Junior Member
Feints should give a free stance change (and MAYBE a faster light attack start up similar to light attacks within chains. MAYBE). Ideally, it would've been nice if feints replaced an attack in a chain, whether it's in the beginning, middle, or the end of a chain. The only issue would be for characters (IDK which) that might not have a light attack as a second attack within their chain which would in turn, make the enemy's parry (now a heavy attack) beat your feint + heavy because your attack comes out too slow. But its important to note that there is still the option of feint + parry and should also be taken into consideration.
Member
I'm the guy that's always advocated taking out GBC completely. I personally don't think ledging is an issue since it varies playstyle and you should always be aware of your surroundings.
Having said that there's a great compromise with ledging. GBs cannot be texted. If the opponent decides not to go with the guaranteed damage though and tries to throw you in a certain direction then treat it like a command throw. If he wants to throw you to the right because there's a cliff there then you input right and GB and you cancel the throw. He can then do his mindgames too and throw you to a wall to the left for even more damage.
Junior Member
Removing CGB is completely not feasible unless ring outs are disabled. If 9/10 GB's are CGB'd and one goes through for a ring out, that's pretty poor design for someone who successfully counters/outplays an opponent 90% of the time.
I don't know the frames and specific timings of GB, but it should be in line with the speed of a light attack and the timing needed to defend one. Considering how you don't need to aim your guard and there is only one button you know you have to press to CGB, it should be defendable within similar, if not the same, timing as a light attack.
Senior Member
Member
Why do you keep repeating patently untrue arguments? SF and MvC don't have GBCs on reaction at all and those games aren't all about throws. I keep pointing this out every time this untrue claim and you keep ignoring it.Originally Posted by DrExtrem Go to original post
That's the magic of a true rock paper scissor mechanic. You can't really abuse one thing over and over because there's a hard counter to it, in this case, light attack.
Senior Member
Because this is not SF and not McV.Originally Posted by MisterGuyMan Go to original post
I don't know ob what level of play you are playing but on the scrub-plane - where I dwelled - gameplay is reduced to gb + strongest attack that fits or ledge, because people can not counter guard break or parry.
Ok ... I got a little bit better but on my current skill level, nit every heavy is parried and not every GB is countered. When people don't counter a GB, if is usually fatal. If I parry a heavy and GB after that, my enemy suffers.
The light spam of the pk is the perfect example, that players will use the most effective way to play. If that is guard breaking for guaranteed damage, they will do so.
Member
As before I point out that at no point is anyone ever told that light attack counters GB. On lower levels of play no one can GBC anyway so the only thing that changes on that level is that people will be made aware that light attack is actually the best way to counter GB not GBC.Originally Posted by DrExtrem Go to original post
As I keep arguing, it's all about balance but Rock, Paper, Scissors REQUIRES three components. GB is that third component and it's fundamentally broken so therefore, the entire RPS mechanic is also fundamentally broken. SF and MvC show us that you can balance these three mechanics to make a game oriented towards offense, defense or pressure. None of them are focused on throws so your claim that taking out GBC *must* lead to GB spam nonstop isn't warranted on any level. Just balance it after that to make it so the other options are more viable. Even in its current state I'd argue you're wrong. Parry would still deal as much damage or more than GBC and Parry also drains stamina. The argument that everyone would just GB constantly doesn't hold under close scrutiny since the payoff is still better with defending and parrying.
Senior Member
If light attacks are the only defense against guard breaking, slower heroes like the raider and shugoki, would be harder to play than lets say pk, nobushi, warden, valk etc.
Why, because their light attacks are fast enough, to allow even players with less good reflexes a solid counter. The shugoki on the other hand, would be hard to counter bely itself, because the hyper armor prevents his guard break to be uninterruptible. Combine it with his golf-strike and he can instakill you on certain maps.
In addition, light spam would be even more present, because it would be the only chance to counter or prevent the use of GB. Again, certain heroes would rule.
This game is not only rock, paper, scissors ... it is a bit more sophisticated in terms of counters
Member
I dont like that suggestion, sounds like its not a healthy change and i do believe that imbalance will occur and alot of unneccesary balancing would be needed and also the gameplay sounds awfully boring to me if that change would go through. If it would be GB spam or not i dont know, right now in current game i know that GB spam is possible but you can counter it so without the counter there would maybe be more pokes from all classes(or they who can atleast).
Either way doesnt matter i dont like that suggestion.
There should be ways to open up the defence in "skillfull" means where both players have a say. No hardcounters ty, good interraction with stuff that doesnt stop the gameplay. Good flow, pace and tactics how you attack.
I dont like to make soft feints the #1 way either actually, not sure how exactly i would like the gameplay to play out but iam not the designer on that team so i cant test things - its up to ubisoft to come up with something great.
I know i want combos to work because i do not have a hard time blocking fast light attacks. And i know other people i have played against dont either.
Combos with tactical finesse, many possibilities HOW exactly to do it so i leave that open for ubisoft.
Member
You're wrong that this isn't rock paper scissors. EVERY game is fundamentally a game of Rock Paper Scissors at its core at least. You can add more elements but you need at least three options that counter one and loses to the other three. This is basic game design and when I say For Honor is fundamentally flawed, I mean that. RPS is a *fundamental* part of game design. Here;s a quick article that explains how even sophisticated games like Street Fighter and Starcraft are, on a fundamental level, games that revolve around RPS:Originally Posted by DrExtrem Go to original post
http://sirlingames.squarespace.com/a...egy-games.html
I also don't see this light attack spam you refer to. I really don't. It's basically just Peacekeeper and a sea of the best defensive heroes dominating tournaments. There, all I see is defense spamming and the known solution to stop defense spamming is throws. Your arguments are all balancing issues. You can balance a game after its core mechanics are fixed. My argument is purely about how the fundamental gameplay of FH is broken. The core RPS mechanic that belies all fighting games is broken *fundamentally* because one option beats the other two options. Notice how all the top four heroes are the only heroes with attacks that force reactions from turtling players? That's not a coincidence. Since the game does not have a Paper option to beat Rock (defense) the only characters with built in Paper options that get around defense are also the only characters that are worth a much in tournaments. Four characters have rock, paper and scissor options. The other characters only have Rock and Scissors. This is what I mean about the game being fundamentally broken. You're arguing over trees. I'm pointing out the forest is on fire.
