Henaki

Decreasing damage isn't exactly analogous to increasing the number of rounds. It strongly depends on how powerful snowballing is. In the case of BB, because it takes a lot longer to force an enemy into a disadvantageous position (because there's way less advantage granted to the person who knocks another down, the corners are further away), it exasperates the issue since you're making more neutral decisions. it does increase the amount of interactions and decision trees, which is why matchups are bad (the other person's wheel of options is statistically more likely to end in a favoriable situation than another characters), so the more you increase the odds of those "good wheels' showing up, the more likely a character is going to show their statistical power. To simplify: A 6/4 matchup will mean a character will win 60% of the time due to a larger sample size. If you have a small sample size of dicerolls out of 10. Say, 2. Getting 1-4 instead of 5-10 is statistically still going to happen over a long period of time, but in very small sampling, Tager ca say, beat Carl due to some dumb luck/very good reads. This is why Marvel 3 is played in a 3/5 set, btw. You can lose in a single big mistake, which means two mistakes (that aren't always mistakes), can cost you a tournament match. High risk high reward guesses become more powerful because they can take entire games off what is essentially a diceroll, making the game more random. Decreasing the damage can increase the sample size, but it is very dependent on why a character is better. if it's because they can win in one combo, decreasing the damage actually increases the odds of a character that can't win in one combo, but two, assuming they can still do it in two after the damage decrease. Bad oversimplification: Let's say Ken does 1000 damage off a c.Lp, but Ryu does 900. If you increase the health to 1800. Suddenly the match is "even" in this one comparison because they both effectively kill in two combos. /guy who thinks too much about fighting games

They're probably in the tail end of hitstun, or maybe part of OTG state qualifies as hitstun.

People always quit due to perceived imbalance and frustration. The internet just gives people a place to say why they quit.

did chipp just use bs while in bs rejected state? uhh lol .

I would rather they make a new character that has a much stronger visual distinction from HOS but fills a similar playstyle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZDgdVwbH04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-bj462DNB8 a-cho

Justice is a good idea executed terribly.

can he not, now?

Still not sourcing the "not 2-8" bullshit. That seemed like outrageous hyperbole and what I'm looking for a source on.

Character diversity and varied counterplay are more important than 5-5 matchups across the board IMO. The goal should definitely be no matchups worse than 4-6 tho.

Source this shit please.

the idea here is you can kill puppet eddie with the fire stuff and also yrc so you can act instantly. could also be good vs unblockables maybe? this is a pretty wild theory tho.

Maybe you can use it to eat a projectile and YRC it so you can act before the other person? Might be decent for fighting full screen Eddie.

Durrrrrrrrrrrrr. Thanks

How would that OS work? The chain outprioritizes the YRC unless the move whiffs, but wouldn't that cause you to just RC the previous move? I'm pretty fuzzy on how input priority works in GG tbh. that def looks like some sort of OS though.

Yeah the huge plus of the new Giganter is it consistently does massive damage everywhere instead of just some places.

Please do not respond to reaver.

i think x potemkin couldnt really fdc for any tangible benefit either haha.

nah its not that bad imo. the matchup has always been a pretty reasonable 3-7 fight. maybe 3.5 - 6.5 in AC. winnable, but his worst matchup definitely.

yep. basically potemkin doesn't have a lot of mobility options/fast safe moves so its simply harder to hit eddie, or catch zato when eddie is down. the way you beat zato is the window when he has to safely summon eddie, zato has to be more careful and approach in safer ways. potemkin has less ways of dealing with this phase. on top of that, when zato loses the ability to summon eddie for a while (eddie gets hit, or eddie simply runs out), his counter play is to run away and stall, which works stronger against potemkin as he has the lowest mobility in the game, and medium quality screen presence (pot has a few long range tools, ok mid range). most other characters have stronger mobility or screen presence or both.

i like the new rc system a lot better too. its about as intuitive and has less emphasis on denying options to newer players through design. a lot of the difficulty will come out naturally in yrcs which is fine. the new system seems to put a lot more emphasis on using all of the meter options at your disposal instead of mostly the more powerful 25% ones like in AC. imo the biggest reason people arent gona like the new system is its definitely subtracting the most egregious points of power from characters universally, so everything feels "nerfed", but its adding more versatility since your best meter options arent generally tied to a couple of specific things. the new system will afford more player diversity and moment to moment creativity. people are just wehhhing because "i dont have a powerful thing anymore" which is understandable because the power of frcs felt cool. the meter system got understandably rebalanced which resulted in a definite nerf in understood power. if you dont think the meter system was imbalanced and made meter decisions less interesting then you're a dumb idiot but its fine to go "i miss frcs because they were fun and powerful" and you havent played with the new system which will almost certainly offer fun and power in a different way. it should be noted that power imbalance is what makes asymmetrical games fun. "i get to do this things thats better than your thing" always feels good, so removal of FRCs is definitely a subtraction of fun, but because knowledge of subtraction is easier to perceive than knowledge of (new) addition, people can understand the nerfs more than the buffs that replaced it. tl;dr: frc nerfs feel worse than the buffs no one on this forum can play with yet based off not actually playing the game. frc nerfs subtract fun power, and the fun power gained in compensation is not easy to understand so people mad about frc removal have every right to go "its not fun". however, its heatlhier for the game now that your meter decisions arent as clear cut.

http://www.twitch.tv/joniosan/b/508693788 mikado archive

every single time tager got buffed it was shitty gimmicks and not anything that gave him some sort of stable gameplay until CP where they finally gave him a decent combo off 5a. xrd potemkin is nerfed #R potemkin with new shitty gimmicks. there's still a chance hes OK, but yeah, no high hopes here. i'm expecting a ride on the crap tier train for the entirety of the xrd series.

this happens in every combo heavy game when people don't know real combos.

It's reaver. Don't respond to him.