Angel-tastic Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Honestly, I kind of agree about Rachel. I don't think any characters should have gimmicky instant overheads like that, much less be forced to rely on them. The devs should find some other way to make her solid, like making her 4B actually decent, for example. Also, Celica's damage generally doesn't look all that bad to me. It looks like Ash Rôtir does like 2500 base damage by itself or something like that, so all they need to do to fix her is to make that move do less damage. They'll probably have that under control by the next loketest.
TD Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 It's been five plus years. The devs experimented with taking it out, and it didn't work. Whether it was because of all her other changes or sympathy l, it has been back in since after cs. We can say it's silly to keep it in but obviously the creators don't seem to think so. Whether anyone likes it or not, the revs seems to think it balances her for the better, and it is here to stay. Jp players seem to be blocking it just fine. Whether it's jp, North American or even Taiwanese players blocking it well, it is being blocked by humans. It is possible to block. Lastly, think about how many times rachel has to do this in a match. See how long matches with tager take because of his health. Rachel can get close to a time out even if she were beating his ass the whole round.
BloodWolF Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 I personally enjoy playing against Rachels. When the pressure is on, it's pretty exciting to try and block the IOHs and when I'm in the corner covered in small creatures/plants/poles, it doesn't feel much different than other characters where you just wake up into crazy oki. I agree with TD in the sense that it is probably intended by this point.
mAc Chaos Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 That, by the way, is what people mean when they talk about the "spirit" of the character. Imagine if they took away all of Rachel's bats and frogs and pumpkins, and replaced it with just solid normals, enough so to make her A tier. Even though she's still good, it's not the gameplay or aesthetic that drew Rachel players to her in the first place.
Amegashita Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Idk how anyone would get opened up by Rachel if she didn't have the IO.
Errol Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 you know in the loketest, they nerfed the char really hard, but you know what they did not get rid of, or even nerf? rachel j.a midscreen she gets 1400 damage and pushes you fullscreen. virtually zero corner carry. even in the corner, wind regen is 1 bar. if you get hit by it immediately, it's neutral on wind for rachel. if you block some stuff beforehand... And you need to remember that rachel has no moves that move her forward. to move forward you need to use wind. she can already only IOH you from a point blank 5b. If she goes low, you can push her out so far with barrier that she can't get back in without leaving a gap for you to do something in. if you wanted her to use 4b, then that's a slow overhead which immediately ends pressure and which gets very poor reward too because 4b is one of her smp combo parts. her offense really isn't strong without the IOH. she doesn't have good frame traps, she has very low reward with which to try to scare you from doing anything. She can't threaten overhead past a basic 2a5b, so the places you can be mixed up are extremely restricted and still use wind. CT is -8. It could be removed but there would need to be a lot of compensation for that.
heavymetalmixer Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 One quarter of the people, the ones who switch to Celica will claim how she isn't imbalanced at all and people just need to learn how to play the game better. Another quarter of the people, the ones who don't switch to Celica, will complain how she's imbalanced, a pay-to-win DLC character and how she should be banned at tournaments and "Oh my god I can't wait for Xrd #reloaded to be done with this crap." The quarter of the playerbase that is made up of Azraels both new and old will wonder what the problem is. The last quarter, the Koko players who didn't switch to Celica for some reason will just be glad everyone forgot about them. The only thing that us, the Terumi mains care about Celica and Lambda-11, is that we love having more heads to stomp
Angel-tastic Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 [Rachel's Instant Overhead] could be removed but there would need to be a lot of compensation for that. I guess that's really what I'm getting at here. Like mAc said, Rachel is cool because of the frogs and pumpkins and lightning strikes and such. I'd rather she be defined by that and have the solid normals to back it up rather than be defined by a gimmicky overhead that's so crucial to her design that she would be trash tier without it, even with all of her traps. Her IOH ought to be godly, but it isn't even that good because you know she can't do anything besides that, so that's the only play to counter. Her IOH is more of a crutch than anything, a tool you're forced to rely on because you can't do anything better. IMO, she would be a more interesting and fun character to play with and against if they removed her instant overhead and buffed all her normals as compensation, so she could actually use real mix-up.
Master Of Chaos Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 The only thing that us, the Terumi mains care about Celica and Lambda-11, is that we love having more heads to stomp Speak for yourself bro. I'm riding the Celica hype at full speed, and if it comes down to Terumi vs Celica I ain't goona think twice about where I'm headed.
D.R.F. Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 I guess that's really what I'm getting at here. Like mAc said, Rachel is cool because of the frogs and pumpkins and lightning strikes and such. I'd rather she be defined by that and have the solid normals to back it up rather than be defined by a gimmicky overhead that's so crucial to her design that she would be trash tier without it, even with all of her traps. Her IOH ought to be godly, but it isn't even that good because you know she can't do anything besides that, so that's the only play to counter. Her IOH is more of a crutch than anything, a tool you're forced to rely on because you can't do anything better. IMO, she would be a more interesting and fun character to play with and against if they removed her instant overhead and buffed all her normals as compensation, so she could actually use real mix-up. I dont understand how is it a gimmick. This is where I am lost at.
TD Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 I guess that's really what I'm getting at here. Like mAc said, Rachel is cool because of the frogs and pumpkins and lightning strikes and such. I'd rather she be defined by that and have the solid normals to back it up rather than be defined by a gimmicky overhead that's so crucial to her design that she would be trash tier without it, even with all of her traps. Her IOH ought to be godly, but it isn't even that good because you know she can't do anything besides that, so that's the only play to counter. Her IOH is more of a crutch than anything, a tool you're forced to rely on because you can't do anything better. IMO, she would be a more interesting and fun character to play with and against if they removed her instant overhead and buffed all her normals as compensation, so she could actually use real mix-up. This... Isnt exactly the point. Without the overhead she would be merely ok . With it, she is strong. Very strong. There is nothing gimmicky about it. You're in point blank range and you essentially have to block it. No one in the cast can get out without counter assault or if she left a gap and they in punish, that is it. The overhead is the strongest thing she has.
Amegashita Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 I guess that's really what I'm getting at here. Like mAc said, Rachel is cool because of the frogs and pumpkins and lightning strikes and such. I'd rather she be defined by that and have the solid normals to back it up rather than be defined by a gimmicky overhead that's so crucial to her design that she would be trash tier without it, even with all of her traps. Her IOH ought to be godly, but it isn't even that good because you know she can't do anything besides that, so that's the only play to counter. Her IOH is more of a crutch than anything, a tool you're forced to rely on because you can't do anything better. IMO, she would be a more interesting and fun character to play with and against if they removed her instant overhead and buffed all her normals as compensation, so she could actually use real mix-up. Ignoring the fact that her IOH opens her mixup game immensely. IOH combos do no damage, but they force people to actually block high at close range, or eat oki in the corner. Once someone gets hit by the IOH they have to think about blocking it which lets you do her better combo starters like 2B. Or, if you just do j.a2d,b all the time, that also opens the jb, a, c, fuzzy. The IOH is godlike cause it makes so you can't just block Rachel all day, you have to actually try and escape and apply your own pressure other wise you have to eat legit 50/50's at least 4 times maximum. If you remove the IOH, the only way Rachel could get significant damage is through punishes and what not, and coming from a KoF background, I don't honestly see how anyone gets opened up w/o her IOH. Her pressure has huge gaps in it where anyone with a good invincible move can escape easily, 4B is horrible and the safest thing you can chain into is sword iris which has to be out already, and her mid range is weak.
Poultrygeist Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 This is a real problem I've always had with BB's balance. When you balance a game, you nerf something or make it better, not take it away. For example, imagine if Capcom tried to balance demon flip by removing the ability to cancel into it off stand fierce which meant no more tatsu->s.HP->Demonflip mixup. Yes, it's a bad example because it's cross company (as well as the fact that Capcom DID remove c.HK cancel to ultra 1) but I can't think of any good comparisons. If they wanted to make Rachel's pressure less good they should have just made the startup on the IOH slower or made it easier to stuff or something, it's an overhead so the point is for them to be blocking anyway (IE not to throw it out while they're attacking, you shouldn't be getting hit out of it unless you get read or called out).
Dreiko Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Removing options, especially overly dominant ones which don't really fit in with the characters design philosophy (stuff like Kokonoe being able to do rising overhead jC or Azrael having a meterless dp) can make people adjust their approach in a meaningful way which makes the char less repetitive to use, becoming more fun.
Luminos564 Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Removing options, especially overly dominant ones which don't really fit in with the characters design philosophy (stuff like Kokonoe being able to do rising overhead jC or Azrael having a meterless dp) can make people adjust their approach in a meaningful way which makes the char less repetitive to use, becoming more fun. Or as you no doubt already realized, simply make them switch to the new top flavor of the moment because what they considered "fun" is no longer available. Fun is also subjective so do be aware of that as well. Personally, I've never been a fan of removing options...within reason. Now don't get me wrong: stuff that utterly trivializes and breaks the game outright should be dealt with post haste. It's why I am glad things like Yugioh and other TCGs have ban lists. But at the same time, there is no denying that if too many options are removed and several strategies crippled, people will move on to something else while abandoning the work they had previously done. You gotta remember that fighting games, like any other game, must have a "winner" and a "loser". If a change or a removal of an option causes the players to be consistently in the latter category despite their best attempts, people will leave the character, the game and/or maybe even the whole genre, although that last one is probably an extreme example. I guess what I am trying to say is: change is all well and good. Healthy even. But far too much change or change simply made to replace the current "meta" is likely to alienate.
Dreiko Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 I'm talking about a specific kind of change. Something that's out of order being fixed. Even if the char is weaker, if you truly enjoyed that char rather than simply wins for your ego, it shouldn't affect you. People who'd drop that char based on such a minor reason (remember, we're not talking cs1 Rachel style curbstomp) were never really there for that char anyways so losing them is no real loss. Same with if they drop the game. If your main losing a random good tool is enough to make you just drop the game you likely weren't all that invested into it so no biggie. People should drop it and go do stuff they're invested in. The real fans of the character will recognize the reasoning behind the changes and will acknowledge the current stupidity which needs correcting. I've been through it with cs2 Bang going from top to second weakest and yet he was much more fun to use in cs2 cause 5A wasn't the literal win-button that it had been anymore and you needed corner to do any damage.
destruction_adv Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 I'm talking about a specific kind of change. Something that's out of order being fixed. Even if the char is weaker, if you truly enjoyed that char rather than simply wins for your ego, it shouldn't affect you. People who'd drop that char based on such a minor reason (remember, we're not talking cs1 Rachel style curbstomp) were never really there for that char anyways so losing them is no real loss. Same with if they drop the game. If your main losing a random good tool is enough to make you just drop the game you likely weren't all that invested into it so no biggie. People should drop it and go do stuff they're invested in. The real fans of the character will recognize the reasoning behind the changes and will acknowledge the current stupidity which needs correcting. I've been through it with cs2 Bang going from top to second weakest and yet he was much more fun to use in cs2 cause 5A wasn't the literal win-button that it had been anymore and you needed corner to do any damage. I agree to the part on CS2 bang, I didn't even play him in CS or CSE. CP Bang is fun in his own way too, but I still prefer CS2 Bang myself.
Verimeloni Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 I used to play Tsubaki in CSE and dropped her in CP 'cause she changed so radically. Even though her CP iteration is said to be stronger I didn't find her fun to play anymore.
StylisH Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Are we seriously talking about nerfing Rachel's j.A? Must be a slow week.....
Airk Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 I used to play Tsubaki in CSE and dropped her in CP 'cause she changed so radically. Even though her CP iteration is said to be stronger I didn't find her fun to play anymore. Honestly, I don't think she's that much better. Two steps forward, one step back. Fireballs make her neutral game less painful, but do nothing to address the fundamental problems of a pressure character with trash mixup, extreme vulnerability to barrier pushback (which got WORSE in CP), bad normals, and a drive that's a handicap. At the end of the day "Give her a fireball, it will improve her neutral game" is probably the least useful 'fix' they could have given her.
JyakotuKurayami Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 I used to play Tsubaki in CSE and dropped her in CP 'cause she changed so radically. Even though her CP iteration is said to be stronger I didn't find her fun to play anymore. CS2 Tsubaki is probably the best iteration of Tsubaki. CP Tsubaki did change drastically, and I will never understand why they took away the A/B/C variations from some of her moves. I just got into Tsubaki, but having experienced both CS2 and CP, I prefer her CS2 iteration by far. That's the only game where she could win without struggling TOO much. The fireball in CP helped a little bit, but honestly, from CSE to CP, she's just gotten meh. So many other characters in the game do rushdown better, but I digress.
D.R.F. Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 ^ her buttons are less than stellar, she doesnt have strong average damage and they still dont know what to do with her drive. I have no problem with her having a smaller repertoire of specials just make the ones still there BETTER. They did it with her dp, I dont see why they cant for the rest of her shit
Verimeloni Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 They should make her normals better, add some more gatlings to make her mixup better and make 214D a low and 22D an overhead.
NecroTheReaper Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 214D being a low sounds doable but 22D being overhead would look bizarre. Either way, wouldn't that be just changing her specials once again? I thought the fundamental issue was her normals. Even if I would be a bit envious, if they gave her a 22f overhead and improved hitboxes before they tamper with her specials, I feel like a lot of good come come out in the end.
SoWL Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 CS2 Tsubaki is probably the best iteration of Tsubaki. CP Tsubaki did change drastically, and I will never understand why they took away the A/B/C variations from some of her moves. Because there is such a thing as having too many options. It's either that some of them are worthless, or all of them are equally good and opponent has an unreasonably hard time fighting them.
Recommended Posts