In defense of zone OS | Forums

[Knight_Raime]

Just to set the record straight this thread is only meant to give perspective/respond to specific statements about zone option selects. This thread isn't being made to try and change anyone's mind nor is it really meant to cover other option selects (though they will be used in comparison sparingly.) At the end of the day it's fine if people don't like them and want them gone on that alone. I despise superior block on dodges and would like that gone. But I don't argue for or against it's removal because it's entirely routed in feelings. Also, I will be going over some common arguments against zone OS (even if said statement is aimed at OS's in general) so if I mention your specific stance please don't take it personally when I trash on it.


Anyway, I figured the most important thing to talk about first would be why comp players are in favor of keeping this OS specifically. It's often mentioned that it's fair and adds "depth" to the game though it's not usually elaborated upon in any easily accessible manner. So I will do my best to bring some of it to attention even if it might be incomplete. The depth it adds is really as simple as it is another move you have to consider. Instead of having one move that could stuff a mix up now there is two. Sure someone can leave their guard in that spot there or "look" for the move specifically. But that can potentially open up someone to being hit by something else. The easiest I can give as an example here would be Tandi's zone versus his palm strike.

Both boast basically the same window of reaction from neutral. a 600ms bash with no tell as it's a neutral input versus a zone that causes the body to immediately flail. Both are reactable. But looking for either can potentially get you hit by the other. This is what is known as getting "mullied." Which is a fighter term describing a situation where someone gets confused and eats dirt over it. Zhanhu has a particularly powerful "mully" situation with his forward dodge. Anyway, the person doing said zone and the opponent he's going to try and stuff both have to consider zone as an option on countering said mix up. As well as dodging, trying to normal parry, stuff with a light or maybe a bash. etc. These choices have to be thought about based on both your HP and your opponents as well as current stamina values and potential FA/DA. What the hero can or cannot do afterwords. And how your opponent in general behaves.

This isn't to say none of this is irrelevant if zones can no longer parry. But it makes the decision to parry or not easier to figure out. As well as wether or not you should commit to your mix up. Another positive with zone OS's is the fact that compared to every other single universal OS it's reactable. If I decide to feint my mix up to see how you like to respond and you zone I know I can parry that because all zones are 500ms or slower. If you're trying to counter bash select, GB select, dodge select, etc you have to feint to light on a read since it will take you around 700ms for that light to land compared to just waiting for the zone to come for parrying. Having to feint to light is also far riskier.
Where as if I feint to neutral expecting a zone and you don't toss one things are back at neutral again.

Now this is just considering single pick situations. When you add in multiple players into the fight things get even more complicated. Some zones have the ability to hit a lot sooner depending on positioning, say....Nobushi's for an example. Having the ability to parry with Nobushi's zone means I could try to parry a hitstun setup from my right whilst also stopping people from trying to stuff me with their own mix up elsewhere. In other words the hitboxes of attacks can be considered another layer being added. And when you've got a character that has multiple good hitboxes as well as a zone with a good hitbox you've got more options to think about. But the person defending with the zone has to also consider how this knowledge can be used against them.

Zoning might be predictable and thus gets you parried into a potential gank setup getting you killed. And of course you can't just keep zoning out of things because that would put you OOS which is nearly a guaranteed death against most competent gank setups. Again, removing zones being able to parry doesn't instantly remove all these factors that you have to think about. You can still stuff mix ups in single picks and when being ganked with zones regardless if you could parry with them or not. However you're still removing a function that gives a lot of benefit. Thus reducing the worth and value of said tool overall. Not every zone chains. Not every zone is undodgable. etc.


Now we will move onto common statements that get used against/or are just complained about when in the discussion of zone os/os's.

"Option selects reward someone who makes an incorrect read."

This is similar to an older discussion that was had about chargable bashes awhile ago. Specifically about how Warden being able to last frame feint his bash to get aoGB on a dodge is punishing the person who made the "correct" read by seeing a charge bash and trying to time their dodge. This was wrong because if the person made the correct read on it being a max delayed bash feint he would've interrupted the bash as soon as they saw orange.
In this case If your mix up gets stuffed by a zone it's because you made the incorrect read about it being stuffed and decided committing to the mix up would get you damage.

However to elaborate further here there is a difference between hard reads and soft reads. Hard reads are basically when you decide someone is going to attempt something with no prompt what so ever and end up being right. This would be like throwing a heavy because you read early on that your opponent was going to look to parry something specifically so they feint baited for that reaction but ended up eating a heavy instead. In other words this is a complete guess.

Soft reads are where you can guess in the realm of a behavior of what someone is going to do based on prior match up knowledge between the person specifically or how you've noticed they tend to play a character in general or against your character specifically. Using a zone to stuff/parry a mix up is a soft read. Because you're guessing that they will either commit and you parry or they will feint into GB so they get stuffed. since zone option selects don't cover every possible outcome you're still making a read. If the zone works it's a correct read for the defender. If the zone gets parried the attacker made the right read.


"Option selects favor the defender."

They do not. Zone is half of your stamina and as covered earlier are reactable. I guess the assumption is that because Option selects "give" more defense through more options they believe it's in their favor. However just like the giant list people like to tack onto Grypon's kick mix up # of things you can do is not relevant when many of said options have little to no value in the current situation if at all. Never mind the fact that everyone goes back to neutral if both sides don't commit to an attack.


"Option selects remove depth instead of adding it."

I guess the assumption here is that because zone OS parries the committed to option and stuffs feint into GB that it means you've solved combat and thus nothing ever happens offensively. Being able to stuff a feint into GB with zones doesn't mean that's always going to be an option you want to go for nor does it mean feint into GB becomes entirely invalid. What if zoning puts you OS? You might not want that. What if you just ate a heavy from your opponent? the hitstun plus other attack values might make your attempt to zone OS not work.
At best you can argue it makes combat against some heros incredibly binary. Well guess what? 1) removing zone OS makes parrying binary and 2) that's on the fault of the hero being OS'ed having poor offense. JJ's unblockable heavy mix up isn't going to become more viable if you can't zone parry it. (as an example.) As for adding depth well. Read from the start again.


"Parrying with a zone isn't intended."

Then make it a mechanic that all heros have the same level of effectiveness with?

"I don't like having to feint to neutral constantly."

You still would be even if all OS's get axed. This is because this is the easiest way to punish dodge attacks. This is the way you punish bashes who can be GBed on read. This is the way you figure out how your opponent likes to respond. If you want those incredibly satisfying encounters where you get in your opponents head and defeat them with little resistance you're going to have to learn how to read your opponent. And you're only going to manage that if you can curb your desire to mash buttons and start paying attention to how people play.


"I want feint into GB to work again."

Feint into GB in the way people miss doing isn't going to happen ever again because we don't live 3 years ago where the speed of the game was much slower. Due to the many value changes over the years you cannot feint to GB from neutral and catch someone in start up in a vast majority of situations. Removing OS's won't bring that back. If you want to start getting GB's after feints again you're going to have to make better reads. Conditioning someone to block your heavy so you can chain into another, feint and GB will catch people in start up.



Closing thoughts:

This is where I get to be a knob like the forms know me for because it wouldn't be a statement from me if I didn't make wild statements about others. I don't think the average player constantly deals with correct zone OS's. Correct timing means people memorized a specific time when they can parry and thus they always throw zone at this time. I find it highly more likely that the average player is dealing with people who are just stuffing zones out the moment they see orange regardless of player behavior or timing. When the average player can't be asked to learn and apply basic concepts when we're in year 5 of FH I can't really believe these same people would have gone out of their way to actually memorize some numbers for the game.

For the people who actually run into proper OS's? I feel like the complaint is nothing more than stubbornness. I remember when the game was still in it's fledgling state pushing towards a more mix up intensive and less defensive favored state. People of then thought they deserved high damage punishes for correct reads coasting on reactions. People used to complain about unblockable spam and other forms of good offense. The list goes on. People like binary situations. They like to have an answer that "solves" a situation for them because it makes it easier for them to do. They don't like having to change their responses on the fly and having their skills tested.

If you've reached a point in your gameplay where someone is constantly responding to you with OS's and it's beating you then start exploiting that behavior to force them to adapt. If you can't then maybe you've peaked in your skill and are upset. This is no different than playing against someone in another fighter who constantly spams throw at you in a corner. Or someone who only throws uncharged bashes at you. earlier on. It's a hill you've got to climb over.

[MrBdur]

Just to set the record straight this thread is only meant to give perspective/respond to specific statements about zone option selects. This thread isn't being made to try and change anyone's mind nor is it really meant to cover other option selects (though they will be used in comparison sparingly.) At the end of the day it's fine if people don't like them and want them gone on that alone. I despise superior block on dodges and would like that gone. But I don't argue for or against it's removal because it's entirely routed in feelings. Also, I will be going over some common arguments against zone OS (even if said statement is aimed at OS's in general) so if I mention your specific stance please don't take it personally when I trash on it.


Anyway, I figured the most important thing to talk about first would be why comp players are in favor of keeping this OS specifically. It's often mentioned that it's fair and adds "depth" to the game though it's not usually elaborated upon in any easily accessible manner. So I will do my best to bring some of it to attention even if it might be incomplete. The depth it adds is really as simple as it is another move you have to consider. Instead of having one move that could stuff a mix up now there is two. Sure someone can leave their guard in that spot there or "look" for the move specifically. But that can potentially open up someone to being hit by something else. The easiest I can give as an example here would be Tandi's zone versus his palm strike.

Both boast basically the same window of reaction from neutral. a 600ms bash with no tell as it's a neutral input versus a zone that causes the body to immediately flail. Both are reactable. But looking for either can potentially get you hit by the other. This is what is known as getting "mullied." Which is a fighter term describing a situation where someone gets confused and eats dirt over it. Zhanhu has a particularly powerful "mully" situation with his forward dodge. Anyway, the person doing said zone and the opponent he's going to try and stuff both have to consider zone as an option on countering said mix up. As well as dodging, trying to normal parry, stuff with a light or maybe a bash. etc. These choices have to be thought about based on both your HP and your opponents as well as current stamina values and potential FA/DA. What the hero can or cannot do afterwords. And how your opponent in general behaves.

This isn't to say none of this is irrelevant if zones can no longer parry. But it makes the decision to parry or not easier to figure out. As well as wether or not you should commit to your mix up. Another positive with zone OS's is the fact that compared to every other single universal OS it's reactable. If I decide to feint my mix up to see how you like to respond and you zone I know I can parry that because all zones are 500ms or slower. If you're trying to counter bash select, GB select, dodge select, etc you have to feint to light on a read since it will take you around 700ms for that light to land compared to just waiting for the zone to come for parrying. Having to feint to light is also far riskier.
Where as if I feint to neutral expecting a zone and you don't toss one things are back at neutral again.

Now this is just considering single pick situations. When you add in multiple players into the fight things get even more complicated. Some zones have the ability to hit a lot sooner depending on positioning, say....Nobushi's for an example. Having the ability to parry with Nobushi's zone means I could try to parry a hitstun setup from my right whilst also stopping people from trying to stuff me with their own mix up elsewhere. In other words the hitboxes of attacks can be considered another layer being added. And when you've got a character that has multiple good hitboxes as well as a zone with a good hitbox you've got more options to think about. But the person defending with the zone has to also consider how this knowledge can be used against them.

Zoning might be predictable and thus gets you parried into a potential gank setup getting you killed. And of course you can't just keep zoning out of things because that would put you OOS which is nearly a guaranteed death against most competent gank setups. Again, removing zones being able to parry doesn't instantly remove all these factors that you have to think about. You can still stuff mix ups in single picks and when being ganked with zones regardless if you could parry with them or not. However you're still removing a function that gives a lot of benefit. Thus reducing the worth and value of said tool overall. Not every zone chains. Not every zone is undodgable. etc.


Now we will move onto common statements that get used against/or are just complained about when in the discussion of zone os/os's.

"Option selects reward someone who makes an incorrect read."

This is similar to an older discussion that was had about chargable bashes awhile ago. Specifically about how Warden being able to last frame feint his bash to get aoGB on a dodge is punishing the person who made the "correct" read by seeing a charge bash and trying to time their dodge. This was wrong because if the person made the correct read on it being a max delayed bash feint he would've interrupted the bash as soon as they saw orange.
In this case If your mix up gets stuffed by a zone it's because you made the incorrect read about it being stuffed and decided committing to the mix up would get you damage.

However to elaborate further here there is a difference between hard reads and soft reads. Hard reads are basically when you decide someone is going to attempt something with no prompt what so ever and end up being right. This would be like throwing a heavy because you read early on that your opponent was going to look to parry something specifically so they feint baited for that reaction but ended up eating a heavy instead. In other words this is a complete guess.

Soft reads are where you can guess in the realm of a behavior of what someone is going to do based on prior match up knowledge between the person specifically or how you've noticed they tend to play a character in general or against your character specifically. Using a zone to stuff/parry a mix up is a soft read. Because you're guessing that they will either commit and you parry or they will feint into GB so they get stuffed. since zone option selects don't cover every possible outcome you're still making a read. If the zone works it's a correct read for the defender. If the zone gets parried the attacker made the right read.


"Option selects favor the defender."

They do not. Zone is half of your stamina and as covered earlier are reactable. I guess the assumption is that because Option selects "give" more defense through more options they believe it's in their favor. However just like the giant list people like to tack onto Grypon's kick mix up # of things you can do is not relevant when many of said options have little to no value in the current situation if at all. Never mind the fact that everyone goes back to neutral if both sides don't commit to an attack.


"Option selects remove depth instead of adding it."

I guess the assumption here is that because zone OS parries the committed to option and stuffs feint into GB that it means you've solved combat and thus nothing ever happens offensively. Being able to stuff a feint into GB with zones doesn't mean that's always going to be an option you want to go for nor does it mean feint into GB becomes entirely invalid. What if zoning puts you OS? You might not want that. What if you just ate a heavy from your opponent? the hitstun plus other attack values might make your attempt to zone OS not work.
At best you can argue it makes combat against some heros incredibly binary. Well guess what? 1) removing zone OS makes parrying binary and 2) that's on the fault of the hero being OS'ed having poor offense. JJ's unblockable heavy mix up isn't going to become more viable if you can't zone parry it. (as an example.) As for adding depth well. Read from the start again.


"Parrying with a zone isn't intended."

Then make it a mechanic that all heros have the same level of effectiveness with?

"I don't like having to feint to neutral constantly."

You still would be even if all OS's get axed. This is because this is the easiest way to punish dodge attacks. This is the way you punish bashes who can be GBed on read. This is the way you figure out how your opponent likes to respond. If you want those incredibly satisfying encounters where you get in your opponents head and defeat them with little resistance you're going to have to learn how to read your opponent. And you're only going to manage that if you can curb your desire to mash buttons and start paying attention to how people play.


"I want feint into GB to work again."

Feint into GB in the way people miss doing isn't going to happen ever again because we don't live 3 years ago where the speed of the game was much slower. Due to the many value changes over the years you cannot feint to GB from neutral and catch someone in start up in a vast majority of situations. Removing OS's won't bring that back. If you want to start getting GB's after feints again you're going to have to make better reads. Conditioning someone to block your heavy so you can chain into another, feint and GB will catch people in start up.



Closing thoughts:

This is where I get to be a knob like the forms know me for because it wouldn't be a statement from me if I didn't make wild statements about others. I don't think the average player constantly deals with correct zone OS's. Correct timing means people memorized a specific time when they can parry and thus they always throw zone at this time. I find it highly more likely that the average player is dealing with people who are just stuffing zones out the moment they see orange regardless of player behavior or timing. When the average player can't be asked to learn and apply basic concepts when we're in year 5 of FH I can't really believe these same people would have gone out of their way to actually memorize some numbers for the game.

For the people who actually run into proper OS's? I feel like the complaint is nothing more than stubbornness. I remember when the game was still in it's fledgling state pushing towards a more mix up intensive and less defensive favored state. People of then thought they deserved high damage punishes for correct reads coasting on reactions. People used to complain about unblockable spam and other forms of good offense. The list goes on. People like binary situations. They like to have an answer that "solves" a situation for them because it makes it easier for them to do. They don't like having to change their responses on the fly and having their skills tested.

If you've reached a point in your gameplay where someone is constantly responding to you with OS's and it's beating you then start exploiting that behavior to force them to adapt. If you can't then maybe you've peaked in your skill and are upset. This is no different than playing against someone in another fighter who constantly spams throw at you in a corner. Or someone who only throws uncharged bashes at you. earlier on. It's a hill you've got to climb over.

I mean, if you feel the need to justify it THIS much, then... kinda speaks the truth right there...

If it were healthy, it wouldn't take this much to try convincing others of that opinion.

Zone OS DOES reward incorrect reads.

There are plenty of zones that do not require half stam, aren't there?

All the points you put in bold to counter argue are true statements though. Lol

Anyways. Devs have already confirmed they are taking a look at OS's that can also act as parries, so, we will just have to wait and see what happens.

[deathtocakl]

I personally think zone os is perfectly fine, so long as they adjust characters to make them all relatively the same.
Some weak examples being nuxia, raider, Highlander.

[Saint_YeetsXB]

It would be one thing to keep them if all zones functioned the same way fundamentally but they dont. Characters like bp, glad, and conq win out in the zone OS department where as nuxia and raider cant even do it to start with. Couple this where some characters zones are faster than others, some have extra properties tied to them, and others can chain off zone while most cant. The zone attack would have to be standardized to a point where a lot of identity is lost between characters before I believe it should be thought of being able to stay.

Then theres the whole point that indicator based offense and mixups will never be as good as bashed based offense and mix-ups when you can eliminate 2 of the possible things the attacker can do and pretty much pull an uno reverse card on them and send them into your own mix-up. Mix-up in the sense of your opponent now has to learn did you zone OS? Did you parry normally? Will you do it again or will you switch it up?

The argument of depth of combat for sure can be made but it does so in favor of defense. Ya know the thing that people have been complaining about being too strong since the game came out. I find the argument of depth to be more so one that is made because people dont want to adapt, they want others to adapt to them. They have something that they like and works very well and dont want to see it changed, because then they would be forced to adapt and get better and actually make the reads on a defensive end when their back is pushed into a corner.

I for one if it wasnt obvious already am against all option selects being in the game. Removing reads on your end to then flip it on the person who initiated their own offense putting them at a disadvantage only leads to stale defensive gameplay in my eyes. It limits offense more than it needs to be and continues to put the defender at an advantage where it is applicable in a game that already has semi-reactable offense to begin with.

[PicoAncus]

In general, Mr.Bdur has summarized the inevitable, Zone OS rewards incorrect reads, and that is indeed the problem.

But I take my hat off to Knight_Rame for the text, and for the effort. He undoubtedly marks some very pertinent points, which make me see the issue from another angle.

[Knight_Raime]

I personally think zone os is perfectly fine, so long as they adjust characters to make them all relatively the same.
Some weak examples being nuxia, raider, Highlander.

Yes if Zone option select is kept they would need to legitimize it by making it an actual mechanic that works at a baseline effectiveness for everyone and include a tutorial in game to inform players of it.

[Knight_Raime]

In general, Mr.Bdur has summarized the inevitable, Zone OS rewards incorrect reads, and that is indeed the problem.

But I take my hat off to Knight_Rame for the text, and for the effort. He undoubtedly marks some very pertinent points, which make me see the issue from another angle.

Please explain how it rewards an incorrect read. I've explained that there's a difference in what kind of reads there are. Reads are not always "I'd predict you'd do this exact thing."

If the person attempting to zone made the wrong read it would be he didn't read you'd feint to neutral to react parry it.

[Knight_Raime]

It would be one thing to keep them if all zones functioned the same way fundamentally but they dont. Characters like bp, glad, and conq win out in the zone OS department where as nuxia and raider cant even do it to start with. Couple this where some characters zones are faster than others, some have extra properties tied to them, and others can chain off zone while most cant. The zone attack would have to be standardized to a point where a lot of identity is lost between characters before I believe it should be thought of being able to stay.

Then theres the whole point that indicator based offense and mixups will never be as good as bashed based offense and mix-ups when you can eliminate 2 of the possible things the attacker can do and pretty much pull an uno reverse card on them and send them into your own mix-up. Mix-up in the sense of your opponent now has to learn did you zone OS? Did you parry normally? Will you do it again or will you switch it up?

The argument of depth of combat for sure can be made but it does so in favor of defense. Ya know the thing that people have been complaining about being too strong since the game came out. I find the argument of depth to be more so one that is made because people dont want to adapt, they want others to adapt to them. They have something that they like and works very well and dont want to see it changed, because then they would be forced to adapt and get better and actually make the reads on a defensive end when their back is pushed into a corner.

I for one if it wasnt obvious already am against all option selects being in the game. Removing reads on your end to then flip it on the person who initiated their own offense putting them at a disadvantage only leads to stale defensive gameplay in my eyes. It limits offense more than it needs to be and continues to put the defender at an advantage where it is applicable in a game that already has semi-reactable offense to begin with.

You are correct that not all zones are equal and that Theyed have to adjust some zones in the process of keeping zone os around as an official mechanic which I'm for. I disagree that Theyed have to be so normalized to the point that we'd be harming character identity. The worst offender here would be raider. But Nuxia and highlander have **** zones that need to be made better in the first place.


The argument about depth has zero to do about adaptation. The people who are capable of reacting to most things will continue to do so if it's removed. The people who can't and overly rely on zones get parried for doing so. I don't see how zone option selects are this big boogie man.

Also please explain how it's defender favored. Or you can look at how I debunked that and explain how my point against that concept is wrong instead of just repeating the concept.

Also let me explain something to you. Just because you're in a mix up doesn't mean the person you're attacking has to sit there and just play into it. FA/FD fudges the notion of turn based combat that everyone got used to pre ccu. People will still stuff bad mix ups and good with lights and zones wether or not zone OS is removed. So you're still going to want to feint and see what your opponent does.

Finally yeah. Attacks won't ever be as good as bashes because of what bashes are inherently. But thats not an end all be all response and horribly simplifies combat from what it actually is. We have examples of heros who do just fine without bashes. Two of which (nuxia and pk) don't suffer from OS's as much as others do. Heck, any hero who has a decent soft feint Fairs much better against them.

It really just feels like you skimmed my response since you've repeated a lot of what I tackled without responding to my response. I appreciate the actual reply. But I'd appreciate if you could at least respond to my points in this response so the discussion can go somewhere.

[MrBdur]

I don't mean any disrespect Raime, but you are fighting a losing battle.

You do bring up some interesting points in favor of keeping the Zone OS, but the reasons to remove simply outweigh them. That's all there is to it.

The OS's that can parry, Zone being the most notorious, have more detrimental effects on the overall game as opposed to positive effects.

[Saint_YeetsXB]

You are correct that not all zones are equal and that Theyed have to adjust some zones in the process of keeping zone os around as an official mechanic which I'm for. I disagree that Theyed have to be so normalized to the point that we'd be harming character identity. The worst offender here would be raider. But Nuxia and highlander have **** zones that need to be made better in the first place.


The argument about depth has zero to do about adaptation. The people who are capable of reacting to most things will continue to do so if it's removed. The people who can't and overly rely on zones get parried for doing so. I don't see how zone option selects are this big boogie man.

Also please explain how it's defender favored. Or you can look at how I debunked that and explain how my point against that concept is wrong instead of just repeating the concept.

Also let me explain something to you. Just because you're in a mix up doesn't mean the person you're attacking has to sit there and just play into it. FA/FD fudges the notion of turn based combat that everyone got used to pre ccu. People will still stuff bad mix ups and good with lights and zones wether or not zone OS is removed. So you're still going to want to feint and see what your opponent does.

Finally yeah. Attacks won't ever be as good as bashes because of what bashes are inherently. But thats not an end all be all response and horribly simplifies combat from what it actually is. We have examples of heros who do just fine without bashes. Two of which (nuxia and pk) don't suffer from OS's as much as others do. Heck, any hero who has a decent soft feint Fairs much better against them.

It really just feels like you skimmed my response since you've repeated a lot of what I tackled without responding to my response. I appreciate the actual reply. But I'd appreciate if you could at least respond to my points in this response so the discussion can go somewhere.

I read your response, I personally dont agree with it. Thats the basis of my point really. Also I am under no obligation to respond to each and every point you made with equal or more effort on my part. That being said I respect the fact that youve gone to such lengths to accurately put your opinion out and try to substantiate it. But just because you say what you say and it makes sense to you does not invalidate other people views of the game and what they think could be a better for it. Im not saying I am right, just doing what you did but in opposition of zone OS.

Option selects and this includes zone OS, remove a minimum of 2 choices the defender has to make when they respond to say a normal unblockable. The defender doesnt have to do anything other than zone on parry timing and the game does the rest. This is a lazy and unintended design that favors the defender. There is no way to know if you opponent uses option selects other then feint to neutral and wait. Nothing is put through as a special parry animation or anything. By having a way to cover 2 options automatically putting the "ball" back in the attacker's court, you are keeping the game favored to the defender. Feint to gb is to beat out parry attempts, it nets you similar but usually lower damage than the unblockable you just feinted. Take that out and now youre constantly feinting to parry as long as its not glad or bp or feinting to light as long as its not conq. Both actions substantially lower the possible dmg the defender takes if the attacker counters them from heavy/heavy finisher dmg to that of a neutral light in some cases. This lowers the risk for a defender and makes it harder for the attacker to do a normal mixup in a game that is already complained about being defender heavy. And the stamina costs on zones are usually high, but really if your e just playing smart and defensively then this makes no difference. You still wont go out of stamina as long as you have half a brain. Its a no brainer option for defenders to use.

No one lieks getting hit, no one likes being stuck in an offensive chain. A option select of any kind is a crutch to try and stop yourself from losing less and to not have to make as many proper reads. My place on this position is my own opinion based on my own experiences. I respect your place as it has valid points and even if you dont agree with me I ask you respect mine. Im a firm believer of attack the argument and not the person. People are getting tired of constantly feinting to neutral too look out for the possible 50 different defensive options people can do to their one attack (stretching it of course). If we can limit those options to just intended mechanics Im all for it, If ubi decides to make zone OS an actual mechanic, then as long as its standardized then alright fine. But in current state I do not personally want it to stay.