1. #41
    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    Oh don't worry I know you're not trying to change my perspective. I still remember a bit of our last spat we had. I respect you. I will also be clear and state that I come here still purely to see what a different side of the community states. Even if I tend to always disagree. It's important to understand any and every side of something imo. I will clarify. I believe lights are in the worst place they have been relative to the game as a whole.

    If we consider what the game was like back then sure, I could see your point. However in my mind it's like this. Lights back then did more damage but punishes were also bigger. Lights were reactable to most. Lights now? significantly weaker than before while punishes despite being lower are still pretty high in comparison (risk/vs reward.) In addition to that they are frame disadvantaged. And still pretty reactable. Less for the average player sure. But still quite reactable. So that's why they're in "the worst spot ever." They still don't feel good enough to stand on their own as proper attacks. Even though I don't agree with taking lights down damage wise I could still accept it if they were truly unreactable for the vast populace. IMO that's not currently the case. And I just personally disagree with having FD for FH.


    I should correct myself here again or at least be more clear. It is not that I think only competitive play should be considered. Balancing from the top down yes. But not just the top. I understand they have to look out for the general playerbase. That's why it made sense for them to make changes to address feedback from CCU against "light spam." I understood in principal, just didn't agree with all the changes made. However I still have my own beliefs. I do not believe in making changes for any particular group if it's:

    1) Bad for the overall health of the game
    2) Isn't going to really help/meet the goal the change is trying to accomplish
    3) Or does reach the goal it set out to do but at the cost of harming other parts of the game

    As an easy example I personally do not mind Goki losing his armor on his hug. The reason the devs want to do it is bunk though. And I don't think it's a good change specifically because it's only going to make Goki worse all around. Just for the sake of reducing how often it supposedly lands. Where as removing HA on goki's lights either doesn't have an impact or actually improves interactions with the character as a whole. And only minorly hurts the character. In short the change isn't great for Goki but is for the good of the game. So I support it.

    Now a blanket nerf to light damage, in my opinion, isn't really going to accomplish the goal of preventing light spam. I think people who can't or won't understand and use frame advantage are still going to be blendered often enough for it to remain a complaint. And I think it's only going to make lights feel worse in the upper parts of the games playing field. At the moment I use both lights and zones to try and stuff mix ups/peel for allies. If opening lights start doing say sub 10 damage i'm just never going to use them if I can help it. Which we should avoid doing.

    Rather, if i'm going to be on board with damage changes to lights they need to be targeted and they need to make sense. So perhaps some characters get a slight damage bump downward though their kit lights wise (say kensei.) Other characters could maybe have weaker light finisher damage (say maybe Orochi.) etc. Regardless i'd still push for buffs elsewhere. I understand that pushing lights to be unreactable for everyone is a big ask. But we could at least meet there partially by having a setup first. An idea I quite like would be buffing hard feints so that the first attack thrown after the feint would not do a parry flash. This makes feints a more diverse mechanic and accomplishes my goal some what whilst not speeding things up to further upset players who dislike the "much faster" ccu update.

    Alternatively we can simply make the vast majority of light attacks frame neutral. Some could stay FD like BP's light after any given bash of his so he can't "infinite loop" bash you to death like the CCU has prevented. The position more or less here is I don't really agree with you in principal. But i'm willing to be flexible if we do it right and we give a little elsewhere.
    Glad to hear you don't think it's just all about the competitive play perspective. Again, finding the middle ground is best.

    As far as those that complain about light spam, I don't think it's a case that players are refusing to use or learn certain aspects of the game's mechanics related to the issue. I believe some players simply need more time to make reads, given the direction the devs are taking this game towards. As for the newer players, they would have missed the explanations of FD/FA since the in-game tutorials don't cover them, I believe, if them not knowing is really the issue.

    Targeted light damage nerfs would be fine since the heroes concerned would likely be nerfed with compensation, if the December 2020 Testing Grounds is anything to go by. And the last time the devs did a blanket change to damage numbers, that being the CCU, it was a mess. Of course, the only issue with this approach would be the waiting time. If the devs could do a diligent blanket approach, that would be more ideal, at least in my view. While either approach won't stop the complaints altogether, they would make light spam less viable and reduce the complaints. Quite a few already share this point of view:

    As a reminder, as far as light attacks are concerned, I don't just want the damage of lights to be reduced, I also want the stamina cost increase to be reverted so we can gain back the ground we had from the removal of the stamina penalties. The stamina nerf to lights was the unnecessary part in my eyes as that has an impact on all offense, not just lights, since stamina is a shared pool.

    I don't think making lights unreactable to everyone is realistic at this point given how the devs went about making them unreactable/less reactable via the CCU. They would need to tweak the indicators, hide more frames, or speed up the animations. Messing with the indicators would upset more people, given the complaints we still get about them. Hiding more frames would make the game a lot less attractive from a cosmetic perspective by making the animations appear too skippy. Also, if Highlander is anything to go by, many to most wouldn't like more animations being sped up. Fresh motion capture could be an option but we would have to wait until the devs can do motion capture again and I'm sure it would be one rework at a time to gauge the feedback; in other words, it would be a long wait.

    As for buffs elsewhere, the devs are looking at reworking heroes now so it's wait and see. I think the CCU was phase 1 and phase 2 will be the reworks.
    Share this post

  2. #42
    Originally Posted by Soldier_of_Dawn Go to original post
    Glad to hear you don't think it's just all about the competitive play perspective. Again, finding the middle ground is best.

    As far as those that complain about light spam, I don't think it's a case that players are refusing to use or learn certain aspects of the game's mechanics related to the issue. I believe some players simply need more time to make reads, given the direction the devs are taking this game towards. As for the newer players, they would have missed the explanations of FD/FA since the in-game tutorials don't cover them, I believe, if them not knowing is really the issue.

    Targeted light damage nerfs would be fine since the heroes concerned would likely be nerfed with compensation, if the December 2020 Testing Grounds is anything to go by. And the last time the devs did a blanket change to damage numbers, that being the CCU, it was a mess. Of course, the only issue with this approach would be the waiting time. If the devs could do a diligent blanket approach, that would be more ideal, at least in my view.

    I don't think making lights unreactable to everyone is realistic given how the devs went about making them unreactable/less reactable via the CCU. They would need to tweak the indicators, hide more frames, or speed up the animations. Messing with the indicators would upset more people, given the complaints will still get about them. Hiding more frames would make the game a lot less attractive from a cosmetic perspective by making the animations appear too skippy. Also, if Highlander is anything to go by, many to most wouldn't like more animations being sped up. Fresh motion capture could be an option but we would have to wait until the devs can do motion capture again and I'm sure it would be one rework at a time to gauge the feedback; in other words, it would be a long wait.

    As for buffs elsewhere, the devs are looking at reworking heroes now so it's wait and see. I think the CCU was phase 1 and phase 2 will be the reworks.
    Of course. I always agree to middle grounds if one can be reached.

    The game lacking proper tutorials and fleshed out tools has been a long standing issue for me. Unfortunately I don't think it's ever going to get any better. But anyway i'll have to disagree. Obviously I don't think every person being blendered is refusing to use FA/FD. But at least in my experience from playing and from watching others play I don't see it being respected or utilized very much. For the most part people just mash buttons still. Even though we continue to get new tools like the revenge bar/tag indicator. Now do I think if they used said tools they'ed stop complaining about spam in general? No. But at least for me it's difficult to really let someone weigh in on suggestions for the game if they choose to be that way. But per your suggestion I don't think there's an obtainable sweet spot where enough time exists for people to make reads. Nor do I think fixing damage as a whole (outside of feats specifically) is really going to move the game forward anymore than the CCU already did. I think there needs to be more core changes for that to happen.

    Which is why I suggested we utilize hard feints to make things more unreactable. I really don't think removing parry flash after feints for a single attack is really going to hurt the average gameplay experience let alone impact the average player to any significant degree. So I don't see the harm in at least trying that in a TG. How do you feel about making lights in most cases frame neutral?
    Share this post

  3. #43
    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    Of course. I always agree to middle grounds if one can be reached.

    The game lacking proper tutorials and fleshed out tools has been a long standing issue for me. Unfortunately I don't think it's ever going to get any better. But anyway i'll have to disagree. Obviously I don't think every person being blendered is refusing to use FA/FD. But at least in my experience from playing and from watching others play I don't see it being respected or utilized very much. For the most part people just mash buttons still. Even though we continue to get new tools like the revenge bar/tag indicator. Now do I think if they used said tools they'ed stop complaining about spam in general? No. But at least for me it's difficult to really let someone weigh in on suggestions for the game if they choose to be that way. But per your suggestion I don't think there's an obtainable sweet spot where enough time exists for people to make reads. Nor do I think fixing damage as a whole (outside of feats specifically) is really going to move the game forward anymore than the CCU already did. I think there needs to be more core changes for that to happen.

    Which is why I suggested we utilize hard feints to make things more unreactable. I really don't think removing parry flash after feints for a single attack is really going to hurt the average gameplay experience let alone impact the average player to any significant degree. So I don't see the harm in at least trying that in a TG. How do you feel about making lights in most cases frame neutral?
    There will always be button mashers. Many have a relaxed mindset to games in general and that's what happens when they play For Honor. I have to deal with it a lot in team fights. Most of the time it's the newer players learning the game. In other fighting games, take Dragonball FighterZ for example, players can progress a considerable margin simply by button mashing because of the auto combo system since other developers also want their games to be as accessible as possible. In other cases, mashing is usually the initial approach to a game that's new to the player which soon becomes a bad habit that takes time to break. Combine those factors with For Honor's steep learning curve, it makes sense to see a lot of button mashers to our annoyance if you enjoy good team fights. Another factor to consider, though I'm sure you're sick of hearing it, it doesn't help that mashing the light button is viable in many scenarios to the point that players can get away with not learning all core aspects of the game. Then there's the win at all costs with the least amount of effort mentality that plagues the casual scene and it doesn't just apply to For Honor. And finally, given today's world, not everyone has the time to learn the complexities of certain games but are still attracted to the fantasy elements and themes.

    However, when you're playing with veterans, button mashing is almost non-existent. To me, that means For Honor simply takes a considerable amount of time learn so it's important for the devs to continue to make the game as accessible as possible. Again, the game gets harder to learn as it gets older due to the increasing roster and the game being saturated by veterans.

    As for removing FA/FD on lights in most scenarios, one, the devs would never do that. Two it wouldn't be healthy for the game, not just in terms of light spam encouragement, but it would also offset the balance regarding the FA we get from heavies. Players would be less encouraged to throw heavies given the risk they already have if throwing lights become safer in that regard. In some cases, it would lead to offense being one-sided since the windows for counterplay would be reduced. Fighting games need a healthy balance of risk & reward, and offense & counterplay. Removing FD from lights would disrupt both. The only exception I would make is PK's Dagger Cancel.

    I think an alternative solution to frame neutral lights would be implementing more recovery cancels in chains and chain finishers. For example, Orochi has the dodge cancel on chain finisher recoveries. He's can't continually light spam but it allows him to quickly reset his offense and continue to pressure if he/she chooses. BP can cancel the recovery of all lights and heavies with his Bulwark Slash to mix-up and extend his chains. Berserker and Nobushi have access to recovery cancels too. I would like to see more of these as they are a good way to implement more attack variety as well as give heroes more options for pressure. Also, I always like the idea of adding more context to existing moves, it would encourage more players to use a hero's entire kit.
    Share this post

  4. #44
    Originally Posted by Soldier_of_Dawn Go to original post
    As for removing FA/FD on lights in most scenarios, one, the devs would never do that. Two it wouldn't be healthy for the game, not just in terms of light spam encouragement, but it would also offset the balance regarding the FA we get from heavies. Players would be less encouraged to throw heavies given the risk they already have if throwing lights become safer in that regard. In some cases, it would lead to offense being one-sided since the windows for counterplay would be reduced. Fighting games need a healthy balance of risk & reward, and offense & counterplay. Removing FD from lights would disrupt both. The only exception I would make is PK's Dagger Cancel.

    I think an alternative solution to frame neutral lights would be implementing more recovery cancels in chains and chain finishers. For example, Orochi has the dodge cancel on chain finisher recoveries. He's can't continually light spam but it allows him to quickly reset his offense and continue to pressure if he/she chooses. BP can cancel the recovery of all lights and heavies with his Bulwark Slash to mix-up and extend his chains. Berserker and Nobushi have access to recovery cancels too. I would like to see more of these as they are a good way to implement more attack variety as well as give heroes more options for pressure. Also, I always like the idea of adding more context to existing moves, it would encourage more players to use a hero's entire kit.
    I disagree about it being unhealthy for the game. You said yourself (in more or less words) that lights will always be "spammed" to some degree due to mentality and the games learning curve. It sounds like you're implying reducing light damage to some capacity is going to more effectively curtail the "light spam" problem than the entirety of the ccu did. Tell me, if light spam is still considered "effective" when lights cost more stamina than previous and are disadvantaged frame wise how is removing FD in most situations really going to impact the lower end of the game? We both acknowledge that mashing out doesn't work against "veterans." Just as we can seen in DBFZ that relying on auto combos is only going to get you so far and that it doesn't topple people who've bothered to learn the game.

    To put it in perhaps a better sentence, if light spam is always going to be considered effective to some degree I don't see how meaningful of an impact it's going to have on these levels compared to the benefits it would give higher level play. In the skill brackets we're talking about in regards to the average/new player experience these people cannot react to lights consistently Therefore people they are fighting likely cannot either. So they're already going to be mashing regardless of heavies. And because FD exists it's quite common for this group of people to auto dodge out of combos. No one is learning anything or taking advantage of FA. It sounds like we're trying to reduce the effectiveness of an attack option so much that even new players won't consider using this option much.

    To me that sounds exactly what we dealt with prior to the CCU. Lights in general were not considered to be viable options for offense. Lights need to be viable. You cannot tell me that it would be fine for lights to only be relegated as a way to interrupt options or to start a combo. That massively narrows an already rather shallow combat experience. But to get back to your point about it being unhealthy. You're essentially implying that making lights more viable would somehow make heavies less viable. Frankly that's absurd. One heavy is already worth about 2 lights on average. Not to mention it rewards less of a punish if it's parried in most cases, is generally safer to use thanks to feinting and other things like GB vulnerability and hit/block stun. Being frame neutral would not in anyway make them a better option to heavies. All it would mean (at least in the application i'm thinking of) is that auto dodging out of a chain starter light isn't going to be something you can reliably do anymore.

    Which would be incredibly good for the game because it would force the opponent to actually respect you and try to figure out what you're doing instead of forcing the person who attempted to start offense into a waiting situation to see what you're going to do. It's a common want for everyone to get some kind of dodge attack option to deal with bashes. Imagine how nightmarish it would be if that existed and everytime you initiated offense with a light against anyone in the roster you had to deal with a dodge attack? I have no problem with dodging out of chains to be possible. It makes sense against heros with 400ms chain options. It forces those heros to actually try something else besides relying on two fast attacks to chip away at someone. But against regular 500ms chain offense? Absolutely not.

    FD exists in other fighters. But it actually makes sense in those contexts. Because generally speaking those kits have more options and general offense isn't shallow and based around punishes. FD for the most part doesn't really make sense in FH's context. I think it's fine to exist in some situations like for BP after he lands a bash light. But it shouldn't exist for basic light attacks or at the very least barebones 500ms light combos. There's room to argue when you speed up attacks or add move properties.


    Recovery cancels should exist in a bigger capacity I agree. That's taking another rather underutilized mechanic of the game and using or potentially expanding on it more. That being said relying on that to solve my issue just continues the trend of cookie cutter offense. People already complain about how offense these days is forced into "spamming reads" for offense. Orochi has his finisher recovery cancels but since they only exist at the end of his chains he can't make much use of them consistently without playing predictably. If we litter kits with recovery cancels we just muddy the water and make things very confusing for players. So we can't just slap a kit full of them without grossly simplfying the kit itself. Which is how we get woefully underutilized potential kits like Orochi and Zhanhu.

    We both want to see people use their kits more. Putting aside the fact that most kits don't have much to offer to begin with (and trying to rely on the devs to add more depth to a kit hasn't really worked out if the past 4 years are to show,) your method is retractive. You want to force kit usage by taking away something. I don't agree with that on a fundamental level. Trying to solve the issue of "light spam" is about as difficult as addressing many of the games other fundamental flaws. I personally don't think we need to look into this particular issue further. I don't enjoy dying to someone who only uses lights, but I also don't enjoy dying to players playing many other ways. At least the person is choosing to attack me instead of forcing me to do the fight by myself.

    I'm not against the idea of FH having FD as a whole. I just find it's current implementation to be poor. FA/FD in other fighters go in degrees instead of a binary Y/N situation like FH. If we could somehow adopt that into FH perhaps I wouldn't mind lights being FD in most cases.
    Share this post

  5. #45
    Sorry for the late reply but here we are again.

    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    I disagree about it being unhealthy for the game. You said yourself (in more or less words) that lights will always be "spammed" to some degree due to mentality and the games learning curve. It sounds like you're implying reducing light damage to some capacity is going to more effectively curtail the "light spam" problem than the entirety of the ccu did. Tell me, if light spam is still considered "effective" when lights cost more stamina than previous and are disadvantaged frame wise how is removing FD in most situations really going to impact the lower end of the game? We both acknowledge that mashing out doesn't work against "veterans." Just as we can seen in DBFZ that relying on auto combos is only going to get you so far and that it doesn't topple people who've bothered to learn the game.
    Again, light spam is viable because of its speed and the damage it does. With some heroes, a full light chain can take around 25-33% of a hero's health, which is too high so FD wouldn't have much of an impact since the damage would have already been done. In other fighting games, a basic combo normally takes no more than 20% of your health, and this allows more time for reads as a result. The Orochi can perform four light chains before running out of stamina, and I'm sure it's a similar thing for other heroes. With that being the case, the stamina changes to lights make no difference. Again, if the lights did less damage, the other changes to address light spam would have more of an impact, which is all the more reason why FD should stay.

    So, am I saying that reducing light damage would solve light spam more than the entirety of the CCU did? No, but I am saying it is the missing ingredient.

    I will also say that the inessential and counter-intuitive ingredient is the increase in the stamina cost for lights. This goes against the logic behind removing the stamina penalties on parries, blocks, misses, etc. Because of this change, we still cannot attack as much as we like or even hoped to with the removal of the penalties, since stamina is a shared pool.

    Removing FD from the lower end of the game would further perpetuate the mentality and cause players to learn the game at an even slower rate, as many would be tempted to follow one light chain after another, like before, and bring back former complaints and fuel current ones. If truly you feel that players are refusing to learn the core mechanics of the game, then the games will need to encourage better play in the early going before bad habits set in.

    Unfortunately, in terms of light spam, button mashing can and has worked on some veterans since not all have the best reactions or are good/consistent at predicting lights. This one of the reasons why light spam is seen even at Platinum to GM ranked modes, as the OP and I have indicated. If newer/average players see that it works at those levels, what reason would they have to stop?

    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    To put it in perhaps a better sentence, if light spam is always going to be considered effective to some degree I don't see how meaningful of an impact it's going to have on these levels compared to the benefits it would give higher level play. In the skill brackets we're talking about in regards to the average/new player experience these people cannot react to lights consistently Therefore people they are fighting likely cannot either. So they're already going to be mashing regardless of heavies. And because FD exists it's quite common for this group of people to auto dodge out of combos. No one is learning anything or taking advantage of FA. It sounds like we're trying to reduce the effectiveness of an attack option so much that even new players won't consider using this option much.
    If you remove FD from lights, players would be even less likely to use FA from heavies since they would be able to use one light chain after another in many scenarios and take most of their opponent's health before running out of stamina. Even if new players are discouraged from using light spam in the early going, that would be a good thing since practicing good play early would, as a knock-on effect, raise the skill level of the average player, which is something we want.

    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    To me that sounds exactly what we dealt with prior to the CCU. Lights in general were not considered to be viable options for offense. Lights need to be viable. You cannot tell me that it would be fine for lights to only be relegated as a way to interrupt options or to start a combo. That massively narrows an already rather shallow combat experience. But to get back to your point about it being unhealthy. You're essentially implying that making lights more viable would somehow make heavies less viable. Frankly that's absurd. One heavy is already worth about 2 lights on average. Not to mention it rewards less of a punish if it's parried in most cases, is generally safer to use thanks to feinting and other things like GB vulnerability and hit/block stun. Being frame neutral would not in anyway make them a better option to heavies. All it would mean (at least in the application i'm thinking of) is that auto dodging out of a chain starter light isn't going to be something you can reliably do anymore.
    It's absurd only because it’s a false conclusion you drew but I guess that’s my fault for poor wording. I shall try to clarify. FD/FA enforces a risk vs reward aspect of the game. Lights are low-risk due to their speed so when the finisher is a light, FD will come into play and offer the defender a turn, since low-risk offense shouldn't yield too much reward. However, if the attacker follows through with a heavy finisher and connects, even if only blocked, the player is rewarded with FA for taking a high risk since he/she could have been more likely to be parried, deflected, countered, or GB'd for using a slower attack. In general, players should be rewarded for taking greater risks, such as heavy finishers. As I said before, removing FD from lights would disrupt this risk vs reward aspect.

    Additionally FD/FA also contributes to a healthy balance of offense & counterplay. With FD on lights, this allows the defender a chance respond/counter against low-risk offense which stops things getting one-sided, especially with light-spam prone heroes. If the attackers want to continue their offense with FA, they will need to follow through with a heavy finisher at a greater risk of being countered. Again, removing FD from lights would disrupt the offense & counterplay aspect simply by removing this healthy balance.

    FD/FA also works similar to how lights and heavies do on blocks. In normal cases, if you want your chain to continue, you’ll need to risk throwing a heavy, otherwise the attack will bounce off and halt your offense.

    On a slightly different note, FD on parry punishes is also a good thing since parrying heavies for a light is one of, if not, the most common punish and shouldn't either have FA or be frame neutral, otherwise turtling may become strong again and some heroes may get a great advantage out it from this context. Heroes like Gryphon may become over-tuned(if he isn't already) with frame neutral lights since his kick would be harder to dodge after a light combo.

    Another thing to consider is the issue of consistency. The developers were looking to bring more consistency to the game as a means to help it become more accessible. They started by removing the distinction between buffered and delayed lights. This was a good call but there’s more that needs to be done to bring more consistency.



    See 19:50 and 25:27 about bringing more consistency to the game:

    Note at 30:05-31:51, the developers talk about attack recoveries and players should be rewarded more for using heavies and not wanting players to use more than one light chain in a row.

    There are inconsistencies such as guardbreaking minions while locked on to an opponent or officer, not being able to parry attacks from opponents who are not locked on to you but BP can still Bulwark Flip them. BP has FD on light after bash while WM has FA. No tutorial explains the exceptions to the rules, let alone all aspects of the game. For Honor’s rules are not clearly defined as other established fighters which has an impact on the game’s accessibility.

    A lot of this can be put down For Honor being the first and only of it’s kind, it is still finding its footing, and the franchise hasn’t been in the market for 2-3+ decades unlike fighters such as Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Tekken, Dead or Alive, and Soul Caliber, all which have had benefit of learning from each other and 2-3+ decades of feedback. However, For Honor will need to close the gap soon if it wants to last 3+ more years without a sequel.

    Removing FD would also bring inconsistency when it comes to specific hero matchups where some would frequently have the advantage after a light finisher, others would usually come up short, and then there will be situations where it will depend on who the hero is facing.

    With the above considered, this is why I feel removing FD from lights is unhealthy for the game. It would take away from the consistency & accessibility as well increase player frustration with the related issues concerned.

    And no, I do not think making one form of offense more viable would make another less viable; more redundant in some cases, especially what I highlighted, but not less viable. I don't think there is a single player in this community who is that delusional.

    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    Which would be incredibly good for the game because it would force the opponent to actually respect you and try to figure out what you're doing instead of forcing the person who attempted to start offense into a waiting situation to see what you're going to do. It's a common want for everyone to get some kind of dodge attack option to deal with bashes. Imagine how nightmarish it would be if that existed and everytime you initiated offense with a light against anyone in the roster you had to deal with a dodge attack? I have no problem with dodging out of chains to be possible. It makes sense against heros with 400ms chain options. It forces those heros to actually try something else besides relying on two fast attacks to chip away at someone. But against regular 500ms chain offense? Absolutely not.
    Dodging out of lights is a good thing. Some may not like it, but it helps negate light spam, encourages attack variety, contributes to counterplay, and offers a mind game. If you know your opponent is going to dodge out of your light chain, you can get the GB or parry punish. These counters will soon discourage auto-dodging. I'm not sure why some veterans have a problem with this since it is an easy read or bait. If it is Kensei or Gryphon you are referring to, then I can see your frustration since they can chain into their mix-ups even on block, but with other heroes, it's easy light parries or GB's. Overall, frame neutral lights isn't necessary to make your opponent respect you when auto-dodging can be punished by reads or baiting.

    As for 400ms vs 500ms, many can’t even react to 500ms, especially when the CCU cuts 100ms from the start of the animations and delays the indicators. You do remember why so many complain about the CCU?

    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    FD exists in other fighters. But it actually makes sense in those contexts. Because generally speaking those kits have more options and general offense isn't shallow and based around punishes. FD for the most part doesn't really make sense in FH's context. I think it's fine to exist in some situations like for BP after he lands a bash light. But it shouldn't exist for basic light attacks or at the very least barebones 500ms light combos. There's room to argue when you speed up attacks or add move properties.
    It may not make sense for some but for those who consider factors such as light spam discouragement, stopping offense from getting one-sided, facilitating counterplay, providing a risk vs reward structure(e.g. FA reward for taking a high risk by connecting with a heavy finisher), and not needing to figure which heroes are have an advantage/disadvantage in a frame neutral context, it makes plenty of sense.

    Even with the above considered, if perhaps FD still doesn’t make sense to some, perhaps FH needs more layers. However, it also doesn’t make sense to take away added layers if the game is to progress and catch up to the more established fighters.

    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    Recovery cancels should exist in a bigger capacity I agree. That's taking another rather underutilized mechanic of the game and using or potentially expanding on it more. That being said relying on that to solve my issue just continues the trend of cookie cutter offense. People already complain about how offense these days is forced into "spamming reads" for offense. Orochi has his finisher recovery cancels but since they only exist at the end of his chains he can't make much use of them consistently without playing predictably. If we litter kits with recovery cancels we just muddy the water and make things very confusing for players. So we can't just slap a kit full of them without grossly simplfying the kit itself. Which is how we get woefully underutilized potential kits like Orochi and Zhanhu.
    I suggested recovery cancels was an alternative to your issue since making lights frame neutral is neither recommended or likely to happen as far as the devs are concerned. Recovey cancels would allow you to sustain offense after chain(among other things), depending on the hero and the implementation of course. If that doesn’t suit you, that’s fine but remember that removing FD from lights is very unlikely to happen, and nor should it.

    However, what I originally envisioned recovery cancels was the same way I view soft-feints and cancel options where they are a means to add more context to existing moves, improve attack variety, and deepen kits without needing to add new moves. Not only do I find this approach intuitive but also necessary before the developers consider giving heroes completely new tools. So when the devs do give a hero a new move, it would change the complexion of the kit as it would be linked to existing moves via soft-feints, cancel options, and/or recovery cancels. Also, in light of the devs current limitations and the need to improve offense, it makes sense to go this route. Given the reworks we’ve seen so far, they seem to be applying this to a degree but, yes, more recovery cancels would be nice.

    As for recovery cancels being used to 'spam reads,' if you're refering to 50/50s or forms of unreactable mix-ups, no that's not where I was going with them. They would serve as an alternative follow-up from a previous attack, the same way a light may be followed by another light or a heavy. They would make heroes less predictable but not necessarily force the player to guess the correct defense. For example, Shugoki following a light with zone attack or forward dodge heavy via recovery cancel wouldn't create a read/guess scenario. He would be less predictable but still reactable. Defenders would have more to digest and simply need to pay more attention.

    Of course, recovery cancels could produce read/guess scenarios if the developers intended it. Examples would include attacks involving unreactables, bashes/unblockables and undodgeables.

    I don’t think exploring the possibilities of recovery cancels would confuse players as these options would only contribute to making kits deeper and, thus, making heroes harder to master in a good way. They would help encourage players to use a hero's entire kit as there would be more ways to use certain moves, which would help accommodate more play-styles. However, when defending against heroes with deeper kits, it would be like learning to fight against a new hero or a reworked one for some and would take time to get used to but that’s what happens when offense gets improved.

    It wouldn’t be necessary to simplify existing kits to make room for more recovery cancels as that would defeat the objectives of having deeper kits and improving offense overall. The devs would only need to take care not to over-tune any heroes or give any too much too soon for others to keep up but that’s the case with any changes and the risk they come with. Also, we have Testing Grounds.

    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    We both want to see people use their kits more. Putting aside the fact that most kits don't have much to offer to begin with (and trying to rely on the devs to add more depth to a kit hasn't really worked out if the past 4 years are to show,) your method is retractive. You want to force kit usage by taking away something. I don't agree with that on a fundamental level. Trying to solve the issue of "light spam" is about as difficult as addressing many of the games other fundamental flaws. I personally don't think we need to look into this particular issue further. I don't enjoy dying to someone who only uses lights, but I also don't enjoy dying to players playing many other ways. At least the person is choosing to attack me instead of forcing me to do the fight by myself.
    No, I’m not forcing but encouraging kit usage by two means: 1) Making button-mashing/light spam less viable. 2) Adding more context to existing moves. You say this approach is retractive but that’s just an opinion and I’m sure many to most would appreciate heroes having improved flexibility and deeper kits as a result, and less viable button mashing.

    Also, reducing viability and taking away something are two different things. If I wanted to ‘take away something’ I would do what others have said and remove the 100ms changes regarding both the animations and indicators, and remove triple lights from chain attacks. If I wanted to ‘force’ something I would implement single-pick on all game modes the same way Brawl does, as others have suggested. Of course, I wouldn’t do any of those things.

    You say you don’t enjoy ‘dying to players playing many other ways’ but the thing is it takes skill to fight a varied range of ways. It demonstrates the player’s ability to adapt and change things on the fly, and again, you wouldn’t be able to blame your loss on exploits or over-tuned mechanics. Also, if the heroes were to have deeper kits, wouldn’t you be dying to players who would be able to vary their offense more?

    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    I'm not against the idea of FH having FD as a whole. I just find it's current implementation to be poor. FA/FD in other fighters go in degrees instead of a binary Y/N situation like FH. If we could somehow adopt that into FH perhaps I wouldn't mind lights being FD in most cases.
    The developers can’t improve on FD/FA if they start removing aspects of it. You said it yourself in another thread...

    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    I believe the issue is well understood by anyone who's been around this game's lifetime long enough. The people who still argue against the CCU or take issue with it likely don't agree that it was a problem or didn't care. They grew accustomed to a flawed version of the game that was as far as they knew/cared to be the intended version of the game. That version was left to fester for years and now it's (mostly) gone. This is upsetting for those who grew accustomed to or even enjoyed that kind of play.

    No amount of discussion can budge those feelings. If anything should be taken away from the situation is that people enjoyed different aspects of FH for different reasons. And that developer incompetence/lack of proper action can create issues like what we've experienced. Anything else that can be gleamed from this back and forth of CCU discussion is muddied and not really worth diving into. For better or worse this is where FH is at now. People need to accept that or move along instead of screaming at a wall that will not budge. Feedback is always allowed and appreciated. But telling them to go backwards isn't feedback, it's an unhelpful statement that should be heard. But nothing more.
    Wouldn't frame neutral lights effectively do the same thing? Removing FD from lights would remove both an aspect of risk vs reward and offense vs counterplay that FD/FA brings to the game, as I mentioned earlier, as well as remove an aspect of the CCU. Again, it would also bring inconsistency between various hero matchups.

    The best way forward is to refine the implementation of FD/FA, that's assuming it's necessary. Personally, I think the current state of FD/FA is far from problematic and does more good than harm. Bear in mind that there are little to no complaints about FD/FA. Given that it is geared towards rewarding high risk and reducing the effectiveness of light spam, I can see why.
    Share this post

  6. #46
    Share this post

  7. #47
    @Soldier_of_Dawn

    Are you trying to one up me with walls of text size? Cause damn that was difficult to consume even for me. Anyway i'm going to tackle specific segments here. I feel like i'm just discussing in circles and i'd like to reach an end to the convo. Apologies if this is a disappointment.

    "This one of the reasons why light spam is seen even at Platinum to GM ranked modes, as the OP and I have indicated..."
    "Lights are low-risk due to their speed..."
    "removing FD from lights would disrupt this risk vs reward aspect..."

    I've asserted this before and i'll assert it again. I believe the primary reason "spam" to any degree works at all is because most players experience a bad version of the game due to old gen consoles. I am fundamentally against balancing around poor setups. Calling lights inherently low risk purely because "fast" is false. To me that's saying something like Gryphon's kick is low risk because of how fast it is. There are more factors beyond speed that effect risk and reward. Also I believe I clarified at some point that I don't want to remove FD on lights entirely. I just want it removed from specific situations. I believe it does have positive effects again like the BP bash situation. Where the water is muddied is with chains.


    "Heroes like Gryphon may become over-tuned(if he isn't already) with frame neutral lights since his kick would be harder to dodge after a light combo.

    It's almost like we should have FA/FD depend on the hero and not have it blanket apply to every situation.

    "not being able to parry attacks from opponents who are not locked on to you but BP can still Bulwark Flip them. BP has FD on light after bash while WM has FA. No tutorial explains the exceptions to the rules, let alone all aspects of the game."

    Any hero with full block can punish attacks not aimed at them. This isn't an inconsistency. BP's light after a bash is considered by the game as a finisher. Which dictates FD. Warmonger's bash light is considered a special punish and thus isn't a finisher light. So it does not conform to the FD on light finishers rule. This is consistent with other special punishes in the game. So again. Not an inconsistency. The game does indeed fail it's players with a lack of information and proper teachable tools. That's the failing for these scenarios. Not a consistency problem.

    "Dodging out of lights is a good thing...

    This segment was really difficult to swallow because of how poor of a take it was. I'm NOT saying the capability of dodging out of chains is bad. I'm saying the fact that it is something people can default to rather safely against most heros is poor from a combat perspective. Pointing out counterplay also doesn't wish wash away the issue. I really don't know why you can simply gloss over the fact that someone is immediately put into defensive play for trying to be offensive with a basic attack. It's not that simple to counter to begin with because there are varying input windows and attack speeds which wildly dictate how likely you are to GB someone in start up. And I don't particularly fancy the idea of having to feint a heavy and wait everytime to see if they're going to dodge so I can parry. This doesn't even cover the fact that a large portion of the roster can block WHILE dodging making trying to clip them with a heavy that much harder.

    As for 400ms vs 500ms, many can’t even react to 500ms, especially when the CCU cuts 100ms from the start of the animations and delays the indicators...

    This is entirely missing the point on why I mentioned the disctinction. 400ms lights are considered hard reads by most of the community at this point. Meaning the opponent has to guess if you're going to follow up with your 400ms to dodge it early or not. With 500ms lights you can still react late to seeing red and dodge/dodge attack thanks to I frames and variable input windows.

    "The developers can’t improve on FD/FA if they start removing aspects of it. You said it yourself in another thread...Wouldn't frame neutral lights effectively do the same thing?

    I don't believe so because again i'm not asking for total removal. I'm asking for FD to be placed better. Shaman is an example of a hero (and I think the only one atm) that has a variable output with FA/FD. Her dagger cancel has enough FA that she can beat some things. But not everything. If the game were more like that i'd be more content with where the game is. Auto dodging out of things would be less of a problem if we had better hitboxes and weapon trajectories so that combo heavies would actually catch people more frequently. This wouldn't solve the issue of people being able to block while dodging. Nor the fact that heros with dodge attacks can be inconsistent to punish. But it would be a start.
    Share this post

  8. #48
    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    "This one of the reasons why light spam is seen even at Platinum to GM ranked modes, as the OP and I have indicated..."
    "Lights are low-risk due to their speed..."
    "removing FD from lights would disrupt this risk vs reward aspect..."

    I've asserted this before and i'll assert it again. I believe the primary reason "spam" to any degree works at all is because most players experience a bad version of the game due to old gen consoles. I am fundamentally against balancing around poor setups. Calling lights inherently low risk purely because "fast" is false. To me that's saying something like Gryphon's kick is low risk because of how fast it is. There are more factors beyond speed that effect risk and reward. Also I believe I clarified at some point that I don't want to remove FD on lights entirely. I just want it removed from specific situations. I believe it does have positive effects again like the BP bash situation. Where the water is muddied is with chains.
    Light spam is not isolated to 'a bad version' of the game. It happens to players who can't react or predict the lights since they are effectively 400/300ms due to the CCU, which makes them unreactable to most. They are many players who couldn't even react to 500ms lights before the CCU(this includes PC). Remember, players have been complaining about light spam since Season 6 when 400ms lights were introduced.

    Back then, there was the 0ms guard switch bug so players had a little more time to react. Now, not only is the bug gone but also the first 100ms of the attacks' visibility. So the community effectively lost 200ms of time to react, so it is no wonder lights land more often and most players find them unreactable, hence the CCU & lightspam complaints.

    Correct me where I'm wrong but I don't agree with this notion that old-gen consoles are a bad version of the game that shouldn't be balanced for. As I said to you in an old thread, the old-gen consoles are intended platforms and are the largest portion of the player-base. Ignoring their needs would be anti-consumer, make little business sense in terms of optimising profits, give the games-as-a-service model a bad look, and give the devs more unnecessary backlash. If you're talking about poor setups in isolation, the devs are not balancing for that anyway and the issue isn't isolated to that either.

    Lights are relatively low-risk compared to other attacks. They are used and land the most. Of course, nothing is risk free if you get sloppy or dealing with better players.

    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    "Heroes like Gryphon may become over-tuned(if he isn't already) with frame neutral lights since his kick would be harder to dodge after a light combo.

    It's almost like we should have FA/FD depend on the hero and not have it blanket apply to every situation.
    Perhaps but there are more examples than just Gryphon. However, the current state of FA/FD isn't problematic, otherwise there would be threads complaining about this. Again, FA/FD was introduced to improve consistency in the game.

    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    "not being able to parry attacks from opponents who are not locked on to you but BP can still Bulwark Flip them. BP has FD on light after bash while WM has FA. No tutorial explains the exceptions to the rules, let alone all aspects of the game."

    Any hero with full block can punish attacks not aimed at them. This isn't an inconsistency. BP's light after a bash is considered by the game as a finisher. Which dictates FD. Warmonger's bash light is considered a special punish and thus isn't a finisher light. So it does not conform to the FD on light finishers rule. This is consistent with other special punishes in the game. So again. Not an inconsistency. The game does indeed fail it's players with a lack of information and proper teachable tools. That's the failing for these scenarios. Not a consistency problem.
    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. You can still see the indicators too. This issue was a complaint at least a couple of years back but I assume things were left as they were due to the death-ball complaints. Yes, full block can punish those attacks but that doesn't bring any consistency to the issue, and the heroes concerned are in the same spot when met with an unblockable. I'm sure Full Guard/Block wasn't primarily designed to protect you from attacks by a player you are ganging up on but defend against multiple attacks when you are outnumbered. I'm also sure unparryable attacks weren't suppose to be a thing by design, despite my request for them in the distant past.

    As for Warmongers bash light, it's effectively a light finisher with FA. Its contexts are nearly identical to BP's, where the chain end/resets after the light. The tutorials and move-set lists don't explain that WMs bash light is a special punish. It just says that the bash needs to land for the move to connect. Tiandi also doesn't get FA with his light after a bash and the tool gets the same description. How are you supposed to know what is special and what isn't? Another thing, given that WM can also charge her bash to confirm a heavy, it would make sense for FA to only be available from the heavy. This would be in line with how FD/FA is implemented for lights and heavies and bring more consistency in that respect. I believe the better examples of special punishes are more situational such as Valk's punish after a Spear Sweep, Jorm's hammer slam, Gladiator's OOS punish from Toe Stab, WM's parry punish on OOS opponent's, and Cent's Eagle's Talons.

    To reiterate somewhat, the exceptions to the rules either need to be patched or explained somewhere in the game, either via tutorials or the hero's move-set, otherwise, they would be seen as inconsistencies, especially to newer players. Not all inconsistencies/exceptions are problematic but, again, the game needs to explain them in order to improve accessibility.

    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    "Dodging out of lights is a good thing...

    This segment was really difficult to swallow because of how poor of a take it was. I'm NOT saying the capability of dodging out of chains is bad. I'm saying the fact that it is something people can default to rather safely against most heros is poor from a combat perspective. Pointing out counterplay also doesn't wish wash away the issue. I really don't know why you can simply gloss over the fact that someone is immediately put into defensive play for trying to be offensive with a basic attack. It's not that simple to counter to begin with because there are varying input windows and attack speeds which wildly dictate how likely you are to GB someone in start up. And I don't particularly fancy the idea of having to feint a heavy and wait everytime to see if they're going to dodge so I can parry. This doesn't even cover the fact that a large portion of the roster can block WHILE dodging making trying to clip them with a heavy that much harder.
    For the most part, dodging out of chains continuously is far from safe as it is very punishable, as I explained earlier. The only problematic heroes surrounding this issue are Gryphon and Kensei but this is due to the speed of their side-dodge heavies, the lack of GB vulnerability compared to other heroes, the fact they can get into their mix-ups, even on block, and they can only be punished by a light when parried by most heroes. The issue with these two heroes has little to do with being able to dodge out of chains but more to do with their side-dodge heavies being over-tuned. There's no need to make changes to FD/FA in this regard as that would be more of a blanket solution to isolated issues.

    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    As for 400ms vs 500ms, many can’t even react to 500ms, especially when the CCU cuts 100ms from the start of the animations and delays the indicators...

    This is entirely missing the point on why I mentioned the disctinction. 400ms lights are considered hard reads by most of the community at this point. Meaning the opponent has to guess if you're going to follow up with your 400ms to dodge it early or not. With 500ms lights you can still react late to seeing red and dodge/dodge attack thanks to I frames and variable input windows.
    Some players may be able to do this but most can't for reasons I mentioned before.

    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    "The developers can’t improve on FD/FA if they start removing aspects of it. You said it yourself in another thread...Wouldn't frame neutral lights effectively do the same thing?

    I don't believe so because again i'm not asking for total removal. I'm asking for FD to be placed better. Shaman is an example of a hero (and I think the only one atm) that has a variable output with FA/FD. Her dagger cancel has enough FA that she can beat some things. But not everything. If the game were more like that i'd be more content with where the game is. Auto dodging out of things would be less of a problem if we had better hitboxes and weapon trajectories so that combo heavies would actually catch people more frequently. This wouldn't solve the issue of people being able to block while dodging. Nor the fact that heros with dodge attacks can be inconsistent to punish. But it would be a start.
    I believe the current placement of FD is fine where it is for the most part given how FA works with heavies. However, FD on PK's Dagger Cancel was overkill with it being a soft-feint in the same direction(as well as many wanted it to be a chain starter). I don't think WM should have FA on her bash light since it is effectively a light finisher and this allows her to string lights and bash lights repeatedly, which, to me, goes against letting the defender to have a turn after a chain if it ends with a light. If Shaman's dagger cancel was left untouched, that's probably because it has little to do with light spam.

    I will say something else you won't agree with, auto dodging is less of thing than light spam. There are little to no complaints about it as a broad issue. The only real 'auto-dodgers' are Kensei and Gryphon, again, due to the strength of their side-dodge heavies, which many feel need nerfing, and the devs don't need to change FD/FA to fix that. The rest of the heroes are easy to bait and punish.

    Originally Posted by Knight_Raime Go to original post
    @Soldier_of_Dawn

    Are you trying to one up me with walls of text size?
    No, but if I did then it's all your fault.
    Share this post

  9. #49
    @Soldier_of_Dawn

    "No, but if I did then it's all your fault."

    Cheeky, but I love it. d:

    "Light spam is not isolated to 'a bad version' of the game...

    Correct. It happens in every part of the game. But it's less "effective" both the higher up in skill brackets you go to and the better your setup is. Hence why I said it's most effective in those situations. You're also correct that ignoring a portion of your fanbase isn't a good idea. But the thing is they're not being ignored. They're just not having every thing catered to them. The fact that we got changes to CCU post feedback specifically to address light spam complaints DESPITE the devs going out of their way to say they didn't think it was a problem far before the CCU should be good enough. In my opinion at least.

    "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.

    "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.

    "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.

    "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.

    "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.

    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.

    "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 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.


    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.
    Share this post

  10. #50
    The_B0G_'s Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    3,453
    Knight Raime, the first fact checker lol I see you're still fighting the endless battle on here.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post