In defense of zone OS | Forums

[Knight_Raime]

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.

You are again correct that you're not required to respond to everything nor do I expect it. I was expressing my frustration that it didn't feel like my counter points were heard because none of your first statement seemed particularly aimed at anything i'd mentioned in response. It's kind of hard to get a dialogue going if both sides are just saying what they wish to say and not really paying mind to the other person in the same room as them. I can only assume the last of this first bit is referring to the last section of my thread where I get a bit personal. Feel free to ignore that if it's bothering you. It's just my "take" on how I see people reacting to this topic. I spose your adaptation comment is just as equal in this regard so we can just call it good and move forward.


I like this next section here as it actually gives me a way forward into discussion so I will primarily be focusing on this middle section. Also for the sake of easier to read responses I will try to keep them brief and also won't be touching on every single point you've made here. Apologies if that's unsatisfactory.


"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."

It sounds like you're trying to argue about effort here with some fluff tacked on so lets just focus on that. This situation reads as follows. Attacker lands an attack and goes into a regular unblockable attack. The defender is throwing a zone on parry timing making a soft read that the attack will be committed to (thus the parry,) or feinted into GB (thus zone stuffs.) The attacker is making a read. The attacker can commit, feint to GB, or feint to neutral. Both sides are being asked to make a read here. If the defender reads correctly one of those two outcomes happens. If the opponent makes the correct read he nets a parry of his own. In terms of reward they're basically the same. Parrying a heavy and parrying a zone both net you either a light or a zone. Both are likely in frame disadvantage either way. Defender also loses a chunk of stamina even if they make the correct read and stuff the GB but is still likely FD.

So even in this magical scenario where we're not accounting for character specific situations like soft feints, not accounting for current stamina differences or health differences, not accounting for characters who get higher damage from heavy/zone parries/deflects, etc it's still not defender favored. And you really cannot argue that the read he's making is easier. Because both people are making a single read. The defender covers more than one option but the attacker gets a fairly easy reaction punish. Maybe i'm just missing something. But I do not see how even if we strip the game down completely to a scenario where no other factors are in play how zone OS's are defender favored.


"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."

Say we have Bp's zone yeah? It's considered better because it's a bash and you can't parry bashes unless you're BP himself. Bp's bash nets a finisher light. Those are frame disadvantaged. Meaning we just did a lovely back and forth on who's turn is who's. I land an attack say from a heavy parry and net a light. Now even though i'm still on the "offense" so to speak i'm disadvantaged. Meaning you as the defender have a bit more leeway when it comes to dealing with me since you're stunned for less time. You zone option select to stuff my regular unblockable mix up. Butt situation since I can't do anything but make the read to dodge and potentially punish a follow up. But anyway, it lands. You get a finisher light. Now it's back to my "turn" since you're disadvantaged.

Offense and defense are not static turns. FA/FD specifically exist along side other mechanics as an attempt to make combat more dynamic whilst also not completely disregarding the idea of "turns." Which is why I said it fudges it a bit. To repeat. Just because i've landed a punish on you or an attack on you doesn't mean the defender only gets to sit on his hands and guess one of the options. Rolling exists. And there are other tools both character specific and universal wise that make reads "easier." While parrying with a zone isn't an intended action the intent of making reads easier isn't inherently against the game's current design. There's just too many other instances that allows this.


"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."

But see it does though. If you're under half stamina or close to half stamina OSing with a zone might not be a smart move. The hero you're fighting might be a bash hero who could drain the rest of your stamina and put you OOS though a few ways. Even if you only option selected with a zone when you had most of your stamina bar it's still going to limit you from doing so again in the immediate time, and it also stifles what offense you could be making since you'd not have much stamina to play with after successfully zone OSing. Meaning you could risk going OS even going on the offense either from your own actions or from getting parried in a few different instances. Either way playing it safe purposefully to avoid going into OS means you yourself are not attacking as often or attempting to stuff them as often. So that gives the "attacker" more room to be offensive.

Also even if we ignore the stamina aspect that doesn't account for a lot of heros in the game getting higher rewards from you if they make the read on your zone. Every deflect does more damage than any zone that's tossed. Heros like Shugoki have a feat that lets them knock you down with his heavies and his zone resulting in a truck load of damage. LB and Warmonger both have impale moves that can drag you to walls for extra damage or off the map for an instant kill. Full block options also exist that will also net more damage than the zone being thrown. So it's not really a no brainer from a damage point nor a stamina point.


"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."

The way I see it is the devs are going to have to do work to zones wether or not zone OS is kept. If it's kept it needs to be made a proper mechanic. Meaning we'd need a new UI element to explain to someone they were parried with a zone. We'd need a tutorial in game to explain the mechanic (but considering one doesn't even exist for FA/FD despite how important that is to the game I have my doubts.) And some zones would need to be brought in line with most others in order to make it an accessible mechanic to all.

Conversely if zone OS's are removed than many zones are now lacking an extra function and thus simply become less useful tools overall which we do not want. So they'd have to revisit a lot of zones and make them faster, better in regards to FA/FD, given an extra property like undodgable or chainable, and made cheaper to use to fill the gap that is left by removing one of their functions. The sad reality is i'm sure zone OS's will be removed with all others and the devs won't revisit zones as compensation. Thus leaving the game in a worst state for what i'd argue to be minimal benefits for the game as a whole. (as even though things like GB selects, bash selects, dodge selects, and guard switch selects are incredibly harmful to the game really none of those outside maybe GB selects are even close to regular players experiences. And GS selects are forbidden by the competitive scene.) I can accept their removal if the devs actually follow through with their decision. But I've not the faith that they will. And that's my worry.

Hopefully this wasn't too long. And thanks again for responding.

[PicoAncus]

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 I appreciate your opinion, you argue well, and undoubtedly good prospects that I didn't know about. And about that, I recognize your ability to get the message across.

But the fact is, as a gamer, I recognize that the zone OS makes the game defense too easy, and I think they even motivate people a little to react quickly instead of learning to read the game well.

And I say very honestly, I read and reread your texts and yesterday, I went to try for the first time to use is zone OS with intention against some bots at Dominion. And at a practical level I came to the conclusion that it makes it too much easier to defende and reward fast reaction.

The propability of read well and parry a light, is from far worst that just Zone OS.

in the other hand, now I'm afraid you're right when you mention some gameplay changes that will happen with the removal of the Zone OS. Bearing in mind that the Devs want a fast-paced fighting style and quick reaction always taking risks.
And in this, i think you re right, and there will be more consequences that just those we expect...and probably not all will be pleasant.

[Knight_Raime]

Knight_Raime I appreciate your opinion, you argue well, and undoubtedly good prospects that I didn't know about. And about that, I recognize your ability to get the message across.

But the fact is, as a gamer, I recognize that the zone OS makes the game defense too easy, and I think they even motivate people a little to react quickly instead of learning to read the game well.

And I say very honestly, I read and reread your texts and yesterday, I went to try for the first time to use is zone OS with intention against some bots at Dominion. And at a practical level I came to the conclusion that it makes it too much easier to defende and reward fast reaction.

The propability of read well and parry a light, is from far worst that just Zone OS.

in the other hand, now I'm afraid you're right when you mention some gameplay changes that will happen with the removal of the Zone OS. Bearing in mind that the Devs want a fast-paced fighting style and quick reaction always taking risks.
And in this, i think you re right, and there will be more consequences that just those we expect...and probably not all will be pleasant.

If we look at zone OS as a soft read and then look at parrying the move regularly as a hard read yes, it's easier to zone OS than it is to make the specific read. And I suppose if we expand upon the idea that most players don't pay attention to other player behavior, play into FA/FD, and keep track of other things like health/stamina differences at the time of the mix up "just zone os" is definitely making the game easier for them.

However, I could easily say this exists in the form of rolling. You never have to play into a mix up you don't like/can't be asked to read if you decide to roll away. Yet rolls were kept because being able to disengage is important. They instead nerfed rolls so they're easier to catch and can't escape every single mix up in every situation. Unfortunately I don't see how they can nerf zone option selects without making the tools themselves worse. Which isn't what we want.

It's not like I don't recognize the harm that zone OS can do in some cases. I just disagree with how harmful that specific OS is. And believe that what it adds elsewhere is far more valuable. I have plenty of worries about the removal of zone OS. But i'll just have to wait and see what happens.

[PicoAncus]

I understand your point of view, and being easier, it becomes more competitive and there is not so much evident class separation between players.

With the end of OS, the difference between defensive quality will be abysmal, thus creating a very big difference between classes, which will make the game less competitive and appealing and more lame.

This is one of the main points where I think you're absolutely right, and it makes me a little torn.
Because already with the OS I see that there is so much competition between players and most of the time it is unnecessary...Without the OS, there will be a complex God.

[MrBdur]

I understand your point of view, and being easier, it becomes more competitive and there is not so much evident class separation between players.

With the end of OS, the difference between defensive quality will be abysmal, thus creating a very big difference between classes, which will make the game less competitive and appealing and more lame.

This is one of the main points where I think you're absolutely right, and it makes me a little torn.
Because already with the OS I see that there is so much competition between players and most of the time it is unnecessary...Without the OS, there will be a complex God.

Personally, I think the game will be far more exciting and diverse with OS removal.

If anything, it will make the game MORE competitive.

My opinions come from personal experience as I have never intentionally used a single option select. I have accidentally parried using zone many times, and then immediately thought "wow, that's stupid. I definitely should've been interupted there."

The game never felt lacking in competitiveness or excitement. There are so many things to watch for and OS's (including zone) just remove the need to think about every single action being performed in a critical manner.

Like, I'm a very good player (not comp or GM, but not too far behind those players, either) so when I say there's a problem, it's more likely that I felt wins were too easy for me while using those complained about things as opposed to me having trouble beating them.

My reasons for hating Gryphon, for example, only came to exist after I put 6 reps on him. I loved him. He felt great. Strong. Versatile. Agile. But after 6 reps, I could easily see how broken he was, and so I mentioned him being OP.

Now most agreed on his release, but some still jumped on the "just learn to parry" train, and I'm like, I ain't whining cuz I keep losing to Gryph, I'm just informing folks about how braindead easy he was to play as, for me personally.

I don't think zone OS is bad because I can't figure out how to get around them, I think it's bad because it removes layers from the critical thinking of the core game.

Basically, it's unhealthy because it's unhealthy. Those who deny this are either in denial, or they don't want to give up the ability to parry with Zone and other parrying OS's. Some are afraid that they won't retain their current position without it. Some simply don't understand the fact that they simplify the game and make it less than it was intended to be.

[Knight_Raime]

I understand your point of view, and being easier, it becomes more competitive and there is not so much evident class separation between players.

With the end of OS, the difference between defensive quality will be abysmal, thus creating a very big difference between classes, which will make the game less competitive and appealing and more lame.

This is one of the main points where I think you're absolutely right, and it makes me a little torn.
Because already with the OS I see that there is so much competition between players and most of the time it is unnecessary...Without the OS, there will be a complex God.

Yeah like, people who have good reactions are still going to be great at stifling offense. At least "worse" players had zone option select forcing the person with strong reactions to consider other possible outcomes on top of the other stuff they think about. Like Silencer (a well known comp player,) has sub 120ms? reaction times. He doesn't us OS's at all. Man can even tell the difference between light and heavy start ups early on. For most of the comp side of the game (which usually have 150ms reactions or less,) they're not going to struggle with mix ups post OS removal.

The most likely felt effect will be those who overly rely on throwing a zone because they can't be asked to pay attention to their opponent's behaviors. It won't be an option for them anymore. So the game becomes even more binary for them.

[MrBdur]

Yeah like, people who have good reactions are still going to be great at stifling offense. At least "worse" players had zone option select forcing the person with strong reactions to consider other possible outcomes on top of the other stuff they think about. Like Silencer (a well known comp player,) has sub 120ms? reaction times. He doesn't us OS's at all. Man can even tell the difference between light and heavy start ups early on. For most of the comp side of the game (which usually have 150ms reactions or less,) they're not going to struggle with mix ups post OS removal.

The most likely felt effect will be those who overly rely on throwing a zone because they can't be asked to pay attention to their opponent's behaviors. It won't be an option for them anymore. So the game becomes even more binary for them.

You're basically saying the best players will still be good, which is an obvious statement.

You're also saying that the game will be more binary for players who refuse to learn the game or pay attention to their opponent? Isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't you be required to learn how to do stuff as opposed to just pressing a panic button?

You think less skilled players SHOULD have a panic button to be able to defend themselves more reliably against superior players? Why?

Why should the game give worse players a crutch like that? This just goes back to the most obnoxious, and in this case very true, statement of "Git Gud".

I say good riddance as, by their words, it does not sound like the OS changes are up for debate. They will most likely be implemented as we see them in this TG.

[PicoAncus]

You're basically saying the best players will still be good, which is an obvious statement.

You're also saying that the game will be more binary for players who refuse to learn the game or pay attention to their opponent? Isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't you be required to learn how to do stuff as opposed to just pressing a panic button?

You think less skilled players SHOULD have a panic button to be able to defend themselves more reliably against superior players? Why?

Why should the game give worse players a crutch like that? This just goes back to the most obnoxious, and in this case very true, statement of "Git Gud".

I say good riddance as, by their words, it does not sound like the OS changes are up for debate. They will most likely be implemented as we see them in this TG.

MrBdur, I agree with you as OS removed.

But more and more I understand Knight_Raime, and he is seeing a long-term prism. And hes worried, and so am I.

With the variety of games that exist, a separation of player classes too evident, will create slaughter within Team Fights and beyond.

New players won't even have time to adapt, because as soon as they start to level up, they start to be completely slaughtered.

Even those who now hang on with the OS, will start to suffer in the skin, which is having to read the game, instead of just having a reaction... and will be slaughtered by the "elite" Players.

In conclusion, there may be a breakdown in the player base due to lack of motivation and inadequacy.

Keeping in mind that "elite" players are a small percentage, and they are "elite" precisely because there is a huge base of reasonable players or worse, which makes the "elite" players stand out.

The game doesn't survive with just 8% or 15% of your player base. Remember this.

Of course you are absolutely right in what you say. But try to see it through the angle of survival and the entire player base, and not just through your individual quality prism.

[Saint_YeetsXB]

I read through everything but I believe its a mute point to keep the debate up when ubi released the changes coming in the testing grounds. While I am happy that option selects of all kinds will be removed, just as you said i cannot deny that there will be other unforeseen gameplay implications. Its very easy to see things from a view that is only good in your own eyes as its what you want to see. While i personally believe this will be an overall good change and will help widen the skill gap at lower and mid tier ranks for players that has been made fuzzy since the ccu, i cannot deny that there is the possibility that this could turn into a negative as you said. This is a change of something that really has been in the game since the beginning that players have been used to for years. Next place to go is see if the reworks for this testing grounds will be up to snuff with the rest of them and test out how exactly a option selectless game is played out in the testing grounds. Hopefully this is well implimented without game breaking bugs lol. I do enjoy debates and such with you knight and hopefully we could have some more in the future.

[Knight_Raime]

I read through everything but I believe its a mute point to keep the debate up when ubi released the changes coming in the testing grounds. While I am happy that option selects of all kinds will be removed, just as you said i cannot deny that there will be other unforeseen gameplay implications. Its very easy to see things from a view that is only good in your own eyes as its what you want to see. While i personally believe this will be an overall good change and will help widen the skill gap at lower and mid tier ranks for players that has been made fuzzy since the ccu, i cannot deny that there is the possibility that this could turn into a negative as you said. This is a change of something that really has been in the game since the beginning that players have been used to for years. Next place to go is see if the reworks for this testing grounds will be up to snuff with the rest of them and test out how exactly a option selectless game is played out in the testing grounds. Hopefully this is well implimented without game breaking bugs lol. I do enjoy debates and such with you knight and hopefully we could have some more in the future.

Yeah if you wanted to see my updated perspective based on the notes I'd posted another thread. Considering the wording of it they seem very aware of why zone OS wants to be kept but are going through with it anyway both because their tech likely cannot single out zones specifically and that having zone OS's as a thing meant balancing zones as a tool aside from osing was difficult.

Which I admit was not an angle I'd thought of. So instead of asking to keep zone os I'm going to ask them to continue to buff zone attacks since that would be more productive.

And thanks. I quite enjoy the discussions we have as well. It's nice that I can still find people here to debate with despite my fh group and most people I used to interact with here being long gone.