Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
@Soldier_of_Dawn


"Back then, there was the 0ms guard switch bug so players had a little more time to react.."

I really doubt the average player was aware of this let alone intentionally causing it to happen. Regardless I think you're stretching your point here and i've nothing productive to say to it so i'm going to leave it at this and move onto another part.
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
"However, the current state of FA/FD isn't problematic, otherwise there would be threads complaining about this..."

Hard disagree with that. Most players don't even understand FA/FD. Or at least don't care enough about it to take advantage of it. People still mash out from what I see and experience. The only complaint that gets mentioned in broad is with pk and that's because an isolated incident with one hero is a lot easier to quantify and understand than the effects of what FA/FD has on the game as a whole. Also it's actually been complained about by some comp players. But ya know. They're a small group and people like to ignore their input anyway. Regardless your statement is a false equivalence. You surely cannot be daft enough to think i'm the only player who has a problem with how FD is currently implemented.
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
"Not being able to parry an attack from opponents because they are not locked on to you, even though they can still hit you, is an inconsistency in itself..."

Nope. It's intended by the games mechanics. You're just making stuff up now. Indicators still being shown doesn't prove your claim at all unless you're referring to the parry flash still showing up. I'm pretty sure it doesn't. But even if it did that would be more of a visual bug than saying external hits are bugged. Full block doesn't behave the same as regular block. Wether the devs initially designed it for a different purpose or not is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion. Zones were also initially only designed to deal with multiple opponents. But the devs conformed most zones to work for other purposes eventually. So regardless if FB was specifically meant to deal with externals or not isn't applicable to how it's used today since the devs haven't bothered changing or commenting on it.
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
"To reiterate somewhat, the exceptions to the rules need to be explained somewhere in the game.."

I agree with that. But to be specific calling them exceptions is mislabeling them to begin with since the games damage log does not dictate those attacks as finishers. The devs also said on that very same info you've linked to me that the rules were to CHAINS and not every light or heavy. They also did state there would be some "exceptions." Which is confusing. But they also have mixed up hyper/super armor usage on stream. Shrug. Regardless yes the game should explain itself better. But to treat the "outliers" as a problem when people flat out misunderstood what was being told to them is just poor imho.
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
"For the most part..."

Again, you are either misunderstanding or choosing to ignore my statement. The issue isn't wether it's punishable or how safe it is/isnt. My problem is specifically the interaction. It does not feel good to have to wait constantly to see if someone is going to dodge attack outside my chain. This dang thread is about it not feeling good to be blendered. The least you can do is acknowledge how crappy the feeling is. Also, Orochi's dodge attack is 600ms just as kensei's and gryphon's. The slight difference is that Gryphon's dodge attack can be input 100ms into the dodge at the earliest where Orochi's is input at the earliest is 200ms. Unless you're a player with good reactions that 100ms difference isn't going to make or break the situation. Your GB attempt will likely be stuffed by the dodge attack.
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
As I already mentioned before it's not limited to dodge attacks with variable inputs. Most heros have solid guard which allows them to dodge out of and avoid an attack while attempting to block in another direction. The issue is with dodging out of chains period. You can say the problem feels worse with certain heros and even if we agreed to only that I could give you a list of heros that this is a problem on instead of your supposed accurate list of two. I can and also do assert that chain heavies are inconsistent with their trajectory and tracking thus making clipping people who dodge out much more difficult to manage. But again that's simply a symptom of the over arching problem.
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
"If Shaman's dagger cancel was left untouched, that's probably because it has little to do with light spam.."

It wasn't. It was nerfed from the CCU version because the CCU version allowed her to retain FA so much that she could repeatedly do her soft feint dagger cancel and beat out everything. That's why I said it was the only example of where FA/FD are in degrees and ideally that's where we'd be with FA/FD. It's also a bit hypocritical for you to make this statement but want other changes. like Pk's dagger cancel not being FD even though you are smart enough to know if it was FA or frame neutral people would scream about her light spamming. Or wanting WM to lose FA after her light from a bash even though it has nothing to do with light spam.
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
"I will say something else you won't agree with, auto dodging is less of thing than light spam..."

Boy i'd sure love to play the game you play. Because I see people auto dodging out of combos all the time even when it gets them repeatedly clocked by cent's charged punch or valk's spear sweep. And I sure as heck don't run into full teams of kensei's and gryphon's. The rest of this segment just reinforces the issue i'm presenting going over your head because you again talk about the punishability of it when that's never been an issue i've brought up.
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.'

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.

Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
At this point i'm just going to cut my responses here. Wether you're ignoring my points or i'm not explaining myself properly i'm tired of going in circles. You seem to be fine with having differences with FA/FD on heros regardless if we agree on which heros would need or don't need differences. And that's enough for me to walk away on and count the time spent with this back and forth as productive. You have a good one.
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.

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.