Patching the bug did make a difference. It's one of the things the devs acknowledged a related post. This is one of the factors why many couldn't react to lights before and after the CCU and, thus, the complaints, both old and new.Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
I never said or think you're the only player that has a problem with the current implementation FD. I did watch Freeze complain about it in a video and some of the comments did side with him. Others, like myself, saw it as apart of the mind games. Overall, I was left with the impression that some found it annoying rather than problematic as it could be countered.Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
I deal with' auto dodgers' but most of the time they get punished which, again, is probably why little to no complaints are made about the issue, unlike light spam.
No, I'm not making anything up. This is my honest point of view and if you disagree, that's fine. As I said before, if it was an intended feature then it needs explaining in light of what the tutorials teach you regarding this aspect. Again, members of the community did raise the issue in the past as well. Regardless, the main point I was originally trying to make was that if certain things are not explained then they would be seen as an inconsistency which would have an impact on accessibility for newer players.Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
Yes, the rules apply to chains but given the contexts of WM's bash light, it's effectively a light finisher with FA which, again, allows her string multiple chain lights and bash lights the same way and a hero could string multiple light chains if lights didn't have FD. This prevents the defender from having a turn against her when the bash light ends her chain. This special light needs to have FD in my opinion.Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
On a more general note, as I said in my last reply, not all inconsistencies/exceptions are problematic but they do need explaining to improve accessibility. That was my main point.
Isn't it frustrating when you raise an issue multiple times others dismiss it, make out it's fictional, don't acknowledge your points, when they do acknowledge your points they sweep them under the rug like an isolated issue rather than a broader one, they can't empathise with your experience since they feel they already have an answer to the problem, and effectively blame you for your struggles & frustrations? Now you how many feel when they got told light spam isn't a thing, it's a problem for low-level players, it's their fault, it's a hardware & setup issue, only console players deal with it, complainers need to 'git gud,' etc. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, perhaps you should consider changing your tone when addressing light spam instead of making it out as some form of fiction or problem to a specific part of the player base.Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
I can't agree with how 'crappy' 'auto dodging' feels since I'm one of those players that see this aspect as a mind game, something that's easily punished when abused, and a means to counter light spam/address player frustration. Can I counter it all the time? No, but when I keep punishing a player for 'auto-dodging' they stop doing it. However, I can empathise on a more general level where if there is an aspect of the game that is frustrating to certain players, the devs should look into it and try to address it rather than pretend it's not a problem but if they do provide a fix, it must not come at the expense of the needs of the majority or effectively swap one problem for another. I did say that the devs should aim for the middle ground and addressing player frustration should be a priority. Another way I could empathise is my issue with Berserker having too much HA, mainly with his/her lights since, at least that I feel, you are forced to wait until Zerk has finisher doing his/her thing before you could consider countering or going on offense but you didn't see an issue with this in our last spat.
I could say your comparison between Gryphon and Orochi only enforces my point about Gryphon and Kensei being the main culprits to 'auto-dodging' but it's true that the 100ms isn't going to make much difference to most players. Of course, if you can't GB the dodge attack then you can bait and parry it. In my experience, Kensei and Gryphon are harder to GB since the window is smaller, the rest are easier on read. Perhaps the input windows you mentioned has something to do with it but the common feedback for Gryphon and Kensei is to increase their GB vulnerability on their side-dodge heavies.
Yes, you could give a list of problematic heroes regarding 'auto dodging' but given my experience as well as common feedback, you see why only the two heroes get mentioned. As for solid guard on dodge and heavy trajectories, I think many to most see this as simply apart of the game and not a problem, or a hero balancing issue to be addressed as and when. Perhaps 'auto dodging' is more of a problem at higher levels/comp play and the type of 'auto dodgers' most of us experience don't know how to exploit the knowledge you were describing earlier, hence the lack of complaints especially compared to light spam.Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
Perhaps some good news for you regarding heavy trajectories is that the devs were and still are looking into widening them. This is what they looked at on Warden's rework. WM has good trajectories on her heavies. I believe other heroes were looked into in the past but I can only remember PK's zone in the previous rework before that latest one. Of course, it will be a long wait before the devs get through the entire roster.
I was under the impression that Shaman's dagger cancel wasn't nerfed. This is why I thought it wasn't touched as it had little do with light spam. If they were to changed it post CCU, I thought it would get the same treatment as PK, not left as frame neutral or mostly advantaged as you put it. Also, most of Shaman's complaints had little to do with light spam. So there is no hypocrisy here but I take it that's your opinion anyway.Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
Regarding PK, many asked for her Dagger Cancel to be a chain starter. That's been common feedback for a very long time with little resistance and when it got FD, many thought that was overkill given the state of her kit, which mainly lacked flow. I believe this was an issue due to the fact it's a soft-feint from a heavy that only comes from the same direction, unlike most light finishers, so it is easier to read and punish. Raider's storming stap's common use is also soft-feint from a heavy that comes from the same direction but the common complaint, unlike PK's DC, with that is its animations as well as it's speed, not the fact that is can be followed by a chain finisher. So, again, no hypocrisy.
As for WM, again, here FA after a bash light allows her string multiple chains without letting the defender have a turn, which is something the devs spoke against with chains in general in the WD that covered TG prior to the CCU. Again, given the contexts of the bash light, it has plenty to do with light spam.
If you did play the games I play, you'll see more of the same as you do now, the only real difference is I don't think it's really a problem apart from the two heroes I mentioned, and I assume you're playing at a higher level so it must be tougher to deal with when backed up with more knowledge and better reactions. My lobbies are not filled with Kenseis and Gryphons but, again, they are the main culprits when it comes to 'dodging on red.'Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
It's not so much I'm ignoring your point but that 'auto dodging' doesn't agitate me as it does you since my perspective on this aspect of the game is different from yours while your view seems to match Freeze's and the like-minded more than anything.
Sorry if I didn't acknowledge your points too well in my responses. I think you get the gist that I have a different take on 'auto-dodging' where I don't see it as a problem the same way you don't see light spam as a problem. Again, in the future, if you prefer people to acknowledge your points rather than ignore or belittle you in any shape or form, perhaps you should change your tone when you address light spam. At least then a more common understanding can be reached, even if we disagree in the end.Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
You're right about going around in circles, I'll try to keep my arguments more concise(easier said than done when it comes to you) and I'll try not to come across as ignoring your arguments. In return, try not to make bold accusations or loose comments about me such as me coming up with absurd ideas, making things up, being daft, being hypocritical, etc. To me, this comes across as disrespectful and not very constructive to the discussion. I do try to stick to the facts and only offer my honest opinion. Yes, it is frustrating when someone doesn't seem to be listening to you but there's no excuse. If you need clarity, just ask and I'll do my best. You should know by now from the multiple back and forths we've had, I do try to listen to you and I don't try to pull wool over anyone's eyes. If you disagree, that's fine; we do that most of the time.
You can have a good one as well. Take care and I'll see you in the next thread.