Personal Analysis of Solo, Duo and Trio

[RetroStation]

Nope, I like the system as is. Makes people think; too much balance is a bad thing.

 

[gllt]

Depends on what you think of as balanced. I like the system as is too and I think it is almost perfectly balanced.

The only flaws in solos are in the playstyles of the people playing them and the only benefits of teams are simply abilities to cover your playstyle flaws.

 

[Number 13]

How would we decide when solo is "equal" (which is such a flexible term) to duo or trio? More health/damage? Mechanics exclusive to solo? Duo/Trio will always have the utility advantage (which is important in this game) over solo for playing multiple characters at once.

 

[Jason]

The game would be terrible as a team game if solos equaled trios.

There woul literally be no reason to play trio or duo if solos actually were completely equal to duos and trios.

Trios are the hardest team to play well by benefit of the most to learn to play them effectively. 3 times the amount of bnbs, situational combos, matchups, resets etc etc etc

If solos equaled trios i would drop teams instantly. Why make myself work hard for no benefit? Doesnt make any sense to me.

Level of execution required to play something should not have any impact on game balance.

 

[blufang]

Solo wasn't made an option so beginners could pick up the game more easily. It was made an option for people who prefer solo fighting games. You could choose to play one, two or 3 character teams cause you preferred it, not cause learning one character is easier than two, two easier than three. Playing more characters shouldn't garner an automatic reward just cause it takes more time to learn.

How would we decide when solo is "equal" (which is such a flexible term) to duo or trio? More health/damage? Mechanics exclusive to solo? Duo/Trio will always have the utility advantage (which is important in this game) over solo for playing multiple characters at once.

What about my suggestions? That could level the playing field a bit. Since counter assisting an assist isn't an option when you play solo, the solo player gets more pay off when he hits an assist out. The solo player also doesn't have assists to cover his weaknesses, and can't recover health. A 3 character team has more total health than a 2 character team which has more total health than a solo. This is why I had the health recovery idea.

I'm sure other people can come up with a ton of ideas. Remember the intent of the game, that you could play any preferred size team you want. So the harder/longer to learn therefore should always be automatically much better really doesn't work as an argument.

 

[Dime]

Level of execution required to play something should not have any impact on game balance.

Then dont include solo duo and trio because as soon you do, you are designing by execution.

Its harder to learn 3 things than one, it isnt rocket science.

And i dont know anyone that is playing PRIMARILY TO WIN, That would play trios over solos if both were completely balanced.

I'd just toss painwheel out there and have at it, drop dubs,peacock and parasoul. Drop the need to learn a bunch of different matchups, drop the need to learn to use assists, drop having to learn a ton of different bnbs, drop needing to know any sort of dhc synergy.



As ive illustrated, it would be completely unfair for solo to be just as strong as trio. Trio is much harder to use effectively, but has high end potential when learned well. Make solos and trios the same strength and you take all incentive to learn trios, out of the game.


Some will still play trios... Probably for the challenge, same as some people still play dan in games that he is terrible in. Alpha counters, dhcs to safe on block reversals wont matter because solos will have been pumped up artificially to be balanced against those strategies...

In other words, if the game is balanced to for solo to be equal to trio, then trios current inherent strengths will no longer be strengths because solos will be strengthened to counteract that. And then you are left with putting 3 times the amount of effort (and then some) in order to stand on the same footing as a solo.


IT.MAKES.NO.SENSE.

 

[blufang]

It makes perfect sense. You are completely forgetting what the intent of putting solo, duo choices were. To make those viable for people who want to use those size teams. Not to put them at a stark disadvantage. Solo and duo aren't tutorial mode or training mode, they are supposed to be for competition.

The logic of your argument is completely faulty. Not everyone tier whores, yet if they wanted to win that is what they should do right? Why does Xian play Gen, the hardest and most complex character in SF4, even though the character isn't top 10? Why isn't Chin from KOF XIII the most powerful character, cause he is the hardest to learn? Shouldn't Chin players be more rewarded since they put in more time?

Rewarding characters/teams or whatever just for effort is what makes no sense.

 

[Rance]

solos are really annoying, they randomly poke around and if you let them touch you twice you lose. I kinda prefer picking solos against solo because its less stressful

 

[RetroStation]

Thing is, this is a game where every move counts. Trying to make the team options as equal as possible, while harmless, would be detrimental to the metagame in the long-term.

I'm fine with teams the way they are because, again, it forces people to think. Yes, solo vs teams is an uphill battle, but it's not impossible to pull off. I solo'd Squigly (possibly one of the WORST characters to solo as), and I did fairly well, despite the lack of coverage and pressure I would have had if I decided to have an assist on board. After my set with Duckator, I realized that having an assist option is better once you reach high-level. Unless you have enough of an understanding of your character of choice to consistently do well solo (like Zid's Bella), you're not gimping yourself by going solo, but you're not exactly doing yourself any favors, either.

 

[Jason]

Then dont include solo duo and trio because as soon you do, you are designing by execution.

Then what happens in 4 years time when the top players have learned all 3 of their characters at an extremely high level? Trios become Top-tier because you stupidly designed them under the assumption that high execution barrier would keep the Trio teams 'weaker'.

When you design based around difficulty of execution, you design for the short term when people are still learning the game. If SF4 players like Sako can learn how to do combos that require 10+ 1 frame links, they sure as fuck can figure out how to play 3 characters in this game at a top level.

When you design everything to be balanced without regards to the difficulty of execution, then it stays balanced long term.

 

[Dime]

It makes perfect sense. You are completely forgetting what the intent of putting solo, duo choices were. To make those viable for people who want to use those size teams. Not to put them at a stark disadvantage. Solo and duo aren't tutorial mode or training mode, they are supposed to be for competition.

The logic of your argument is completely faulty. Not everyone tier whores, yet if they wanted to win that is what they should do right? Why does Xian play Gen, the hardest and most complex character in SF4, even though the character isn't top 10? Why isn't Chin from KOF XIII the most powerful character, cause he is the hardest to learn? Shouldn't Chin players be more rewarded since they put in more time?

Rewarding characters/teams or whatever just for effort is what makes no sense.

Nope sorry, your statement makes little sense. And your chin example just reiterrates why its bad to design via execution.


Also... Yes everyone that wants to win at the highest possible percentage for them as a person... Tier whores. Some people dont mind losing and some would rather lose with their character of choice rather than win with a top tier. which is not the same as wanting to win at all costs. If it ever came down to trios and solos being completely equal i would drop trios for solos instantly. Wouldnt even think about it.

 

[blufang]

solos are really annoying, they randomly poke around and if you let them touch you twice you lose. I kinda prefer picking solos against solo because its less stressful

Not nearly as annoying as playing solo against someone with hornet bomber and updo assists. Teams have a way easier time pressuring, cause they can hide behind assists or use it to assist their rushdown and mixups. If despite that you get hit by a solo character, you have been thoroughly outplayed so can't really complain.

Thing is, this is a game where every move counts. Trying to make the team options as equal as possible, while harmless, would be detrimental to the metagame in the long-term.

Why would it be detrimental to the metagame? Also forget about things being completely equal, that is probably an impossibility considering as people have said, assists covering character's weaknesses. However shouldn't solo at least be tournament viable? The only accomplishment of solo is Khaosmuffins at EVO getting top 8 (I think)? I'm sure there have been other tournaments, but people have said EVO was the only one with a decent amount of entrants. I believe Ixion got top 8 with Dan once in some tournament. So is playing solo....playing Dan then? Shouldn't it at least be Zangief or something, if it can't be Cammy (Trio)?

 

[Dime]

Then what happens in 4 years time when the top players have learned all 3 of their characters at an extremely high level? Trios become Top-tier because you stupidly designed them under the assumption that high execution barrier would keep the Trio teams 'weaker'.

When you design based around difficulty of execution, you design for the short term when people are still learning the game. If SF4 players like Sako can learn how to do combos that require 10+ 1 frame links, they sure as fuck can figure out how to play 3 characters in this game at a top level.

When you design everything to be balanced without regards to the difficulty of execution, then it stays balanced long term.

How does it "stay" balanced if takes 4 years to reach a point for a trio player to get good enough to go even against a solo player?

The word "stay" implies an always balanced state... Whereas your 4 years argument implies a balanced state in 4 years...

I didnt write it, you did.


Also, i didnt stupidly design trios to be higher execution in order to balance them for the coming years. I used logic to see that trios are obviously going to be better in the years to come unless some big strings are pulled to give the solos help outside of being trios. At which point we are already making concessions that solos are weaker than trios.


And there are already concessions:

Solos have higher health, they have higher damage as well. All the detractors that solos have are because of the choice to not have teammates. They have no tags dhc alpha counter etc etc etc because they have no teammate. People are arguing that BECAUSE OF THE CHOICE THAT THE SOLO MADE, they should receive some further benefit, which makes sense from a balance only perspective but makes no sense from a balanced against work put in perspective.


And hey, thats perfectly fine, if you want everyone to say fuck trios and duos and play solos instead.

 

[Tomo009]

It makes perfect sense. You are completely forgetting what the intent of putting solo, duo choices were. To make those viable for people who want to use those size teams. Not to put them at a stark disadvantage. Solo and duo aren't tutorial mode or training mode, they are supposed to be for competition.

The logic of your argument is completely faulty. Not everyone tier whores, yet if they wanted to win that is what they should do right? Why does Xian play Gen, the hardest and most complex character in SF4, even though the character isn't top 10? Why isn't Chin from KOF XIII the most powerful character, cause he is the hardest to learn? Shouldn't Chin players be more rewarded since they put in more time?

Rewarding characters/teams or whatever just for effort is what makes no sense.

I'm sorry that this is off topic, but isn't Chin considered one of the top tiers in KoFXIII? Making that example kind of odd?


And I'm pretty sure that Mike said that if there was to be one option that was more viable, he wanted it to be trios. Wayyyy back in the game's history.
I like your idea of increasing the assist lockout for solos, seems like it would help quite a bit and makes a lot of sense I think, maybe you should actually suggest that to MikeZ? Solos struggle under assisted pressure so when you manage to get a hit on them, you would be rewarded with a period of time without that glaring penalty.

 

[Jason]

How does it "stay" balanced if takes 4 years to reach a point for a trio player to get good enough to go even against a solo player?

The word "stay" implies an always balanced state... Whereas your 4 years argument implies a balanced state in 4 years...

I didn't say it would take 4 years. I just used an arbitrary point far in the future to say "at this point, people will be able to play all their characters at a high level". Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

My point is - if you balance something around the level of execution needed to perform something, eventually you will reach a point at which the high execution options are the best in the game, and the low execution options are the worst... because execution increases with time. This does not work well for the game's longevity or balance because ideally you'd like all options to be equally viable.

 

[ukyo_rulz]

too much balance is a bad thing.

Invalid. There is no such thing as "too much balance". More balance is always better.



There are many facets to a game, all of them affecting whether the game is "good" or "bad". Balance is one of those facets, and any improvement to balance is an improvement to the game. Now, any change to the game affects multiple facets of it. Sometimes improving the graphics leaves less time to fix bugs. Sometimes a change that would improve balance would also adversely affect other good attributes of the game (ie. cutting every character but one makes the game completely balanced but also removes content, variety, etc). This doesn't mean balance is bad. It means that there are many attributes that define a good game, and focusing on one to the detriment of others is a bad idea.

When you design based around difficulty of execution, you design for the short term

I agree with this man, and would like to add that the ideal design actually eliminates the impact of execution as much as possible. "Execution" is just a fancy word that the FGC adopted to legitimize their fetishization of grinding. In any other genre of game "high-execution" just means "bad controls". Balancing fighting games around execution makes about as much sense as balancing collectible card games around rarity (take that, Wizards of the Coast!).

 

[Dime]

My point is - if you balance something around the level of execution needed to perform something, eventually you will reach a point at which the high execution options are the best in the game, and the low execution options are the worst

And, by that logic, (which is quite flawless if i do say so myself) if you balance for low execution to be just as strong as high execution, then low execution becomes stronger by default when applied to humans since humans arent robots and will drop high execution more than low execution, at which point 1=1 no longer expresses a true statement.


Therefor, you are making solos better than trios by trying to balance them to being equal on paper, and balancing solos to be more attractive to use for a serious player, than trios, if balanced by in game only considerations.

Either way, you open the door for solos to be used more, much more, than any other team makeup. The only thing that would change that would be making solos justifiably weaker than trios and duos.



Simply put, if i can fill up a jar with 3 marbles in 3 seconds time, versus fill up that same jar with 300 marbles in 300 seconds time, assuming that less time is the goal, i will choose 3 marbles instead of 300.

IF SOLOS AND TRIOS ARE THE EXACT SAME STRENGTH, SOLOS BECOME BY DEFAULT THE BEST TEAM TO USE, because they win quicker right off the bat and longevity of trio to try and overcome this via time and execution wont work. So there will be no reason to pick trio at all unless you are one of the few players that loves 3 characters equally. And even then you still have to work harder than solos in order to realize your strength, and that working harder translates to more time in training mode and more losses in the game.

 

[Number 13]

Incidentally enough, Mike actually nerfed the health/damage values of solos (think it was like 5-10%) in response to the introduction of assist damage scaling so from at least his perspective solos are roughly where they should be for better or for worse.

Like others have mentioned, it will depend on the character you pick to determine how effective your solo will perform. I doubt solo ratio will get any direct buffs in the near future, but maybe some indirect buffs like the assist lockouts could happen.

In any case for me anyway, if I'm fighting against someone roughly at my skill level and they use duo/trio (I prefer fighting trio out of the two because they are so fragile lol) you really have to be patient since your outnumbered with random assist attacks/DHC/etc, but it's not impossible either because there will always be a window open where the solo can go ham. It all depends if you take advantage of that albeit short windows.

 

[ukyo_rulz]

And, by that logic, (which is quite flawless if i do say so myself) if you balance for low execution to be just as strong as high execution, then low execution becomes stronger by default when applied to humans since humans arent robots and will drop high execution more than low execution, at which point 1=1 no longer expresses a true statement.

You are correct here, but you learned the wrong thing. The correct lesson to take away here is that games should be designed to eliminate the influence of execution.

Tester : I think that black having four queens is making the game unbalanced.
Designer: You're right. I'll add a rule that black can only pick up his queen with his pinky fingers. The increased difficulty of moving the pieces should balance things out.

 

[Jason]

IF SOLOS AND TRIOS ARE THE EXACT SAME STRENGTH, SOLOS BECOME BY DEFAULT THE BEST TEAM TO USE, because they win quicker right off the bat and longevity of trio to try and overcome this via time and execution wont work.

Ok so you can bury your head in the sand and just ignore all the characters who were thought to be shitty on the release of a fighting game, only to be considered to be high or even top tier later in the game's life.

Case in point - SF4
C.Viper, Cammy, Oni, Sakura, E.Ryu, Gen, Ibuki - All thought to be bad on their initial release because people couldn't execute their shit, only to rocket up the tier list later into the game's life time (some more than others).

 

[Dime]

You are correct here, but you learned the wrong thing. The correct lesson to take away here is that games should be designed to eliminate the influence of execution.

No ukyo, i did not learn the wrong thing. You ARE partially correct, but that partiality only comes in, in the form a of a new game. Sg... Is already here. Therefor, your statement is incorrect and i learned the right thing there. In order for your statement to be correct, there would be no ability to play duo versus solo versus trio. As soon as that metric comes in, the guy with more characters has more options to juggle and more time he has to devote to the game which is absolutely an increase in execution.


You would be correct if sg was still in its alpha stages and we were arguing whether to make solos versus trios versus duos or to keep it all solo, all duo or all trio.


I never thought that multiple team compositions was balanceable this way, but, it is fun. So it has that going for it. Which is awesome. I do like to get my solo on from time to time.

 

[GirlyStyle]

:) :) :) fun > balance :) :) :)

 

[Zidiane]

I love how ratio discussion is always dominated by "Solo vs Teams", yet no one ever posts in the solo thread. No one has anything to say about duos vs trios? Or the optimal team size against each other size?

 

[Dime]

Ok so you can bury your head in the sand and just ignore all the characters who were thought to be shitty on the release of a fighting game, only to be considered to be high or even top tier later in the game's life.

Case in point - SF4
C.Viper, Cammy, Oni, Sakura, E.Ryu, Gen, Ibuki - All thought to be bad on their initial release because people couldn't execute their shit, only to rocket up the tier list later into the game's life time (some more than others).

Its literally like you have no reading comprehension. Im so sick and tired of arguing wih people that have no reading comprehension and then have the nerve to say that I'm wrong. Read what you quoted again. Read it 10 times if that is what it takes to make it sink in.


I said if solos were exact same strength as trios.

AS GOOD

AS GOOD

AS GOOD

EQUAL
EQUAL
EQUAL

do i need to say it more?


Your example means nothing because it is not talking about equal characters. It is talking about charcters that were once thought to be shitty at the beginning of the game but that when mixed with high execution, became really good if not better than most of the cast.

Really good, if not better, does not mean equal or as good.


Tbqh your example has more to do with solos Being nerfed than not, after all who is to say that solos wont be the next viper or cammy in 4 years time...



...


Seriously wondering why i even bother to teach 1+1 to people that dont even understand the difference between than and then... And ive been trying hard to not go to the than and then argument... But when half the internet seems to think they are either interchangeable or thinks that they are the opposite of what they actually are... It gets really annoying. Well i finally know what it is like to be one of those people that is highly annoyed by the misuse of there,their,they're and your and you're.

 

[Hilary]

Tester : I think that [bullshit] is making the game unbalanced.
Designer: You're right .. The increased difficulty of moving the pieces should balance things out.

I don't even know how much money depended on this retard's ability to open it's laser-mouth or walk in a straight line.

 

[Zidiane]

I said if solos were exact same strength as trios.

It's nearly impossible to have two different characters be equally strong. I think having two different methods of choosing characters with so many variables and options being equal is impossible. Can we drop that already? They'll never be equal, so arguing about if they were is pointless.

 

[blufang]

Why are we talking about chess. They've made the game as equal as can be, both players abide by the same rules, have the same set of pieces. However since it is a turn based game one side has to go first. They've done everything they can to make it as fair as possible for both players.

Anyways, can we get this thread back on track. True equality is indeed impossible, doesn't mean we can't make solos more tournament viable.

So if it is definitely trio>duo>solo then any ideas on how to close the gap somwehat? Some ideas...

1. Trios will lock out assists the least (the current 90f), duos more (120f?), and solos by far the most (180?).

2. Health of duo or trio won't recover against solos, duos recover health slightly faster when facing a trio, while trios recover health slightly slower when facing a duo.

 

[Zidiane]

I think non-recoverable health against solos is a bad idea. What's the point of red health if you can't recover it (solos have it yeah, but I know that's not changing). Different lockout times depending on ratios makes sense, characters doing more damage seem like they should lock out longer. But I think realistically lockout should only be upped (edit: not requesting really, but if a change were to happen) if you got a counterhit, and then based on counterhit. So maybe if you get a LCH lockout 120, MCH 150, HCH 180.

 

[Mike_Z]

- If something has to be better (and there is always SOMETHING that'll be better), I would rather it be teams than solos, because they use more of the game's available mechanics. This is the case, and solos aren't useless, so I'm happy with it.
- I think trios are more useful than duos once people learn how to mollywop duos by using snaps, lockout, the extra damage assists take, and manage red health more effectively. That may take a while, but with a trio you have a shell whereas with a duo you are banking everything on being able to win out of the gate. [edit] The two team types have roughly the same life/dmg ratio when fighting each other, with trios at a slight advantage (14300 * 3 / 1.30 dmg is slightly more than 16445 * 2 / 1.00 dmg).
- Arguing with Dime is still pointless. :^)

 

[Killabyte]

I'm going to make my message in this thread about me, because I'm slightly evil.
Teams are cool.
I'm told Valentine is best on a team, even by the in-game tutorial.
The other character I know some stuff about now is Squigly.
What assists are recommended for the Valentine Squigly ream that I've already heard scrutinized before? I like the idea of landing poison in Squigly's damaging combos, but i also like the idea of cancelling Squigly blockstrings into a Valentine bodybag throw attempt that I can combo off of.
No idea what Squigly assist I should use. Silver Chord resets, but camera movement move seems super rad too.

 

[WaterMystic277]

Not relevant but I feel so much joy when Mike Z comments in my own thread.

 

[ukyo_rulz]

No ukyo, i did not learn the wrong thing. You ARE partially correct, but that partiality only comes in, in the form a of a new game. Sg... Is already here.

I was discussing an ideal (ie. how things should be). I already gave my opinion on how things are (trios are best).

Therefor, your statement is incorrect and i learned the right thing there. In order for your statement to be correct, there would be no ability to play duo versus solo versus trio.

In order for my statement to be correct, the execution requirement should be low enough across all options that the difference doesn't matter. As you said, there is necessarily a higher requirement for learning a trio vs a duo or solo. However, if the requirement for all of them is low enough to be inconsequential all problems go away.

Some people like playing high execution characters.

Simple solution: "style" combos. Give characters options for higher and higher execution, while conferring no gameplay-related benefits. You can have fun dressing your DoA character up in a bikini, wearing a hat in TF, or performing 17 one-frame links if you want, without hampering other people who want to play those characters. We know this works because people like Marlinpie and Desk and KBeast already do higher-execution combos even when there are low-execution alternatives with no downside.

 

[Tomo009]

Simple solution: "style" combos. Give characters options for higher and higher execution, while conferring no gameplay-related benefits. You can have fun dressing your DoA character up in a bikini, wearing a hat in TF, or performing 17 one-frame links if you want, without hampering other people who want to play those characters. We know this works because people like Marlinpie and Desk and KBeast already do higher-execution combos even when there are low-execution alternatives with no downside.

Huh? Doing more optimal stuff doesn't mean "no downside". If it is style, well that's not quite what I mean. I mean players who like to search for the optimal outcome to each situation, who like to push each mechanic to its limit and find different uses for mechanics. I don't know why you would want to alienate players with a design decision like that.

 

[blufang]

I think non-recoverable health against solos is a bad idea. What's the point of red health if you can't recover it (solos have it yeah, but I know that's not changing). Different lockout times depending on ratios makes sense, characters doing more damage seem like they should lock out longer. But I think realistically lockout should only be upped (edit: not requesting really, but if a change were to happen) if you got a counterhit, and then based on counterhit. So maybe if you get a LCH lockout 120, MCH 150, HCH 180.

My reasoning was duos have more total health than solos, and trios have more total health than duos. Even without recoverable health, teams would have an advantage stamina wise.

My reasoning about assists was not that solos hit harder, rather...

Since counter assisting an assist isn't an option when you play solo, the solo player gets more pay off when he hits an assist out.

In essence it is much harder for a solo character to knock out a team's assists, so the payoff should be greater.

 

[Jason]

Seriously wondering why i even bother to teach 1+1 to people that dont even understand the difference between than and then... And ive been trying hard to not go to the than and then argument... But when half the internet seems to think they are either interchangeable or thinks that they are the opposite of what they actually are... It gets really annoying. Well i finally know what it is like to be one of those people that is highly annoyed by the misuse of there,their,they're and your and you're.

Maybe I kind of set you off with that 'head in the sand' comment? If so I'm sorry, that was uncalled for. However I don't think my example was really all that far off base. I was trying to illustrate that balancing around high execution requirements doesn't work because high-level players will eventually make the execution requirements irrelevant (except in extreme cases).

Since you seem to be just ranting at this point I'm just going to stop here before I step on any more toes.

 

[RetroStation]

Since you seem to be just ranting at this point I'm just going to stop here before I step on any more toes.

- Arguing with Dime is still pointless. :^)

 

[ukyo_rulz]

Huh? Doing more optimal stuff doesn't mean "no downside".

Who said anything about "optimization"? You specifically talked about "high execution" lovers. I say let them have high execution. Give Parasoul a just-frame teardrop that is a different color, and exactly the same in all other regards to a normal teardrop. That way you get all the fun of high execution without otherwise affecting the gameplay.

If it is style, well that's not quite what I mean. I mean players who like to search for the optimal outcome to each situation, who like to push each mechanic to its limit and find different uses for mechanics. I don't know why you would want to alienate players with a design decision like that.

There is no real relationship between "optimal" and "high execution". For example, when I play Ironman MVC2 I always use the standard infinite setups to kill in one hit. There are other ways to do the infinite that are much harder to do, and some players like to use them for style points, but I just want to kill in one hit. Everyone gets what he wants. Lovers of high execution and people who just want to play the game coming together without conflict, as it should be. The only thing better would be if those basic infinite setups were even easier to do, so I could maybe have more people to play MVC2 with.

 

[KhaosMuffins]

Solo characters still punish mistakes from the opponents extremely well and due to system changes are harder to take down than before. Solo characters do not need a buff and while it is harder to win with solo characters, understand that you have to work harder in the neutral/on defense/dealing with pushblocks. Actually, I'm afraid to even reset solo players (or at least solo Fortunes) now because making one wrong guess and eating a CH Feral Edge/Fiber Upper is no fun....

I personally think that trios are better than duos, just that you have to manage meter and red life a bit differently compared to duos. But hey, if you lose a character on a trio, then you still have an assist for your second character. If you lose a character in a duo, then you become a solo character and that's no fun.

The current team balance is good enough and achieving perfect balance just ain't happening. Duo teams aren't as common but they still put in plenty of work against top trio teams.

 

[blufang]

Khaosmuffins what do you think about the extended assist lockout idea for solo characters? It would mean teams would have to be smarter with assists, even trios, when facing solos. The biggest disadvantage is not having an assist if you are playing solo. Besides not having that assist to cover your weaknesses or extend combos or all its other purposes, you can't counter assist opponents when they throw assists at you. So knocking out an opponent's assist as a solo character is substantially more difficult.

 

[KhaosMuffins]

Ehh the 90f lockout is enough as it is, considering that the assist still has to recover from the attack and then jump back off screen. Making that period longer just seems harsh, and as a solo you can already deal a ton of damage quickly if the opponent does not cover their assist.