Oh, you’re looking at “fully invincible” reversals then. Makes sense.
Yet, somehow Glacius’ PP did count when it was strike and throw vulnerable, lol.
Those goalposts…
I’ll count a move that is fully invulnerable for 12 frames (but vulnerable for 2) as a “pretty good reversal” even if it’s not a perfectly true one. It works in pretty much every situation it “should”, except against players that have done science against it, and Hisako’s possession throw.
Just like I’ll count Cinder’s fireflash as a reversal even though it loses to meaty special moves due to the priority system.
I’ll take Glacius’s reversal off whatever invisible list I have in my head if you’d prefer.
1 Like
I realize that I’m being just slightly facetious, but the point is that you guys are as well. The popular train of thought seems to be that Glacius’ PP leading to a grounded combo is unreasonable, and by extension those of us inconvenienced by the change. However, I fail to see any valid explanation how Hisako’s counter is any more reasonable considering she can cancel into it, counter shadow counters, and instinct cancel into it all while not having to worry about low/high mixup. Requiring a little use of regenerating meter, hardly offsets the overall utility it has over PP to make it more reasonable by comparison. Nor does Dragon Counter considering it generates it’s own resource, a resource that affords it alternate mixups which allow it’s new ability to start grounded combos to be more potent, not to mention it sits inside a new move set that generates additional resources as well. Get a Kim Wu with multiple dragons and watch for the dash cancelling moves into mixups, reset, drop, dragon counter back into combo. Forget trying to spot one measly, largely stationary puddle punch.
I’m not as bent about it as Zcythe, but since I started the thread I feel like I need to support him on this. I think the statement that “a reversal shouldn’t take you into a combo,” is pretty pedantic. Especially since there are other characters who can do it, and KI is basically a collection of “dishonest,” dirty moves that defy the conventions of other games. Likewise “a zoner with an invincible reversal is super strong!” The implication is that the character is actually a zoner, and Glacius has always been a hybrid at best.
When I started the thread it was because I was puzzled about the problem we were trying to solve and I haven’t really seen anything other than “we wanted the character to conform more to archetype.” I don’t really see this especially after two major balance adjustments (for S2 and S3) and many minor adjustments in between. I also find it funny that people keep saying “this is minor and it will barely effect Glacius, but it was really needed.” Those things don’t go together.
I can’t think of another invincible reversal that starts a grounded combo 
But Glacius’s invincible reversal doesn’t start a combo. And never did.
I’m talking about pre-patch light and medium puddle punch here.
Hisako’s counter requires you to guess high/mid or low and is attached to a character with no projectiles.
They weren’t invincible pre-patch.
Again, this is only moving the goal posts. Her counter has much more versatility because she can cancel into it, she may need to make a choice of high or low, but she CAN counter into a combo from EITHER high or low, meaning from an aerial opponent as well. She may not have projectiles, but she has outstanding command grabs, one of which can lead to a combo while being fast enough to beat out a lot. She has good normals, a recapture, crazy counter hit potential, and is significantly more difficult to break, often leading to lockouts.
I seriously don’t get the mindset. Hisako is only an example, but there are certainly dirtier options available to much of the cast than Glacius getting a combo of puddle punch. Especially when you consider how easy his stuff is to avoid and break should you not avoid it.
Examining moves while considering all their properties is not moving goalposts.
It is if you don’t actually consider ALL the properties.
I can see what kind of conversation this is going to be so I guess I’ll just duck out now.
1 Like
They were invincible until right about when the move was going to land. you have to intentionally do meaty setups to stuff that, or commit to very active but usually unsafe moves.
That’s enough invincibility for it to be good.
Let’s not get too hung up on the definitions and details. I think the fighting game world is filled with inexact definitions and shorthand and people use the term differently. Reversal is better understood than “fundamentals” but it is still somewhat ambiguous.
I also think that when you start examining moves in the context of the whole game you can’t expect everyone to account for everything. Infil has a pretty hefty body of interventions in the forum that demonstrate that he isn’t prone to flights of whimsy, so even if I don’t agree about this particular change I think it’s safe to say he isn’t deliberately trying to change the terms of the discussion in a way that interferes with real debate.
Just because I’ve been thinking about my own logic and wh this change bothers me, I want to kind of reframe the discussion a bit. Glacius has always been strong, even if not top tier, because he is tricky and hits like a hammer. He has terrific strengths but crippling weakness - and his weakness is his lack of tools to deal with pressure. It seems to me that this berf makes his weakness even MORE of a weakness, rather than toning down his strength, which is more of what I would expect.
Now the counter to this is that his heavy PuddlePunch is now a better “get off me,” tool and that is legit. I, personally have never used it much because it wasn’t that great and it usually leads to bad things. But maybe now the risk reward is better and I should take another look (I’m still far from home so I haven’t had hands on with 3.4 yet). I still don’t agree that, in the context of KI and all of its characters, that that this change was needed based on some principle of normalcy involving zoners and reversals, but all of that is fine. I will take the advice I always give everyone else and just adapt and move on.
Sounds about right.
Apologies @BigBadAndy for further derailing the thread, but felt I should address this:
and this:
Off gate, I think you’re comparing apples to oranges. Hisako’s counters are not primarily a reversal tool (in fact, they’re actually kind of crappy at that), and her ability to cancel into is largely not relevant to the conversation that’s being had regarding puddle punch’s previous and current utilities. The purpose and use of counter is considerably different than the purpose/use for puddle punch.
In general, when a character is knocked down, your basic options are:
- Meaty high
- Meaty low
- Throw
- Bait throw (neutral jump)
- Do nothing
High counter outright loses to 4 of those options, as does low counter. It really isn’t a great option to have to defend yourself with - it’s primarily to stop obvious or reactable forms of pressure in neutral. You can be cheeky and say that the old PP lost to all these options except for “do nothing”, but to be honest I think that’s a bit disingenuous. Unless the meaty in question was possession or your opponent was a serious lab monster, a puddle punch could be expected to beat 3 of those options pretty reliably. That’s close enough to some of the other “real” reversals like Wulf’s shadow eclipse or Kan’s sandsplosion that it’s not reaching very far to call it another form of grounded DP.
And a lot of that utility is still there. For situations where the opponent will be unable to get a true meaty out (ie, after a blocked cold shoulder), light PP will largely retain a lot of its utility as a frame trap reversal into combo. On wakeup, the heavy puddle will be an unstoppable option that will now always beat numbers 1-3 on the list above, and will do a crapton of damage while doing so.
As I said above, I think there’s an argument to be made that this change is a strict nerf to Glacius. And while the stated reason for the change “makes sense”, no one above has claimed this was some obvious change that was essential to the health and quality of the game or anything - I think most of us were as surprised as you Glacius mains were. So I think there’s absolutely room to debate and argue about it. But I think that argument should be had in good faith, and that the strength and utility of the new moves be fairly evaluated relative to the old PP. Light puddle will absolutely still have its uses, and the heavy puddle will serve a real and viable purpose as a general “get off me” move.
2 Likes
I realize that you’re significantly more skilled than I am and a member of the golden boy popularity club around here so you couldn’t really give a damn about my feedback, but don’t talk to me about being disingenuous while being guilty of it yourself concerning your own character of choice’s move set.
I didn’t say you were being disingenuous…I said that to cheekily say that PP loses to basically everything an opponent can do on your wakeup would be disingenuous. I think you significantly underestimate the strength of Glacius’ toolkit in general, but that’s about as far as my opinion goes.
As to the rest of it, I think you have me mistaken. While I’m quick to correct misconceptions about the strength/utility of Hisako’s tools because I think it’s important to be precise when talking about character options, I’m pretty darn honest about her strength and fairness. I think she’s really, really strong, and I think the way I play her in particular is unabashedly cheap. I cover multiple reversal options with hard to block nonsense and then bury unreactable nonsense behind that, and I don’t think it’s “fair” at all. If you’re playing me, you’re guessing; more importantly, you’re guessing when and where I want you to. There’s nothing fair about it at all. Do I think Hisako is well balanced? Absolutely. Do I think she’s honest? Heck no - she’s got dirt to rival any KI character.
I don’t want to derail this thread any further, so I think I’ll check out now. It’s not my intention to talk down to anyone, so I’m sorry that’s how you feel about my input here. I still think there’s an interesting discussion to be had about the relative strength and options of both versions of Glacius’ PP, so hopefully that discussion can continue.
2 Likes