DOA5 E3 Build: The Good, Bad and Ugly

[AKNova7]

Countering in general I have no major problem with outside of a few characters still getting too much damage from it (Bayman, Hayabusa), and once again the active windows just being too large in general.

They are massive windows compared to how counters work in any other 3d fighter.

Someone reported they have about 12 active frames now, I know they used to have a ton more. Yes, Bayman and Hayabusa still do deal too much damage. I agree. But, if Bayman can be designed so defense is his best offense, then, it might be alright. Hayabusa got his nerfed again, but there's no way Izuna is going to do no damage. It's more favorable to nerf his offense to accomodate for Izuna. And no, I don't play Hayabusa, but I don't know how you could make a combo hold do that small of damage.

 

[d3v]

Fighting games in general did more damage back then, yes, I know that. Once upon a time, even SoulCalibur was a 7 or so hits without even comboing to kill game. However, just because there's less throw damage doesn't make it scrubby, it's just catered to be fun as well. Certain people these days don't want extremely powerful strategies to be abused, that's all. Moves that are that powerful I'd imagine certainly would create quite a spread of a tier list, I'd imagine, when high level players got to them. (Pardon me, I'm not completely sure on that, but only because I've played fighting games since about 2002, so I slightly missed the golden age. Though I went back and played some older games to, "educate myself.")

These "certain people" are what we would traditionally call "scrubs."

...the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” This “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub.

As for a spread of a tier list, what people (especially 3D players) have to realize that the number of viable characters is second to the quality of the matchups between those characters. This is why we have games like Super Turbo, a classic despite having some lopsided matchups - the matchups and character archetypes in themselves were considered interesting, developing a sort of meta-balance. The same can be said of MvC2, while only 16 of the 56 characters were considered to be tournament staples and that top 16 having a god tier of 4, the matchups between those characters were considered to be more interesting and those characters having more depth than the rest (or, in the 4 gods case, most other FG characters from that time).

 

[Rikuto]

Someone reported they have about 12 active frames now, I know they used to have a ton more. Yes, Bayman and Hayabusa still do deal too much damage. I agree. But, if Bayman can be designed so defense is his best offense, then, it might be alright. Hayabusa got his nerfed again, but there's no way Izuna is going to do no damage. It's more favorable to nerf his offense to accomodate for Izuna. And no, I don't play Hayabusa, but I don't know how you could make a combo hold do that small of damage.

Well for one thing, it's an unbreakable combo hold. With really stupid easy execution. That's one way to justify it.

The other is, how hard is it to honestly scout for a high jab and counter it? They are not exactly uncommon. and why should you get 12X the amount of damage the jab would have done?

 

[d3v]

Every option becomes equally mediocre, and you therefore don't put any thought into your action. Shit becomes random. I recommend studying up on "game theory" for a better understanding of why this is important.

If every option becomes mediocre, then the game runs the risk of getting rejected by the competitive community, no matter how balanced it turns out to be. This links into my earlier post on "interesting matchups" in that it's these powerful options that usually leads to these interesting matchups.

 

[Rikuto]

Right. What's a more interesting fight to watch? Solid Snake with a pistol griefing some soldiers, or badass cyborg ninja vs metal gear rex?

OP vs OP is always more hype from a spectator standpoint.

OP vs UP is only entertaining in the right hands.

UP vs UP is boring as hell. Nothing is dangerous, nothing gets your adrenaline going.

 

[AKNova7]

So I should only choose rock because I think my opponent will pick scissors based on absolutely no logical decision making?

How would I arrive at that decision, since his options will all be chosen at random? High level play with equal options results in forcibly random play, remember. We've seen and experienced this already.

Furthermore, if rushing my opponent through the stun threshold, and launching him, and putting him into an explosive wall for a re-launch, and juggling him after the re-launch... all results in only 1/3rd of a lifebar worth of damage....


Do you have any idea how long it would take to finish even a single round? And I have to win three of these things.

If the difference between a good juggle and a bad one was 1/3rd or 1/4th, I honestly would never fear any particular option or put any thought into my actions, because the game would pretty much just randomly select a winner. There would be nothing to fear and no thought process to force a decision on either my part or my opponents.

First off, I was referring to combos not including a wall. 50% wall damage isn't that big of a deal, that makes sense.

Second of all, that's the point of DOA. It's supposed to be you reading the strings of your opponent. By studying enough to know their options, and know a means to pro-actively defend all of them. For this reason, I think if anything needs to be reduced, it's string delay. That, or the properties that happen when you delay a string. You're not supposed to be able to predict what your opponent will do, you're supposed to be able to defend against what your opponent will do. Dealing with the string delay problem will help with that, if you feel that's the problem.

Right. What's a more interesting fight to watch? Solid Snake with a pistol griefing some soldiers, or badass cyborg ninja vs metal gear rex?

OP vs OP is always more hype from a spectator standpoint.

OP vs UP is only entertaining in the right hands.

UP vs UP is boring as hell. Nothing is dangerous, nothing gets your adrenaline going.

That's your reasoning? What about MP vs MP where both people are skilled? Why do I say MP? Because when EVERYONE is balanced, EVERYONE is mid-tier. If this isn't what you aspire, then you're doing it wrong. If a third of a life-bar not including walls is boring to you...then you're far too used to TOD's, and far too used to watching fighting games as well as playing them. If a good game doesn't make it to EVO, oh well. As long as it's a solid game that gets high scores, entertains fans, is fun to play, and has tons of competitive depth, it's fine. If people don't like balanced fighting games because they're too balanced, and that means it doesn't make it to EVO, then so be it. Why are we trying to be accepted by people that just want an unbalanced game to begin with?

It's not about the people who watch the game, it's about the people who play the game.

 

[Rikuto]

First off, I was referring to combos not including a wall. 50% wall damage isn't that big of a deal, that makes sense.

Second of all, that's the point of DOA. It's supposed to be you reading the strings of your opponent. By studying enough to know their options, and know a means to pro-actively defend all of them. For this reason, I think if anything needs to be reduced, it's string delay. That, or the properties that happen when you delay a string. You're not supposed to be able to predict what your opponent will do, you're supposed to be able to defend against what your opponent will do. Dealing with the string delay problem will help with that, if you feel that's the problem.

And there is nothing wrong with reading the strings as it is now with DOA 5 Bayman.

I hit you with a counter-hit 3p, and you know my preferred followup is 3k because it starts that long unholdable combo for around 50%. Knowing this, you have an educated idea of how to defend... If you think I'll use the mid kick you can either risk countering it, or you can take the kick and slowescape the followup stun so you block the CB in a safer manner.

Of course if I know that you prefer slow escaping, we enter the meta-game of trying to DDT you as you leave the sitdown stun instead of going for a CB.

If I don't use the 3k setup it means I have to go for a really short launch that gives me peanuts in comparison for damage, but its something... and it's a fair tradeoff because now you're only taking 1/4 instead of 1/2. There's... other options of course, but they aren't nearly as good and can all be reacted to more easily.

This is the kind of situation I don't mind in a fighting game. The options balance out, you are definitely paying for the fact that I stunned you initially and we both have control of how much we're willing to risk.

To make this better, yes... remove string delay, cut down the active window on holds a bit and create more situations like this for other characters. That would be perfect.

Can you quote where you saw 12 frame active windows?

 

[d3v]

You're not supposed to be able to predict what your opponent will do, you're supposed to be able to defend against what your opponent will do.

Do you even know how to play fighting games. Playing the genre at high levels is all about "yomi," that is the ability to "read the mind" of your opponent. Trying to design a game where you are allowed to react to everything your opponent does to mitigate it is fundamentally flawed from a competitive standpoint. That's like being allowed to move your King from A8 to C8 just because your opponent has a Queen at B6.

 

[Rikuto]

Do you even know how to play fighting games.

Let's be fair here... most prospective fighting game players don't. Can't hate on all of them for that, we just have to help them.

 

[d3v]

That's your reasoning? What about MP vs MP where both people are skilled? Why do I say MP? Because when EVERYONE is balanced, EVERYONE is mid-tier. If this isn't what you aspire, then you're doing it wrong. If a third of a life-bar not including walls is boring to you...then you're far too used to TOD's, and far too used to watching fighting games as well as playing them. If a good game doesn't make it to EVO, oh well. As long as it's a solid game that gets high scores, entertains fans, is fun to play, and has tons of competitive depth, it's fine. If people don't like balanced fighting games because they're too balanced, and that means it doesn't make it to EVO, then so be it. Why are we trying to be accepted by people that just want an unbalanced game to begin with?

It's not about the people who watch the game, it's about the people who play the game.

Because viability isn't always just about balance. It's more about how interesting in engaging the matchups are and how they force people to level and develop "technology." Look at MvC2, one of the most unbalanced games ever made. Yet, it's considered one of the most competitive games ever made simply due to the depth of options of the top tier. There is literally more depth and more to be discovered in the top tiers thanks to all their exploits compared to the bottom tiers. The 4 gods were basically a "best of" character archetypes and that led to some of the most intense and hype matches in fighting game history. The result was a decade long "arms race" of players constantly developing new technology to use and abuse. There were times when certain tech were thought to be dominant only for players from the opposite coast to show up and even better tech.

 

[Rikuto]

That's your reasoning? What about MP vs MP where both people are skilled? Why do I say MP? Because when EVERYONE is balanced, EVERYONE is mid-tier. If this isn't what you aspire, then you're doing it wrong. If a third of a life-bar not including walls is boring to you...then you're far too used to TOD's, and far too used to watching fighting games as well as playing them. If a good game doesn't make it to EVO, oh well. As long as it's a solid game that gets high scores, entertains fans, is fun to play, and has tons of competitive depth, it's fine. If people don't like balanced fighting games because they're too balanced, and that means it doesn't make it to EVO, then so be it. Why are we trying to be accepted by people that just want an unbalanced game to begin with?

It's not about the people who watch the game, it's about the people who play the game.

If all characters are balanced, there is no mid tier. There are no tiers at all, in fact, but that is never the case because nothing will ever be designed perfectly. VF is the closest.

So you have the next best thing... you give every single character their own overpowered attributes. By making everyone overpowered, you allow blatantly eccentric forms of play and create a system where the best way to balance the game is to unbalance it, and leave the manipulation of those overpowered options to the hands of the players. Before you credit that design as insane, recognize that many games have taken this approach, and they have done exceedingly well. Guilty Gear/Blazblue stand out the best in terms of fighting games for this... for strategy I would say Starcraft is the best example. League of Legends, whatever kind of game you would classify it as, also follows this balance philosophy.

It works wonders.... both as a competitor and a spectator. You always feel like you have a chance, because your tools are so god damn good regardless of who you choose. It just comes down to who can manipulate them better.

 

[AKNova7]

Can you quote where you saw 12 frame active windows?

Was for the Alpha build, not sure if they modified it in the E3 build to support the 4 point counter system. I'll look for it, if I can't find it, I'll tell you. It was probably in a video.

Do you even know how to play fighting games. Playing the genre at high levels is all about "yomi," that is the ability to "read the mind" of your opponent. Trying to design a game where you are allowed to react to everything your opponent does to mitigate it is fundamentally flawed from a competitive standpoint. That's like being allowed to move your King from A8 to C8 just because your opponent has a Queen at B6.

Sure, "Yomi", is the biggest part of fighting game, but very helpful also is being able to not only limit the actions of your opponent if the system allows it, and breaking mix-ups by theory, if the system allows it. Forcing your opponent to play in a place that's not comfortable for them. It's the other part of the fighting game you seem not to respect. It's called mindgames.

These "certain people" are what we would traditionally call "scrubs."

As for a spread of a tier list, what people (especially 3D players) have to realize that the number of viable characters is second to the quality of the matchups between those characters. This is why we have games like Super Turbo, a classic despite having some lopsided matchups - the matchups and character archetypes in themselves were considered interesting, developing a sort of meta-balance. The same can be said of MvC2, while only 16 of the 56 characters were considered to be tournament staples and that top 16 having a god tier of 4, the matchups between those characters were considered to be more interesting and those characters having more depth than the rest (or, in the 4 gods case, most other FG characters from that time).

I already understand how metagaming works, but I simply disagree with it. Meta-balancing is why the fighting game community is so small, and will never draw as many people as some other genres, as sad as it is. So, while the fighting game community might accept it, the game can't garner it's own community, and that's why it needs to depend on the fighting game community for people.

 

[Matt Ponton]

Nice discussion.

 

[Chris Harris]

Good read Dr.Dogg and like you I would like to see the delay toned far down on the strings. I highly doubt it will happen but a small downgrade on them would be well appreciated.

As it stands that is 90% of the game when you get to the close range fighting. Though it seems they killed a lot of the strings in general as far as what they give you.

Quick question though. . . .did any of you guys mess around with sidestepping in the middle of some strings or not enough time to play with that?

 

[StickyStaines]

I'd like to re-iterate and expand upon some of the ideas in the first post.

The first being that everything is unsafe.
So what is the 'punishable frame' in DoA? SF4 is -3, since you can be punished by the fastest jabs and SRK's, VF is 10 and 12 frames, with 10 being you get a guaranteed throw mixup and 12 being you get guaranteed jab punishment. Do we want to have more moves that fall between this number and 0? Do we want to push the punishable frame higher? Or make things relatively safer (such as pushback)?

Another thing, looking at frame data for DoA4, there doesn't seem to be much differentiation between a move being blocked or hit if it isn't critical. Even Kasumi's 3P is -5 on hit and -6 on block (if im reading this correctly), but even then it seems that most moves are critical anyway. Is this something that needs to be addressed?

 

[Matt Ponton]

Anything greater than 5 frames disadvantage is a guaranteed breakable throw. The next level of unbreakable throw is that of 8 frames disadvantage - for some characters. Then the slowest and most damaging throws are typically around 13 frames.

Most launching attacks are around 16-18 frames of animation, some are normal hit launchers but most aren't and require a critical state or put them in critical state.

Most jabs and pokes at the 10-13 frame range don't have natural combos or put the opponent at a serious punishable disadvantage.

With all of that said, you can see why throw punishment is the default staple because if you could punish with an attack, you can generally punish with the most, or one of the most, devastating throws.

 

[just_me]

Concerning Character safety: I think they should make throws a bit slower. E.g. the standard Throw has 8 frames startup(so i9), the other throws are i11,i12 and i13 respectivly and everything is one frame faster for Grapplers (now you need some smart Movelistdesign, so that Grapplers actually can punish a few Moves the others cannot)
That 's still to fast to react to the throws, but should make quite a few more moves safe and leaves the attacker at a disadvantage, where s|he actually has to block... as of now all truly safes moves leave the attacker at such a minimal disadvantage, a fast character with decent crushes can more or less stay on the offense...

Yeah... normal Hits sucks in DoA. I always think they do this to avoid any decent natural combos. This is another thing that should change.

A few delayable strings are nice, the amount of strings and possible delay in DoA is not (imho)
I even think that VF has a bit too much string delay, SC on the other hand too litte. So something in between would be nice. Currently most moves are only "safe", because it is impossible for your opponent to tell, if you continue your string or not, that's not that hot imo...

 

[D Glock]

I haven't been here for a day or two. Kudos on the write-up.

 

[Allan Paris]

as of now all truly safes moves leave the attacker at such a minimal disadvantage, a fast character with decent crushes can more or less stay on the offense...

Erroneous. None of the safe attacks on block leaves the attacker at a disadvantage. In DOA4 the advantage you did get was pointless. Still, no character is in a situation to be punished with anything after a safe attack. I know the other DOAs are the same, except the frame advantage is actually useful.

 

[just_me]

Erroneous. None of the safe attacks on block leaves the attacker at a disadvantage.

Huh? Hitomi's 3F+K in the Alpha Demo is -3 on Block. The opponent cannot punish yet the attacker is at a disadvantage...
Of course you cannot get punished after a safe attack, otherwise the attack would not be safe...
Attacks leaving the attacker at an advantage, if blocked, are also safe, but that's pretty obvious.
With "safe" is was speaking about the +0 to -5 range.