Do you want a tournament scene?

[grap3fruitman]

-snip-

You're my most favorite new person ever.

 

[MrMoon360]

You're my most favorite new person ever.

Agreed.

 

[Rikuto]

Insightful for a new comer. Very insightful. Very.... insightful.

Welcome aboard.

 

[Berzerk!]

Good progress... lets parse this out a bit.

Don't forget that if the defender thinks he can hold in stun, he is guessing too. He's in more of a guessing situation and will be afraid to counter because of punishment. To remove holds from stun entirely would have unforeseen effects on the metagame that doesn't necessarily make it a better game. (Note: Experienced players at worst are making "bets" or "educated" guesses).

It would make it more of a conforming game to, if you like, a certain standard, but you know there are a lot of standards in fighting games that could bear changing.

I think a multi-pronged - robust ala DrDogg's suggestions (with a mix of other things already discussed) - approach that retains the ability and feeling that you can counter (that is a big part of DOA's appeal) would give best of both worlds.

I really think Option 3, which is essentially the same as Rikuto's earlier suggestion to remove holds from critical (and I would like to be clear - only critical) stuns allows them to build the system in a logical, clear, universal and accessible way (a great hallmark of DOA).

It will reward the attacker who lands the kind of hit that deserves to be rewarded with more damage/options. It will mean the defender still has to be careful about when to counter in other stuns, because it will lead to worse if he's wrong. It will retain the engaging mixup based mindgame without pulling it right back to a spacing only game in which the first hit in a string means you're screwed (and Marvel style, you sit back and watch).

I'd like to see tweaking of the hold system's recovery, restoration of 4 point, and removal of critical stun holds to all work in concert to fully tighten things up competitively and also retain the engaging and immediate mind games that, ultimately, people love in fighting games.

To give an example, if I start attacking with a string that starts with high punches and ends with two low kicks like Kokoro's - I can choose to stop at the first K and delay enough to see the opponent attempt to counter, or anticipate that they will because I may know their behaviour from earlier play.

I can finish with to get a stun and start a new attack, or I can free cancel and go for a number of other options. If the low counter recovery is long enough, a new attack string would be uncounterable for the first hit or two (recovery carrying over), but more than that there are viable attack options.

Kokoro can low throw, or she can or for a mid height launcher. Being kicks, if its a 4 point system, this is harder to hold (remember hitstun on normal from the first three hits will not be critical and the opponent should still be able to counter hold).

So likely the opponent will be launched for uncounterable free damage. You could also and lets say in this system it's enough to extend into, or will naturally cause, a critical stun. Now they're in really big trouble. Free launcher, more damage. Solid ground hit or reset, anything you like.

That scenario retains the risk-reward poking element of working around a defender who can counter, but as soon as you either hit them into a critical, or successfully launch, you get a big reward. This counter-baiting element of the game is fun and can be rewarding - a little like combining some of the "footsies" mentality, but it just needs to fade back the options favour of the attacker when they get the right read and make that next hit - and attackers have the initiative and the much better options to force a mistake on a defender to counter incorrectly.

You don't really need unholdable launchers (DrDogg's option 2), when you have unholdable criticals. I think this retains the spirit of Option 3, as they can logically design moves and situations that provide critical stun, without having to necessarily create specific moves for everyone that do this one thing.

I'm really in favour of a logical, systemic flow rather than kind of band-aiding in too many specific types of moves with special properties, because then you get into a "learn every matchup to nth degree" situation to understand intermediate play rather than "learn the system and apply" mentality that will make the game a smoother and more fun learning curve for players.

 

[d3v]

I agree but the issue I've seen over the years with the DOA community is. There is always some issue that splits every one. If we cant even support our own game, how can we hope for the FGC to do it?

Same thing happens with every game. But, the thing is, if a game makes it in the tournament circuit and is a regular in FGC held tournaments, then you'll have people playing the game no matter what the issues are.

But even if this were to happen, would it be accepted by the whole FGC? Even if this made it more viable competitively, what then?

No, that comes from word of mouth and actually getting of our asses to help promote the game within the wider FGC.

 

[UncleKitchener]

I'd like to try and hold up any scene that might develop after the release of the game by showing up to anything that would qualify as a tournament, it's just that I don't feel confident in any UK scene holding up. Now, this is not Hurricane Rev's fault, he's trying to get people together; it's just that a lot of people in UK don't seem to really care about this series.

 

[RoboJoe]

Good progress... lets parse this out a bit.
Don't forget that if the defender thinks he can hold in stun, he is guessing too. He's in more of a guessing situation and will be afraid to counter because of punishment. To remove holds from stun entirely would have unforeseen effects on the metagame that doesn't necessarily make it a better game. (Note: Experienced players at worst are making "bets" or "educated" guesses).

Good. The defender should be afraid. He had his chance to block the attack, hold it, or counter hit me (I don't know how viable counterhitting someone is to DOA, but I'm thinking 5p/5k/3k generally works with everyone). Now I hit him, at great personal risk too, so I should be able to do high damage. Just recently, I was playing around in DOA2U and my jab got countered by an izuna. That did a lot more damage than my jab would have if it hit. If the defender always has the option of relatively massive damage after the attack, but before the stun, the attacker should have it during stun. The attacker had to get that first hit past the threat of a hold too, which is more than you have to do in other games, so you should have damage guaranteed. As for the metagame, it's not like anyone is saying preventing holds in stun alone is all DOA needs and it couldn't be much worse than two guys standing in front of each other holding block waiting for the other guy to do something. I'm not sure what you mean by what you wrote in the brackets. Can you clarify?

It would make it more of a conforming game to, if you like, a certain standard, but you know there are a lot of standards in fighting games that could bear changing.

Which standards need changing? I can't think of anything that is universally disliked across any fighting game that relates to gameplay.

I really think Option 3, which is essentially the same as Rikuto's earlier suggestion to remove holds from critical (and I would like to be clear - only critical) stuns allows them to build the system in a logical, clear, universal and accessible way (a great hallmark of DOA).

Since DOA has so many stuns, I'm not sure which stuns are critical. What stuns are critical and what is the difference between normal and critical? Also, why so many stuns in the first place? Was it Shimbori's way of balancing holds in stun, by allowing you to stun them more often so you can launch or knock down and get actual damage? That's how I see it, but I don't know for sure.

It will reward the attacker who lands the kind of hit that deserves to be rewarded with more damage/options. It will mean the defender still has to be careful about when to counter in other stuns, because it will lead to worse if he's wrong. It will retain the engaging mixup based mindgame without pulling it right back to a spacing only game in which the first hit in a string means you're screwed (and Marvel style, you sit back and watch).
I'd like to see tweaking of the hold system's recovery, restoration of 4 point, and removal of critical stun holds to all work in concert to fully tighten things up competitively and also retain the engaging and immediate mind games that, ultimately, people love in fighting games.

What kind of hit deserves to be rewarded? More importantly, what kind of hit doesn't deserve to be rewarded? If the defender can counter out of those other stuns, anyone learning how to play will avoid using those stuns. After all, now there is a 100% better option. At that point, why even have those other stuns? Just remove them.
Tweaking the recovery or the active frames is useful and needed for holds outside stun, but I disagree that it does much for in-stun holds, even if the recovery is stupidly long. Honestly, I don't see the big deal of 4-point over 3, except that most launchers are mid. If you can't hold a launch in stun, just stun them with a high/low and launch from there. As for mind games, with holds being universal tools, no move is safe, so the mind games will always be there anyway.

To give an example, if I start attacking with a string that starts with high punches and ends with two low kicks like Kokoro's

- I can choose to stop at the first K and delay enough to see the opponent attempt to counter, or anticipate that they will because I may know their behaviour from earlier play.
I can finish with

to get a stun and start a new attack, or I can free cancel and go for a number of other options. If the low counter recovery is long enough, a new attack string would be uncounterable for the first hit or two (recovery carrying over), but more than that there are viable attack options.
Kokoro can low throw, or she can

or

for a mid height launcher. Being kicks, if its a 4 point system, this is harder to hold (remember hitstun on normal from the first three hits will not be critical and the opponent should still be able to counter hold).
So likely the opponent will be launched for uncounterable free damage. You could also

and lets say in this system it's enough to extend into, or will naturally cause, a critical stun. Now they're in really big trouble. Free launcher, more damage. Solid ground hit or reset, anything you like.

Unless I misread, you either put them in stun or launch them with a mid during recovery of a low hold outside of stun. I don't see anything wrong with that, assuming no holds in stun, you get guaranteed damage with both options because you forced them into situations where they can no longer defend themselves.

I'm really in favour of a logical, systemic flow rather than kind of band-aiding in too many specific types of moves with special properties, because then you get into a "learn every matchup to nth degree" situation to understand intermediate play rather than "learn the system and apply" mentality that will make the game a smoother and more fun learning curve for players.

If matchups are something you have to thoroughly learn rather than having a general gameplan for every character, it implies that the characters are all differentiated. For example, in Blazblue: Lambda vs Tager has different rules as to what you can and can't do in the match compared to say a mirror match between Lambdas. If the game didn't need me to learn matchups and I could use a one-size-fits-all playstyle, the game would be easier to learn yes, but so very boring.

 

[Rikuto]

Going to copy this over from the other thread so the problem is understood better.

It's not just in the single attack, its in the odds of success in the engagement itself.

If you rolled a 3 sided dice (assuming a proper one actually existed) with the hopes of getting a single number 1 once, you had a 33.3% chance of winning.

If you roll the same dice twice, you still had a 33.3% chance on that roll BUT your accumulative chances of succeeding at least once just doubled. This is why the situation is always "at least" a 50/50, but usually "better" for the defender.

Worse yet and what people don't always understand, the first dice roll does not happen after the first stun. It happens the moment your opponent attacks, is blocked, and put at disadvantage right in your face. Before he is even stunned he has the opportunity to counter you, and this first guess can be the most painful if he is right. If he guesses wrong and is stunned, his overall odds just doubled of catching you in a counter on the first hit INSIDE the stun. By the time you have him in the stun, mathematically you're pretty much fucked and already long past the point of likely failure.

That is why people go for the single strike option instead of the long stun mixup when they can. That's also why Genfu never went for the stun, he went for long range safe 3p+k crush that avoided everything and gave a good launch on a single counterhit. If genfu even started the stun game he had already put himself at a mathematical disadvantage.

And if you are going for single strike launches with good damage, you HAVE to play the 50/50 game from neutral, and to do THAT you require a very particular move that is capable of it like Genfu's. That's just how it is. If you aren't playing the 50/50 game, you'll be playing something more akin to 16/84 as the attacker if you're going for any kind of substantial damage. So good luck with that, going with the 50/50 makes you about THREE TIMES MORE likely to succeed with your attack

Even if you have natural combos after the first stun to remove some of the chance-of-failure scaling against you when going for that full stun launch, you'll always have to deal with that at least two opportunities of failure.

So yes, if you want to win, everything comes down to a 50/50. Unless of course, you prefer to lose, in which by all means you are welcome to "disagree" with Math and destroy your odds.

The collection of choices you make to get any kind of reasonable damage are at best a 50/50 (single strike launch) and at worst 16/84 playing the stun game (roughly) with human error being the only thing to help your odds. You can't do anything else in DOA to get damage, so it is effectively and truly a 50/50 unless you sabotage yourself.

People can call it whatever they want and play the semantics game with what I've written, but thats how the game is indeed played so its best to get into the mentality of calling it what it is.



-- 4 point is indeed better than 3 point, however I would like to point out that the 3 sided dice example I gave was in fact using a 4 point DOA system from a metaphor standpoint as you only need to guess between low, mid punch and mid kick to avoid every option in the game. It is, as I've demonstrated, completely broken.

-- By short window, the game would need to make it SEVERELY shorter, as in like 4-6 frames for an active window. Making it 10+ honestly is a ridiculously huge window that any decent fighting game player is going to be able to abuse the hell out of just as easily as they can abuse 18-20 frame windows. 10 frames is more than enough to use on both reaction, anticipation, and flatout guessing. 4-6 frames is enough to use on reaction, or anticipation. It can't be used effectively to guess though, you'll just get your ass kicked most of the time. It also justifies the hell out of something like a counter izuna getting big 100+ damage, because you really did have to call your opponent out on that for it to work.

-- Remove holds from critical, absolutely solid, yea? So what causes a holdable stun then? Fast jabs? Ok at first this seems like a good idea, but hold your horses because there is where things become very flawed when you're not analyzing the situation carefully.

I do a move that puts me at -7 on block. My opponent responds with a 10 frame jab. His jab effectively comes out in 3 frames, which means that even with a 6 frame window to hold I can catch him perfectly every time he tries this as its the perfect trap leading into it. And that's totally legit. Problem is that now the situation is actually a pressure situation in disguise as disadvantage, we are feeding right back into the chances of accumulative failure with this being the first part. Even if he gets the stun, jabs only give lighter stuns which mean there is less time to attack the stunned character, also meaning it becomes painfully obvious exactly when it is you need to use your counter to have a shot of getting out.

So basically, even with all of those changes, nothing changed. You're still sitting on 2 chances to fail, making the situation worse than a 50/50.

So, as you can see, even if you remove the stun from critical the attacker is still fighting an uphill battle with odds.

 

[Lobo]

Insightful for a new comer. Very insightful. Very.... insightful.

Welcome aboard.

Even though I haven't been around for a while, it's post like these that make me have a little faith that it is possible to have a tournament scene.

Besides the obvious split on a lot issues with the game, one of the other biggest issues I've seen with the community is treatment towards newer players. It always seems like new players get the 'you don't know anything, get outta here nO0bzors" treatment whenever try to contribute. So it is nice for a change to see vets praising newer players.

I'll admit, it's even a little intimidating for players like me who have been around for a while but don't contribute as much, to go out and say '4-point system is good because xyz..." for fear that I might not know all the facts and get blasted for it. We need new players, regardless how noob they me, in order to have a decent community, so it's our job not to scare them away.

I still remember my first and only tournament, and even though it was a small turnout and I still got handled, I had a blast (even with the debacle of a trip back to GA). So I would definitely be willing to travel for DOA5 if I ever get back stateside.

 

[Tenren]

were all noobs at some point in life. Really the only way is just go ahead and speak up. If some 1 doesn't agree its the internet. There will always be some one like that, But just the same there will always be some one there to help out. If people like Chosen1 or Ryujin didn't take the time to help me Id still be a noob!

getting back on track, Im not going to bring up holds lol, I know in the past we always had issue with life bar setting. Does how did most people feel about the bump up in the normal setting in the demo?

 

[RoboJoe]

I just realized that "normal" stun probably means hit stun and "critical" is normal stun. If I'm wrong disregard this post, else I want to say that I disagree with Berzerk! that holds should be allowed during hit stun. After the attacker hits, no holds. Simple as that. If you can hold someone after they hit you even for a second, you're still punishing the attacker unfairly.

As for Rikuto's post: it's very late and I'm just skimming over it, but you're saying that by flipping a coin x times you're bound to get heads (countered) eventually? At neutral it's already heads or tails and by putting a guy in stun just gives him another chance to successfully hold and you're going against the odds by using the stun game. As for the second part, you're saying that holds in hitstun are just as effective as holds in stun because hitstun's short duration decides when you need to hold to counter the attacker and even long recovery and short active frames can't help if the nature of a short stun leaves you with an obvious time to hold the attacker. Again, another reason to remove holds from stun completely, which would leave us with an actual 50/50 chance of hitting since after the initial M/L hold, they can't do anything if they screw it up. With 4-point, that would be an actual 2/3 chance of actually getting guaranteed damage. If that's what you're saying, great I agree. If not, help me understand.

 

[d3v]

After the attacker hits, no holds.

This.

To borrow from Namco's community manager FilthieRich once said, players like being rewarded for good offense (spacing, footsies, everything that lets you get in) with more offense.

Look at all the top tournament games. All of them are games that allow for some really good offense.

Marvel and Tekken reward you with the ability to pull off damaging combos. Same with KoFXIII, especially once you learn how to use all the systems in that game. Skulgirls follows Marvel's template, so even this early one we're seeing really damaging combos and even better reset setups.

Also, even SSFIV has become very offense centric. Most of the top tier characters are those that can generate endless amounts of offense using unblockable cross up setups (vortex).

 

[grap3fruitman]

Besides the obvious split on a lot issues with the game, one of the other biggest issues I've seen with the community is treatment towards newer players. It always seems like new players get the 'you don't know anything, get outta here nO0bzors" treatment whenever try to contribute.

I think the treatment of new players depends on whether or not they want to learn. RoboJoe here already looks fairly knowledgeable but, even then, he's asking good questions and for clarification on items in a very polite manner while trying to contribute. It's kind of hard to hate someone like that. I encourage that kind of behavior, in fact. I think I'm going to start a Q&A thread to encourage this kind of newer player to post and learn.

The people that do get treated poorly are the ones that are stuck in their little world and don't want to expand beyond it while being rude about it. It's hard to have a discussion with someone whom thinks they know everything but refuses to actually educate themselves. I find myself consistently getting into arguments with people like these. By definition, these kinds of people are scrubs. It's very easy to hate these kinds of people, I do it all the time. =P

I'm not one of the most knowledgeable players on here, in fact, I rank pretty low but I've found that I've learned more about DOA in the last year as a result of this site then I have in my entire life. I'm not one of those people that can hop into training mode and break down a game and just "get it." I do require teaching from players like that, like the ones that post here. If you've ever listened to one of the few podcasts we've done, I'm consistently the least knowledgeable player on there and asking the most questions. It's one of the reasons I like to have Mr. Wah on them, he's just a sponge of DOA information and I always learn something new from talking to him. End rant.

 

[Rikuto]

I just realized that "normal" stun probably means hit stun and "critical" is normal stun. If I'm wrong disregard this post, else I want to say that I disagree with Berzerk! that holds should be allowed during hit stun. After the attacker hits, no holds. Simple as that. If you can hold someone after they hit you even for a second, you're still punishing the attacker unfairly.

As for Rikuto's post: it's very late and I'm just skimming over it, but you're saying that by flipping a coin x times you're bound to get heads (countered) eventually? At neutral it's already heads or tails and by putting a guy in stun just gives him another chance to successfully hold and you're going against the odds by using the stun game. As for the second part, you're saying that holds in hitstun are just as effective as holds in stun because hitstun's short duration decides when you need to hold to counter the attacker and even long recovery and short active frames can't help if the nature of a short stun leaves you with an obvious time to hold the attacker. Again, another reason to remove holds from stun completely, which would leave us with an actual 50/50 chance of hitting since after the initial M/L hold, they can't do anything if they screw it up. With 4-point, that would be an actual 2/3 chance of actually getting guaranteed damage. If that's what you're saying, great I agree. If not, help me understand.

You got the first part dead on. Every coin flip incrementally increases your chances of countering out of that situation successfully.

After that, people have been suggesting that holds only be usable inside of very light stuns, and they have also been suggesting that the active window be reduced. Folks seem to think that doing these two things will fix the main problems, but in reality its kind of just feeding into it.

The point I was trying to make in the second part is that even if we slim down the active window on holds to around 4-6 frames instead of 18-20 like it is now, the hold is still going to land with perfect timing after any blocked attack with moderate disadvantage (thus making bad attacks good, and actually ideal for setting up counters) and it's going to land perfectly inside of any stun that is light because it isn't really difficult to anticipate when the opponents attack will land with such a short stun duration.

So basically, the two solutions almost cancel each other out.

On top of all of that, the neutral strike dice roll + light stun dice roll accumulative failure/success chance problem still exists in its entirety and these solutions do not address it at all. Even if the stun game stops after that point and the attacker gets a full damage combo, the attacker is always at a mathematical disadvantage because he has to roll twice and that is enough to turn the odds against him.

Granted, only guessing twice is still better than guessing five times, but the odds are not in favor of the attacker at all. He is still being punished for playing well.


This is pretty bad, and it's all under the assumption we are using 4 point. You don't even want to know how terrible the odds are with 3 point.

 

[ScattereDreams]

Imagine if you could GI in the middle of a stun in Soul Calibur; shit would be ridiculous.

 

[Chris Harris]

I see Marvel being used quite a bit in terms of the "Watch cause you messed up" thing. You are forgetting why you have to sit and watch. . .you messed up. No matter what happened in what situation you had the same opportunity to force a mistake but he forced you first. Once you mess up it's HIS turn to deal damage, you don't get a turn cause YOU messed up. You get an amazing come back factor IF you get a shot to use it but other than that he doesn't start hitting you for a ton of damage and you press a button and are free.

The main problems with holds are
-Usable at all times outside of juggles or throws
-Do more damage than whatever attack you was doing
-ONE character gets 100+ points of damage (averaged) for getting a hold

What needs to happen instead is either they go or the punishment for using them are increased heavily so they have to be used with caution.

I'm shocked no one thought of this but why don't they just increase the damage the person using the counter takes. Not just a high counter throw.

Strike damage should be multiplied to make it more threatening. Example Hayabusa counters my HCH's my jab and assuming he gets it right my 10-15 points of damage are gone but he gets 100+. . .he just got 10x's PLUS my damage for doing nothing and just pulling a guess out his ass.

What I'm suggesting is someone holds and gets it wrong not only do they take increased damage from the attacker but can't hold the next attack. So same scenario but he did a high hold and i did a mid. I get increased damage on my mid attack and he can't hold the next attack, meaning if I want to I can increase the stun for further damage or just do a launcher and take my damage.

*I think Dr.Dogg posted the same thing actually*

 

[grap3fruitman]

See, I think that people would be under the impression that the hold just isn't working the second time. Creating really specific situational conditions like that is a little much and I think it would be too confusing. A visual cue that you can't hold is a better alternative; the stun animation would fit that bill.

 

[Chris Harris]

See, I think that people would be under the impression that the hold just isn't working the second time. Creating really specific situational conditions like that is a little much and I think it would be too confusing. A visual cue that you can't hold is a better alternative; the stun animation would fit that bill.

Well I think the stun that is a CH stun should have a visual effect. Like a stun that makes you look dizzied or the crumple stun could be the indicator. It's something that I think would work well with the game since they want to give you so much counter damage for landing counters. Having some type of unique stun or whatever would help a lot.

 

[DriftSlave]

Well I think the stun that is a CH stun should have a visual effect. Like a stun that makes you look dizzied or the crumple stun could be the indicator. It's something that I think would work well with the game since they want to give you so much counter damage for landing counters. Having some type of unique stun or whatever would help a lot.

Well some moves in DOA5 already give special stun/juggle states on counter hit
does a limbo stun on counterhit, Sidestep / Grounbounces, Mid height launches, and im sure there are others...but all these effects give you enough time to figure out what combo you can use to finish with. While there are no counterhit specific hit effects, the normal ones are good enough and the big bold Counter Strike Message is hard to miss.

I think having more moves that gave out these effects would be better, on counter hit and normal hit.

 

[EMPEROR_COW]

well ... heres a thought ...
I had a good chat with Master on xbl .. and he brought up the DOA system ...

how about implementing the DOA system of stuns ?

where if you get the firststun and launch you get the height you're getting now ...
if you extend it with as much as a jab .. you get it higher ...

if you catch someone with a counter HIT/strike .. etc .. and go for a launch you get mid height straight away ..
if you catch someone with a HI counter HIT/strike you get max lauch (same as stun threshold) meaning theres no need to incease stun ..

the other thing is that the stun threshold in DOA gives you a unique stun state ( like the sitdown ) where you pretty mugh get a garanteed setup after that ...

I think this balances out the triangle system very well and puts more emphasis on the stikes ...

i still believe removing holds from stuns is the worst idea ever and will pretty much destroy this game and everything it stands for ... you might disagree and not see it that way ... but its the way i do ...

I dont appreciate the mentality of ... if you dont like the changes then dont play it ... we arent dealing with a george W bush situation here where you're either with us or against us ...

guessing is a core part of this game ... like it or not its there ...

and this is what makes the game unique from every other fighter out there... where you cannot repeat the same gimmick or setup twice .. even as a high level player .. it keeps you constantly thinking of how to change it up .. how to confuse the opponent ... and how to put them in situations they are severely limited ... the fighting stays fresh ... and does NOT get repetitive as you may claim ...

you guys keep talking about holding out of stun is bad ... but you fail to realize that the TIMING by which you are allowed to hold is severely varried ... here are a few examples ...

you have a quick hold window from a regular stun ...
you have a longer one from a stun like hitomis (hence giving you the natural combo )
you have it even longer with a sitdown stun like hayate or on counter hit or after an initial stun ..

what many dont realize is that because these stuns have longer initial frames before allowing you to hold .. it is easier to read a hold done out of frustration and therefore it is alot easier to "high counter throw" them ...

then you have situations that you cannot hold at all !!
one being limbo stun .. (hayabusa has one and ayane has one )
the other being a turn around stun like hitomi's or the kick portion of

although you cannot hold in those states .. you can argue all the previous examples can be slow escaped ...

now heres something that alot of you might not even know ..
there are stuns that you CANNOT slow escape ...
hayates
or any of the following on counter hit or after an initial stun:
hayate's
hayabusa's
hitomi's

now even though you cannot slow escape these .. you can infact hold after ...
so again ... the complete opposite senario of the first list of stuns i mentioned ...

so again it is NOT that simple .. and you ARE at a disadvantage as a holder ...

the more note worthy things are that ..
holds have more recovery now .. meaning .. they are alot eaier to punish ..
but this also means that if you hold during stun you are significantly prolonging your stun window allowing for a worse stun follow up ...
the other thing is that stuns dont hurt as bad as they used to ... and thats a good step forward ...

another thing you may or may not have heard of (i personally found this out from master today) .. is that you CANNOT slow escape guard breaks ! .. that is a big deal .. because you're pretty much opened up for a followup .. again .. granted you can hold .. but again ... there are initial frames before you can .. making it easy to stuff that hold ...

holding mid stun can seem like its random .. or more of a gamble .. or even cheap for the person thats not used to the different types and doesnt apply these things to his game plan .. but that is NOT the case ..

and then theres the situations of more or less garanteed damage which I have covered before but I'll add a few things ...
- you have 2in1s (hitomi's or or )
- you have instant launchers not requiring stun ... many of which are high and others which are mid
(hayabusa's is high and hayates is mid .. just to name a few .. i listed alot more in a previous thread)
- you have the wall .. where now a wall slam garantees you free damage ...
- then you have damgerzones .. which can easily lead to garanteed 50% + life loss ... the reason for this is that unlike walls ... dangerzones get activated even after slamming the opponent into them from an air juggle ...
so picture this:
launcher (with or without primary stun) , air juggle, danger zone , garanteed followup after ... ALL UNHOLDABLE apart from the primary launch ... Im sorry but if a guy wants to hit me with an extended stun chain before launching me to that insane hell as well as well ...THEN I SURE AS HELL WANT TO BE ABLE TO HOLD HIM ! ..

theres alot more to holds during stun than what you guys say ... "if im attacking i should be rewarded ...etc" .. its just not that simple ...

you guys want a game that turns into nothing but muscle memory combos that get activated from a simple stupid stun ? you want to repeat your same max damage combo over and over and over and OVER again ? you want it repetitive and boring ? what you dont realize is that by doing that you automaticly raped the tier list as well .. because now .. the characters wouldnt be looked at in an all round sense but in .. who has the fastest good stun ? and who has the more stun options (high mid or low) .. automaticly you would butcher the game ...
looking at the 4 characters now .. with your logic .. ayane is automaticly shit tier .. because she has least stuns .. and her good ones are all mid... but the hold mid stun keeps everything at a balance which you are all overlooking....

what you guys want is not DOA ...

and i DO NOT UNDERSTAND .. how the hell having holds in stuns will automaticly dictate the tournament scene of this game ... and will dictate weather a 100 or 12 people show up .. who the hell knows the future here ? no1!!

look at kof13 .. arguably one of the best and deepest fighters currently out there ... does it have a tournament scene ? yes.. how good is it .. its a pitifully low turn up ... and soul calibur 5 which you guys seem to speak highly of is getting less and less people showing up every damn week!

what if you remove holds from stun and you still get your 10-12 player turn up ... then what ? whos fault is it ? did team ninja fuck up again? they did exactly what you wanted ? what then ?!

honestly id much rather have the game stay the way it is in the alpha demo with a few tweaks here and there .. like implementing the DOA stun/counter launch reward system. or for example removing "counter hold" and "high counter hold" during stun .... but removing holds from stun COMPLETELY? no thank you ... I want to play DEAD OR ALIVE .. not DEAD OR DEAD .. because thats what would happen if you get stunned pretty much with your logic...