DOA6 Gameplay Thread

[Raansu]

Limiting even more the stun system is a good idea ? Well i totally disagree.And i hope pro players feel the same.It wasn't game breaking why removing it ?

Uh, removing SE doesn't limit the stun system. All SE did was give you more options to escape the mistakes you made in neutral. We have more than enough of those in DoA. You should be punished when hit with a stun, not have several options to deny the stun.

Oh? you staggered from the low? cool, I'm still plus though, but you did plan out for a 50/50 rough situation than a high risk 50/50.

Ya? Tell that to Hitomi who's +5 sweep can be turned into -1.

If you mistimed a dragon gunnner you shouldn't have a second chance.

DG has a really long recovery time, so this situation can't even happen currently if you don't SE at all.

 

[crapoZK]

Who? this might be incorrect. Terurock? JCA? Kwiggles?

News, they do like SE. However if the stuns are shorter then that's somewhat different, but shorter stuns is not confirmed.

Ayt, "some" needed to be included xD and not just a declarative statement. Basically just spoke to Dr. Dogg and a few others. I personally like SE and rely on it quite a bit, but don't mind it being gone to be fair. The stun game is definitely shortened, but not too sure about the lengths of each individual stun. I'm unsure of the reason for why SE was removed, but maybe it will get confirmed soon enough. Will be trying to make it out to Gamescom to see what's up with it.

They probably just wanted to make the stun game more of something to worry about, and maybe as there is Break Hold, it might have been done to push the incentive to use meter? Not many would attempt BH if you could SE, because it's both meterless and more effective.

 

[Fantailler]

Pro players like thThe SE was removed because stuns are shorter. You don't even need to SE anymore bc if you don't spend the same time mashing/wiggling your pad you'll find yourself launched quick-time.

Oh? you staggered from the low? cool, I'm still plus though, but you did plan out for a 50/50 rough situation than a high risk 50/50.

In 5 they tried to mitigate the stun system by limiting the number of moves that Stun on NH. SE some what works the same way but within Stun.Doa is lacking in the nitaku department, i'd even say pretty limited.Once you gain back control you can defend or simply choose to make a decision based on the risk/reward.

Without control you can't choose to abare/evade/fuzzy

On a 50/50 if i want to take a risk i can,using a launcher to avoid a throw or evade to punish a middle,or use a sabaki, fuzzy to avoid a high.

If i'm stunned i'm limited...

Uh, removing SE doesn't limit the stun system. All SE did was give you more options to escape the mistakes you made in neutral. We have more than enough of those in DoA. You should be punished when hit with a stun, not have several options to deny the stun.

@Raansu

Yeah but in a normal fighting game every CH don't lead to high damage potential,but heavy frame advantage/spacing where you can do more than mash hold to escape and defend.

In VF every move of akira don't trigger a crumple stun (666p)

That's exactly Doa's problem, you're asking for almost guaranteed high damage on any CH.If DOA was more strict with its frames and fuzzy and defensive tools i would agree. I asked for more "neutral stun" Leading to nothing but true frame advantage but that won't happen.

 

[Omegan Eckhart]

[1:21:00] Commentators saying Helena is bad due to losing a crush? Which one is that? I did notice that her BKO 4K no longer force techs, that hurts pretty bad :/

 

[crapoZK]

In 5 they tried to mitigate the stun system by limiting the number of moves that Stun on NH. SE some what works the same way but within Stun.Doa is lacking in the nitaku department, i'd even say pretty limited.Once you gain back control you can defend or simply choose to make a decision based on the risk/reward.

Without control you can't choose to abare/evade/fuzzy

On a 50/50 if i want to take a risk i can,using a launcher to avoid a throw or evade to punish a middle,or use a sabaki.

If i'm stunned i'm limited...

In other games I'd say some bullshit like "Well don't get stunned". But this is DOA and you literally get stunned for everything. Caught backdashing?? Stunned. Crouching when trying to fuzzy and your enemy does a mid? Stunned. Enemy "mashes"/SE's and punishes you out of a throw setup? Stunned/Launched. Countered? Stunned. I agree that the lack of SE is limiting the defensive side of dealing with pressure.

What the perfect idea would be (In my opinion):

• Retain SE on standing shallow stuns.
• Keep SE off on Sit Down Stuns, Crumple Stun etc.

I think that would be one of the better ways to go about SE without completely removing it.

 

[DestructionBomb]

Ayt, "some" needed to be included xD. Basically just spoke to Dr. Dogg and a few others. I personally like SE and rely on it quite a bit, but don't mind it being gone to be fair. The stun game is definitely shortened, but not too sure about the lengths of each individual stun. I'm not sure of the reason for why SE was removed, but maybe it will get confirmed soon enough.

Where has it been shortened? think we are getting far too optimistic here. For all we know, it could -look- shortened because of how active the matches are but not realistically shortened.

As for stagger escaping gone....well if it's gone then it's gone, but stagger escaping did in fact help DOA hugely. To see it go and not thinking about the particular consequences to just mindlessly hold in situations you are not suppose to is low IQ. It would make a lot of sense if it's from a situation where you "have" to hold to stop the stagger escape, but if it's gone then it brings back into question to why DOA became a meme on high-risk guess heavy situations.

- If the opponent got hit with a crumple stun, they "hold" or don't hold at all, and got launched/thrown, that's on them. That's what happens when you use stagger escaping so much as your crutch to escape the attacks.

- If the opponent got hit with a moderate stun, they staggered, you went for the throw expecting a hold/ went for the slow launcher, throw gets ducked/punished your slow launcher, that's on you. In this case, you deserved it because you went for the slow launcher in hopes you get a bigger damage output. However this wouldn't have happened if you went for the fast launcher instead and -still- amass 90+ points of damage on a 300 health gauge. There is no huge penalty for someone staggering either so technically you are not actually losing out really.

Which brings into another question is if stagger escaping wasn't implemented yet, or because there is something that compensates for lack of stagger escaping (the base answer would be shortened stuns), but so far there hasn't been any cue ins for lack of stagger escaping for beneficial situations.

• Keep SE off on Sit Down Stuns

Dear god no, this leads to non-guaranteed launchers for damage with minimum effort from sitdowns. That is exactly what the competitive players are trying to avoid. You can't hold from sitdown stuns either, you have to at -least- be able to hold from a non-staggerable situation. Sitdowns was pretty positive on the option for stagger escaping even if you can't hold.

Crumple stuns yeah, there has to be moves to stop stagger escaping and prevent people from using it as a crutch for everything.

 

[Fantailler]

I'm exaggerating but if SE is gone for good,to me,we're back to DOA4.

Edit: this post is a brainfart, move along there's nothing to see here !

 

[crapoZK]

Dear god no, this leads to non-guaranteed launchers for damage with minimum effort for sitdowns. That is exactly what the competitive players are trying to avoid. You can't hold from sitdown stuns, you have to at -least- be able to hold. Sitdowns was pretty positive on the option for stagger escaping.

Crumple stuns yeah, there has to be moves to stop stagger escaping and prevent people from using it as a crutch for everything.

The SDS idea probably was better in my head because I play a character that needs to "work" to get them (Besides 9PP > BT 4K), But then I realise there are characters like Jann Lee and Hitman who can just get them easily off rip with no effort.

I'm exaggerating but if SE is gone for good,to me,we're back to DOA4.

On the -lowest- of keys xD. "More Balanced DOA4". But DOA4 had SE.

Real talk, it's probably just not implemented yet. The average player won't be doing it realistically when they messing around with the game at this specific point in the game's life. Not even close to being too late to change things xD

 

[Raansu]

I'm exaggerating but if SE is gone for good,to me,we're back to DOA4.

DoA4 had SE.....

 

[Fantailler]

DoA4 had SE.....

I failed on this one, badly...I've been playing DOAD recently that's why, my bad

My point about control remains true.

 

[crapoZK]

SEs are definitely something that didn't need to go. But....

I want learn about different ways to use Fatal Rushes.

I feel like one of the ways you can use them is when you're in a scenario after your enemy fails a hold during stun, so you use one or 2 strikes from your FR to stop your opponent from holding (Besides the BH) and get launchers without worry. Especially when you know that your enemy doesn't have meter to get out of it. A HiC throw would be the better option as FR seems to have crazy scaling on it now, but if people want style points, the option is there. EDIT: You see, if SE was there the enemy could get out of stun, block the S attack, and punish it with a throw. Yeah man... Bring SEs back.

CrazySteady would sometimes use one FR attack at the wall to do this kind of thing with Helena.

 

[Fantailler]

I was against FR but now it looks like it could be a good way to control your opponent's meter,forcing him to BH,limiting his BB.



It's a "low hold" while standing(BH) which is a great idea if there's enough time to punish it with a high counter throw.It will depend on the recovery if you Cancel the FR string.

This :

EDIT: You see, if SE was there the enemy could get out of stun, block the S attack, and punish it with a throw. Yeah man... Bring SEs back.

That's exactly what said !

Edit : If FR is around 18~20 on startup it could be used to punish on reaction a failed hold.I hope they're also tracking to stop evade.

 

[Raansu]

I failed on this one, badly...I've been playing DOAD recently that's why, my bad

My point about control remains true.

I'm pretty positive it was in DoAD as well....though I only played that game for like a month.

I'm all for less stunning in general and forcing a stronger neutral game, but stuns should take complete control from you. Holds in stun were not much of an issue in DoA2 and 3 to me because there were plenty of ways to avoid it, and a hi-counter throw would easily take 60% of your health so I was less bothered by holds, especially in DoA3, but I've just generally been against holds in stuns for a long time now with the current stun system.

DoA6 seems to have a much lower stun threshold. Not that I expect holds to be removed from stuns, but the lack of SE makes me happy that we may have more situations where you can't hold out of certain stuns. I see SE being removed as a good thing, and would love to see less moves stunning and forcing more of a neutral game like how DoA3 played as an even better thing.

 

[DestructionBomb]

In the older DOA iterations, SE wasn't a thing and people were still able to play DOA without it. It's still possible to play like DOA2-3 for example, so stagger escaping might slash and can be healed, but the scar will stay there as a reminder on how useful it was.

Personally, I think they should never take it out of the upcoming games period because of the usefulness and ways the players can condition someone for trying to stagger so much so you can punish them for it. Just thinking about it like "Damn, looks like this guy is getting me in feint stuns and crumple stuns. I should hold those moves this time". Oh shit you held, good. If you try to hold again, maybe I'll throw you this time or use a launcher on the opponent for holding so much and extending the stun duration for the slow moves to land for no longer staggering out. You can literally change a person's approach method and playstyle because he/she encountered a player who stopped a player from staggering.

But if it's gone, then it's gone. Maybe because I play people who stagger too much. Who knows, but it never truly bothered me as a player and most of the players in the competitive scene for offline etc. never really had issues with it, instead, they liked it.

I see SE being removed as a good thing, and would love to see less moves stunning and forcing more of a neutral game like how DoA3 played as an even better thing.

But that was certain moves were used for. It's contradictory to ask for neutral and less stunning when there is an option available for you that lowers stun advantage, allowing you time to block, despite the opponent being at plus still. Better to have a breathing room than being in the room where you "have" to guess from options that are not guaranteed.

If it's gone, then it's gone, but there hasn't been a true negative impact when it came to SE.

 

[Raansu]

In the older DOA iterations, SE wasn't a thing and people were still able to play DOA without it. It's still possible to play like DOA2-3 for example, so stagger escaping might slash and can be healed, but the scar will stay there as a reminder on how useful it was.

DoA3 most definitely had SE. VirtuaPai was the one to discover it years ago. I'm pretty positive it was in DoA2U as well.

If it's gone, then it's gone, but there hasn't been a true negative impact when it came to SE.

Uh, being able to escape slow moves that cause deep stuns (sit downs) to the point of being able to block/hold a follow up is very much a negative impact. Being able to SE a +5 low sweep stagger into a -1 on hit is very much a negative. SE is a stupid mechanic that rewards poor defense.

 

[Fantailler]

I'm all for less stunning in general and forcing a stronger neutral game, but stuns should take complete control from you

Not on every stun imho.We have stuns dedicated to it, limbo and sds.I treat them as"launchers" while playing the stun game or outside,pre-launchers to be precise.They're a great addition.

A specific tool you choose to use and have total control over it,and most importantly easy to recognize(for both players) and limited in number.

Others should be treated as the opposite,or even better we should have a limited number of moves with specific properties,with more identity.

Stuns for zoning, for true frame advantage etc

They could be treated as sds and limbo, unholdable but possible to se.Limiting the braindead panic hold.

By having more defined and recognizable stuns there's naturally a better mindgame.

You know exactly which kind of stun is attached to a move helping both players to react and choose accordingly=mindgame.

To simplify :

Guaranteed : limbo sds (Quick damage like early launcher) less risk

Unholdable : spacing/frame advantage/ring positionning(neutral Within stun)impossible to combo.

Damage extension :holdable stuns for higher risk/reward. The stun game we're used to.

If you want higher damage you need to take a risk, or you can use setups.

SE mitigates the overly present stun game, it's the only tool that brings it back to real neutral.Low hold is a dumb shortcut.

 

[DestructionBomb]

Uh, being able to escape slow moves that cause deep stuns (sit downs) to the point of being able to block/hold a follow up is very much a negative impact.

No it isn't, I gave you the scenarios on the benefits for it. Once again, what you are asking for is contradictory since you asked for "neutral" and less stunning. You have the option to not respect moves that are extremely slow for big payoff with no way around it other than to hold it, but because stuns get -extended-, holding becomes a risk option in -itself- where slow moves can be timed and landed -after hold recovery-, "this" is poor defense. You could lose from making the correct read which is silly in itself.

Being able to SE a +5 low sweep stagger into a -1 on hit is very much a negative.

Fun fact, very few characters are like this (Raidou, Brad Wong, Leon). Majority of the roster still obtains a form of advantage because of the stun recovery on hit on an opponent as well as the type of stun.

SE is a stupid mechanic that rewards poor defense.

So you pioneered the series and apparently know which system is poor defense or not? well now, I play with the tournament players almost every single time and yet each of them enjoy the SE (oh shit, guess what? I'm a tournament player too, and whaddya know? TN follows me on Twitter because I play this game in a such a way that blows titties up). Whether you think it's poor defense or not is irrelevant considering players used it to avoid scenarios of high risk and punishing opponents after. Still a very few vocal minority regarding the removal of SE.

Lol, we haven't even gotten a throw break system yet.

 

[Raansu]

Who? The new gen or the veterans? Cuz the veteran top players I used to play with all the time hated SE because it diminished any big risk you took.

And I don't get how you think what I'm saying is contradictory. Not wanting every other damn move stunning is not contradictory to anything. Stuns would still be a thing, you just wouldn't get stunned for every little hit like you do now. The way I'd like to see it when you do get put into a big stun you wouldn't be able to escape it because SE is gone and holding in stun would be gone, but there would be less stuns overall (and needing to meet some stupid threshold by playing a long stun game for max height wouldn't exist either) so you'd actually have to have a good neutral game and the risk/reward would actually exist. That is called a good game, not the still RPS mess we have right now.

Honestly, DoA will always be a fun fighting game, but as long as the stun system and hold system remains the way it has it will never be a good fighting game and will forever be why other communities ignore DoA and playing other fighting games has shown me that DoA just isn't a good fighting game until these things are fixed.

(oh shit, guess what? I'm a tournament player too, and whaddya know? TN follows me on Twitter because I play this game in a such a way that blows titties up).

Ya?? So what? I placed top 3 at D.I.D 7 and played with top players quite a lot, and I helped run tournaments of DoA5 at CEO during the first 2 years of DoA5, but no one wanted to support it so I gave up on that one (I also had to back away from everything for awhile after finding out I had PTSD). Being a tournament player doesn't really mean anything in this debate nor is it some kind of argument that somehow magically favors your opinion.

We're both debating opinions here, lets keep the epeen out of it ok?

Whether you think it's poor defense or not is irrelevant considering players used it to avoid scenarios of high risk and punishing opponents after. Still a very few vocal minority regarding the removal of SE.

And you think its ok that a player takes a high risk, gets the stun and then gets punished by the defending player who just mashed a dpad to stagger out of it? That's not even remotely ok. That completely removes the entire point of taking the risk. The scenario shouldn't even exist. If you failed defensively and got hit by a big risk move you should be punished for it.

Lol, we haven't even gotten a throw break system yet.

I would only be ok with throw breaks if the throw break option is removed on hi-counter throw, otherwise holds wouldn't be punishable anymore.

 

[DestructionBomb]

Who? The new gen or the veterans? Cuz the veteran top players I used to play with all the time hated SE because it diminished any big risk you took.

Some of the old gens too. Rikuto for example doesn't have a problem with it, even the throw break system.

Which veteran top players? oh, the ones who aren't around anymore and just support the game vocally? oh, cool story. Or maybe the old gens decided just couldn't adapt to it or chose not to use it and prefer to mindlessly slap those buttons despite having the option to avoid scenarios with minimum risk. Oh shit? whaddya know? I been around since DOACentral. Who would of thought.

So far, the new gens (Sio etc.) and up been making usage of the game's mechanics more than anyone else.

And I don't get how you think what I'm saying is contradictory. Not wanting every other damn move stunning is not contradictory to anything. Stuns would still be a thing, you just wouldn't get stunned for every little hit like you do now. The way I'd like to see it when you do get put into a big stun you wouldn't be able to escape it because SE is gone and holding in stun would be gone, but there would be less stuns overall (and needing to meet some stupid threshold by playing a long stun game for max height wouldn't exist either) so you'd actually have to have a good neutral game and the risk/reward would actually exist. That is called a good game, not the still RPS mess we have right now.

You are asking for less stunning moves, but most of these less stunning moves from absorbed information happens when you either get hit on CH or for crouching. Did you know that Hayabusa's 6P doesn't stun on NH? but if you crouch you'd get hit as a NH stun? it's like players have become oblivious to the damn scenarios being played. I've watched countless tournaments and even in person where people got hit from moves that don't stun normally, stun on them because of the situations mentioned above and even they mention that it's because they fuzzy and got up too late resulting in a crouch hit or ducked expecting a throw.

Now what happens when you get hit by such stuns? you reduce it so that any follow ups become not guaranteed because you are not reacting. A player would never react to an i12, you are expecting it or predicting it. SE gave you the option where you avoid the follow ups reducing the advantage, this -in turns- conditions the opponent to using quicker moves for launch even if the damage is lower. The fact here, is that he got his damage out regardless, so you have effort to get the lead. Your contradictory with you mentioning is that stuns should take complete control over you (which is hilarious in itself because you are basically repeating on why DOA became a meme regarding it's system) while mentioning neutral and then you mention "situations where you can't hold out of certain stun", which is why those moves were implemented in the first place. Limbo is a perfect example to bypass the stagger escaping and the stun system, but because most limbos are slow you want to condition someone to fall for it. You have to earn that. It's exactly what fighting games should go for. The limbo landed because you did a jab after a stun extension where stagger escaping wouldn't work in this situation which is smart, but players landing such moves from like a mid with moderate recovery into a limbo for free is laughable since players are asking to reduce the guesswork and yet this is the opposite. It's either approach logic, or none at all.

Honestly, DoA will always be a fun fighting game, but as long as the stun system and hold system remains the way it has it will never be a good fighting game and will forever be why other communities ignore DoA and playing other fighting games has shown me that DoA just isn't a good fighting game until these things are fixed.

Course not, it's why people are trying to improve it. It's why TN is trying to improve it. Can't start on improvements if DOA complicates itself in such a fashion where it gets nowhere. I mean, a wrestler must never beat a ninja right? that was a start of something that completely vanished so that's a good long way from that.

Overall, doesn't matter. I still kill in the series so eh, not my problem.

 

[crapoZK]

TN used to follow me on Twitter until I deleted my gaming account. Sad times.

In other news, Top 8 EVO starts soon. The new character might be announced, she might not. Either way. This is gonna be interesting.