Phase 4 in English.

Hale wouldn't fit at all for Kasumi. She has a decisive, commanding voice. Kasumi's personality is shy, timid and introspective. It would be a terrible fit.

 

[WAZAAAAA]

That is your opinion. I think Jennifer Hale would do a great job if she did the voice of Kasumi in Dead or Alive 6.

You don't have to worry about that, Kasumi won't be in the next game anyway

 

[Brute]

That is your opinion.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

 

[Project Bokuho]

Jennifer Hale? I don't see it either, to be honest haha

 

[KasumiLover]

That is your opinion. I think Jennifer Hale would do a great job if she did the voice of Kasumi in Dead or Alive 6.

I honestly want Lauren Landa to reprise her role, she's the best Kasumi ENG. actress we've had. Stephanie Sheh voicing Kasumi the same way she uses her voice in Soul Calibur 4(Minus the bitchy attitude) would be what I think suits her. I love Stephanie Sheh....that or Diane Holmby, who voices Sophitia in the same game. Jennifer Hale would be better suited to voicing Ayane, going by her voice she uses as Tanya in MKX.

 

[Dark-truth]

seriously kasumi's voice is fine. leifang needs her old voice again her voice is too high and annoying right now

 

[KasumiLover]

seriously kasumi's voice is fine. leifang needs her old voice again her voice is too high and annoying right now

I don't think Cassandra Lee(her voice actress) put much effort in her voice. Her screams are silent and meh, and she doesn't really sound memorable. They should've had Carrie Savage or Wendee Lee voice her, because they're actually good with making a genkai and perky girl sound like it. Cassandra however isn't even a VA primarily, she's like a journalist or writer mainly.

 

[Dark-truth]

I don't think Cassandra Lee(her voice actress) put much effort in her voice. Her screams are silent and meh, and she doesn't really sound memorable. They should've had Carrie Savage or Wendee Lee voice her, because they're actually good with making a genkai and perky girl sound like it. Cassandra however isn't even a VA primarily, she's like a journalist or writer mainly.

Truee

 

[Dark-truth]

Actually Lauren Landa's voice sounds very similar to Jennifer Hale's so I think Jennifer Hale would do a good job being the voice of Kasumi in Dead or Alive 6.

lol who cares ?