Guard Break - The real issue with Defensive Meta. (Solved!?) | Forums

[DJ_Masterson]

You're just wrong. I just tested it. It works everytime. You must have been low stam or waited too long when you got blocked. His side lights are faster (obviously) than his heavy anyway, so how could you logically think you couldn't land a light attack?

Huh, well thanks then. I must've mis-remembered something.

You do realize that unblockable attacks can be parried, right?

And I completely forgot about that.

At a high level of play, when a player feints his heavy, the opposing player feints his parry. This can happen multiple times in a row. This is to avoid getting baited into a reverse parry.

Okay, with you so far.

With your system, the first player can simply guarantee an irreversible guardbreak because his animation will finish first.

The way you described it would not happen with a competent player because no one would risk letting their heavy land on the off-chance that their opponent MIGHT guardbreak.

Took me a moment to get what you were saying here.

So, in my example, the opponent (who started the exchange by launching a heavy and then feinting it), goes for a guardbreak, and your reasoning is that I, assuming that I'm a high-level player in this example, would also feint my parry because it's the "smart" move to avoid a parry myself.

And under no circumstances would I go ahead and let that heavy land because I'm assuming you're saying a parry followup is always more punishing than a GB followup.

Is that it so far?

That's a fair argument to be sure, but people all over the forums are calling for parry nerfs as well so if that goes hand-in-hand with my GB changes the issue might resolve itself.

This is only true with overhead attacks, like that one.

Noooo you can side-dodge through the side-attacks as well. VERY easily. Y'know that Lawbringer can do side-unblockables right?

Well, what am I saying... I can barely get those off because my combos keep getting interrupted.

Reason being that what makes dodging difficult is not tracking; Most moves don't track for very long at all, and against an overhead you have a long window to simply side dodge. The balancing effect is that overheads are also often a lot faster, have better range, or are more powerful than side attacks. Side attacks are where more skill comes in because you have to dodge INTO the attack, forcing you to fine-tune your timing. Also, unblockable/unparryable abilities like shoulder bash, shield bash, spear sweep, and head butt, are so difficult to dodge that with some characters you have to actually predict it preemptively to be successful. Gimping dodge would make these characters severely underpowered.

I disagree. Dodging through side-attacks is way too easy. I'll just agree to disagree on this one though.

Now, to be honest, it seems like you are biased in favor of law bringer and you haven't actually played or experimented with many other classes. A lot of the points you make yield an indication that you might not be sufficiently experienced in the game to fully comprehend the consequences of the changes you're advocating. I don't mean that condescendingly; there are few people who would really be qualified to point out real imbalances in the game.

Nobody is sufficiently experienced in the game to "Fully" comprehend the consequences. That's why we have discussions like this on the forum to hash out potential flaws with new ideas between each other.

I'm not arguing with you because I don't want you to speak, I'm arguing with you because I want to make SURE you're right. That's kind-of an important part of the thought process.

Furthermore, ANYONE is welcome to make a suggestion about ways to improve the game, regardless of their experience level and comprehension of it. People with better understanding, of course, can and absolutely SHOULD chime in wherever they notice something, as I encourage you to continue doing.

[TCTF_SWAT]

WArlords heabutt is *** for draining stamina. It offers no stamina regen delay. So the moment you're hit by it you start regen right away. The warlord will empty his stamina before youl've 15% of your stamina.

[Sanctus_9]

So, in my example, the opponent (who started the exchange by launching a heavy and then feinting it), goes for a guardbreak, and your reasoning is that I, assuming that I'm a high-level player in this example, would also feint my parry because it's the "smart" move to avoid a parry myself.

And under no circumstances would I go ahead and let that heavy land because I'm assuming you're saying a parry followup is always more punishing than a GB followup.

Is that it so far?

Not exactly. A parry followup IS a guardbreak, they're basically one in the same. A successful parry against MOST classes (not ranged ones) guarantees a free guardbreak, and thus a free heavy. Now, in the context of the game as is, once you see the enemy has feinted, if you let your own heavy land and he parries you, that equals a guaranteed heavy attack on you. If you choose to feint your parry, you are certain to avoid his parry, and if they went for a feint into a guardbreak, you can counter it if your fast enough. Thus, feinting the parry is, generally speaking, the safest way to go.

To put this into context, with your system, feinting your parry would be rendered useless because you have no chance of countering the guardbreak. In fact, there's very little you could do at all. If he chooses to land the hit instead of feinting, you get hit. If he chooses to feint into a guardbreak, you can't counter, you get hit. If you choose to dodge, guardbreak tracks, and you will get hit.

Your only option is to, preemptively, throw an attack out to interrupt the guard break, which is just guess work, and could you get you killed just as easily if he decided not to guardbreak.

Now, contrary to what I said before, there are SOME specific cases - depending on the attack, and the heroes of both players - in which your enemy's heavy is so much faster than your parry, that if you choose to attempt a parry, they can feint quickly enough to get a guaranteed guardbreak that is not counterable even if you feint. However, even in this case (which I have experienced all too often playing as conqueror) you're still not better off risking commitment to the attack. The only safe way to go here is to simply forgo parrying when they use this attack and just block, that way you still have access to a guardbreak counter. I bring this up because in this case especially, your system is severely flawed. The defender's ONLY safe method of defense (block) is rendered moot.

As you can see, there's no clear answer to the defending player here, in any of the above mentioned situations. The attacker is in full control, and the odds are against the defender. Not only is it up to luck for the defender to actually defend himself, but ALL of his defensive tools (dodge, parry, block) will actually bite him in the *** if the attacker simply does a guardbreak. As the game is, while there is a defensive meta, there is also a response to everything. This gives the player control. Your system favors an offensive meta but sacrifices control, and the ability to respond to every situation, in the meanwhile, making it more of a rock-paper-scissors hope-for-the-best playstyle. I'm confident there's a better way.

I disagree. Dodging through side-attacks is way too easy. I'll just agree to disagree on this one though.

I'm sorry to be stubborn but I'm going to have to double down on this point. Blocking is easier. Have you ever tried dodging a warden's zone attack, an orochi's overhead attack, a pk's light attacks, or shugoki's long winded, wide-arching heavy attacks? What's even more difficult is dodging shoulder bash, shield bash, headbutt, spear sweep, and other similar instant combos. Players have done experiments and shown that as most heroes, the only way to dodge a headbutt or shoulderbash is to predict it and preemptively dodge. Guess wrong, of course, and you're screwed. Now, keep in mind that this doesn't apply to assassin classes, who actually dodge measurably faster than other heroes.

Therefore I would be in favor of the notion of actually buffing dodge for all normal classes, but at the very least, the dodge mechanic certainly doesn't need to be nerfed.

And besides, characters who have good dodge speed or have dodge attacks can be easily be rooted in place and discouraged from dodging simply by feinting often. If you feint and your enemy dodges, you get a free guardbreak. If they dodge attack, you get a free parry.

I'm not arguing with you because I don't want you to speak, I'm arguing with you because I want to make SURE you're right. That's kind-of an important part of the thought process.

Furthermore, ANYONE is welcome to make a suggestion about ways to improve the game, regardless of their experience level and comprehension of it. People with better understanding, of course, can and absolutely SHOULD chime in wherever they notice something, as I encourage you to continue doing.

I agree fully. If I come across as over critical keep in mind it's only of the ideas and not of you personally; I believe the best method to determine if an idea is truly applicable is to exercise the utmost scrutiny and skepticism, and my criticisms wouldn't be so rigorous if I didn't take your opinion seriously.

[DJ_Masterson]

Not exactly. A parry followup IS a guardbreak, they're basically one in the same. A successful parry against MOST classes (not ranged ones) guarantees a free guardbreak, and thus a free heavy. Now, in the context of the game as is, once you see the enemy has feinted, if you let your own heavy land and he parries you, that equals a guaranteed heavy attack on you. If you choose to feint your parry, you are certain to avoid his parry, and if they went for a feint into a guardbreak, you can counter it if your fast enough. Thus, feinting the parry is, generally speaking, the safest way to go.

To put this into context, with your system, feinting your parry would be rendered useless because you have no chance of countering the guardbreak. In fact, there's very little you could do at all. If he chooses to land the hit instead of feinting, you get hit. If he chooses to feint into a guardbreak, you can't counter, you get hit. If you choose to dodge, guardbreak tracks, and you will get hit.

Your only option is to, preemptively, throw an attack out to interrupt the guard break, which is just guess work, and could you get you killed just as easily if he decided not to guardbreak.

Now, contrary to what I said before, there are SOME specific cases - depending on the attack, and the heroes of both players - in which your enemy's heavy is so much faster than your parry, that if you choose to attempt a parry, they can feint quickly enough to get a guaranteed guardbreak that is not counterable even if you feint. However, even in this case (which I have experienced all too often playing as conqueror) you're still not better off risking commitment to the attack. The only safe way to go here is to simply forgo parrying when they use this attack and just block, that way you still have access to a guardbreak counter. I bring this up because in this case especially, your system is severely flawed. The defender's ONLY safe method of defense (block) is rendered moot.

As you can see, there's no clear answer to the defending player here, in any of the above mentioned situations. The attacker is in full control, and the odds are against the defender. Not only is it up to luck for the defender to actually defend himself, but ALL of his defensive tools (dodge, parry, block) will actually bite him in the *** if the attack simply does a guardbreak.

So basically you're saying, if I'm getting this right, that my proposed suggestion doesn't necessarily fix the problem but instead tips the balance heavily in favor of the attacker, and you present the following situations to prove this.

Situation: The opponent throws a heavy at you.
1. You go for a parry but they feint, and parry your parry.
2. You go for a parry, but they feint. However, you feint your parry. The opponent has, however, feinted into a GB and now you're caught.
3. Predicting a feint, you go for a GB, but the opponent doesn't feint their attack.
4. Playing it safe, you decide not to react at all and stay on defense. The opponent feints into GB and now you're caught.
5. Playing it even safer, you dodge. The opponent feints into GB and you are caught, since it can track you.

So as I take it, the issue here is that feinting into a GB is too strong, since the only valid counter is to commit to your heavy and hope they go for the Guard Break in the middle of your attack. (which means we can cross off #3 because we're assuming it's a dumb idea nobody will bother with at high levels).

Then wouldn't it be safe to say that an easy fix to this would be to make guardbreaks unable to track a dodge? Admittedly this is giving more power to the dodge, but I don't have a problem with Dodge having utility, I just have a problem with how easy it is to dodge THROUGH things.

But, here's a thing I don't get.

You're basically saying that creating a situation where "committing to your heavy attack is ideal" is a bad thing. That's really the sum of it.

... would that really be so bad?

All of a sudden people would have to consider it as an option.

You're saying that this is a stupid idea with the current meta mindset, but... what it ends up doing is changing the meta, yeah?

I'm sorry to be stubborn but I'm going to have to double down on this point.

Don't worry about it. lol

Blocking is easier. Have you ever tried dodging a warden's zone attack, an orochi's overhead attack, a pk's light attacks, or shugoki's long winded, wide-arching heavy attacks? What's even more difficult is dodging shoulder bash, shield bash, headbutt, spear sweep, and other similar instant combos. Players have done experiments and shown that as most heroes, the only way to dodge a headbutt or shoulderbash is to predict it and preemptively dodge. Guess wrong, of course, and you're screwed. Now, keep in mind that this doesn't apply to assassin classes, who actually dodge measurably faster than other heroes.

Therefore I would be in favor of the notion of actually buffing dodge for all normal classes, but at the very least, the dodge mechanic certainly doesn't need to be nerfed.

This to me seems like an issue with priority, or rather dodges seem to have inconsistent i-frames depending on the type of incoming attack. I have succesfully dodged a warden's shoulder bash once or twice, but in all honesty it was likely accidental and I managed to not face many wardens solo, so I don't have that coming at me very often.

Perhaps Dodging doesn't need to be nerfed or buffed per-se but the rules for what it does need to be more normalized.

I agree fully. If I come across as over critical keep in mind it's only of the ideas and not of you personally; I believe the best method to determine if an idea is truly applicable is to exercise the utmost scrutiny and skepticism, and my criticisms wouldn't be so rigorous if I didn't take your opinion seriously.

I was kind-of an *** at the start so I'm glad you took it well enough. lol

I do wish that instead of simply pointing out ways the idea wouldn't work, you could try to come up with ways it could be MADE to work. A lot of the issues you bring up for why this won't work honestly boil down to "This will only break the game more because this broken thing over here and this broken thing over there". Dodge rules being inconsistent, GuardBreak tracking a dodge (which, to me, is strange.)

[TCTF_SWAT]

the only thing dashes need is normalized with recovery and distance only. Everyone should have the same I-frames regardless. All ubi needs to do is shift those -frames to the start of dashes instead.

[Zempai_]

@ DJ masterson (because your post is too long and cumbersome to quote)

Before you start making up a heavy/feint scenario, remember that light attacks beat heavy attacks. If you foresee a light, then block (or miraculously parry). If you foresee a heavy, then parry. If you foresee a feint then light attack or GB.

A dodge CANNOT be allowed to avoid a GB (within range), because that is the direct counter to dodge. Attack > GB > Dodge > Attack.

This is also why "dodge attacks" need to be nerfed so that it can be GB'd on dash startup: because if you attack, they win with a dodge attack. But if you GB, they STILL win with a dodge attack. As a Valk, I use light attack reactively as soon as they start the dodge attack so that it hits them at the end of the dodge and before they finish the attack (IDK about other classes and the exact speed of their lights). If you parry, they can still do a dodge attack afterwards. If they run out of stamina (which SHOULD be a huge advantage because of outdoing your opponent) they're still back at square one like everyone else at the start of the match where you have to block/parry/CGB, minus the dodge attack. Note however, that if they are out of stamina and you GB, they can still GB. But if they're out of stamina and you light attack which is then blocked, even at no stamina, assassins can spam back dodge (with a mix of side dodge for your sprint/dash attacks) until they regain stamina. Sprinting for a GB can be difficult because they usually side dodge when you start to get close (PK movement is so big that it's hard to catch her regardless of stamina). Occasionally (when I play assassin and run out of stamina and am back dashing) I start up an attack when I see someone sprinting at me if I foresee a sprint grab.

I posted on a different thread explaining that when out of stamina, dashing should still be available to dodge stuff like shield bash, etc. but have its movement reduced to a minimum so that it can be punished with a GB or delayed attack, especially for classes that don't have dash attacks/GB.

[MisterGuyMan]

The TC is right. I literally was able to diagnose the defensive meta as early as the betas when everyone was still getting destroyed by offensive moves they didn't yet know. It was pretty easy. "Oh so defending let's you parry and get free hits. Oh they added revenge too... so what happens when people learn to GBC and there's nothing to break open turtle's?" It should have been obvious what was going to happen.

This is fighting game mechanics 101. Throws beat defense. That's the entire point. The very obvious flaw in this entire system is that GUARD BREAK LOSES TO GUARDING. Rock beats Paper and Scissors so we're all surprised that Rock is dominant.

This problem has already been solved in fighting games so Ubisoft doesn't need to reinvent the wheel. Dodging is a part of defense so there's no issue of GB beats dodge. People won't spam GB if the game is balanced enough that attack can beat GB and there's incentive to do so. GB has terrible range so if you're GBing you're already in range to get hit with a light attack.

Lodging shouldn't be a problem. Spacing should always be a consideration. At worst it just means some character matchups will forc one side to light attack more if the other hero is trying to ledge. Hit and run poison, Lodging, offensive pressure and defensive counterattacking should all be valid ways to play.

Finally since the problem has been solved for decades, we've also had enough time to figure out how too nerf throws. Command throws in games like Tekken can be canceled with the right input. So if Warlord wants to throw you off the Cliff to the right and YOU know he wants to throw you to the right, then input a right GB during the animation and you cancel it. Or he can go for the free GB or mind game you by throwing you into the wall to the left. Is damage a big deal? Well in MvC damage of throws half damage.

Long story short. Paper should beat rock so Guard Break should beat Guard. After that we can balance accordingly but the game needs to work at the fundamental level.

[nagya12356]

GB uncounterable are you out of your freakin mind?? People would just spam gb and that is it. The turtle meta should be fixed but not like this. This is a terrible idea

[MisterGuyMan]

GB uncounterable are you out of your freakin mind?? People would just spam gb and that is it. The turtle meta should be fixed but not like this. This is a terrible idea

GB should only be counterable when both characters are already in GB animation at the same time. That's how SF and MvC games do it and no one just spams throws.

The real issue here is that no one ever talks about how light attack beats GB. Think about it. When you try out the tutorials, what's the only thing that you're instructed on to beat GB? It's only GBC and honestly most people probably don't even know light attack beats GB. You have to ask around on forums to get that answer. Spamming GB will lose to anyone that knows to light attack.

[DJ_Masterson]

GB should only be counterable when both characters are already in GB animation at the same time. That's how SF and MvC games do it and no one just spams throws.

The real issue here is that no one ever talks about how light attack beats GB. Think about it. When you try out the tutorials, what's the only thing that you're instructed on to beat GB? It's only GBC and honestly most people probably don't even know light attack beats GB. You have to ask around on forums to get that answer. Spamming GB will lose to anyone that knows to light attack.

I always wondered why sometimes I'd get GB'd while doing a heavy, but the more I thought about it the more I guess it made sense to me that only quicker, light attacks would punish a GB.

It's good encouragement to use your light attacks, something I've noticed people don't do enough of (errybody wants dem executionsssss).

After some thought I've removed the other points to my idea, boiling it down to simply the "Grab can only be countered when a throw is attempted" point.

I suppose I should jot down somewhere that I don't intend for light attacks to stop trumping GB's. That should absolutely still work. lol