ah yea yea, out of context yea. No the interaction was just what a fighting game was. I could’ve made it more clear. But in the way of guess breaking it just shows that there isn’t a need to counter the guess when it is only a guess an so long as you’re opening opponents repeatedly you’re fine.
I might’ve posted that while waiting for a match then came back and didn’t finish the thought properly sorry.
I understand what you’re getting at. Like others I see this is just part of fighting games. It’s one of the reasons we do two out of three instead of just saying “the better player should win each and every match.”
Having said that, I realize that perception does matter. So if lots of players are “seeing behind the curtain” for the first time about the randomness inherent in fighting games when they interact with KI’s breaker system they may well not like it, despite the reality that it’s not more or less random that lots of other parts of different fighting games.
Lots of elements go into people’s likes and dislikes and that’s all fine with me. It’s only when we start talking about what’s better or worse that I think we need to be reality based in our thinking. People criticize the breakers in KI but that’s a very central mechanic to the game. If you don’t like the idea of breakers then this just isn’t the game for you (you meaning everyone, not you personally). You can’t just say “this game is cool but they need to get rid of combo breakers.”
Agreed on that, Infinities in Marvel are not for me and it’s the main reason I hate Marvel vs Capcom games as a whole, it’s just not for me, lol. However other people like it and that’s fine. They don’t have to be thrown out.
I find the roster in Tekken to be pretty lack-luster ever since Tekken 3 ended and I never did like the way the camera’s worked in 3D fighting games since it’s hard to get your spacing at times when the camera angles change and you can be obscured.
Not that there’s anything wrong with 3D fighting game camera’s their simply not for me : p
I’m not sure if it’s a paradox so much as a calculated risk by each side. The thing that I tend to wonder about though is just how much a counter breaker is actually worth it.
On the plus side, it might make a YOLO breaker less likely to try and break, now that they know their opponent isn’t afraid to counter break. Emphasis on might.
It also provides a substantial lockout and if you have the KV, you can heavily punish the opponent.
On the minus side, if you whiff a counter breaker, two things happen: You drop your combo and the ability to cash it out. But you also leave yourself wide open to attack from the defender.
Personally, I think that right now, given what everyone knows about the payoffs versus the drawbacks, that not enough people utilizing counter breakers might be an indictment of the move itself, or rather the risk / reward trade off.
Now indictment might be a strong word. I still think it’s a good, worthwhile move to do, or at least attempt, if for no other reason than to send the message to your opponent that you’re not afraid to throw it out there, even if you don’t for the rest of the match.
But if a move is good, yet not enough people use it, the move doesn’t stop being good, but could it possibly be helped along by an adjustment to the risk / reward calculation?
I can’t recall who suggested it, and I know the idea has been largely frowned upon, but perhaps whiffing a counter breaker puts both players back to neutral the way a combo breaker does, so you sacrifice your combo and cash out damage, but the defender doesn’t actually get to turn the tide on you.
I tend to fall in to the belief structure that suggests everything we do in a fighting game is a guess, even if it’s an educated guess. I don’t think that having to guess isn’t inherently bad, but the problem for some people, I’d imagine, has always emanated from the idea that opening an opponent up doesn’t guarantee anything.
I think that tends to be at the heart of it. Street Fighter has so thoroughly instilled certain values or beliefs about what should happen in a fighting game as being inherently better or even "right’ that KI breaking the mold on guaranteed damage, of adding more risk and reward, more variables, etc to a scenario (ie doing damage) that doesn’t typically have it in fighting games, that some, especially some pros, are inherently repelled by the idea.
Rather than see all of this as a greater challenge or an increased opportunity to play mind games or condition your opponent, people get (IMO) lazy and just want their free damage with their stylish, max damage combo.
I don’t think KI ever overcomes that stigma. You either like the in-combo exchange and find it compelling or novel, or you just can’t accept square watermelons, even though they’re to store because watermelons aren’t supposed to look like that.
I tend to wonder if minimizing the punitive nature of a whiffed counter breaker might make these types of players more comfortable on offense, even if they drop a combo, to the point where they could play the game and learn to enjoy the strategic aspects of what happens after opening someone up.
I think that lower level players will be more inclined to guess no matter what. Sure, you can try and condition them with counter breakers and heavy ADs on lockouts, but a lot of players tend to be afraid to throw out counter breakers. As for heavy AD’s, outside of Wulf’s rabid heavies, I don’t even think many lower level players will comprehend the fact that their lockout is resulting in much higher damage than had they not attempted to break in the first place.
All it takes is one successful break when they’re in the corner and bleeding health to get them to collect themselves and stop the bleeding, so to them, that one successful break might very well nullify the lessons learned from previous lockouts or counter breakers the offender executed on them. I think in some player’s minds, it’s always worth it to at least TRY and not take more damage.
So how can KI adjust this paradigm without changing the core interaction of the combo system? Should the game provide a more overt disincentive to try and break, or should that fall on the opponent?
So why do so many people rail against this move? Is it nostalgia for a better time in season 2 where the game was simpler? Is it simple lack of knowledge on what flipout can and can’t do or what their options are?
Personally, I wonder if it’s not the sheer panic of seeing your character unexpected placed in situation where they’re floating to the ground while their opponent knows what they want to do next, but you’re suddenly thrust in to decision making mode when you didn’t expect to be.
I don’t believe that’s entirely different from a hard knockdown scenario in some cases. Sure, when the HKD comes from a combo ender, you’re much more likely to see it coming, especially if it’s a level 4 and there are more animations involved.
But it’s entirely possible that because flipout is so new, because flipout isn’t something every game commonly has (like HKD), and because it tends to be much more unexpected whenever it’s thrown out there, I think some people just hate seeing something they’re not used to, which kinda sucks.
I’d rather see a developer put new or less utilized / conventional ideas out there than be forced to adhere to specific aspects of the same formulas set up 25+ years ago just because that’s what genre fans are used to and expect.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish here beyond throwing your opinion out there that you don’t like season 3. That’s how you feel and you’re more than entitled to it, but the purpose of this thread is to discuss how people would like to see the gameplay improved in any way, big or small.
Now, you mentioned Maya’s dagger assault, but that was about the only substantive contribution beyond an exceedingly general “make it like season 2 again.” Perhaps some more details on what you’d like changed and why? Maybe some solutions to problems that you have?
I’m not sure why big characters bother you so much. Pretty much every fighting game has them. Or Raam’s instinct for that matter. I mean, forget making things harder to see, Aganos can change the size to the level, which I think is far more inconvenient, and he was as season 2 addition, but whatever. I mean there’s what, five big characters now? Why is that a big deal?
Either way, your opinion on the quality of the season or the job the developers have done or what your friends think of the game aren’t germane to the topic. I’d have to think that you’d have several opinions on how the gameplay can be improved given where we’re at post season 3, so how about you give us more specifics about that? Drilling down to specifics, whether it’s your character, or stuff other characters have that you don’t like, or mechanical issues… If you’re not happy, maybe give some constructive feedback on what would make you happier.
Of course, I doubt anything will come of it, as we’re just talking here, but I think it’s been a pretty good conversation so far, and I’d have to think it’s more useful, if only for the purposes of this conversation, to provide ideas and solutions, rather than insights like who thinks the game is a joke, right?
I also think about the outside perspective. As a viewer who doesn’t know, and from hearing players ask about the game they see the breaker system and find it strange that what they’re used to knowing from other fighters doesn’t necessarily apply here when it comes to offense. An I may be repeating this point, but those that don’t know how the system works feel that the offense is too random because of the breaker system, and that they feel robbed for making a correct read on a punish. They say this too regardless if i tell them of the counter breaker. But what they’re used to is a game more conventional for lack of a better term. So the system is apart of the game and yes if you don’t like it then it isn’t the game for you, like how I can’t wrap my head around NRS games having a block button.
In reality if a player with strong core fundamentals came to KI they’d do great (Chris G was a great example), it almost seems a great majority of players don’t have this and would get beat out by fundamentals alone. Which comes back to my point of KI being like a crutch for newer players to the genre.
These observations that I make are simply that. They’re my feedback on the game and as to why other fighting game players don’t stick with the game when they try it. Looks fun and they made the game slightly easier to observe. But despite how simple the game is to play there is A LOT going on. An when I hear complaints its things that aren’t conventional to other fighters. KI does a lot of unique things an its intimidating to many players, I’ve had a marvel player at my local RAVE about this game an want to play it, we keep telling him he’d do great but he feels the game is too much for him to handle, A MARVEL PLAYER. Someone had a not as nice conversation about it stating that any game that covers the players vision which is important in a fighting game is bad. But he probably hasn’t played MK, and SFV is ridiculously simplified an I think he needs a lot of hand holding anyways so whatever, I digress.
This game is simple, but not simple enough to follow for people to understand from an outside perspective.
This right here is important, an something I’m trying to remind myself very recently as I feel like I’ve strayed away from what brought me to this game in the first place. I’ve noticed that I more so try to compare this game to other games and I want to NOT do that because this game is NOT any other game. I was brought to this game because of it’s mechanics, the high speed, the mind games, and how unique it was. An I think that as time went on that perspective went away.
But now the conversation needs to be about THIS game, and there are complaints to the state of the current game. I think a lot of the complaints are varied depending upon how the changes effected you. An I think that players that lost tools have the most complaints and we have to keep in mind there is a “grand scheme” of things when it comes to this game. The most notable “grand scheme” change was to Kan-ra, where he got nerfed A LOT where me personally I didn’t think was too warranted, but would constantly hear from developers that there were things we hadn’t uncovered or seen that warranted the changes. Also keeping in mind future characters, changes happen in preparation for old MUs and also new. An I appreciate this because we haven’t had an issue like MKX where a new character launched an they were sometimes the most powerful in the game. I think it’s hard for many to have a conversation about balance without trying to bring the conversation of making THIS game like another game.
This is a given, and isn’t a problem. But guess breaking for whatever reason get’s people upset because of the non-guaranteed punishes it seems. I don’t think the reward/consequences for breaking needs to change too much, I’ve always brought up the idea of a pause before either player can take an action after a break should occur to help with the return to neutral. Almost like teching a throw, because some characters have advantages after a break, and weird occurrences happen in some break situations. I think the reward/consequences for countering might be a good idea the more I think on it. IF it were a return to neutral perhaps and PD remained but went down to half as though the combo were broken I think that might be interesting. I don’t think you should get damage for making the wrong read, but also I’d be hard pressed to change how it is now. But with counter breaking it keeps the game active on both sides at all times and that is something I like about the game, the risk for breaking seems smaller but given a situation missing a break can be fatal (Tusk, RAAM).
I don’t think KI will ever overcome it’s stigma but it’s a core mechanic of KI and if you don’t like it you don’t like it. KoF is looked at as a REALLY difficult fighting game and it’s a stigma that has followed it for years. An popularity is generally based on accessibility, and whats the MOST accessible fighting game out there right now? I’d say KI and GGXrd are tied for third on that spectrum an perhaps MKX at 2nd. But accessibility makes a game popular more often than not, an while we’re free an easy to learn at a base level (much like league of legends) its the meta that I think scares people away.
Sorry to jump in, but I think that’s kinda what the game is in general. If you’re used to combo strings like what SF tends to offer or even Marvel, where super moves do 23 hits of damage, but you’re not really doing anything to make that happen beyond initiating that one move, I’d have to think that some would look at what you have to do in KI, seeing combo breakers, counter breakers, flipouts, staggers, recaptures, shadow moves, shadow counters, lockouts of differing colors and combos that can easily run up in to 30’s for some characters and see something that looks like it’s too much to handle.
Not to mention he fact that there are tons of characters with no real overlap, each of which has their own unique combo trait and again, as you mention above, this idea that opening a character up doesn’t guarantee you anything; that there’s still a back and forth mind game to be played where you, the attacker, can end up not only losing your combo, but even having the tables turned on you if you to counter break.
For a brand new character, I’m sure it’s a lot to take in if you’re looking at it from an outside perspective. Thing is, we were all on the outside at some point. I remember watching DH streams before the game came out, wondering just how difficult it’d be to pull off some of what they were doing with Glacius or Thunder or Orchid or whomever. The game looked a tad intimidating, and that’s from someone that loved the old KI games and was incredibly hyped for this game to come out back in 2013.
So I guess the question becomes… Are there any ways to reduce this perception and is it worth reducing at this point? I still think that making counter breakers less punitive and making it a weapon that players are more willing to throw out there, regardless of whether they’re already right or correct or whatever as is, would go a long way in at least making the combo system more worthwhile for the offensive player.
I mean, I know that it’s worthwhile for the game itself, but to make a player, especially an outsider, want to play the game and engage in its central mechanic without coming away feeling cheated somehow because they can’t interact with a fighting game the way they’ve always been used to interacting with it (ie I open you up, I get my damage, no questions asked).
Making counter breaker misses less punitive doesn’t go all the way to that point, sure, but if they reduce risk on something that’s already a powerful deterrent, maybe that makes them engage with the combo system mind game that much more and actually appreciate it, as opposed to feeling short changed for not getting something automatically.
Personally, the breaker system is part of what drew me in. The idea that you’re much less of a passive observer when playing the game. That you actually have a role to play while you’re being combo’d; I always thought that was a novel approach. I go back and play other fighters now and I almost wonder why they don’t have some sort of mechanic that allows you to take some control over what’s happening, but I guess that’s just me. 
Yeah, I’ve honestly had that issue in reverse, which I never thought possible. I used to appreciate each game for it’s own unique mechanics, and I still do in many regards, but I’ve found the combo system and the two way interaction (along with the general speed of this game) to be so compelling that I go back and play something like MKX and it just feels wonky and off lol.
You couldn’t change the current game/meta at this point. Three years in the making this game is beyond changing around any core mechanics. I say that now and flipouts and staggers didn’t come until season 3.
Any changes you make to core mechanics would be saved for the next installment (Not a season 4 which i really don’t think is ideal right now). This current game/engine should work itself out over this current year to perfection. Once that is done then start thinking about a sequel with the changes that you might of missed.
At this point it’s like Marvel/Skullgirls in which the games have been out so long that the meta is pretty well said and done. So a new player trying to join marvel right now, while not impossible, is definitely a daunting task in a way. For KI I think the fundamentals alone will go very far as again majority of players don’t have them in KI and remain to play “KI footsies”, but when it comes to the grander scheme of the meta I don’t see that as a reasonable ask, not impossible though.
The breaker system is one of the major elements that defines KI to begin with. And the fact that it’s so different from other fighting games can I will agree that may turn people off. The thing is though without the breaker system, KI wouldn’t have too much going for it aside from it’s diverse roster.
I would have to agree with this opinion, I think that for some people it’s a since of control and entitlement, or it could be they just want things to be easy, on the other hand there’s those who simply wanr straight forwardness. In KI you have to develop the ability of mentally wear your opponent down people would rather do a simple opener and do alot of damage, though if it weren’t for combo breakers that crazy and insane damage wouldn’t be a thing in KI. hell if it weren’t for them, the gameplay wouldn’t be as crazy or fun that likely would of attracted those people to begin with.
Now I wanna talk further about the idea of making counter breakers “more rewarding” I think fi everyone is willing to sacrifice big damage and increase the amount of KV meter you get doing combos (which in turn will make them alot shorter) I think that’s a good way to balance it out, or decrease the lockout by 0.5-1 seconds. The less risky the less rewarding it is.
I think most people who are not familar to KI likely don’t know the kind of tools and all the stuff you can do with your combos. Counter breakers are powerful tools, but alternatively, players can use a plethora of autos, manuals and linkers all with three different strengths and you can mix them pretty much anyway you want. So that’s another defense you can use to stop people who try to just throw out guess breaking. If people want counter breakers to be more powerful I think to make up for that the way people do combos may also be effected to keep things in balance.
I think most other games at least good fighting games that balance out combos if they give you full control, you can only do short combos and and less damage unless you have some meter or some junk.
But like every other fighting game, if people do not practice how to use these tools or have the mental game that comes with it, well…it’s their loss. Everyone who wants to be good at something don’t get good by not practice. KI just makes you work a little harder to get your good damage.
See, I love that idea there for whiffed counter breakers. Both characters return to neutral and PD goes down to half. As the offensive player, you’re punished by losing some of the damage you did plus the ability to cash out your combo. You’re also losing any theoretical post-combo advantage, like a foregone HKD ender, wall splat ender or launcher ender, etc. To me, that’s punitive enough without having to take it all the way in the other direction and open you up for damage from the person you were just attacking.
The defender didn’t necessarily make the right read on your counter break (though I suppose it’s theoretically possible, especially at high level play), all they did was not combo break, which could be completely independent of what you’re doing and not part of some strategy, so it almost seems as though the defender gets rewarded without really deserving it in many situations. That seems a tad lopsided and if nothing else, for the attacker, that might make the risk / reward of a counter breaker not all that worth it.
Now, some say it’s on the players to utilize the counter breakers. It’s not the game’s fault. To an extent, I’d agree with that statement, but it doesn’t change the reality of what tends to happen more often then not. A mechanic can be perfect, but if it’s still not being all that well utilized three seasons in, can’t something be done to help it along without throwing the game in to chaos?
The reward is great, but if the risk is great, people might not use the mechanic enough and if they don’t use it enough, some people will just guess break to their heart’s content because they don’t see getting locked out as anything worse than what would’ve happened had they not attempted to break at all.
Now, that’s not actually true, as an opponent using only heavies on a locked out opponent certainly hurts them more than if they have to mix in weaker manuals or lights or mediums, but clearly that difference isn’t enough to deter many defenders, so why not give the offense, the side that made the right read and opened the opponent to begin with, a little more incentive to throw out a mechanic to really put the pressure on the defender to think before they break?
Maybe this even helps teach people to learn when to break a bit more and to take a more judicious approach and play the game of trying to outthink your opponent, rather than just mindlessly mashing break? Probably not, but it couldn’t hurt.
Yes, in the current system, the opponent can and should condition the opponent with heavy ADs on lockouts and counter breakers to prevent YOLO breaking attempts, but the point is that the counter breaker, the offensive trump card, as it were, isn’t being utilized more often then not.
Maybe reducing the punitive nature of counter breakers helps those that expect full, unmitigated damage to at least try and learn the breaker meta and actually see how great the pleasure can be from landing a counter breaker and walloping their opponent with free damage (like they’re used to) even more than they otherwise would have in a typical combo? Who knows.
If they decided to do one final rebalance, either prior to a 4th season or just to put a bow on the game, I’d think that whiffed counter breakers causing a return to neutral with halved PD is a much more tame adjustment than adding a mechanic like flipout or stagger, but that’s just me.
I would assume something will likely come of it to balance it out, but if anything this is the closest thing we’d have to a solution without having to kill KI’s gameply by removing breakers.
I think this balances it out in an intrresitng way: here’s the current system:
COUNTER BREAKERS:
Curent:
Risk: you get comboed because you drop your combo
Reward: You get 3 seconds of free HEAVY, MEATY, DAMAGE!
Suggested:
Risk: You drop your combo and don’t get to finish.
Reward: both players are set to neutral.
Personally I don’t feel it’s that rewarding to have to open my opponent up again but it really just sets both players back on equal footing.
I agree that it could be any of those things. I also think that fighting games have been conditioning genre fans for 25+ years that when you open someone up, you’ve earned the right to do your combo and this game more or less throws that idea out.
It’s convention. It’s straight forward, so anything that comes along and says “hey, you can still break that combo, you have a second chance” doesn’t just defy that convention, but it seems almost more convoluted because it’s different. Add on all the stuff the offensive player can do to make it more difficult to combo break and it starts to sound strange and foreign compared to what’s familiar, when the reality is that it’s an incredibly simple and intuitive system, it’s just different.
I think lessoning the lockout by a half a second or a full second is a good way to balance out a whiff returning both characters to neutral. That makes sense to me.
I think that players learn that these exist pretty quickly when playing the game. Sure, they learn how to mix things in over time and how to read their opponent and bait them in to a lockout and using manuals etc. But I feel like being able to counter break someone’s combo breaker, at least as a tactic, is a pretty basic, day 1 kind of thing that you learn. Thing is, I still don’t think it’s used nearly as much as it should be. I don’t think the mechanic itself is bad by any stretch. On the contrary, I think it’s a great mechanic, I just think that the risk / reward, as it stands, might drive more people away from using it as a real, viable, strategic counter measure to combo breaking.
I mean, in an average match, how many times would you say you see a combo breaker either land or fail versus the number of counter breakers that land or fail? Maybe I’m wrong, but to me, it seems like there are FAR more combo breakers attempted.
Now, of course, as the only means of ending the damage, combo breakers are more likely to be attempted, while a player doesn’t HAVE to attempt to a counter breaker. They just have to keep attacking.
But I’d submit that if the ratio’s that far off, and I tend to think that it might be (but again, I could be wrong), then maybe the counter breaker needs to be less risky? I’m not saying it should be more rewarding, but I think that it wouldn’t be the worst thing if they tried to at least toy with the idea of making it something that players want to use more.
That’s just it though, saying it’s on the players for not utilizing the counter breaker doesn’t change the fact that they’re not using it enough. I don’t really think that practice will make them use it any more either. Now that may not be what you’re referring to here, but either way, I don’t think it’s a matter of “do we blame the game or do we blame the player?” I don’t think it matters when the result is what it is regardless.
I’m kind of confused by the suggested reward. So let’s say I’m doing a combo on you and you go to combo break, but I counter break, you’re saying that I’d still drop the combo and we’d be reset to neutral? Just trying to clarify.
Here’s what I’d propose.
Curent:
Risk: dropped combo, foregone post combo advantage / follow up, open yourself up to getting combo’d
Reward: You get 4 seconds of free HEAVY, MEATY, DAMAGE!
Suggested:
Risk: dropped combo, foregone post combo advantage / follow up, lose 50% of white damage.
Reward: You get 3 seconds of free HEAVY, MEATY, DAMAGE!
Does this favor the offense more? I think so. But I think that’s probably how it should be if you’re the one that made the right read and opened your opponent up. I think the worst that should happen is that you lose your combo, some damage from it and the follow up opportunities. I think that’s enough punishment for a bad read on a counter breaker.
I think it might go a little too far in the opposite direction to essentially reward someone for being a passive observer of the combo, even if that passive observation is a strategy because you think they’re going to try and counter break. Personally, I think the chances of someone assuming you’ll try and counter break aren’t super high in the game as it currently stands.
Ah sorry, I don’t mean to hijack the thread and turn it in to a referendum on counter breakers as they currently stand, as it’s a discussion that’s been had before. I enjoy talking with you guys about this and appreciate your well-informed opinions none the less.
That’s not to say that I don’t want to talk about it anymore, as I do. Just that if anyone has any other suggestions for how they might improve the gameplay, I’d be curious to also hear those thoughts as well. I think that this has been a good conversation so far.
that’s not the reward for the proposed change. The reward is the same as what the current.
The reward here is apart of the risk.
So it should read
Risk: You drop your combo and don’t get to finish resulting in a neutral reset.
Reward: you get 3 seconds of free heavy meaty damage.[quote=“Iago407, post:211, topic:20230”]
Maybe reducing the punitive nature of counter breakers helps those that expect full, unmitigated damage to at least try and learn the breaker meta and actually see how great the pleasure can be from landing a counter breaker and walloping their opponent with free damage (like they’re used to) even more than they otherwise would have in a typical combo? Who knows.
[/quote]
I think that maybe if missed counters did in fact just act like a break situation (50% of pd gone on missed counter, and return to neutral) would be good for the defender that is patient. You should reward that defender for holding out, so perhaps give them the advantage but enough time for offender to place a defense. So say the offender after a failed counter is at -1 or something, a state in which they can’t say, “well i countered I missed so ill dp to stop defender’s next move” but that it is no longer their turn and give the defender that was patient a 50/50 scenario. The defender can mount an offense to turn the tide, or they can back off to reduce their PD.
I wish I had a lot more to add to the idea, but I really think that this is perfect. I’d be just fine with an ever so slight advantage going to the defender for holding out, where they can decide to follow up quickly or back off to recover white damage so long as the offensive player can try and either react quickly to an anticipated move by the defender or back off themselves… In all honesty, that could be a thinking game in and of itself, where a the defender waits it out, and instead of punishing the offensive player, waits even longer for them to open themselves up by whiffing a DP after the whiffed counter breaker (for example). I also love the parity with an actual combo breaker it’d create, even if it’s still slightly different.
To me, that mind game plus the overall risk / reward adjustment to counter breaker sounds a lot more fun in a variety of ways than what we currently have with counter breakers, where enough people see them as too risky to even attempt a lot of the time.
Great idea!
@Iago407 thanks for clearing that up, I must of gotten it mixedup my apologies, I mean to say that the reward you get for a successful counter breaker is the damage, risk is droped combo,so yeah that’s what I meant to say.
Also don’t fret, since we’re talking about the imprvoing the game the page we’re on is simply about one of those mechanics.
No problem man! Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.
Because they get hit by it, therefore it’s bad.
I would say there is nostalgia for S2’s “simplicity” but not because the game itself was more simple than S3 (really, the games are of similar complexity, except S3 has more characters), it’s just that the playerbase as a whole was worse during S2, since the game was younger, so they got away with being less good and still winning.
Flipout actually is in most 2D fighters; KI not having an air reset tool made it an exception rather than the norm. This is especially true of modern SF titles (both SF4 and SF5, but especially SF5, heavily use flipout for their mixups). Anti-air jab → dash into cross-up mixup in SF5 is a flipout. SF5 Ibuki hit confirming target combo into kunai into V-trigger, letting the bomb pop you up, jumping and doing air target combo, then landing with a super ambiguous 5-way mixup (which stuns you and then kills you) is a flipout, except you get only one opportunity to guess before you die.
The reality is people don’t like getting hit by something. They’ll complain about whatever that is. S3 has the most complaints because the player base is getting better, since the game has been out longer, so they are hitting more people. Therefore, they’ll point to a new S3 mechanic as the problem. That’s… really the full story.
Not that you can read other people’s minds, but do you think there’s some hesitance with some people on flipout because in KI it’s a mere button press as opposed to the more complex sounding strings that you’re describing in SF4 and SFV? Maybe people don’t look at those as flipouts the way they look at flipouts in KI?
I can see that easily being the case, which is kinda funny considering how many people were tearing their hair out during season 2 when recapture was first introduced, you know, in the good old days when men were men and flipouts didn’t exist.
I have to admit that for someone with middling skills at best, it can be rather difficult for me to discern what’s a legitimate gripe and what’s a gripe clouded by nostalgia. I mean, people were complaining about the bugs in season one nonstop, the jail system was screwed up, yet once season 2 came along, every character was too complicated, bring back the good old days when DH was running the show, etc. Now we’re getting the same thing in season 3.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not making a horribly original or unique observation here, I’m aware of that. But I see flipout as a sort of fun way to surprise the opponent and keep the pressure on. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if there were a season 4, that people would have no problem with flipout at that point because they’d be complaining about whatever gets introduced for the new season.
“Man, remember the good old days of season 3 when everyone loved flipout and stagger?” -Some guy two years from now.
I honestly think that some of the fgc pros just want the game to be broken. The way I see it, the game seems fine.
Iago407 and @Infilament you guys both raise some interesting points here. I think it’s kinda silly though now that I think about it, if this is a sign that the player base is bigger do we consider this a good thing? or a bad thing? or is this just a result that comes with it.
Actually I remember people complaining about S2 up the wazoo but I mostly just remember things like Fulgore Nerfs, people complaining about Maya, People complaining about Omen and how he looks, people complaining about Cinder, Wulf changes, Sadira changes, etc, etc. Lol
But on the good side and this by far overrides the negative demanor of the community back then: S2 was when all three of my mains were reunited so yeah.
But S3 introduced a lot of stuff I personally thought was interesting and exciting all at once.