Fight changes! | Forums

[Garnmannen]

so how come there are steep learning curve in games like mortal kombat,tekken,street fighter if it is based on reactionary combat. i am all up for an change as i hate how ganks are and the devs have made it somehow worse now.

[LightUpTheEyes]

There's no skill involved in reacting. See an image on screen, push button. A trained monkey can do it.

I mean, there isn't really skill involved in prediction either. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "wow that person is so skilled at rock, paper scissors."

[Vakris_One]

...That like saying there is no skill in playing music, you memorize then you just play the notes.

That's not a comparative example since you either have the reflexes to react fast enough to something or you don't. No amount of training will get you past the upper limit of your reaction speeds because that is hard wired into you via age and genetics.This is not true with music. Anyone can learn to play music with enough practice. The same is true of making reads, it is something you can practice and hone and it doesn't have a pre-determined limit based on age or genetics.

There is a lot of skill involved in developing the knowledge and circumstantial intuition to react properly to any situation within the game, and already what some people may call "reacting" is actually "reading" because of older age, slower reaction times, or bad equipment (coughs in console).

Point being. There is a lot of skill in using reactions while tuned into the game. Regardless the game will never be just one or the other. Proper gameplay in the system as its currently implemented will always involve both reacting and reading, and to arbitrarily decide that everything that falls on the reaction side of things takes no skill is stupid. It is true that over countless hours reacting can become so ingrained in a person it requires no thought and is second nature to them, But thats still not a lack of skill. People whistle and sing without effort when they have practiced a lot. But its still quite often skillful.

Sorry this was lengthy, but I really dislike flat dismissive statements like what you said. because at its core you attacked his argument solely on a semantic definition of skill not including reacting. which is both incorrect and just pointless.

It's curious how you find issue with my comment but no issue whatsoever with the dismissive and ignorant phrasing of the person I was replying to. Maybe examine the reasoning why such a comment would promote such a sharp response from a person who has a lot of knowledge about the game. The fact that the developers had to roleplay a 1v1 fight in order to explain why a reactionary fight system is bad for the game, as if explaining it to very young children, speaks volumes about how ignorant the majority of the playerbase is. They all but had to take out hand puppets and speak using really simple words. Imagine being the developers and making really good and important changes and then being met with vitriol and ignorance from the majority of their players. I don't know how they keep going sometimes to be honest.

Dismissive comments such as the one I replied to are exactly the type of ignorance I am talking about. Comments like that and worse were all over the Warrior's Den Twitch chat yesterday and it's both depressing and enraging to read such simplistic knee jerk dismissals over such hugely important changes. I've spent the majority of my time on this forum providing facts to people who might want to use them but there's a limit to how much inane stupidity one can see without letting off some steam.

As for a debate about reaction versus prediction, which is what this is. Did you feel that the game was really skilful back in year 1? Was it a feat of ultimate skill to react to everything simply because your reflexes allowed it? I'm not going to argue with you over the minutiae of what constitutes learned skill verses innate ability as that would be a long and mostly fruitless conversation. I will instead cut right to the chase about how the new changes make the game fairer and more fun for players of all skill levels. Put simply, having the game rely heavily on reactions is not a fair and equal playing field. This is because you will always have a small group of people who have extremely good reactions combined with high end hardware who will inherently dominate over everyone else in an environment that is based largely on reactions. Making it so that everyone has to make reads at exactly the same type of attacks is a much fairer playing field.

Now we're all in the same boat together and scenarios like meeting a player that is like a brick wall to you simply because they have the reactions to deny your offense and you don't is no longer possible. Now every single player in the game is on more equal footing regardless of their innate reaction speeds. Now it becomes a game closer to one of mind games and out-predicting your opponent instead of scenarios where one player cannot react to everything whereas the other can and it is a very lop sided environment that is skewed in favour of innate biology/hardware rather than pure gameplay ability.

[Vakris_One]

so how come there are steep learning curve in games like mortal kombat,tekken,street fighter if it is based on reactionary combat. i am all up for an change as i hate how ganks are and the devs have made it somehow worse now.

2D fighting games like MK, Tekken, Street FIghter, etc are not reactionary. They are highly read based, which is the only way a fighting game can work successfully.

I mean, there isn't really skill involved in prediction either. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "wow that person is so skilled at rock, paper scissors."

There is actually, or do you think that making random guesses is how the game is played at the highest levels? Just players pushing buttons randomly because everything is up in the air.

Like I wrote to Vendel, reactions have an upper limit that cannot be bypassed due to age and genetics. They are for the most part an innate ability. Reads on the other hand can be trained and honed with no pre-determined limit based on age or genetics. Having a system where everyone has to make a read on the same point of attack is much fairer than a system that is skewed in favour of the player with faster reaction speeds. Reactions have a hard limit. Honing game sense and improving at playing mind games does not.

[LightUpTheEyes]

There is actually, or do you think that making random guesses is how the game is played at the highest levels? Just players pushing buttons randomly because everything is up in the air.

No, you can't just button mash and expect to win. However the mix ups in this game are on a rock, paper scissors basis like most games. I'm not saying that unreactable offense is a bad thing. All I'm saying is that in those cases all you are doing is guessing "making a read". Sure you can anticipate what your opponent is going to do based on how they've been playing, similar to rock, paper scissors. If my opponent is consistently choosing rock then I can make a read that he's going to go rock again and win.

Not all games have to be unreactable to be good. Bushido Blade is to this day my favorite fighting game and that is all reactionary. As a matter of fact when I first saw For Honor I was hoping it would be a lot like that.

[Psycho-Bandit]

There is actually, or do you think that making random guesses is how the game is played at the highest levels? Just players pushing buttons randomly because everything is up in the air.

Not all players play on the highest levels. Like me, i dont have to much "skill" but i love to play this game, i love the fights and i love how to Control the Heros, this game is just unique. The problem is that i am nearly 50 years old, thats why my reflexes are not that fast like players of the younger generations. Honestly i couldnt parry any 400ms light, i am just not fast enough but i was able to block it some times. In TG the lights are not faster but i can see them 100ms later, unreactable for me, exactly what Ubi wanted it to be.

as i said yes, i have little skill. Skill is, according to the statement, guessing what happens, so the game is hardly playable for me anymore. For me, every fight feels like with a 400 ping opponent.
It is only a test but I believe that many will not or cannot play the game with such a change. This is a major change to the system which, according to the statement, should make it easier to get into the game. I find it rather difficult to get into the game.
as I said that is my feeling, I may be wrong. but I know at least one player who stops playing.
well, let's wait and see what will actually be put into the game.

I don't think everything is bad, the reduction of the damage, no extra stamina drain for block or parry are good things, but then the revenge has to be adjusted too, it comes much too soon.

and Sry for my bad english

[Vakris_One]

No, you can't just button mash and expect to win. However the mix ups in this game are on a rock, paper scissors basis like most games. I'm not saying that unreactable offense is a bad thing. All I'm saying is that in those cases all you are doing is guessing "making a read". Sure you can anticipate what your opponent is going to do based on how they've been playing, similar to rock, paper scissors. If my opponent is consistently choosing rock then I can make a read that he's going to go rock again and win.

Not all games have to be unreactable to be good. Bushido Blade is to this day my favorite fighting game and that is all reactionary. As a matter of fact when I first saw For Honor I was hoping it would be a lot like that.

Bushido Blade worked on the basis of being a one-hit kill type of game. To that end you couldn't possibly make the majority of attacks from neutral unreactable because it would be a game of whoever presses a button first wins. That's not what For Honor is nor is it headed that way. I can definitely see that the devs' original vision for For Honor was intended to be a lot closer to a realistic sword fight just by looking at how reactionary everything was and how big the damage numbers were/are. It was intended for fights to end in just a couple of moves due to the big damage on every punish but the problem is that reaction punishing everything was just too easy and there was no depth in that kind of combat system.

At the end of the day the word "skill" is a very nebulous term that attempts to encompass many things. In another conversation I've had it was pointed out that reactions are what is considered a mechanical skill and stuff like making reads is a mental skill. Neither is more or less superior to the other. And despite my sharp response to the other poster I agree with the logic of that. They're both different skill sets however my argument as to which type is fairer for players of all levels does not change. Having a read based system is a more equal playing field than a reaction based system for the type of game that For Honor is.

[Vakris_One]

Not all players play on the highest levels. Like me, i dont have to much "skill" but i love to play this game, i love the fights and i love how to Control the Heros, this game is just unique. The problem is that i am nearly 50 years old, thats why my reflexes are not that fast like players of the younger generations. Honestly i couldnt parry any 400ms light, i am just not fast enough but i was able to block it some times. In TG the lights are not faster but i can see them 100ms later, unreactable for me, exactly what Ubi wanted it to be.

as i said yes, i have little skill. Skill is, according to the statement, guessing what happens, so the game is hardly playable for me anymore. For me, every fight feels like with a 400 ping opponent.
It is only a test but I believe that many will not or cannot play the game with such a change. This is a major change to the system which, according to the statement, should make it easier to get into the game. I find it rather difficult to get into the game.
as I said that is my feeling, I may be wrong. but I know at least one player who stops playing.
well, let's wait and see what will actually be put into the game.

I don't think everything is bad, the reduction of the damage, no extra stamina drain for block or parry are good things, but then the revenge has to be adjusted too, it comes much too soon.

and Sry for my bad english

I understand your argument but can you see that a system which puts all of us in the same boat is better than a system which favours faster reaction times? This new system favours you more than the old one because you will never again encounter a scenario where a player with superior reactions to you will be able to completely shut your offense down based on reaction alone while you cannot do the same to them. Now you're both in the same boat because the attacks that are unreactable for you are now also unreactable to 99.9% of the playerbase barring the 0.1% of super humans who are capable of slowing down time with just a thought

[LightUpTheEyes]

It was intended for fights to end in just a couple of moves due to the big damage on every punish but the problem is that reaction punishing everything was just too easy and there was no depth in that kind of combat system.

This was the problem with the original game. The slower more realistic pace in my opinion wasn't a bad thing. The problem that the game had was that they allowed way too much emphasis on guaranteed damage from punishes. The concept I was really looking for in For Honor wasn't about guaranteed punishes, it was more about user error. If I got killed, it was because of my mistake, not because I threw an attack that got parried and ended up being a killing blow. Having said that, I understand that throwing an attack that got parried could be considered an error on my part, but not having a chance to counter back is essentially the problem the original concept had.

That ship has long sailed though as the devs have taken a more arcade approach to the game and it still is very fun.

I still long for a new Bushido Blade style game though. Hopefully one day.

[Vendelkin]

Vakris i disputed your statement because it was more eggregious to me. Yes the previous statement was also foolish and dismissive, but your statement indirectly suggested a broad variety of talents people hone were without skill. That broad statement was what bothered me. A guy claiming the game is now going to be a "gank fest" may be correct for at least two reasons. 1... possibly right in describing how 1v 2+ situations will now feel (even tho thats probs a good thing) and 2 expressing an opinion that really reflects on for honor only. Your statement that reactions take no skill is a far more broad and fecetious statement.

Also reading to a certain degree in this game is very much going to be just guessing. And even with the change to dmg the person to guess right first is gonna be the likely victor. Reading in video games has always been questionable to me cause i cant see my opponents unique facial expressions and mannerisms like i can in a jiujitsu match or an actual swordfight (i grew up competing in bastard sword combat at ren fairs). In longer duration fighters yes, you can develop an intuition about your opponents actions. Thankfully although hit point value doesnt enable such back and forth in for honor 3 round duels do it near efficiently enough.

But....regardless even in a read situation players that can react sooner to other stimuli will still have an advantage. It may reduce that advantage sure, but making the game less reactionary still doesnt put everyone on equal grounds.

And why should it anyways? No athlete competes on equal grounds. The world doesnt bend to make up for the circumstantials of a persons development. Fairness isnt giving everybody the exact same circumstances. Fairness is about giving everyone the same competition.

In some ways there is just too much bundled up in this TG to gather all together. I actually personally do LIKE the general change to attack speed. Its part of the reason i preferred playing on console. Games harder, feels more random and exciting. That being said i always felt my "skill" was more recognizable and rewarded on pc. So i disagree with the idea that making combat more read based is increasing the skill cieling. I like the change, but disagree in part with the analysis and motive ubi presented.

I also like the general mindset to extend fights by reducing dmges and stamina loss accross the board, but speed them up with better offense to compensate. That part of their rationale i like. Problem tho that should be tested seperately because as it stand some heroes got hit with the dmg nerf hammer way worse than others and its frustrating the whole experience, and likely many peoples negative reactions in the survey are gonna be skewed by the hero specific changes rather rhan the core system changes.