Raider buff | Forums

[Knight_Raime]

I am not saying some hero can't be better than Raider in 4s as far as i know.
Only saying he can be good.. as you said yourself many times on this same thread btw.

It's also nothing but honest to say that at this point Raider is not in a urge of a buff to be ok like many others are. My point is not to counter argue with the op, it's to be clear about it.

Once you get it thats why i am not going into any technical stuffs.

Still everyone is free to share ideas they would like, just like the op did and i also did respectfully without even quoting anyone or taking part into the suggestions.

Respect, a basic value you should work on a bit.

I'm sorry you view me picking apart your response as disrespectful.

You should probably work on that.

[Sweaty_Sock]

I chose posing as a neutral word. I could've accused you of pretending instead. I was indeed wrong about it being Guaranteed. This was because it used to be pre his rework and I made the mistake of assuming it would still be the same simply because it was not a listed change. So you can't really make that situation out to be like you knew better than I did about Centurion especially since the whole context of the situation was that you wanted his dash heavy to link into his gameplay loop. Which it does as you still chain off of it. Good effort though.

But Raime this DOES prove something important - I didnt trawl through patchnotes or a competitive forum for my information - I jumped ingame and actually TESTED the cent changes before speaking. I may not have all the 'competitive lingo' but thats because my thoughts are my own, developed over the course of playing this game for (surprise) a long time.

In regards to the maths I asked for You have 200ms recovery after feinting. Raider's zone is 900ms from neutral and 1000ms in chain. Hard feinting happens 400ms before impact. So in this case there is a 700ms window of time before raider can act upon being stuffed (200ms recovery on feint+ the minimum exit time of the zone being 500ms) So there is a 200ms difference between a 500ms attack and when Raider is out of the feint and it's recovery. The average human reaction time is 300ms. 200ms is still doable. But i'm hard pressed to believe a normal FH player could consistently feint and parry.
But let's assume that we can say a FH player can do this on his neutral zone on reaction. You cannot say the same for his chained zone. The extra 100ms for it basically means it's stuffed for free.

Here you missed the point. You seem to be waiting to react once your feint animation ends. even though you know in advance how that happens, so while it happens you should react to what you are watching them do. Maybe this is where you are going wrong with it. A quick analogy here is this isnt a starters gun for a race with no warning, where you have to tense and go on the 'bang' only. This is someone saying 'on the count of three' who then proceeds to count to three, one each second. If you are waiting for 3 before you react, and not getting the timing from the 1 & 2 to get ready and anticipating the three based on the countdown in front of you, you will be slower. You should already be running your reaction before raiders feint has ended (what else are you going to do while the animation is playing, you should be watching everything the opponent does and making your own mental countdown as to when to press the buttons WELL before your feint animation ends). This is how two separate humans can play music together in synchrony - timing, and anticipation based on those timings.

The warden reference was from a neutral dodge and not chained. Raider's chained HA comes out 300ms so a raider has to make the read and trade here. Only with his finisher heavies does he get 100ms of HA. In that instance you can argue raider could reasonably try to react trade with a stuffed attempt. Also raider can substitute his mid chain or his chain finisher with a his zone. It doesn't need to be only if raider is at a finisher point like Valk. So tap leading to a finisher doesn't actually benefit the chain mix up. If anything the devs made it a second hit in the chain to cut down the amount of potential combo options to prevent overwhelming the player.

Or it gives access to the chain finishers from a tap, allowing you to force your opponents hand using the UB zone, creating a quick softfeint that leapfrogs you to chain finishers and fast HA, so you can do what I described in my earlier post? The best raiders I know will mixups to deliver a tap & get to that same, chain finish position - because you can test how some acts, and make reads based on what you anticipate they will do, a correct read nets you the UB zone, the massive heavy finish damage, a GB or even just the standard light finisher (which couples with the tap is a respectable 33 damage). Heck even chaining back into another tap is an option there for 15+15+ what you can get. The thing is your looking at potential rewards of 55-59 if you can get the finish through, and if you can bait to a parry thats st + parry for 50. Land one each of these two alone and you are already at 95-99 damage. Even ST into softfeint GB/zone is what, 43 damage? You just need things to work 3 times for you and most champs are dead, meaning you just need to fish for those 3 mistakes/reads from your opponent (EVEN IF YOU DO GET PARRIED SOMETIMES).

In regards to the specific quote I mentioned you're missing the point. Saying Raider's chained offense is bad because defense in general is too strong is not actually countering my claim that Raider's offense is poor. You're side stepping the issue not addressing it. Which I will reiterate again for your benefit. Raider's offense is poor because his chain offense is poor. His chain offense is poor because it is reasonable to assume someone can just stuff his mid chain UB mix up. And that his one potential soft feint (storm tap) is a relatively poor move that leads to weak finishers. It wouldn't matter if tap or his heavies became harder to react to ala mid season patch. His mix up fundamentally does not work. Defense being favored is just icing on the crap cake for raider's situation.

Most champs & players have difficulties with the 'standstill, guard a direction, look for parries from 2 directions and zone parry from the 3rd' reaction gameplay. Why such a massive overhaul is coming which should in theory make being parried allot less game changing, allowing you to eat more, and therefore take risks more. The thing is, if you get good with the various options available to your opponent once you get them to the chain finish, its really, really not useless if your reading/outplaying your opponent (and needing skill is not really a bad thing in a pvp game...)

The thing is I didn't advocate for stun to come back. The general discussion here has been about Raider's offensive capabilities as a whole. OP may have initiated by asking for it back. But that's really just one piece of the overall discussion. The mid season patch does not fix anyone's core kit problems. Even if raider ends up landing more hits because of it that doesn't fix the core problems of his offense.

Stun won't come back unfortunately the devs seem fine with the mechanic but only when you can apply it in a defensive manner. Personally I hate how it's being handled but I can't entirely blame them. When you have clowns like a certain person in this thread who would cry anytime something that makes offense workable. Unfortunately they had to gut the move because of people like that.

You may not be stating 'bring it back' but your calling me a clown for saying its removal was a good thing, which is a pretty resounding defence of the moveset in a thread asking for its return - what your basically saying here is you WOULD like it back, but because of clowns like me that sadly cant happen. And to be honest, if it takes clowns like me to keep things like this in check then "send in the clowns." - i'll take the name proudly.

[Knight_Raime]

@sock

You testing something is great initiative. It's not always something I do. Okay. This again still doesn't matter within the context that this was being discussed about. Which I will not state again. But if you really must have me acknowledge you did a good over me then grats. You don a good. I'd make you a sticker but I really don't have the knack for crafts. Cheeky jab being thrown my way is appreciated though. Even if my knowledge largely comes from others I still form my own opinion.


Your example is confusing. You stated I have the time to react to someone after feinting. So why wouldn't I be waiting after a feint? If I'm feinting and then buffering a parry input i'm not reacting to their stuff attempt. I'm making a read. And I already acknowledged that it's technically possible to react parry a 500ms attack from neutral zone and still not be a reaction monster. I'm still not changing my stance when it comes to stuffing his chained zone mix up. The math pretty much proves you can't react parry in that point because of the extra 100ms on his chained zone.
Yeah that doesn't change anything. His zone is 100ms longer in chain. So i'm not going to have to worry about accidentally trading into the 100ms HA if i'm purely reacting on orange.
And i'm not going to consider skipping straight to finishers as a benefit for raider when his finishers are pretty lacking. Just as I do not applaud Kensei for being able to skip to his unblockable finisher when it's mix ups are not strong either.


Again stating other heros have similar issues is not a counter point let alone an argument about Raider's specific problems. So mentioning it repeatedly does nothing for the discussion at hand. The only 4 heros in my opinion that greatly benefit from the up coming changes are pk, Valk, Jorm, and Nuxia. Each one of them still has a glaring problem and/or a missing piece that keeps them from being great heros. PK will still struggle to get going. Valks mid chain mix up will still be completely shut out by dodge attacks. Jorm will not be able to OOS anyone, not have an answer to bashes. Nuxia will still lack a decent defensive option with no option select and her dodges being inconsistent punish tools. As I already said the TG doesn't fix any hero's specific problems. Raider having a semi easier time to start his chains will not make his actual chain offense better. It's not a numbers problem.


Finally I do think it's removal was a poor decision. The problem wasn't the stun effect as a mechanic. it's that the stun effect stacked. The wonky animation didn't help the situation. The devs seem bent on removing stun effects from offensive options which I 100% disagree with. LB having stun on certain defensive actions is still just as problematic. It's just not regarded as annoying so it gets to stay. What I WOULD like is if stun as a mechanic was properly expanded upon instead of being pulled when this game is already pretty barren when it comes to actual mechanical tools. The devs general behavior is to remove something rather than actually work with it. It's frustrating.

My clown comment was directed both at you and the general populace that lose your collective gourds whenever offense is actually good in a particular situation. The same level of reaction is never there when it comes to heros who are overwhelmingly a problem from a defensive standpoint. And that annoys me as much as if not more than the devs behavior and approach to many things with the game. We both believed the tap needed to be addressed. the only difference is you seem perfectly content with them gutting the move purely because it was a problem. I don't care how garbage something might be for the game. You handle it right. Getting rid of the problem in a poor way earns you no respect or praise from me.

Hence why I said in a prior response "People accepting poor balance decisions made by the devs just because x hero was obnoxious to deal with is stupid."
So yeah. If you support the devs making poor balance choices like what was done to tap then i'm going to call you a clown. And a hypocrite because then you'd have to accept how they handled Nobushi when they nerfed her. They took the same sledge hammer to a problem approach with her. I'm ejecting myself from this conversation. If you do reply I will read. But I grow tired of going in circles with this discussion.

[Sweaty_Sock]

Raime

1) You are making me out like some kind of liar, so I showed a very quick example of something experience taught me - always check things yourself (and now with training mode you dont have to die 20+ times to work it all out, it was a feature I LOVE ubi for putting in there)

2) Your still missing the raider point. You don't need to buffer your parry. You buffer the feint, and then use the feint animation to absorb your reflex time on the parry. Feint, watch, react. Once you are comfortable in how far you can delay your parry attempt within the feint timings it gets pretty easy, I have terrible reflexes and personally find this kind of 'set play' parry easier than say a neutral light as I can pretty much count myself down. Learning how far you can stretch windows to give yourself breathing time is something I find underutilized as everyone wants to hammer in combos/the next move. In simple terms think of it like a warden charging a bash. At that time hes watching them, not himself, waiting to just release that bash if they make a mistake on dodge. If you get comfortable with the feint windows of certain attacks you can just watch, and react. It starts to actually feel like a 'part' of the move. Feint, watch, react. Learning the knife edge of how far you can push something while you are thinking/watching I suppose is the hard part. Grab a sparring partner, set a custom game, turn damage off, and take turns practicing it on each other starting with an agreed upon side till your doing the buffered feint followed by a parry on reaction (during the feint window) rather than an early guess, and then progress to more and more sides once you;ve nailed it.

3) the stun was removed from raider sure, but champs like glad still use it to apply pressure

4) You were referring to a singular person 'who disagrees' - its not rocket science to scroll up and see only 1 disagreement from anyone before your post. Im happy to be called a clown in the context of a game designed for enjoyment, at least clowns are fun

5) Ease up on hostility to Sieg, hes one of the few laid back, happy to learn people left on the forums not bracing for ww3 over a minor comment and who is happy to state ignorance rather than bluster through. I dont think i've seen him rip into anyone since I've been on the forums, and here hes just asking for respect, which applies to my behavior as well - so

6) Lets agree to disagree, and wait and see what the core changes do to the the game, the patch is less than a month away. I dont know why you've been flipping out, your normally the reserved and formal one around here. While you can sometimes be some-what stiff when responding to people, I wasn't trying to be insulting when I said your better than the name calling, because I still believe you are. We both like this game, so lets get back to talking respectfully to oneanother? Its clear we both like the game, and its also clear like I said earlier we are two sides of a coin, I am the 'feel dont think' artsy kind of player, who like chaotic spontaneous play, and your the kind of player who likes the skyet 'ruthless efficiency' style of play. Abit like the movies analogy earlier, I cant say your wrong for enjoying the game the way you do, but I can say I dont like it. Vice versa, you can say you dont like what I like, but you cant say im wrong for it.

[Sweaty_Sock]

Raime, olive branch was extended. You accepting or no?

[Knight_Raime]

Raime, olive branch was extended. You accepting or no?

Honestly I was being an ******* specifically to you for a pretty dumb reason. Since I don't particularly care about what happens to my account here anymore i'll just be up front and honest. I was attempting to be an *******. Not just any kind of *******. But an aggressive one. I figured if I got banned here I could let go of this site because even though I have great interactions here with some people and some of the mods most of the time I feel like my time is wasted here. And there are some people who down right piss me off. You're one of them. But not one of the people I considered to ever be an actual ****e excuse of a person.


Then I realized that bans here mean basically **** all since there are still people around here who are still allowed to post which I heavily disagree with. But that's neither here nor there. It's stupid of me to try and shove my issues onto someone else to solve them. So enough beating around the bush. I really don't agree with your mindset. I don't honestly believe you have as much experience as you claim you have. And there are ideas that you propose that only further my bias against you. I do not believe I am capable of holding an extended discussion with you on a subject matter that we're both not already mostly in agreement on. This is why our Zhanhu talks went mostly fine. But things like ganks/revenge and this raider thread went south.


This is 100% my problem. And i'm sorry that I attempted to handle this in a poor matter. I will however state here and only this one time that I am going to seek to avoid conversations with you if there is no middle ground I can see. If I screw this up and randomly back out of a conversation (vocally or not) please take this as a nod from me that i'm attempting to save much unneeded stress and BS for the both of us. Or at least for myself.

So yeah. Olive branch and all that I guess.

[Sweaty_Sock]

Honestly I was being an ******* specifically to you for a pretty dumb reason. Since I don't particularly care about what happens to my account here anymore i'll just be up front and honest. I was attempting to be an *******. Not just any kind of *******. But an aggressive one. I figured if I got banned here I could let go of this site because even though I have great interactions here with some people and some of the mods most of the time I feel like my time is wasted here. And there are some people who down right piss me off. You're one of them. But not one of the people I considered to ever be an actual ****e excuse of a person.


Then I realized that bans here mean basically **** all since there are still people around here who are still allowed to post which I heavily disagree with. But that's neither here nor there. It's stupid of me to try and shove my issues onto someone else to solve them. So enough beating around the bush. I really don't agree with your mindset. I don't honestly believe you have as much experience as you claim you have. And there are ideas that you propose that only further my bias against you. I do not believe I am capable of holding an extended discussion with you on a subject matter that we're both not already mostly in agreement on. This is why our Zhanhu talks went mostly fine. But things like ganks/revenge and this raider thread went south.


This is 100% my problem. And i'm sorry that I attempted to handle this in a poor matter. I will however state here and only this one time that I am going to seek to avoid conversations with you if there is no middle ground I can see. If I screw this up and randomly back out of a conversation (vocally or not) please take this as a nod from me that i'm attempting to save much unneeded stress and BS for the both of us. Or at least for myself.

So yeah. Olive branch and all that I guess.

Appreciate the honesty. I suppose I will give my full disclosure, all my thoughts are never just my own, I have made literally hundreds of online 'friends' (even a few actual friends) through this game, and I have to remember why they left. Over the years I made about 400, now about 12 are online. I need to remember why they quit, and not just "I dont have a problem with this, its your problem". And they weren't all the best, but they were fun, they made the game breath rather than feel like a claustrophobic closet of 'git gud' players, and one by one they left.

As a comedian once said "i'd rather a dumb nice guy than a smart c&^nt any day of the week". So yes, I do play devils advocate but I have my reasons - the games a game, not the formation training of an elite spec-ops unit. I dont care if I lose, I care if the game dies.


EDIT: Appreciate the candor, though sounds like you need a break. I knew it was out of sorts for you, just needed to ask one last time before my own patience started to cave in.

Just say 'agree to disagree', I get it. But what I say sometimes is a case of 'someone has to fly those guys f&^ing banner around here'