Here is the proof you need that absolute defense breaks the game | Forums

[Wrander]

I have no idea why blocking is concidered bad? Even in real fights, there is one who is better than the other. And blocking is completely valid. And if it's 2v2, and both wardens just defend, well, attack one warden as a 2 man group. Let's see if he survives that one. Sooner or later one of them has to attack or they both loose the round. I am not the best player, as i am pretty old and my hand-eye coordination is pretty bad. I used to be good when i weas younger. Still I play this game with my friends... some of which are much younger and/or much better than me. I defend then. I block, I dodge, I back off and wait for a mistake to take advantage of. Most of the times i loose, because they are simply better, but when I win, it's a freaking party in the room. I am proud and happy.
Why should only offense be viable? There is no reason for it... especially not in real life. Defense always helps, even in real life, but is slow. And if you are a perfect defender, why shouldn't you be rewarded, even if it's just a tie? To me a tie against TerryC (my gaming buddy) feels like a damn win.

We aren't complaining because we loose to better players. We are complaining because we have the feeling that just defending is too strong and there is no reason for a good player to attack the other one. Like you said you wait for enemies mistake and thats exactly the problem. Waiting for enemies mistake, which can be a single light attack you can parry and punish, is in my opinion too strong. At the end of the beta many people were already good enough to pull it off. And im sure that in weeks and months many more people will even do it much better. From maybe my own 90% they get to 99% success rate in defending against anything.

[CrusadingNoble]

We aren't complaining because we loose to better players. We are complaining because we have the feeling that just defending is too strong and there is no reason for a good player to attack the other one. Like you said you wait for enemies mistake and thats exactly the problem. Waiting for enemies mistake, which can be a single light attack you can parry and punish, is in my opinion too strong. At the end of the beta many people were already good enough to pull it off. And im sure that in weeks and months many more people will even do it much better. From maybe my own 90% they get to 99% success rate in defending against anything.

This is what you would do in a real fight too, unles you severely outclass your opponent.

What the game could use is perhaps a slow and risky trip attack that if landed would allow you to get in a guaranteed top heavy. You miss the trip attack and you stumble off balance, allowing the enemy to do his own top heavy. Something like that?

[Icepick_Trotsky]

Why should only offense be viable? There is no reason for it... especially not in real life. Defense always helps, even in real life, but is slow.

No reason? how about a common sense? Please explain how defense is supposed to be viable strategy. Can you win a real fight with defense? No, you can't. And you can't have perfect defense either.

[Obdach01]

No reason? how about a common sense? Please explain how defense is supposed to be viable strategy. Can you win a real fight with defense? No, you can't. And you can't have perfect defense either.

Looking at History, most wars were won by the defenders and not the attacker (most, not all). When you do Martial Arts, you are taught that the best offense is defense. When you read 'The Art of War' you will find out, that the best way to win a war (or fight) is a surprise or well prepared defense.

I am not proud to say, that I took part in two wars, but also have no shame in saying that I also was trained in Martial Arts. That is what I learned... but maybe in other places I would've been taught that offense is the best offense... I don't know. Common sense is strategy, and strategy tells you that defending is more effective than attacking in most cases, save a few exceptions.

I rest my case.

[Robbeeeen]

Who cares what is viable in "real life" - this is a game, and when enough people get a bit better and catch on that not attacking and waiting for a parry is the best strategy, it will turn into people circling eachother doing nothing. Are you gonna play a game like that?

[GregoryMcFlint]

Looking at History, most wars were won by the defenders and not the attacker (most, not all). When you do Martial Arts, you are taught that the best offense is defense. When you read 'The Art of War' you will find out, that the best way to win a war (or fight) is a surprise or well prepared defense.

I am not proud to say, that I took part in two wars, but also have no shame in saying that I also was trained in Martial Arts. That is what I learned... but maybe in other places I would've been taught that offense is the best offense... I don't know. Common sense is strategy, and strategy tells you that defending is more effective than attacking in most cases, save a few exceptions.

I rest my case.

This isn't World War LXIX, it's a fighting game, lol.

Fighting games, "looking at history," have a middle ground between being offensive and defensive. A fighting game without an even playing field for both styles of play becomes extremely one-sided. Which is exactly what happened to For Honor.

Using war as an example for how a fighting game should function, that takes a vast majority of its concepts from 2D fighters, makes absolutely zero sense.

I rest my case.

[Obdach01]

Who cares what is viable in "real life" - this is a game, and when enough people get a bit better and catch on that not attacking and waiting for a parry is the best strategy, it will turn into people circling eachother doing nothing. Are you gonna play a game like that?

Sorry, mate. I wasn't trying to be couterproductive. I was just answering what the reason is for defense to be viable and what common sense dictates. Sure it could kill a game to go full realistic, I agree with you here. For me, defense is the only way to be able to win one or two rounds, since I am not that good (due to old age). But please, do not kill a game because a man is old... given that defense actually kills the game, if that is your opinion.

[Obdach01]

This isn't World War LXIX, it's a fighting game, lol.

Fighting games "looking at history" have a middle ground between being offensive and defensive. A fighting game without an even playing field for both styles of play becomes extremely one-sided. Which is exactly what happened to For Honor.

Using war as an example for how a fighting game that takes a vast majority of its concepts from 2D fighters, makes absolutely zero sense.

Sorry again, dude. I wasn't referring to the game, but to the 'common sense' thing. Common sense dictates that defense is better. I know it's a game. This comment wasn't directed at the game. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Let's keep the discussion civil.

If you read the comment I quoted, you will see the 'real life' question. If he referres to real life, I should be able to use real life, shouldn't i?

[Knight_Raime]

I've already posted my suggestions in the 2 other threads about this. Haven't gotten any feedback on them sadly. To be honest this is only an issue in high tier play where everyone can parry when they want ant tech a GB when they want. The worry here is that if the mechanics stay the same will enough people catch up to make it a problem for the fanbase? or will it be too hard for a majority of players to get to that level?

If the latter happens the game will still be fun for most. But the competitive side might drop off. if the former happens it might push the devs to make some changes. but it would drag the game down and some games don't recover after that even if they do massive changes that make it better (like what happened with the division.) I don't care what path the game takes. as long as the changes come eventually and the population stays big enough.

[OIUHD]

I think if the Attacker used a different class it might be a different story. Orochi excels when their opponent is attacking.