I guess it’s just a common theme of today where people want everything handed to them.
The last thing I’ll say is that I sympathize with people who are frustrated by the change, because it does make counter breaking a little harder. You might think having the extra leeway on manuals didn’t affect the counter breaker mindgame, so why not give the offensive player that extra forgiveness and allow the parry to be late a bit?
And we could have debates the whole day long about “well, it doesn’t work that way for any other similar system in any other game”, but it doesn’t take away the sting of losing that safety blanket we all enjoyed.
The problem, though, is that even apart from the philosophical difference you may have with this, making this change also has another benefit, which is to remove instinct cancel unbreakables from the game. So, even if I was a player who prefers the other way, I can see why the developers chose to make this change, even just from a pragmatic view of getting rid of other things they didn’t want.
4 Likes
thank you once again for giving an objective point of view with perfect perspective !!
Here’s hoping this topic returns to civil discussion, because it has been a bit out of control.
I personally like the change to Counter Breakers; I did not often use them before this Season because I struggled to time the input of a move (Thunder’s original HP Skyfall, for example) which I would then attempt to Counter Break (having chosen to bait a break) but would end up failing either because I did not enter the original input, (early CB) or pressed my Counter after my opponent broke my combo (too late). Now I can set up these situations easier since there is a small buffer window, and I believe it is improving my gameplay.
Everybody has the right to voice their opinion, but HOW you do so matters just as much as what your opinion is, from both sides of the discussion.
1 Like
I don’t agree that a frame trap is an analogue to a counter-breaker.
Disagreeing != misunderstanding
Why? What’s the difference between the counter breaker situation and the analogies we’ve been giving you?
Believe it or not, we’re willing to agree with you if you make sense.
1 Like
They’re 2 entirely different things and can be assessed individually.
My goal isn’t to get you to agree with me. You’ve already slung 3 ad-hominem attacks at me in this thread. If you do it again, I’ll block you. I’m here for discussion. I’m not here to be petty.
I’m honestly just trying to see things from your point of view. I’m trying to get you to back up your claims so they can make sense and I can try to empathize and/or get a different viewpoint.
“for someone who complains about the toxicity of this community you’re quick to resort to passive-aggressive ad-hominem attacks.”
THIS.
1 Like
The question that interests me is why you feel that “counter breakers must come before break attempts in all scenarios” is less intuitive than “counter breakers must come before break attempts in all scenarios except for manuals”. One is objectively more cohesive than the other, and for all the complaints I’ve heard about counter breakers since S3 started no one has been able to explain a compelling reason for why there should be this one exception or else it’s “unintuitive”.
It’s fine if you prefer the “feel” of the S2 manual counter breakers to the S3 ones (to a certain extent I expect it, as it favors the offense), but that is by no means more logically consistent than the current system. If you prefer the old feel then say that - but the claim that the method S3 uses is somehow less intuitive seems to mistake the meaning of that word to me. You have to be earlier than the break in every other scenario within the combo game - why do manual counter breaks deserve a pass on this rule?
Before the the 5 frame buffer was added to the counter window I could agree that it was problematic that manuals could not be countered before they could be broken. With the addition of the window, it is now always possible to counter the break before the opponent, at least assuming they haven’t mucked up the timing of the break. And that exception existed in the past as well - half the point of manuals is to generate timing lockouts in this manner.
4 Likes
You’re doing a bit more than that, my friend.
The only claim I’ve made is that counter breakers on manuals are more intuitive the way they were before because it’s about the overall read and not necessarily frame-specific. It’s my opinion and pretty self explanatory at face value.
It’s logically fallacious to use parries, frame traps, or any other mechanic to argue your position on counter breakers. It is a unique mechanic that can and should be assessed individually. Using frame traps or any other fighting game scenario is not a real or logical way to “back up your claims.”
I think I’m going to stop posting before I lose my cool.
I’m just gonna leave the quote from this fine gentleman here:
1 Like
Okay, let’s assess it with this honest question:
Since you propose CBs on manuals should be the way it was in S2, should we go all the way with that? Should we provide a (let’s say) 10 frame buffer for all break attempts, including on autos, linkers, and shadow linkers? That would mean counter breaking up to and including 10 frames late would still count (and we would totally delay the break attempt + the lockout X by this many frames to compensate, so we don’t have to roll back against successful breaks).
If so, is it because you felt those CBs were particularly broken/frustrating as well, or would you do it just for consistency sake? If not, why not, and what makes them different?
3 Likes
well the developers disagree with u and most of the community have no problem with it, i dont get why this continues to be a topic of discussion , at all the recent tornaments counterbreakers are landed everywhere. do you agree with everything in sf5?? because personally i dont agree with anything 100% of the time . thats life !! i feel like people put unrealistic expectations on developers …
1 Like
There’s nothing wrong with Paul expressing his opinion. That’s not the problem.
We just expect more of a reason behind it.
1 Like
Saying “nuh-uh” to every single argument presented to you based on no evidence with no counter-argument other than “it’s my opinion” is not a logical way to “back up your claims.”
I’ve tried being reasonable by providing multiple examples of comparable scenarios in the FG genre but there’s no point if this is going to stay a one-way interaction.
2 Likes
You’re overloading here, so I’m just going to get back on topic and pose a question back to you.
Here’s an example:
- I’ve opened you up 4 times and you’ve broken me every single time on my 2nd manual, which is a st.MP.
- st.MP has a total lifespan of 15 frames including startup, active, and recovery.
- On the 5th opener I decide I’m going to call you and counter-break on that 2nd manual. Considering I don’t really have fine control in that 15 frame window, I happen to counter-break on frame 10.
- The opponent tried to break on frame 9.
So my questions are as follows…
- Do you really think it’s reasonable to require frame-perfect control in a scenario like that?
- Wasn’t my read correct?
I would really appreciate yes or no answers to these questions.
1 Like
LEAVE PAUL ALONE xD I see his perspective more than most of you guys.
My opinion doesn’t require much argument, and I’m going to avoid using other game scenarios to validate it as “right” or “correct” since that would not be an accurate way to present it.
Great. They’re not comparable at all, so ultimately you could have not made the comparisons.
-
Considering you have quite a few frames AFTER the counter breaker activates to catch something, it’s really not precise in that regard. You can buffer your counter breaker in order to catch a breaker attempt on almost all frames of the move, so that’s pretty reasonable to me.
-
Yes, your read was correct. There you go.