Originally Posted by
Goat_of_Vermund
Go to original post
I would call it theoretical rather than metaphorical, and well, let's call it a question without questionmark. It is theoretical because it is built on false assumptions. The first part is, "why can you gb through a dodge attack", and the answer for that is "you can not", the second part is "why can you not guardbreak a heavy attack", and the answer is "you can". Even though every attack has a startup vulnerability, it is always less for a dodge attack and more for a heavy opener. I think I also answered the "surtain dodge attacks" part (though this greatly depends on the meaning of the word "surtain", it might be a word I did not understand. I assumed it is a gross grammatical error, I did not bother with actually using a dictionary for it).
The entire post is a big theory if you go through it, not a metaphor.
1. You establish a certain problem.
2. The argument is based on that problem, which is like building a castle on quicksand. For example, the entire argument is built on "heavies are easier to gb than dodge attacks", which is completely untrue, and it puts the entire argument in the realm of theory. Like an argument starting with "why do an avarage African country's citizen earns more than the USA's usual citizen?" This is not a metaphorical question, this is a theoretical question. My answer would probably involve Wakandan economy, which would make it look like as serious as the entire thing you keep spamming on the forum.
A few more cherries to pick:
1. Unblockables have more counterplay: there are multiple optionselects to beat an unblockable, you can empty dodge, dodge attack, normal parry, or depending on what unblockable it is and how it was accessed, you can interrupt it with a light attack. I would say that even with proper conditionng, actually landing an unblockable is rare, maybe 1 out of every 3 committed unblockables. It's main strenght is it forces some kind of reaction.
2. While the "what beats a dodge attack" part gets quite messy because of the terrible grammar you are using to desacrate the English language, it is also based on false assumptions. Feint into heavy certainly does not beat a dodge attack, since they are slower. Feint into light might be too slow as well, and depending on the actual dodge attack's qualities, might just hit the iframes and do nothing. Undodgables do beat dodges, but well, dodging an undodgable is not an advisable thing- if the name did not give out already, that is an attack you shouldn't try to dodge. Since you can't. If a normal heavy tracked your dodge attack, your timing was bad.
3. The counterplay for "brainless dodging" (aka your main playstyle) is guardbreaks. In case you wonder why do you suck, that is because you are dodging everything, and the enemy probably reads it instantly. While it is understandable it is irritating for someone preferring the playstyle "brainless dodging", every similar playstyle have a drawback. Examples are "brainlessly throwing out heavy attacks", "brainlessly spamming the same move", "brainlessly taking any possible baits like an unusually stupid goldfish".
On your suggestion: even though you might have been a player during early seasons where dodging was op, you were probably a bad player (like now), so I will write down for you why reposting this stupid topic will achieve absolutely nothing (aside getting you your well deserved ban):
In the past, there was absolutely no counterplay to doging. Assassins could backdodge out of heavy attack range, raiders could counterguardbreak after a caught side dodge, and some heroes had so low recoveries that they could literally dodge twice without a problem to avoid anything. It was standardized to avoid this problem, it was a healthy change.
The solution for your problem would be learning how to play the game.
Member
Senior Member
Global Moderator
