The lack-of-stagger-escape glitch poll

[NukNuks]

Everyone deserves to play the version TN promised.

Things change when the competitive people of the community are finding things that seem to make the game better as whole on a competitive] level. I say seem because I personally haven't been able to try it out for myself because I do not own a PS3. Damn shame that 360 users won't get the chance to try this out because putting out 6+ patches for the game (1.3 for ps3 & 360, 1.31 for ps3 & 360, and the final 1.32 for ps3 & 360) on both versions is not going to be cost efficient for TN.

Learn something dude. If this stagger escaping "glitch" ends up being a blessing for the competitive community and it ends up being taken away from us for good then isn't that taking 2 steps back instead of forward? Put in the time it takes to be that much better of a player by learning the skill for yourself. You'll even feel better once you learn it and incorporate it.

Again, I haven't got the chance to try this bad boy of a patch out for myself and I may end up hating it. But so far it sounds pretty legit.

 

[DR2K]

I'm saying the game with the glitch is what was promised.

 

[lopedo]

That's the thing though. It isn't another layer of depth to the mix up because it isn't a mix up. The CB is guaranteed. You're just opting for it over another guaranteed launch, only you're able to add a PB or tag PB for free.

So your problem with it then comes from the extra CB? I believe that if somebody managed to defend so poorly that they are in a sit down stun, they should take damage, not be able to button mash (slow escape) out of it.

EDIT: I wouldn't mind a system where a CB allows you to combo more, or better for even more damage, giving the CB a true point. Because the anti counter measure that it was described as is... trash. You can counter 30 times before ever being put into one.. but this is another topic for another thread.

 

[Matt Ponton]

So your problem with it then comes from the extra CB? I believe that if somebody managed to defend so poorly that they are in a sit down stun, they should take damage, not be able to button mash (slow escape) out of it.

EDIT: I wouldn't mind a system where a CB allows you to combo more, or better for even more damage, giving the CB a true point. Because the anti counter measure that it was described as is... trash. You can counter 30 times before ever being put into one.. but this is another topic for another thread.

But a launcher is already guaranteed and provides nearly as much damage that the CB shouldn't be required to be guaranteed also.

 

[lopedo]

But a launcher is already guaranteed and provides nearly as much damage that the CB shouldn't be required to be guaranteed also.

Sure, but that's the depth. You aren't going for a CB because you get way more damage. You are going for it because your logical next move would be a launcher, which they'd counter. So now, you can grab, CB or launch. While it seems like a guess, and pretty much is on a basic level, conditioning opponents in high level play to look out for certain things will lead to others instead of countering one move that for almost certain is coming, leaving you with but one option- to grab.

 

[d3v]

Sorry for going off topic, but Is Marvel even a good example? Marvel has always been designed to be that way, I'm sure TN's focus for DOA5 before it released was to have guaranteed setup's, but it didn't turn out that way (atleast not for the entire cast...). For a large portion of the cast it was still just a bunch of 50/50's. I'd consider marvel to be a challenging experience compared to DOA; technical execution (for some characters), plenty of depth within the game to be explored (and still being explored. Not saying DOA doesn't have any), much steeper learning curve that separates beginners or even intermediate from pros, and a well designed system.

My post was a direct response to the post above me. I just didn't quote them. So yes, in context, it's a good example. Just a response, after all.

In this case, Marvel 3 is a very good example since balancing the game pretty much revolved around making sure that almost everyone has access to near broken shizz that can be used in a match. By borrowing from the lessons of what the players made out of Marvel 2, the game has a greater spread of viable characters than 2 ever had, without turning the game into something as homogeneous and boring as Marvel vs Street Fighter.

 

[Matt Ponton]

Sure, but that's the depth. You aren't going for a CB because you get way more damage. You are going for it because your logical next move would be a launcher, which they'd counter. So now, you can grab, CB or launch. While it seems like a guess, and pretty much is on a basic level, conditioning opponents in high level play to look out for certain things will lead to others instead of countering one move that for almost certain is coming, leaving you with but one option- to grab.

But the launcher is just as guaranteed as the CB, so where's the "depth"?

 

[lopedo]

But the launcher is just as guaranteed as the CB, so where's the "depth"?

Ah I thought we were talking about overall. If we're talking about Bass and Bayman then you're right. In that situation, I believe all characters should have that, and before this, they didn't.


EDIT: Edited my post above to reflect this discussion and admit I'm incorrect in using Bass and Bayman as an example.

 

[Ghosty-J]

I'll just point out that the MvC series has always been insanely broken and UMvC3 is actually the most balanced of them...and they're all extremely popular. We could only hope to have that kind of following. You seem to allude to all that, but I'm a fan of being a bit more direct.

I just brought up their names because they made very good arguments I agree with why the glitch as is shouldn't be welcomed to the game. I didn't mean any offense, so I'll keep being more direct in mind next time DX

 

[WebHead]

hold on, is stagger escape slow escaping? that needs to be fixed times a million, why the hell wouldn't someone want that in?

 

[Matt Ponton]

hold on, is stagger escape slow escaping? that needs to be fixed times a million, why the hell wouldn't someone want that in?

Yes, officially the term is Stagger Escaping.

 

[lopedo]

hold on, is stagger escape slow escaping? that needs to be fixed times a million, why the hell wouldn't someone want that in?

Read the whole thread. You'll find the explanation of what exactly can't be escaped and why it's a good thing according to some people (myself included).

 

[CyberEvil]

I deleted a bunch of posts. You guys know why. Next time it'll be warnings. Don't troll, don't feed trolls, and don't post inflammatory messages. Carry on.

 

[MajesticBlue]

There was guaranteed damage in DoA4. Oh wait, no, there wasn't. This is not at comparable to DoA4. This is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of DoA4.

The issue isn't the guaranteed damage. The issue is if every option you have is too good or of equal value it makes the game random. Like when game theory was talked about before, If you don't know what their best option is how can you defend against it? I see it as Stun then guess for half a health bar. It would reward random play again since it wouldn't matter what you do you always have the chance of big damage. While that is better then having the defender have that option, it still is a guessing game.

 

[iHajinShinobi]

It's still a guess because the defender can still hold your option/setup (lesser times now than before). The hold still exist.

 

[DriftSlave]

If your going to deduce it to that level, fundamentally every fighting game has guessing but its not to the extreme as DOA's holds in stuns or just the stun game in general.

I had a discussion with someone before about this and they said that "Well Street Fighter 3rd Strike is Random!" Well that is true, you have to play a bit more random in that game because of Parry, that one mechanic changes the game so much forcing you not to be predictable because in doing so will get you opened up faster then whiffing a normal. However its not like DOA random as people are forced to play this way because of defensive holds.

To put it into the simplest terms, people want to punish people with attacks that wont get them held so they can do damage because in pretty much every other fighting game, once you land a hit...the rest is guaranteed(excluding execution errors, Burst, etc.). The concept is simple however people fight this logic by saying "Well thats not DOA".

 

[Matt Ponton]

People who bring up Game Theory always fail to remember that in Game Theory it is said and understood that a player playing options "at random" will always lose to a player playing options on "educated guessing" over time. That's why it's theory gentlemen (and ladies).

 

[DR2K]

The issue isn't the guaranteed damage. The issue is if every option you have is too good or of equal value it makes the game random. Like when game theory was talked about before, If you don't know what their best option is how can you defend against it? I see it as Stun then guess for half a health bar. It would reward random play again since it wouldn't matter what you do you always have the chance of big damage. While that is better then having the defender have that option, it still is a guessing game.

As the defender you made two errors and had two chances to escape, if we're using your half life random combo scenerio. In most other fighting games you generally get 1 chance, and you watch the pretty lifebar go boom.

 

[MajesticBlue]

As the defender you made two errors and had two chances to escape, if we're using your half life random combo scenerio. In most other fighting games you generally get 1 chance, and you watch the pretty lifebar go boom.

I don't play 2d fighters so I can't compare them. That one guess in the fighters I play is almost always a risky option. Most of the time risk vs reward makes sense and does not come from a safe delayable poke.The way I see it in this just going for a poke is one of the scariest and deadliest things you can do since you risk getting counter blown. Then when you throw in the delay system and just how doa works, one of you gets a stun and then it is on. While I would love to see more reward from the neutral game I don't think trying to get the first stun should be it.

Maybe I just like to argue at this point. I guess I just feel it messes up risk vs reward too much. It is too late to redo the whole game and balance it, so this might be our best bet. Doa 5 can be this way, and then maybe in Doa 6 they can change their approach to safe moves and normal hit launters and nautral combos.Ones that make sense based on the character and all the characters have strong and weak points. I don't want them to turn it into Tekken though so it might be kinda tough.(Nothing at all wrong with Tekken though.)

I think what Rikuto said about small stuns being shakable and sitdowns not is a pretty good compromise. If I read what he said right at least. Mr Wah is right about game theory being theory as well lol. I just find the situation would make it harder to make an educated guess. So the only way to fight theory is with more theory! I just hope I don't sound too ignorant hahahah. Plus arguing can be a good way to learn things and gain perspective.

 

[Prince Adon]

Actually I would say "no" to the glitch. I feel too much guaranteed damage can eff up the game. Especially with how doa is designed. If everyone can do brain dead sh** like Jann Lee pre patch that would be one boring game. TN did a good job without the glitch.