Ideas for less breakers

Game Suggestions & Feedback
41

But isn’t the forgoing of an advantage almost always a risk in and of itself? There’s no guarantee that you’ll be able to get in on your opponent again or get off a combo like the one that you’re currently doing at that moment. The penalty is that you essentially give your opponent back the damage that you could’ve taken from them. If you’re near the end of a match, that’s a very risky maneuver.

I’ll grant you it’s not the same kind of risk as whiffing a counter breaker currently, where you open yourself up to damage. But is giving your opponent more health really that much better than losing some of your own, especially when you can always combo break out of your mistake?

Currently, an opponent that’s taking damage in a combo has two options: Take the damage or combo break. If they combo break and fail, they get locked out, which means more damage, but if they successfully combo break, they’re no longer getting pummeled. Take more damage or take no damage is an easy choice, which is why we see a lot of breaking and guess breaking.

On the other side, if a counter break whiffs, not only do you end the combo, but you open yourself up to damage. You’re basically losing twice in that proposition (your forgone damage done plus your own safety), where an opponent who whiffs a combo breaker only loses once (more damage).

I get that when you successfully counter break, you’re rewarded with a nice long lockout and a resetting of your KV meter, but does that offset what you lose by whiffing a counter breaker attempt under the current system? That’s not rhetorical (none of this is), I’m curious what you think.

If some pro players are deciding that the counter breaker is too risky to actually use it, do you see a way to make it more enticing, or should IG even bother trying to make it more enticing? Is this, as has been said, merely a matter of SF and MK players needing to get used to a two way system where opening an opponent up doesn’t automatically guarantee you a “damage reward,” or is there a solution that might balance the risk/reward of the counter breaker a bit to the point where pros would use it, but the game’s two way mechanic wouldn’t suffer, thus making everyone happy?

Sorry, I know that’s a bit loaded. I’m just trying to think of something that wouldn’t harm the gameplay as it stands, but would also reduce risk a little on a mechanic that currently seems to have some heavy downsides, at least to the point where some players at high levels aren’t going near it, instead choosing to alter how they play and attempting to skirt the combo system entirely. This isn’t particularly a problem for me, as I don’t play at a high level, but could this be a problem for the tourney scene? By the way some are talking, it certainly seems to be.

42

The game doesn’t need to change for the pro players, they need to ADAPT TO THE GAME. I’m kind of getting tired of even discussing this, because there’s no good reason to decrease the risk other than that some tournament players don’t like it. I really don’t understand why you’re still prompting questions about the change, when you’ve already said you don’t want it to happen. Just because the “pros” choose not to use Counter Breakers doesn’t mean it’s the correct way to play, and a change should be made to accommodate that choice.

Again, failing a combo breaker and failing a counter breaker both result in you being punished by taking damage/more damage. Succeeding the counter breaker grants you more damage, forcing a failed combo breaker. This seems fair and balanced to me, as you’re taking a risk, whether you’re on the offensive or defensive end of the combo…

You don’t play this game the same as MK, SF, or any other fighter, and I don’t care how good someone is, if they don’t understand that and can’t adapt to the mechanics, they have no right to complain about it. I am mediocre at MK and suck at SF, but I’m not looking for those series to change things to be more like the fighter I DO play decently, KI.

Please understand I’m not meaning this to be aggressive or attacking you in any way, but I find the concept of changing this feature specifically because “the pros” don’t like it so incredibly entitled it’s unbelievable. I felt the same way about “quickscoping” in the COD series; originally a bug and not intended to be in the game, but because the “pro” players liked that unbalanced garbage bug it’s been maintained.

43

The risk for getting locked out and counter breaker whiffing needs to be similar. If you get locked out,the opponent can do a lot of damage. If you whiff a counter breaker,the opponent can start a combo. If you change it to where whiffing a counter breaker is safe,there edge is in the attacker and not the defender.

44

compared to their people who want a change s they can get a free beating n smeone this ne actally seems the lest harmful to KI’s core-mechanics. May also retain the game’s identity as well.

Or ya know: we can help these pro-players actually get more comfortable with using the counter-breakers.

So far I prefer your idea if such a thing has to be changed. on wiff you drop the combo and both you and your opponent are all set back to neutral. what you suggested is a billion times better than what anyone else on the side of less breakers has said.

1 Like
45

Yes, they could adapt to the game, or they could simply choose not to play it. I’m not saying that’s the worst thing in the world, but it’s not exactly a victory for the possible growth of the franchise either.

Now, I’m not a pro player and don’t really follow the tourney scene, so for me, that’s really no big loss, but the idea behind having a discussion here, for me at least, is to see if there’s a way to make everyone happy.

I get that you’re tired of having the discussion though. My initial reaction to the ideas being thrown out was a mixture of confusion and anger. Why would people want to tear out the very fabric of what makes this game unique? I’m right there with ya in that regard.

But while I don’t want to see combo breakers nerfed just so pro players can “earn the right” to do one way damage, I also think that it’s a conversation worth having if it can lead to something that’s good for all parties involved, which is why I was doing a little brainstorming.

I see what you’re saying by “damage for damage” here, but by that logic, a successful combo breaker ends a combo. Couldn’t an unsuccessful counter breaker accomplish the same thing? Combo ending for combo ending?

As far as punishment… I still see an attacker giving up the damage they’ve done as punishment for whiffing a counter breaker. You’re giving health back to the opponent. When you’re late in a match and you choose to counter break, you’re making the conscious, and perhaps dangerous decision to give up your advantage and the damage you’ve done for the possibility of doing more damage by anticipating your opponent’s combo break.

To me, that’s an even trade that’s smart enough to be a valid strategy with some inherent risks, but not so risky that pro players will outright ignore it and skirt the combo system entirely.

It’s a heck of a gambit if you’re an attacker, just as trying to combo break is a gambit. Do you keep taking damage, or do you try and break the combo while risking more damage? I think it’s a bit easier on the defensive side, so why not make the decision to counter break a little easier on the offensive side?

Yeah I don’t want KI to have to bend over backwards to suit a different type of player that’s used to having their fighting games their way. That’s not what I’m saying. But if people playing the game at a high level find counter breakers to be so risky that they’re not even using them, I still think it’s worth talking about IF it doesn’t result in people wanting to turn KI in to MK or SF. I definitely don’t want that.

No not at all, man! I don’t see what you’re saying as aggressive because I feel largely the same as you as far as keeping KI what it is and I don’t think you’re attacking me. We’re just having a conversation here. :smile:

It might sound like I’m playing devil’s advocate here, which might be a tad obnoxious, but I’m really not. Like I said, I was just throwing the idea out there to brainstorm and see what could be done to make both pro players happy and keep KI what it is currently, which is the game that I thoroughly enjoy. I have no problem with keeping the game as it is. None whatsoever. But I also want as many people to enjoy this game as possible, and if that can be accomplished better without current fans having to make any real sacrifices, then to me, it’s worth exploring to find out if that’s even possible.

46

I think it’s an interesting suggestion, and I’d disagree that it “breaks” KI’s 2-way interaction. It would certainly make counter breakers more used though, which to a certain extent is probably the real question. I think I’d fall more along the spectrum of keeping them high risk/high reward, but it’s certainly not the worst gameplay idea I’ve seen on these forums.

47

Thanks! Yeah, if I had my choice, I’d also prefer to leave it as is, as well.

Of course, if the counter breaker’s risk were to be reduced by returning both players to neutral on whiff, I’d think that the advantage of actually landing a counter breaker could be slightly nerfed to compensate on the other end. Maybe the lockout time is reduced slightly? Maybe the KV is only reset 80% and not 100% as it is now?

I know, I don’t even like typing that lol. Again, I personally have no problem with the system as it is. I just want to reiterate that one more time. If something like this would make higher level players use counter breakers more and feel like it was safer for them to engage in the two say combo system, then that’d be great.

I’d just rather do something that accomplished that through a means like this, as opposed to placing a greater emphasis on manuals or tightening combo breaker windows or creating a meter that you have to fill before you can use a breaker and a bunch of the other stuff that I’ve read on here that either blatantly skews the system in favor of hardcore / pro players or outright destroys the two way system that’s personally one of my favorite parts about playing the game.

I do get the criticism of this idea though. I disagree with some of it, but some of it could certainly be valid (to me) under the right circumstances. Who knows, maybe they put something like this in and people just mash both the combo breaker AND counter breaker buttons on both ends and the combo system actually takes a hit at high levels. Or maybe that meta game of “will they combo break now? / will they counter break now?” becomes much more intrinsic within the combo system itself and both sides become more cautious and learn to read their opponent’s more. Tough to say.

I’d think that there would be a lot of variables involved in making a change of this magnitude and it’s entirely possible that doing something like this could have a lot of intended and even unintended consequences. I’d be open to something like this, but I’m also more than happy to leave things as is, as I enjoy the current dynamic. Curious if anyone else has any ideas.

48

It’s a lot more disruptive to the game and community at large to change things like this when the much more logical solution is for the FEW who are otherwise against Counter Breakers to adapt their thinking.

I can’t wait for the reveal of S3 stuff to roll out so we can see less of this sort of pointless stuff. I have plenty of respect for the skill level someone has to have to be a KI tournament pro, but that doesn’t mean that their opinion should matter any more than the rest of the community. I guess let’s put it this way; if certain characters are almost never seen in tournaments but other people in the community enjoy playing them, does that mean that those characters should be removed, or given super buffs just so the pros will like them?

Here’s a personal example. I play Thunder, and I play him far more rushdown than I do as a grappler. Because that’s my tendency, should Thunder’s moveset be changed to suit me?

49

I still don’t see how dropping a combo (on purpose) is a bad thing. First of all, if it’s done on purpose, that means you’re probably prepared for whatever your opponent might do to begin with, which means you won’t be at a disadvantage. Furthermore, many players do this specifically because they believe that their opponent won’t react fast enough until it’s too late - then the player will perform a combo-reset a split second after dropping the previous combo. This is a risk, I admit - but in most cases, as I said you’re not going to do it unless you’re confident your opponent’s not going to react to it fast enough. So, basically, it’s a double-or-nothing trade. There’s a slim chance your opponent may block, sure, but that’s not a bad thing - you’re just not getting anymore advantage out of what you could’ve been doing instead. Conversely, if it works (and in my experience, it most often does), the KV meter resets and you get to extend your combo for even MORE damage.

A good example is when I use Aganos. Mid-combo, I can perform a heavy AD (after lock-out) into shadow payload assault - I can then chunk up, set up a wall, and then ruin or shadow ruin my opponent through the wall. Since I performed the shadow payload assault after a heavy AD, the opponent is still in hit-stun and will automatically take the damage, which usually hovers around 40-50%, depending on how long the initial combo was. However, if I take a risk and use any other AD, my opponent will have time to recover before I hit the ground with my shadow payload assault - thankfully, most players don’t see this opening and don’t block it. When this happens, I complete my initial combo of about 30% damage or so (on average) and then with highest combo level (which carries over from the previous combo), I can do the shadow payload assault into wall-crash with ruin for a further 30-40% damage. So, my choice is simple - guaranteed 40-50% damage or take a (minor) risk and get 60-70% damage instead. Worst case scenario? My opponent blocks, I still get the 30% damage from the initial combo and I’m still at advantage to chunk up or punish my opponent as the rocks come crumbling down from the shadow payload assault (since they’ll be forced to block it or perform a throw attempt - which I’ll be expecting).

50

I dunno, I think change, in and of itself, is somewhat of a constant when it comes to the seasonal format and I personally love that. Instead of getting SF4, SSF4, USF4 etc, we get changes to the same game to go along with new characters, backgrounds, etc. New UI, bug fixes, character alterations… They added the recapture mechanic prior to season 2 and I enjoy that. Would what I’m talking about be that much more drastic than recapturing?

I’m not saying that the happiness of a few pro players should outweigh what the rest of the fanbase prefers. I don’t believe that in the least. I also don’t think that pro players opinions are automatically more valid than average or even causal players.

Sure, some pros might have a greater grasp on the more technical aspects of a game, but that doesn’t mean they’re automatically right about everything pertaining to any and all aspects of the game, technical or not. I think that all levels of play have a great deal to offer in terms of feedback and overall value to a community. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think that.

If certain characters are almost never seen in tournaments, do I think that they should be removed? Of course not. But do I think it’s worth asking the question of “why don’t we see that character more?” and could that potentially involve changing them up a little? I don’t see why the conversation couldn’t be had, even if analysis simply reveals that there’s more untapped potential or a “wait and see” approach is the preferred route for the time being.

I mean, we know that characters are going to be changed at least a little bit. We know that something’s happening with Jago’s endokuken and Sabrewulf might be getting a new move. We also know that two characters are being reworked, whatever that means. I love it. I love that they’re not just handing us content and then retreating. They’re refining things, they’re trying to improve upon what’s already been done, they’re correcting mistakes, etc.

Again, I’m not saying the game should be changed just because a few pro players are voicing some displeasure. Honestly, during the months in between content, I tend to chalk some of this up to the drama that can be created by idle hands, idle minds, etc.

But if some people are voicing displeasure about the game, would you rather the fanbase as a whole ignore it completely or just brush it off as entitlement? I’d rather see a developer and a community that’s at least willing to talk about it, even if the solution they come to is leaving things as they are. Maybe there’s a compromise that can make everyone happy. Who knows, maybe the game can be made even better for all parties involved.

It’s a bad thing in this particular instance because 1. you’re giving up an advantage that you’ve already gained and 2. you’re giving them their health back (in what I’ve been talking about). You’re foregoing the damage that you’ve already done and resetting back to a neutral position. You’re not “purposely” doing this though. It’s the consequence of a failed counter breaker attempt.

It’s just switching the dynamic from counter breaker whiff = Damage to counter breaker whiff = opponent regains health lost from the combo. It makes counter breaking safe for the attacker while also providing a punishment for not succeeding. I guess I’m just trying to think of something that’s more indirect that way than both dropping the combo / chance to do more damage AND opening yourself up for one. To me, that’s being punished twice, where a combo breaker only punishes you once with more damage.

51

Believe me, I’m loving the fact that KI is getting continuous support from the devs, and that the game is adjusted here and there, it’s just that this particular “less breakers/fix Counter Breakers” thing doesn’t strike me as having much necessity behind it than whether or not the pros like it. Fixes like the S1->S2 manuals or addition of recaptures did change the game, but with specific reasons, particularly for balance purposes, but I see counter breakers used plenty in lower level play - the pros just don’t like them.

If there was a real balance-worthy reason to change them, I’d be more amenable to the discussion, but failing a Counter Break has to be just as risky as failing a Combo Breaker, and I feel the current system HAS that equal risk. You’ve mentioned giving the defender back health if you miss the Counter Breaker - but unless I’m mistaken, this isn’t instant, and has the same effect as if you stopped pressing buttons and let the combo drop or reset.

You keep saying you don’t want to see a change, but your posts seem to indicate you feel pretty strongly about the change you’re proposing. To be clear, it isn’t just your idea for a change which I dislike, I’ve disagreed with every change to breakers I’ve seen someone propose. To me, the current system is what sets KI apart. Marvel and SF force you to watch and wait until your opponent is done punching your face in, while MK has the ability to break…once or twice in an entire match. The back and forth mindgame of breakers in KI is great, and I don’t want to see it change unless there is a legitimate balance concern.

52

@Iago407

You and I are talking about 2 entirely different things - I’m talking about purposefully dropping a combo for a reset; you’re talking about being punished after a counter-breaker whiff (and of course that’s going to be punishable, as it should be - it’s a self-imposed whiff due to a bad read against your opponent).

As for advantage vs. disadvantage when purposefully dropping a combo, you’re only half right - You’re right in that you’re giving up an advantage, but that’s the extent of it. It’s not a disadvantage, however, because it technically puts you into neutral - that’s neither advantage OR disadvantage (hence the name). The reason for doing so, even though you give up advantage, is for the (likely) potential for an even BIGGER advantage (even though it may not work) - as I said, it’s basically double or nothing.

What I’m really arguing, though, is that you might actually be more at an advantage than at neutral (or at a disadvantage as you say) simply because you’re doing it on purpose, which means you already know what may result from it (for better or for worse), whereas your opponent probably will not expect it because he’s expecting you to simply close out your current combo. It’s a matter of awareness and preparedness- in this instance, you’re more aware of and prepared for the situation than your opponent because you currently have complete control of it (and they know that). That’s what gives you the advantage over your opponent. It has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game itself, but rather the player and how fast they are to interpret what’s happening and how fast they can react to it. In the brief time they have to figure that out and counter what you’re doing, you’re already in the middle of doing the reset. This means only the best and/or the most keenly aware/prepared will be able to stop you in the nick of the time.

I guarantee you that if you do this for one of your 1st combos, it’ll get them almost every time. Do it in the latter half of the combo after a lockout and you’re looking at 60-70% damage off of their health bar right off the bat. Naturally, of course, the more you do it, the more predictable you become so I certainly wouldn’t recommend doing this more than once or twice during a fight (but then again, with those damage numbers, that may be all you need).

53

Well, okay. So because you don’t think it’s necessary, it doesn’t matter what those that do think it’s necessary think?

I like the current system, but there are those out there that don’t think a counter breaker is equally as risky as doing a combo breaker. If that were the case, wouldn’t we see more counter breakers being used in high level play? Clearly some people think that it’s too risky as is, which is why it became a topic of conversation to begin with.

Nah, I’m just having a conversation here. I know it sounds like I’m defending my idea a good deal and within a certain context, I am. That context being that if we HAVE to have a change to the current system, this (to me), is a viable solution. But only within that context. If I could choose between the system we have now and the idea I’m proposing? I’d choose the current system. If IG came out and said "look, we’ve heard the pro players and we’re going to be changing the breaker mechanic), you better believe this is the idea I’d be putting out there as opposed to some of the other stuff I’ve seen.

You keep bringing that up as if I’m proposing an end to the two way system and I don’t believe that I am. If anything, what I’m proposing emboldens the attacker a little more to use the tools at their disposal. I fail to see how that restricts the defender from using their tools or in any way hinders the back and forth mind game for breakers. If anything, I think it strengthens it a little at higher levels.

I didn’t specify this, and that was definitely my bad, but as I’ve been talking about this. The original idea was to leave all of the combo done as white damage that slowly recharges. Then I thought about a penalty where the opponent regains half of their health instantly and the other half is white damage that recharges. I’ve also thought about it in terms of “what if the penalty was simply the opponent instantly getting all of their health done in the combo back?”

Like I said, I’m just brainstorming here. The idea I proposed wasn’t a finished product by any means. Just throwing out ideas. I see why you’re not a fan and that’s cool. I don’t entirely love it either, even if I sound like I’m defending it tooth and nail. :smile: I’m just curious to see if there’s an idea that can make everyone happy. I don’t mind having the conversation.

Yeah I noticed that. Why are you bringing up purposefully dropping a combo if they type of counter breaker whiff that I’m talking about returns both characters, unexpectedly, back to neutral? Do you still see an advantage in the attackers favor here? If you could elaborate, I’d appreciate it.

I agree that you’re giving up an advantage and not gaining a disadvantage as the attacker when you whiff a counter breaker under what I’m proposing. But I do think that the attacker gets punished by whiffing a counter break under my idea, it just happens indirectly, as the damage they did to the opponent is undone. That’s the punishment I’m proposing.

But that’s the only context that I’m talking about here. I’m not talking about this in terms of purposefully dropping a combo. I agree completely with what you’re talking about when it comes to knowing your next move and being able to set your opponent up for even greater damage with a higher ender level before you opponent has a chance to react.

I guess I’m just a little confused here as to how that relates specifically to what I’m talking about in my idea. My apologies, as it appears as though I got a little lost along the way. My bad! :smile:

54

Is this really a reset though? No player is not going to default to crouch block when they see shadow rocks, and if they block it from close range, you get punished (by a throw, and then they block a few rocks for 1% chip). There’s no “second outcome” they have to worry about here as a mixup, you just always low block on reaction to the freeze and always punish.

55

Well, it doesn’t really matter, since it’s your idea and not what actually happens. What actually happens is a potential punish on the whiff, since that’s how the game works. Regarding your idea though, if both players were put into neutral after the attacker whiffed on the counter-breaker, then I would definitely argue that the attacker has the advantage. My reasoning is the same as what I mentioned with my scenario in my previous post - they are more aware and prepared during the situation since they are the ones currently in control; the defenders can only be successful if they’re aware and prepared - and most of the time, they’re not because they’re trying to adapt to the situation as it happens, which might be too late for them. Besides, considering how much this game favors the offense - that should’ve been a given.

56

But is the attacker in control if they’re intending to do a counter breaker and they unintentionally whiff it? Wouldn’t that come as a surprise to both players equally? I mean sure, the attacker knows that, at that moment, there’s the possibility for a whiff that would put them both back at a neutral state, but knowing that there’s a possibility is still a bit different from knowing when, exactly, you’ll be dropping your own combo that you intend to drop at that a given moment, right? Or do you think I’m off base here?

Oh I know this is my idea and not what’s actually happening. I guess I’m just trying to explain it more and workshop it a little bit in to something that might be more palatable for people that aren’t quite as convinced. Like I said, it’s just an idea. It’s malleable and to be completely honest, I tend to doubt that IG will change much of anything in terms of the breaker mechanic and that suits me just fine.

I don’t mean to sound like I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth and that’s probably how I’m coming off. Like I said, I’m just trying to come up with something that might make everyone happy. I don’t want to leave something the way it is just because people like it the way it is. Similarly, I don’t want to change something for everyone just because a small amount of players don’t like it. I tend to think that if something can be improved, if more people can be happy with something, then it’s at least worth talking about.

57

That’s not what I mean - what I mean is that the only real evidence on display doesn’t reflect any actual balance imbalance (I really hate using that combination of words!) other than the opinions of the pros.

This is kind of cyclical logic, in my opinion. If a minority of the community have one opinion of the system, and the rest don’t share it, why change the experience of the entire community when the minority should be adjusting their thinking? My opinion on this is that you don’t make large changes without two things; it’s in the best interest of balance, and the majority of the community. Look at the TJ Combo changes in Season 2 - some of the TJ players didn’t like the change, but the majority of the community wanted the change, and we got it.

[quote=“Iago407, post:53, topic:1610”]
You keep bringing that up as if I’m proposing an end to the two way system and I don’t believe that I am. If anything, what I’m proposing emboldens the attacker a little more to use the tools at their disposal. I fail to see how that restricts the defender from using their tools or in any way hinders the back and forth mind game for breakers. If anything, I think it strengthens it a little at higher levels. [/quote]
The problem I have with this proposal is that it doesn’t properly punish the failed Counter. As I said, a failed Breaker leads to suffering more damage, and a failed Counter should be the same. Resetting to neutral isn’t really a punishment, only a minor inconvenience. I feel this means people are likely to throw out Counters all the time, as there isn’t a high enough risk to the attacker.

See with this, you’re not just proposing a change to the Counter Breaker system, but the entire combo and damage system. To me, this is far too extreme for something with, again, nothing but “pro opinion” to substantiate the change. What I had been referring to in my initial statement was that if you purposefully drop a combo or fail a breaker, the potential damage is still there, but will slowly convert back to normal health - if the defender can go on the offensive they can regenerate their own health while hurting their opponent. If they’re unable to capitalize, the original attacker can maintain their control of the fight, and open another combo.

I get the feeling that we’re not going to see eye to eye on this one, but I guess my feelings on this are similar to a coach’s challenge in Football - we need hard fact and statistics to change the original outcome, not some small (community minority opinion) “just because.” Here’s another example. I HATE the current Call of Sky move on Thunder. As in I NEVER use it, because I don’t like it. The community at large (and the devs, I assume) don’t agree with me, which lends a lot of evidence towards my feelings about it being personal, and not reflecting what is right for Call of Sky. To me, this discussion feels the exact same way.

58

But if some of these pro players don’t use counter breakers because they see them as too risky, could that potentially be a balance issue in terms of risk?

I get that the tendency should be to make as many people happy as possible. But if some are unhappy, I don’t think that they should be outright ignored just because they’re in the minority. Sure, maybe IG looks and decides that the system’s fine as is, but they should at least look.

TJ’s actually a great example. A majority of the community wanted him changed. I was not in that majority. His autobarrage got changed. He’s honestly my least used character now because of it. I get locked in to autobarrage by accident all the time. So am I just irrelevant now when it comes to conversations about making TJ better because I want his autobarrage changed? While I certainly don’t think that pro players opinions should be worth more, should my opinion be worth less in this particular situation?

That’s not the only thing that happens though. The opponent gets their health back from the combo you just performed. It’s still a risky maneuver, it just doesn’t punish the attacker specifically on as punitive a level as it does under the current system. I agree that would be a change to the current system, but in comparison, would it be any crazier than the advent of recaptures?

What if this system actually helped the breaker mechanic and enhanced that mind game between attacker and defender? In general, do you think that an idea (not mine) that might make the game better should be discarded just because its genesis came out of the complaints by a minority of pro players or some other small group of fans?

Nah it doesn’t seem like we’ll see eye to eye, and that’s totally fine. No problem at all, man! It’s been nice talking with you about it.

You’re not the only one I’ve seen complaining about Call of Sky. I’ve seen several threads where people have talked about changing that move in particular more or less since season 2 first started.

I guess for me that’s why it’s a little hard to envision what an actual “majority” would look like. How many people have to talk about something before IG should look at it and have the discussion as to whether or not a change could or should be made?

From that informal poll that was done a while back, TJ was a lot of people’s least favorite character. I think 20 some people had voted at the time. How representative of the community here or all KI fans in general was that poll at the beginning or when it finally ended (didn’t see the final numbers)? Should something like that trigger IG to do something?

I guess I tend to be of the mind that KI should keep evolving. I absolutely trust IG to shepherd that evolution in the ways that they see fit, as I enjoyed season 2 immensely. If more players can be brought in to the fold by making some changes without sacrificing what KI is at it’s heart, then there’s a fairly good chance that I’d be on board. I always think that’s a discussion worth having, even if there aren’t any universally accepted results.

59

I think the main problem is that “seeing something as too risky” is not the same as “actually too risky” without actual evidence. Anecdotally the fact that players don’t use counter breakers could be due to a number of reasons… maybe it’s personal preference, maybe their character has better neutral tools and can accept short combos or breaks, who knows what. But “I dunno, I just don’t like dropping my combo and getting punished” is not a solid enough foundation to change the system, and IMO, there aren’t many top players saying anything better than that right now.

What’s really needed is numbers. Actual true numbers across numerous situations to reflect the risk and the reward.

Here’s a contrived example; I land the first hit in the match on you as Thunder, do a heavy auto-double, and counter break it.

  • My reward is (according to my KI guide numbers) is: 58% meterless damage (actually, it would be more in this case because of the heavy AD, so probably closer to 65%) and a super hard to block knockdown setup. One more correct read and I probably have your entire life bar, you didn’t get to use instinct (so you probably only get 1 this match instead of 2), and I have a ton of meter for next round.
  • My punishment is: 30% of the time (maybe more TBH), against intermediate and even pro players, I will get thrown for 7% damage. 70% of the time, someone will hit me with a proper combo (maybe 50% of the time starting with a heavy, the rest of the time starting with something that doesn’t hurt much) and then I will have a chance to break at around 10-12% unbreakable damage. Let’s say we futz the numbers around and accept that I take 25% damage, on average, this 70% of the time, if we account for times I get locked out, times I break, and everything in between. Counting in the throw, this means I take 19% “expected damage” from whiffing a counter breaker.

What percentage of the time does the counter breaker have to work for this to be worth it? Based on raw damage alone (60% vs 19%), not even counting the fact that you only get 1 instinct, I also am expected to get more damage because of the knockdown, and you are less likely to break in the future, it seems like if I’m right 1 in every 4, I will come out even. If I’m right 1 in every 3, I will come out ahead. This is… actually pretty good! I only have to be right 33% of the time to come out substantially ahead in the long term? What about if I can be sure you will break with 50% certainty here? What about 75% certainty? Suddenly these numbers are way, way less risky than you think.

Now, of course, not every counter breaker looks like this, and modeling more situations with accurate (and not ballparked) numbers would be great, but this brief exercise should show you that in this contrived example, even if you’re wrong 2/3rds of the time, it’s a winning gamble for you to take. If people think like this, instead of “dang it didn’t work”, you would see KI come a long way.

3 Likes
60

I’m fairly confident that if most people saw your explanation here, that they’d be more apt to use counter breakers and not see them as being nearly as risky as some perceive it to be. Or at the very least, they’d see that the benefits far outweigh those risks.

I agree that it’s a perception issue and I tend to agree with you that there really don’t seem to be any hard numbers to substantiate that perception.

I think with some players, if I had to guess, especially at the pro level, it’s just easier (or may even seem smarter) to risk nothing at all than to risk anything, even if the potential rewards far outweigh said risks. Better safe than sorry. Do what you can actually do and avoid any chance the opponent has to turn the tables as much as possible, even if it means skirting the combo system to an extent.

I really do hope that those opposed to the current system don’t lobby for a large change either by way of nerfing combo breakers or increasing emphasis on manuals or anything along those lines. I think that what we have here right now is a fantastic game.

But after two years, I tend to wonder what would actually change the more risk averse people’s minds about using the full range of tools for the combo system. Is it simply showing them percentages? Would that help some people overcome the tendency for risk minimization? Tough to say.

That’s kinda why I came up with my idea above to begin with. An idea that keeps the current system, but removes the damage risk on counter breakers and simply replacing that penalty with the more indirect penalty of returning health back to the opponent from the combo that you did on them. Would this even have any effect? Who knows.

I think that many people like KI for the fact that you’re not a passive viewer of the damage being done to you in a combo. But something tells me that a pro culture that might lean more toward the risk avers side simply might not be suited to a game that doesn’t unconditionally reward them with the ability to safely do damage to the opponent. If there’s a way to make both sides happy without grossly changing the core fundamentals of the game, I’d be curious to see what that solution might look like.

In the absence of that, I’m more than happy to move along with the game as it is currently, as I think that they’ve really built something special here. My only hope is that more people see that and connect with the gameplay the way many of us have without that need for earned, safe rewards.