You've reduced warden to a turtle.. | Forums

[Kaijudub]

Which means prior to the change there wasn't really any means of reliable counter for the other guy, which why people hated it so much as being broken, and called it the "vortex" where you were sucked into a situation you can't get out of and the Warden holds all the initiative everytime. Now, as others have already mentioned, you don't get to force the other guy to make a choice, and then simply get the leisurely pleasure of reacting upon that choice to counter it. It's a true 50/50 where the Warden also needs to make a choice with his attacks, in which if he fails the gamble, will have consequences.

What I'm not getting, is why you think it's OK for the warden to have a skill that forces a one-sided, leisurely reaction which the opponent is always inherently disadvantaged in, due to the nature of the moveset. The SB "vortex spamming" -- mechanically speaking -- operates under the same functionality as the Shinobi Kick spamming before the nerf. You show the other guy the double-dodge, at which point the opponent is forced to make a choice to either go into a dodge, which the Shinobi can GB during his double-dodge to counter, or if the opponent doesn't move go into a kick which is impossible to evade or counter unless it's something like a Shug-DemE or Nob-HiddenStance.


Didn't you use to complain about the Shinobi as others also have?





The recovery time was tweaked before this recent nerf and made the sb cancel to parry feel a bit like pot luck and overall just made the warden feel a little sluggish.

I'm all open and happy for discussion, i just don't really want to be continually insulted for having an opinion.

[/QUOTE]

You really don't need to explain to me how it works but thanks. I also haven't said it was fine, if you read my reply to you I even said cancel to gb was op.

[kweassa1]

You really don't need to explain to me how it works but thanks. I also haven't said it was fine, if you read my reply to you I even said cancel to gb was op.

Then what's your point?

You want it to be less OP and still be useful? Except things don't always work like that, and there's not a "middle ground" -- so to speak -- in this issue.

The only reason it's OP was because it was absolutely and one-sidedly useful. The moment it becomes "not OP" is when it doesn't become the "do whatever you want, I hold the cards" situation and becomes a normal 50/50 with mild damage. You want to charge up SB more then you commit to that SB, sorry no GBs to fake out of.

You go down this path and the only thing there is a very awkward position where you don't want to sound like you're defending something OP, but at the same time you still want it to be OP.

So which is it?

[Kaijudub]

Then what's your point?

You want it to be less OP and still be useful? Except things don't always work like that, and there's not a "middle ground" -- so to speak -- in this issue.

The only reason it's OP was because it was absolutely and one-sidedly useful. The moment it becomes "not OP" is when it doesn't become the "do whatever you want, I hold the cards" situation and becomes a normal 50/50 with mild damage. You want to charge up SB more then you commit to that SB, sorry no GBs to fake out of.

You go down this path and the only thing there is a very awkward position where you don't want to sound like you're defending something OP, but at the same time you still want it to be OP.

So which is it?

Yes less OP but still useable would be the ideal, IMO they've nerfed him too much. I'm not so sure why that is an issue here when we're talking about balancing. Isn't the idea to achieve the good middle ground ultimately?? Balancing usually involves more than one pass.