- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,802
- Reaction score
- 990
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canada (East)
- Steam
- Sydoh
- PSN
- worldjem7
Pocket Rumble Thread
- Thread starter skull person
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,802
- Reaction score
- 990
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canada (East)
- Steam
- Sydoh
- PSN
- worldjem7
Lack of air block and air options doesn't mean jumping is bad. I already said why Jumps are good and need some sort of reliable check and you clearly ignored me.
Yes, I found out about Naomi's 2B AA combo before writing my latest suggestion post. The point is, you can only get 3-4 damage from AA Antlers from very specific situations. Otherwise you will more commonly hit 2 Damage (although naomi can hit 3 midscreen, but she can only get max 3 damage regardless of situation).
In any case, this is still less average damage than ground combos. Tenchi can get a whopping 8 damage from a full combo off a jump-in with super, so it's still better to be in the air than on the ground.
Crossups are actually not that easy to do or easy to confirm from because Tenchi's j.B is very narrow horizontally, so you need a very specific range to jump from, and Naomi's j.B has less stun than her j.A, making it harder to confirm from, and all crossups sacrifice position and damage due to the defender getting pushed away from the attacker.
You mentioned that you can do Anti-Air DP to hit someone trying to cross up, but that crossups are easy to do and flip your direction. So which is it? Are they good because they're "easy to do" and flip your input or are they bad because you can get AA DP'd into a higher damage combo than normal (for an Anti-Air)?
Either way, I don't know why you think having a 50/50 would be bad in a game you're trying to have a focus on reads.
Your juggles aren't scary. You get the most damage off jump-ins, you take the least damage from being in the air, and you can negate lows entirely for jumping.
How in the world are you not seeing that jumps are too good?
Why would you find it interesting to reduce your game to one tactic?
Again, I have been ignored.
I thought you wanted this game to be smart and based on reads, not dumb and based on option selects.
What the hell does this even mean? You want to make crossups easy to execute, but you don't?
If anything, you've dumbed down Pocket Rumble yourself with these changes in the Alpha (some of which might have existed before the alpha).
Very sure. It's not impractical at all when you're both trying to be in each other's faces. And jump-ins will let you do 5A > 5A pretty much every time, meaning Tenchi can do 5 hits off his jump-in which is almost half life. Things like punishing forward antlers are the exception, not the rule, and you would rather punish forward antlers, specifically, with a throw for better positioning because you can't get as much damage off a normal combo.
The problem is that the way you have it now, players aren't going to care about doing ground pokes. You get the most damage off a jump-in, and you take the least damage while in the air, and you also can't be hit by lows when you jump. The only time you would stop jumping is to bait an AA or because you're already in their face (even then, you'll want to jump to dodge the throw/low mixup), otherwise, there is no reason not to jump. You can make lows have the best frame data in the game and it won't matter because they will never hit people jumping (and they also yield less reward than standing normals even if they hit!). If you really want to make lows useful, just allow them cancel into B moves (any) and to hit people out of jump startup, ESPECIALLY upback.
About the numbers: 2B 1-hit combo takes 12 to kill, but so does every other move in the game so why would you use 2B instead of 5B or fireball or spaced forward antlers, or j.A? With my suggestion 5A needs 30 1-hit combos and 2B needs 10 hits. If you get hit by sweep 10 times, I think you deserve to lose that round (which is completely impossible if jumps beat lows).
Tenchi can't do half life without super, but 5 hits is still big in a game with 12 health. Naomi, however, can hit half life combos with relative ease with her max damage combo being 8 hits for 1 charge and it's really easy to get that charge (yet, you punish people trying to do crossups which you aren't always able to get).
1. Why are you concerned about raw 5B being useless when your philosophy is "shorter range = more damage"?
Currently, 5B and 2A do the SAME damage with 2A having slightly less range than 5B. If you think raw 5B is useless when it does more damage than 2A, why would you think it's any more useful the way it is now in alpha?
5B has more range and is taller than 2A. It's meant to be a mid-range poke and neutral game tool to start some offense by leading into a quick knockdown, not necessarily to get good damage at max range.
2A on the other hand requires you to be closer, and if it can catch people jumping and cancel into B moves, then it is very useful when in range, but it won't ever hit anyone once they're already in the air and it does less damage than 5B. So, if you weren't ready to confirm into something, you'll only get that 1 point of damage as opposed to 5B's 2 damage. In the current alpha, 5B is infinitely more useful than 2A because it has more range, can catch more things, and does the same damage as 2A, so there's no reason to use 2A in alpha. Finally, why would you want two different moves to have almost the exact same use? Especially in a game with only 2 buttons, no less!
Nothing, but it shouldn't be at the expense of making lows completely useless.
No, because they are different moves with different purposes, different damage, and different ranges. 2B has the longest range, hits low, and knocks down, 5B is less range than that and hits mid, but it's taller and can cancel into a special for a bit of extra reward on block or hit, 2A lets you confirm into a combo. If 2A ends up overshadowing 5B as a mid-range poke, then why not just give 5B more damage or more range? Then you can make it more useful raw, but add damage scaling so it doesn't inflate the combo damage. Or give it a different use altogether (like when they were overheads)?
2. Why is far range jump-in needing more touches to kill (than before) bad? I thought the idea was "farther range = less damage"
3. Combos ALREADY must end in 5B > Antler charge for max damage because it is the most consistent special to cancel into to end a combo and it gives knockdown. With different values per move and damage scaling, you have a lot more control over the kind of reward each move can give and doing so will actually make things more interesting. For example: Let's say antler charge does less damage than fireball. You then have to choose whether you want to go for the damage from fireball and reset to neutral or the knockdown from antler charge for less damage.
The current system doesn't allow for that kind of choice at all because everything does the same damage, so you might as well just do the most optimal thing over and over again, which is very boring.
You need moves to be different in more ways than just range for there to be a meaningful decision to be made when selecting a move for a certain situation.
4. What I suggested was supposed to be a sort of compromise retaining your philosophy of "shorter range = higher damage" but it still changes the game a lot because there is more thought required to the moves you choose for a given situation based on more than simply "how far away are they from me?" and it doesn't seem like you really grasp these kinds of nuances.
This might be true if the characters end up being balanced enough, but it will only be character variety. Under the current system, each character would just do their optimal thing because everything has the same damage.
Firstly, 8 x 3 = 24 + 6 = 30
8 damage being the meterless full combo jump-in damage using the values I suggested, so it would not be 4 or 5 full jump-in combos, it'd be 3 and a BnB and/or some chip/stray hits. Less combos needed with meter usage, naturally.
Secondly, if someone is going to lose that badly, that they would be left with 1 HP and the opponent is at full health, he likely isn't going to be winning any individual rounds either with less health and lower damage, but he might get lucky (key word, here). He will generally lose just as bad. If you have many chances in a single round there is a higher chance to come back, and you don't get all your work erased by the other person's health going back to full. The better player will come out on top more often if it's 2/3 with more health than 3/5 with less health because the latter is more random.
Also, low life comebacks are hype as fuck, where have you been?
Why can't throw be A+B? I don't see anything wrong with 5A+B being throw.
You could have things like Naomi's charge be 2A+B and Tenchi's super can be 3A+B (why not give him a kick super on 1A+B too?). Or why not have a 3rd button?
After going over the DP moves, they do give you enough time to do oki, but that doesn't mean the OS isn't bad or shouldn't be dealt with. There should be a correct, safe block option as well as a risky reversal option. The 6H OS is basically an unblockable.
Except, that's the problem. It doesn't matter how much you meaty your low, jump will beat it every time.
Your options are jump and block high because jumping beats lows. Why would you block low when you have something that will get you out for free? Why would you go low, when your mid will give you the same damage as your low? The 6B OS covers this entirely.
Having throw whiffs will eliminate the option select entirely and I don't know why you guys don't do it. Please don't make some weird wonky "Throw-whiff-only" attributes to a move when you can just give it a throw whiff.
Throw whiffs will get rid of the option select, but it doesn't make lows any more useful because jump still beats it.
No, you don't get it.
It REEEEEEEEEEEEALLY doesn't. At all. It's the exact opposite actually. Know why? Because they can't hit anything. Buffing 2B will do nothing because lows can't hit anything. You jump and it removes those moves from play and makes it less interesting, less diverse, and more one-dimensional.
Even if 2B was the same frame data as 5A and even let you combo out of it (which is essentially what 2A is), it would still be less useful than going for AAs and mids because jump will 100% avoid it entirely.
I don't know what you're talking about with "Variable Anchor Points" I'm just saying allow it to pass the floor while a move is in its animation. Or like, make the anchor point when you're in the air higher to allow moves to be active closer to the ground?
I'm not savvy on anchor points. I just know that it's possible to allow the anchor point to pass through the floor to allow moves to land later.
I basically just want to be able to do jump-ins deeper without having the floor canceling the animation.
Not sure what you mean here. Does that mean that everything that doesn't knock down is supposed to be safe?
If that's the case, then why is Naomi's 3A (Rush punch) punishable on hit?
_____________________________
PLEASE reconsider your stance per my advice. I really want pocket rumble to be good and not be a 1v1 version of Marvel 3.
Thank you
Last edited:
Some sort of catching overhead move could possibly solve hte issue. On reaction of the low, an instant cancel into an overhead or longer reaching AA move maybe result in making jump backs less safe and cause players to time the jumpback.
Just in general, from what I've read and heard, lows do need some sort of devise to boost up their usefullness, wether that means being able to cancel into something that will effectively cancel into a decent AA-type move which will most likely be unsafe on block, or just change how jumps works so that lows aren't left out in the dust. Something that could add a resolution to the issue could be longer hitstun on block. Getting hit on block while upbacking could make you stuck in the block animation long enough that the jump doesn't come out in time to stop a low. This would drastically reduce the power of jumping out of block while still maintaining its power over lows in most other situations, allowing Lows to be useful for mixups and other situations. It may also switch up the OS Game so that throws aren't so obvious given the current way the game seems to be played.
I wouldn't necessarily say to make all moves deal more damage, but I would suggest making a few deal more. Key player being sweeps. As it stands from all the footage I've seen and read, there are a few things that need either variable damage or some sort of balancing to make them more useful. As it stands, you've designed it so certain moves are more useful than others, those being the ones that involve getting closer in for a full combo. However, I'd like to argue that trying to tie your damage to your effective range doesn't necessarily support the simplness of the game. As Worldjem pointed out, there is a noticeable effectiveness to things like jumpins and gives moves you've stated that are supposed to be useful, like heavies, less usefulness when you can do active jumpins for greater damage. Variable damage or some alteration to the current formula may be necessary. You want to support more than just getting in with damage, as fighting games tend to be more diverse than just "the closer you are, the harder you hit." As far as HOW to do variable damage? That's where I come up dry. If you're avoiding the suggestion of each button does different damage, I'd suggest dumbing it down to certain moves hit for 2 damage in one hit/animation. This could alter how combos flow, possibly making things like sweeps or heavy normals more useful at the start of the combo. If necessary, possibly institute some form of damage scaling, which reduces the damage from 2 to 1 after so many hits. Hell that could even be applied to a completely variable damage system, like what most fighters do. If you want this to be a simple and more introductory fighter that still does its own thing, which is what it sounds like its trying to be, maybe incorporating mechanics that work in the background but are key to understanding the games and making it more obvious by having the scaling make normally devastating moves do normal damage much more obvious and reward players for planning out combos for optimal damage, as it is with most fighters.
Just in general, from what I've read and heard, lows do need some sort of devise to boost up their usefullness, wether that means being able to cancel into something that will effectively cancel into a decent AA-type move which will most likely be unsafe on block, or just change how jumps works so that lows aren't left out in the dust. Something that could add a resolution to the issue could be longer hitstun on block. Getting hit on block while upbacking could make you stuck in the block animation long enough that the jump doesn't come out in time to stop a low. This would drastically reduce the power of jumping out of block while still maintaining its power over lows in most other situations, allowing Lows to be useful for mixups and other situations. It may also switch up the OS Game so that throws aren't so obvious given the current way the game seems to be played.
I wouldn't necessarily say to make all moves deal more damage, but I would suggest making a few deal more. Key player being sweeps. As it stands from all the footage I've seen and read, there are a few things that need either variable damage or some sort of balancing to make them more useful. As it stands, you've designed it so certain moves are more useful than others, those being the ones that involve getting closer in for a full combo. However, I'd like to argue that trying to tie your damage to your effective range doesn't necessarily support the simplness of the game. As Worldjem pointed out, there is a noticeable effectiveness to things like jumpins and gives moves you've stated that are supposed to be useful, like heavies, less usefulness when you can do active jumpins for greater damage. Variable damage or some alteration to the current formula may be necessary. You want to support more than just getting in with damage, as fighting games tend to be more diverse than just "the closer you are, the harder you hit." As far as HOW to do variable damage? That's where I come up dry. If you're avoiding the suggestion of each button does different damage, I'd suggest dumbing it down to certain moves hit for 2 damage in one hit/animation. This could alter how combos flow, possibly making things like sweeps or heavy normals more useful at the start of the combo. If necessary, possibly institute some form of damage scaling, which reduces the damage from 2 to 1 after so many hits. Hell that could even be applied to a completely variable damage system, like what most fighters do. If you want this to be a simple and more introductory fighter that still does its own thing, which is what it sounds like its trying to be, maybe incorporating mechanics that work in the background but are key to understanding the games and making it more obvious by having the scaling make normally devastating moves do normal damage much more obvious and reward players for planning out combos for optimal damage, as it is with most fighters.
Dime
The power of BEAT EXTEND
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,563
- Reaction score
- 764
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 47
Well, I won't purport to fully know what is going on in here, but from the outside looking in generally speaking across every streetfighter ever and most fighting games, the anti airs do way less damage than jumpins.
And I personally think that's fine.
@worldjem
Do not forget that the reason why jumping has always been seen as bad in streetfighter is because of the amount of options that you LOSE for jumping versus the amount of options that the grounded person still has:
A jumping opponent is on a fixed plain. They can't block, they can't change their trajectory midair in oldschool games easily or at all, like in pocket rumble they have vastly fewer options than the character on the ground has.
Now, let's be not pedantic here, what I just said is only a part of the equation. Jump speeds have a lot to do with it as does the priority of AAs and everything I just said can be thrown out the window if the jump speed is very fast. But concerning PR jump speeds... They don't look to fast.... Am I wrong? It's hard to tell just from watching videos.
As an example of all the options that a classic oldschool grounded character has versus a jumping one, think of the grounded characters options against a jumper some of which are reads and some aren't:
1. dash under and mixup (much better against fixed jump arcs and especially floaty jumps. Works very well to dissuade up close offense into crossup pressure ad infinitum)
2. Dash back and make the jump attack wiff
3. Predictive air to air
4. Grounded anti air reversal move
5. Grounded AA normal move
6. Block
7. Basically all their normal moves on the ground, some of which may be slides/low profiles to allow even easier AA/move unders.
Whereas for the jumper once you jump you lose almost all options and the only options you still have are to press a button or not. You can't block, you can't parry, you can't change your trajectory.
In sf4 I started out using chun and barring special metered circumstances, her best AA did like 1/15th of a health bar in damage. But she was still effective at keeping non trajectory changing/dive kickers out of the air and that AA damage though small, added up. Watch valmaster chun and see that he almost never AAs with the character and instead prefers to avoid the situation and wait for better opportunities.
Point being that good DAMAGING AAs aren't "entirely" needed to keep someone from jumping alot. I think on the outside looking in that you are to concerned with damage and not seeing the strength of inititiative/higher amount of options... At least in regards to anti airs in a more oldschool game.
Will link valmaster chun versus Justin Wong and Ricky Ortiz so you can see the no/few AAs strat... Winning.
Valmaster uses some AAs here and there, but they do very little damage and Justin is jumping alot... This is some of the best proof I can find that damage isn't the primary factor when considering AAs useage, considering Justin's heavy jump style and valmasters low AA damage style, yet valmaster still taking it, and even in dominant fashion.
The Ricky Ortiz matchup is more of the same but with Ricky's style of Rufus. I won't bother linking it, the Justin game is good enough.
And I personally think that's fine.
@worldjem
Do not forget that the reason why jumping has always been seen as bad in streetfighter is because of the amount of options that you LOSE for jumping versus the amount of options that the grounded person still has:
A jumping opponent is on a fixed plain. They can't block, they can't change their trajectory midair in oldschool games easily or at all, like in pocket rumble they have vastly fewer options than the character on the ground has.
Now, let's be not pedantic here, what I just said is only a part of the equation. Jump speeds have a lot to do with it as does the priority of AAs and everything I just said can be thrown out the window if the jump speed is very fast. But concerning PR jump speeds... They don't look to fast.... Am I wrong? It's hard to tell just from watching videos.
As an example of all the options that a classic oldschool grounded character has versus a jumping one, think of the grounded characters options against a jumper some of which are reads and some aren't:
1. dash under and mixup (much better against fixed jump arcs and especially floaty jumps. Works very well to dissuade up close offense into crossup pressure ad infinitum)
2. Dash back and make the jump attack wiff
3. Predictive air to air
4. Grounded anti air reversal move
5. Grounded AA normal move
6. Block
7. Basically all their normal moves on the ground, some of which may be slides/low profiles to allow even easier AA/move unders.
Whereas for the jumper once you jump you lose almost all options and the only options you still have are to press a button or not. You can't block, you can't parry, you can't change your trajectory.
In sf4 I started out using chun and barring special metered circumstances, her best AA did like 1/15th of a health bar in damage. But she was still effective at keeping non trajectory changing/dive kickers out of the air and that AA damage though small, added up. Watch valmaster chun and see that he almost never AAs with the character and instead prefers to avoid the situation and wait for better opportunities.
Point being that good DAMAGING AAs aren't "entirely" needed to keep someone from jumping alot. I think on the outside looking in that you are to concerned with damage and not seeing the strength of inititiative/higher amount of options... At least in regards to anti airs in a more oldschool game.
Will link valmaster chun versus Justin Wong and Ricky Ortiz so you can see the no/few AAs strat... Winning.
Valmaster uses some AAs here and there, but they do very little damage and Justin is jumping alot... This is some of the best proof I can find that damage isn't the primary factor when considering AAs useage, considering Justin's heavy jump style and valmasters low AA damage style, yet valmaster still taking it, and even in dominant fashion.
The Ricky Ortiz matchup is more of the same but with Ricky's style of Rufus. I won't bother linking it, the Justin game is good enough.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2013
- Messages
- 5,368
- Reaction score
- 14,537
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 43
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Website
- www.labzerogames.com
- Steam
- labzero_mike
- PSN
- MikeZWasTaken
Uwa?
I mean, I'm gonna bet the crossup behavior stems from "this is how it works and so we are justifying it" rather than "we actually decided to make it work this way." No knock on the devs, that happens a lot, and this is just my assumption. :^P
For the rest, I'm not sure what kind of issues you want my view on, since I haven't got the alpha to play. So gimmie some specifics.
Jumping being low invincible is kinda crazy though, since mid/throw is not a mixup to base your game around because mids are blockable both high and low.
That's true for a few reasons:
- If both lows and throws lose to jumping, since lows are crouch blockable whereas throws are not, lows as a class of move are severely weakened. As a result, overheads as a class of move are also severely weakened, because overheads are a good threat as a direct result of lows being faster and leading to good damage. The metagame becomes more about "jump/don't jump" than high/low/throw.
- If a character gets a divekick or other trajectory-changing air attack, it will be disproportionately powerful as a result of jumping being better than average, being able to avoid more things and punish them heavily.
- If antiair normals are like Street Fighter and get you only the one hit, being antiaired by a normal is always better than being hit by a low into a full combo, so jumping is already powerful in unknown situations unless your opponent can time hits to hit you out of jump startup. It beating lows exacerbates this.
- Even without the single-hit-AA thing, jumpins are your best combo starter since they give you any other full combo afterward. Having jumping be super weak is infinitely preferable to having jumping be super strong. @Dime_x you can ignore the lack of airblock or air control just based on this fact alone.
- And as a last thing, if there is any other sort of weirdness in your engine, exploiting OSes that will jump or not depending on input will also become super important. Since jump beats 2 options (and if single-hit-AA is a thing then jump also reduces the impact of the other options) doing things like cancelling prejump frames to ground attacks or exploiting preblock to not jump if they do certain attacks is extra super good, and generally easier than other OSes.
Though @worldjem, remember:
Whether anything gets changed heavily depends on whether the aim of the game is to be a "2D fighting game lite" kind of primer for people wanting to get into fighters, or "its own thing" that doesn't necessarily have any relation to other 2D fighters. (I would guess that "lite" is a better option for the game overall and is what people who backed it expect, but "its own thing" is what the developers would prefer because then they can feel prouder about having created a unique snowflake. I can understand the subjective validity of both goals for different groups.)
Dime
The power of BEAT EXTEND
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,563
- Reaction score
- 764
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 47
@Mike_Z
I'm not talking about lows not beating jumps. I think that's a mistake personally, but it's a deviation that I find interesting if it can be made to work so I didn't say anything about it.
What I was talking about was the need for highly damaging AAs as a rule.
Sure, with lows not beating jumps then perhaps highly damaging AAs would be needed, but as a whole, super damaging AAs are rarely needed in games like this as long as a few certain other fundamentals come into play.
I'm not talking about lows not beating jumps. I think that's a mistake personally, but it's a deviation that I find interesting if it can be made to work so I didn't say anything about it.
What I was talking about was the need for highly damaging AAs as a rule.
Sure, with lows not beating jumps then perhaps highly damaging AAs would be needed, but as a whole, super damaging AAs are rarely needed in games like this as long as a few certain other fundamentals come into play.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,802
- Reaction score
- 990
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canada (East)
- Steam
- Sydoh
- PSN
- worldjem7
This is the real question that needs to be answered.
However, I was, and I'm glad Mike addressed it.
Dime
The power of BEAT EXTEND
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,563
- Reaction score
- 764
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 47
I could have sworn you were talking about the damage that antiairs did, as a mainline argument. I don't remember reading where you said "if lows don't hit upback startup, then AAs should do more damage to compensate"
And admittedly I only skimmed that big post. So if I missed the part where you make that argument, then I apologize.
Waasiq
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2013
- Messages
- 109
- Reaction score
- 82
- Points
- 28
- Steam
- Waasiq
- PSN
- Waasiq
I think Christian has made it clear that it isn't supposed to be FIghting Games Lite. From what I can see, and maybe I'm off the mark, but the main goals of Pocket Rumble is to be a fighting game that's easy to control and understand with a focus on spacing and reads. Sometimes it breaks heavily from convention to do that.
It took me a little while to realize that PR wasn't going to be the FG Lite game I've wanted. And that bugs me a little bit but I'm pretty okay with shifting my hype towards what might be a fun exploration into fighting game design space. Hopefully they can get things working well so that I can enjoy it despite making years of fighting game experience in me scream when I see jumping beats lows.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2013
- Messages
- 5,368
- Reaction score
- 14,537
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 43
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Website
- www.labzerogames.com
- Steam
- labzero_mike
- PSN
- MikeZWasTaken
If they aren't going for Fighting Game Lite then...I can see a lot fewer people playing it, honestly.
[edit]
To clarify that...
Going for Fighting Game Lite means building on an established knowledge base and "standing on the shoulders of giants" to create something that will probably be fairly fun and deep.
Not doing that, without having any prior fighting game design experience, means bucking a lot of trends because you don't understand why they are trends but you want to be different. The possibility of ending up with fundamental flaws is much higher.
[edit]
To clarify that...
Going for Fighting Game Lite means building on an established knowledge base and "standing on the shoulders of giants" to create something that will probably be fairly fun and deep.
Not doing that, without having any prior fighting game design experience, means bucking a lot of trends because you don't understand why they are trends but you want to be different. The possibility of ending up with fundamental flaws is much higher.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,802
- Reaction score
- 990
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canada (East)
- Steam
- Sydoh
- PSN
- worldjem7
I would still like a clear answer directly from Chris, because I keep seeing him post comments like this, and it's very confusing as to exactly how much and what kind of feedback they're looking for.
@PocketRumbleDev
@PocketRumbleDev
Last edited:
From the looks of it, they seem open to all feedback. He seems to have his own idea of how things should roll with how it currently is, but this long discussion about jumps beating lows and how that's bad as well as the damage conversation seems to be creating a lot to test or consider.
Personally I think they only need variable damage on some moves to create a need for alternate combos to get the most optimized damage from other ranges as well as resolve the weak lows. Perhaps, as I stated before (though it was buried in my giant text wall), making some moves do 2 damage instead of 1, like specials or moves with more range to them, and have combos off of said 2 damage moves lead to short, but still effective damage would tip the balance of the jump ins, assuming jumps are made less powerful. Even a form of damage scaling, which reduces the 2 damage moves to 1 damage after so many hits, would still help give those higher damage moves more utility and have players want to hit with them more often that possibly risking damage from a jumpin or jab, even though they can get a longer combo/more damage off the jump in. Creating a more safe way to deal damage, while less than the close range combos, would make other strategies viable.
I get the philosophy is "Closer Range = More Damage" but that doesn't mean the only effective range for high damage should be in each other's faces. Most fighting games have other ranges you can poke from and still get a considerable amount of damage off of, damage that isn't as much at face range, but still enough for the opponent to notice and be wary of it.
Personally I think they only need variable damage on some moves to create a need for alternate combos to get the most optimized damage from other ranges as well as resolve the weak lows. Perhaps, as I stated before (though it was buried in my giant text wall), making some moves do 2 damage instead of 1, like specials or moves with more range to them, and have combos off of said 2 damage moves lead to short, but still effective damage would tip the balance of the jump ins, assuming jumps are made less powerful. Even a form of damage scaling, which reduces the 2 damage moves to 1 damage after so many hits, would still help give those higher damage moves more utility and have players want to hit with them more often that possibly risking damage from a jumpin or jab, even though they can get a longer combo/more damage off the jump in. Creating a more safe way to deal damage, while less than the close range combos, would make other strategies viable.
I get the philosophy is "Closer Range = More Damage" but that doesn't mean the only effective range for high damage should be in each other's faces. Most fighting games have other ranges you can poke from and still get a considerable amount of damage off of, damage that isn't as much at face range, but still enough for the opponent to notice and be wary of it.
Too much stuff to respond to each one individually, I'll just clarify some things here:
One of the big goals for Pocket Rumble is to be a game with minimal amount of functionality overlap between your character's options, because there are inherently so few normals. 5A is supposed to be really different from 2A, in hopefully more ways than just a small range buff and small frame data changes. This is one of the reasons the low invuln on prejump thing was implemented, so that we can go really nuts with how good lows are if you have a 0f immune-to-lows option, along with attempting to make jump more useful in a game without very many jump options.
However that's not a thing guaranteed to stay. Nothing is really guaranteed to stay in Pocket Rumble, and I think the best way to already show that is look at the "2nd KS" vs. "12-health update" vs. "alpha 0.2.0." We change stuff up all the time to whatever we think makes the game more interesting (low invuln on pre-jump) OR simplifies an otherwise complex mechanic (new health). It doesn't really matter if it's a genre standard or not. That's why this kind of feedback is helpful, because there are plenty of times where the genre standard IS actually way better than whatever thing we came up with, and our local meetups and internal testing just don't catch it because we just didn't think it all the way through. The most obvious example of this was removing chip, which we thought was fine for Tenchi the shoto because he gained meter for doing specials and his specials have ridiculous priority. After sending the build out to a couple a couple of bigger deal FGC people we realized quickly that we were partly right, you try not to let Tenchi get full meter even if you have the life lead, but once Tenchi DOES get full meter, you downback all day even as a rushdown character to play optimally. This was boring and so we brought back chip. If we find out people are jumping around literally all the time (and not just a little more often than ST/SF4, which was our intent), we'll get rid of the low invuln property.
The whole design is a balancing act though, because these two ideas kinda conflict (being interesting vs. being simple). We tend to lean more towards the simple side, but if it makes the game stale or creates some functionality overlap between options we just straight up make the game more complex, sometimes in ways that are not even a genre standard to mesh better with other designs. So having feedback about these things is super vital and the game would probably come out pretty awful if we didn't have people saying what they don't like about it, but what is happening right now is that I'm just not totally convinced of some of the things worldjem is concerned about are actually a big issue, and I still feel that way for things other than the throw OS (still on the fence about certain air moves letting the anchor point go through the floor). Right now I like the idea of absurdly good lows with an amazing option to juke them more than I like typical lows that serve a very similar purpose to standing normals except that they hit low. What I gather the most out of your feedback is that we should go even crazier with the lows, not that the mechanic is inherently flawed.
This kind of brings up another point, that having some match footage (especially online matches with us here on the dev team) is the most time-efficient way to bring up these issues. These forum responses take a while to write and deal with a lot of hypotheticals that may not actually play out at all in-engine. We are trying really hard to get in contact with Tony Cannon to pay him for the GGPO license so we can put the SDK in a paid-for alpha release but he's probably super busy at the moment and not able to get back to us, but once the online is up hopefully worldjem you can get some real match experience and be able to record matches where your issues are noticeable. Ideally someone would post some match footage and then highlight via text or voiceover what dumb things are happening and then we can discuss possible solutions to the problem.
One of the big goals for Pocket Rumble is to be a game with minimal amount of functionality overlap between your character's options, because there are inherently so few normals. 5A is supposed to be really different from 2A, in hopefully more ways than just a small range buff and small frame data changes. This is one of the reasons the low invuln on prejump thing was implemented, so that we can go really nuts with how good lows are if you have a 0f immune-to-lows option, along with attempting to make jump more useful in a game without very many jump options.
However that's not a thing guaranteed to stay. Nothing is really guaranteed to stay in Pocket Rumble, and I think the best way to already show that is look at the "2nd KS" vs. "12-health update" vs. "alpha 0.2.0." We change stuff up all the time to whatever we think makes the game more interesting (low invuln on pre-jump) OR simplifies an otherwise complex mechanic (new health). It doesn't really matter if it's a genre standard or not. That's why this kind of feedback is helpful, because there are plenty of times where the genre standard IS actually way better than whatever thing we came up with, and our local meetups and internal testing just don't catch it because we just didn't think it all the way through. The most obvious example of this was removing chip, which we thought was fine for Tenchi the shoto because he gained meter for doing specials and his specials have ridiculous priority. After sending the build out to a couple a couple of bigger deal FGC people we realized quickly that we were partly right, you try not to let Tenchi get full meter even if you have the life lead, but once Tenchi DOES get full meter, you downback all day even as a rushdown character to play optimally. This was boring and so we brought back chip. If we find out people are jumping around literally all the time (and not just a little more often than ST/SF4, which was our intent), we'll get rid of the low invuln property.
The whole design is a balancing act though, because these two ideas kinda conflict (being interesting vs. being simple). We tend to lean more towards the simple side, but if it makes the game stale or creates some functionality overlap between options we just straight up make the game more complex, sometimes in ways that are not even a genre standard to mesh better with other designs. So having feedback about these things is super vital and the game would probably come out pretty awful if we didn't have people saying what they don't like about it, but what is happening right now is that I'm just not totally convinced of some of the things worldjem is concerned about are actually a big issue, and I still feel that way for things other than the throw OS (still on the fence about certain air moves letting the anchor point go through the floor). Right now I like the idea of absurdly good lows with an amazing option to juke them more than I like typical lows that serve a very similar purpose to standing normals except that they hit low. What I gather the most out of your feedback is that we should go even crazier with the lows, not that the mechanic is inherently flawed.
This kind of brings up another point, that having some match footage (especially online matches with us here on the dev team) is the most time-efficient way to bring up these issues. These forum responses take a while to write and deal with a lot of hypotheticals that may not actually play out at all in-engine. We are trying really hard to get in contact with Tony Cannon to pay him for the GGPO license so we can put the SDK in a paid-for alpha release but he's probably super busy at the moment and not able to get back to us, but once the online is up hopefully worldjem you can get some real match experience and be able to record matches where your issues are noticeable. Ideally someone would post some match footage and then highlight via text or voiceover what dumb things are happening and then we can discuss possible solutions to the problem.
dead
MUSCLE POWER
- Joined
- May 1, 2014
- Messages
- 492
- Reaction score
- 283
- Points
- 63
- Age
- 30
- Steam
- Grangach
- PSN
- slorchbeast
If this is one of your design philosophies, please make it a 4 button game, a button for specials and a button for grabs. Attack to grab goes against your statement, as it's one of the oldest option selects in the book.
If you really want to make this game simple and inviting to new players, there's no reason to not have the specials be on a button. You seem more than willing to buck trends, and I think this would be a better solution. Right now you have a half measure that is going to cause execution errors and will likely not even help new players significantly; I have yet to meet a person that can't do a HDK motion within 20 minutes of showing them how, and that includes my 5 year old cousin that I introduced to guilty gear recently, so if you don't want to have a dedicated button then just make all the specials into HDK motions.
Kai
Go Home And Be A Family Man!
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,844
- Reaction score
- 6,554
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Website
- www.killallinstinct.com
- Steam
- Kai
- PSN
- Night_Phyre
I just want to know: is it gonna have those harshly-digitized voice clips like on the game boy? Those were fun.
COW UH BUNGA
COW UH BUNGA
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,802
- Reaction score
- 990
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canada (East)
- Steam
- Sydoh
- PSN
- worldjem7
Then you have grossly misinterpreted my feedback and I am hesitant to give you any more if this is how you are going to interpret it.
Both Mike and I have plainly laid it out for you as to why it's a bad idea, yet you are still not convinced. Why should anyone break things down for you if you won't accept any evidence unless it's done specifically in your own game and directly to you and the dev team?
Instead of "OK, let's try this as a base and go from there" it's "we're going to do whatever we want, and you have to prove it to us with hard evidence in our game that this is bad" even though this kind of thing has already been explained and there are plenty of case studies that show you why a thing is good or bad and why you should or shouldn't do something with the system mechanics.
I want a direct answer to this question:
Is Pocket Rumble supposed to be 2D Fighting Game Lite, or is it just "your own thing"?
Because as it stands, your responses greatly infer that your position is the latter, not the former.
dead
MUSCLE POWER
- Joined
- May 1, 2014
- Messages
- 492
- Reaction score
- 283
- Points
- 63
- Age
- 30
- Steam
- Grangach
- PSN
- slorchbeast
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,802
- Reaction score
- 990
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canada (East)
- Steam
- Sydoh
- PSN
- worldjem7
I just find it irritating that they ask for feedback, then ignore it and instead rationalise their current decisions; that, until you shove it in their faces with their own game, they won't listen to you at all.
At the very least, it would have been nice to know this beforehand instead of wasting my time writing shit out for them.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2013
- Messages
- 2,419
- Reaction score
- 3,218
- Points
- 113
This is a horrible idea, imo.
You shouldn't be able to input a DP with one button, or block 1 frame and then DP the next frame. (Hi Persona)
Also DP motions make you unable to block for at least 3 frames for F DB and D, which makes them risky and committal, which is good for a powerful reversal.
Kai
Go Home And Be A Family Man!
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,844
- Reaction score
- 6,554
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Website
- www.killallinstinct.com
- Steam
- Kai
- PSN
- Night_Phyre
I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other, but just for discussion's sake, wouldn't it still be the same if you just added 3+ frames of vulnerability to the beginning of the one-button DP?
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2013
- Messages
- 2,419
- Reaction score
- 3,218
- Points
- 113
with buffers while in blockstun, recovery, etc.
Kai
Go Home And Be A Family Man!
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,844
- Reaction score
- 6,554
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Website
- www.killallinstinct.com
- Steam
- Kai
- PSN
- Night_Phyre
Ok, but couldn't you allow the input at those same times and then have it come out when it's first able? Like, it starts up after 4f at neutral, but if you input it within a certain time frame (let's say 6f) at a non-doable situation, it'll go through that artificially imposed extra startup while in said situation.
For example, if you put in the one button DP on frame 1 of 5f blockstun, it would come out on the first frame after blockstun dissipates, just like if you'd been imputing the DP motion in any other game. Or, if you were 5f from landing on the ground, you could input the one-button dp and have it come out the first frame you touch the ground.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2013
- Messages
- 2,419
- Reaction score
- 3,218
- Points
- 113
dead
MUSCLE POWER
- Joined
- May 1, 2014
- Messages
- 492
- Reaction score
- 283
- Points
- 63
- Age
- 30
- Steam
- Grangach
- PSN
- slorchbeast
i like persona, I don't totally get what the problem is with having strong dps as long as they're really punishable, imo persona works just fine with 1 frame dps. Anyway, it would be preferable to accidentally getting specials when i want normals. Ideally it would just be hdk motions.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,802
- Reaction score
- 990
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canada (East)
- Steam
- Sydoh
- PSN
- worldjem7
The way DPing works in pocket rumble is that if you hit a button while blocking, you stop blocking and will get hit by whatever blockstring you're taking. So you can't just sit there and wait for DP to come out.
I think we are misinterpreting each other at every step here, because I didn't say to not write your feedback. Like I said in my post, I didn't respond to everything because there was straight up too much to respond to. It takes a while for me to write these, and I have to get Parker finished while making save/load states not broken and a million other things before we send the next build out.
I read everything you write and despite you claiming otherwise multiple times, I am not ignoring the points you are bringing up, I discuss all your points with the rest of the team and then I respond back with what we generally agreed/disagreed with, and I actually am sorry that we can't respond to literally ever sub-point on each topic, I sincerely wish we could. There is a ton of ground to cover with your write-ups, and if I was only the game designer or some kind of PR person I could do this all day but the fact is we have to get this game out relatively soon (because we are a pretty low-budget title) and because I write the vast majority of the engine, I don't have that much time right now.
With that said, I won't be responding to anything else in this thread unless I need someone to clarify something. We'll be watching, so please do keep writing, but I can't be writing huge responses like this every night. When GGPO is up we can play and talk on an IRC for an hour or two every week or something along those lines if you prefer one-on-one discussions, because this forum thing is reallllllllllly slow.
Matches highlighting certain issues is just a faster way for us to get to the source of the problem and fix it, but it doesn't invalidate your write-ups or anything, especially when there is no online multiplayer in this build. Keep doing what you are doing, nothing is being ignored or anything even if we don't respond, and not everything has to be agreed upon right now for it to eventually end up in the game anyway.
I'm also in general not sure why you feel like you've accomplished nothing. We've established that the throw OS is annoying and that lows are not useful enough yet and a bunch of other things, and we are going to try to change it in some way before the next build. Just because we don't necessarily agree yet on a few things or don't respond doesn't mean your feedback is being ignored. Your thoughts on jumps beating lows are now a thing that are referenced on a daily basis, so idk what else to say about this except that you should try to relax a little that your thoughts aren't immediately being accepted as objectively best and put in the game.
It could be either? Like I already said, we streamline as much as we possibly can without making the game boring, and then we add on top of that whatever we think mechanically makes the game more interesting (minimizing functionality overlap, more options per situation, etc) regardless of if they are genre standards or not. Basically if it's discovered that everything about our mechanic changes are worse to most of the playerbase it's going to be 2D Fighting Game Lite, but if most people decide it's better to do a couple weirdo things here and there, it's our own thing.
I don't think anyone should own Pocket Rumble, ideally when we are on early access the game will be designed by the high level players. Right now we are being picky because we are the highest level players and probably will continue to be all the way up until the beta. The philosophy behind making the game practically open-source for mods is going to apply to the actual game design as well. Hopefully it'll just be a fun game for retail rather than a blob of unrelated mechanics recommended by those who are the best at playing it, but I don't think we have more authority on what goes on than they do just because we built the game. I think an extreme like adding quarter circle motions or something wouldn't happen, but things like brand new buttons and complete mechanical overhauls (airblock) are all on the table, it's just not in now because we are the people deciding what goes in currently.
So basically what I'm saying is this: if you beat me in the first GGPO build the low invuln is being taken off of prejump. That's not just hyperbole, I'll seriously remove this mechanic if you beat me best out of 3. That would make for something a little more interesting than a typical money match, don't you think? Better start practicing upback exploits!
(In all seriousness though, we won't necessarily keep it even if you lose if we are convinced that it's too problematic via re-reading the current feedback, any new feedback, and other more reasonable/responsible research channels).
Skullmageddon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2014
- Messages
- 722
- Reaction score
- 1,381
- Points
- 93
- Age
- 33
- Location
- North Carolina
- Steam
- Skullmageddon
- PSN
- Skullmageddon_42
Why? What's wrong with having normals, specials, and grabs allocated to their own buttons?
I understand your argument for why single button DPs would be bad, but I also disagree with it entirely. Different games have different ways in which they choose to treat the properties of moves. At the end of the day, having special properties or intended uses for moves is all just a part of providing options for the player. Moves with full or partial invincibility, armored moves, bursts or evasive actions, even just normal moves; When designed well, every move is built with some form of intent or purpose. That intent is influenced by how the developers want the game to play. Of course, how they intend for the game to play and how it actually plays may very well end up being two completely different beasts, but that doesn't change the fact that a move's properties need to be developed with the whole system in mind. You can definitely make single button specials work, you just have to consider how it changes every other aspect of how the game plays and feels.
The most obvious and simple example I can think of is Smash, of course. Everything in that game can be done with a single button, and completely safe options out of block are hardly a bad thing. It's just that the only reason this works for Smash is because it's a completely different game from most fighting games. There is some overlap in how the game works and feels compared to other fighting games, but in the end it does its own thing. Pocket Rumble could play any number of ways at this point, it's all just a matter of the design philosophy that drives the people who are making the game.
Waasiq
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2013
- Messages
- 109
- Reaction score
- 82
- Points
- 28
- Steam
- Waasiq
- PSN
- Waasiq
Man, make sure you record that mechanic match, that would be hype. Something about "prove it's broken" speaks to me maybe because I used to visit (the cesspool of bad that is) Smogon for Pokemon stuff and that's a very common mentality there.
Not that it should be par for the course for Pocket Rumble, but I'm assuming all parties understand that "beat the dev, change a mechanic" isn't actually an open challenge or something.
Not that it should be par for the course for Pocket Rumble, but I'm assuming all parties understand that "beat the dev, change a mechanic" isn't actually an open challenge or something.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,802
- Reaction score
- 990
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canada (East)
- Steam
- Sydoh
- PSN
- worldjem7
OK.
Sorry.
I wouldn't want you to change something based only on a bet just because one of your fans feels that strongly about it, but I would love the opportunity to play you guys and talk about it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,802
- Reaction score
- 990
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canada (East)
- Steam
- Sydoh
- PSN
- worldjem7
Verdant Brave
Anti-social
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2013
- Messages
- 585
- Reaction score
- 471
- Points
- 63
- Age
- 35
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,802
- Reaction score
- 990
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canada (East)
- Steam
- Sydoh
- PSN
- worldjem7
Hey everyone, hope you all enjoyed EVO, and now that you're (probably) done being hung over, we've got another weekly Pocket Rumble update!
First thing we wanted to mention is something we've yet to talk publicly about that you may still have started to pick up on, which is the fact that each of our characters is being designed with an animal theme in mind (mythical or otherwise). This is really obvious with characters like Keiko who literally has a pet cat, Quinn who's a werewolf, and Tenchi who uses antlers for every special, but it applies across the whole cast. Naomi, with her divebomb attacks and the wings that show up on her EX moves, is meant to evoke a phoenix. And Parker, who we're working on now, is meant to evoke a tiger. We'll talk a little bit about each character's animal theme as we're developing them, and hopefully you'll see the tiger influence as we reveal more about Parker.
Probably the first thing you'll notice is that Parker's moveset heavily features palm strikes, which emulate a tiger's paws while still contrasting with Quinn's claw slashes.
There's also a couple game features we wanted to talk about. The first is character switching, which we figured would be appropriate to bring up after the counterpicking madness that went down during Ultra top 8 this weekend. We previously talked about players selecting a backup character at the initial character select, and having the option to switch between those two characters before the start of the match or after losing a round. Since then, our plans have changed. Players will pick one character at the initial character select and commit to them for round one. Then, after each round, the losing player will have the option to bring up an overlay that will allow them to switch to ANY character. Picture a keyboard numpad, with your current character and starting cursor at 5 and the rest of the cast occupying the other numbers, and you can with a single directional input on your stick move to any of the characters. Players will have to think fast and do this quickly within the ~10 seconds of animation that occurs between rounds (the overlay will include a timer counting down to make sure you know exactly how much time you have to think), so it won't slow down the pace of the match. This will be the ultimate way to bring the whole metagame into play in the span of a single ranked match online.
Speaking of ranked matches, the other feature we wanted to announce is, from what we've seen, a frequently requested one for online fighting games: the runback button. After a ranked match, win or lose, players will have the option to send a request and prompt their last opponent to see if they want a private unranked rematch. This way after every loss where you find yourself saying "I could have won that," you've now got an easy opportunity to prove it.
Hope you guys like how all of that sounds! Next week we should have way more Parker to show, so stay tuned.
First thing we wanted to mention is something we've yet to talk publicly about that you may still have started to pick up on, which is the fact that each of our characters is being designed with an animal theme in mind (mythical or otherwise). This is really obvious with characters like Keiko who literally has a pet cat, Quinn who's a werewolf, and Tenchi who uses antlers for every special, but it applies across the whole cast. Naomi, with her divebomb attacks and the wings that show up on her EX moves, is meant to evoke a phoenix. And Parker, who we're working on now, is meant to evoke a tiger. We'll talk a little bit about each character's animal theme as we're developing them, and hopefully you'll see the tiger influence as we reveal more about Parker.
Probably the first thing you'll notice is that Parker's moveset heavily features palm strikes, which emulate a tiger's paws while still contrasting with Quinn's claw slashes.
There's also a couple game features we wanted to talk about. The first is character switching, which we figured would be appropriate to bring up after the counterpicking madness that went down during Ultra top 8 this weekend. We previously talked about players selecting a backup character at the initial character select, and having the option to switch between those two characters before the start of the match or after losing a round. Since then, our plans have changed. Players will pick one character at the initial character select and commit to them for round one. Then, after each round, the losing player will have the option to bring up an overlay that will allow them to switch to ANY character. Picture a keyboard numpad, with your current character and starting cursor at 5 and the rest of the cast occupying the other numbers, and you can with a single directional input on your stick move to any of the characters. Players will have to think fast and do this quickly within the ~10 seconds of animation that occurs between rounds (the overlay will include a timer counting down to make sure you know exactly how much time you have to think), so it won't slow down the pace of the match. This will be the ultimate way to bring the whole metagame into play in the span of a single ranked match online.
Speaking of ranked matches, the other feature we wanted to announce is, from what we've seen, a frequently requested one for online fighting games: the runback button. After a ranked match, win or lose, players will have the option to send a request and prompt their last opponent to see if they want a private unranked rematch. This way after every loss where you find yourself saying "I could have won that," you've now got an easy opportunity to prove it.
Hope you guys like how all of that sounds! Next week we should have way more Parker to show, so stay tuned.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,802
- Reaction score
- 990
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canada (East)
- Steam
- Sydoh
- PSN
- worldjem7
The Ranked Match runback option I think has been suggested for SG also, but they probably haven't had time to put it in because other things taking priority.
Waasiq
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2013
- Messages
- 109
- Reaction score
- 82
- Points
- 28
- Steam
- Waasiq
- PSN
- Waasiq
What do you guys think of the counterpick between rounds system?
It seems fine I guess, but I think would get worse the more counter pick heavy the game is. That's not unlike most other counter pick heavy games in FT2 or FT3 formats anyway, I suppose. I just wonder would the game really tend towards forcing players to play more than one character to be competitive, which isn't I'd want a fighting game to force. I guess I could see it being less of a problem with characters that are easy to pick up, but it still makes me uneasy in fighting games.
It seems fine I guess, but I think would get worse the more counter pick heavy the game is. That's not unlike most other counter pick heavy games in FT2 or FT3 formats anyway, I suppose. I just wonder would the game really tend towards forcing players to play more than one character to be competitive, which isn't I'd want a fighting game to force. I guess I could see it being less of a problem with characters that are easy to pick up, but it still makes me uneasy in fighting games.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,802
- Reaction score
- 990
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canada (East)
- Steam
- Sydoh
- PSN
- worldjem7
I think it's a cool feature to have, I just think that it is not very meaningful for how fast rounds can go.
You can die in 2 combos and lose the round. Does that mean your character goes 0-10 vs the other and you need to counterpick? There's no way to know unless you try again and see if you can manage to not get 2-touch killed because he guessed right at round start and got one mixup on you. I think it'd make more sense to have the "per-round" counterpick system in a game where you need at least 4 touches to kill for no meter.
Ideally, the game would be balanced enough that you wouldn't need to counter-pick very often, or at the very least a "counter-pick" would never be a hard counter and only give you a slightly easier time vs your opponent as opposed to nearly guaranteeing you the win.
I think it's a great feature, but I don't think Pocket Rumble makes the most of it because of the way it is right now.
You can die in 2 combos and lose the round. Does that mean your character goes 0-10 vs the other and you need to counterpick? There's no way to know unless you try again and see if you can manage to not get 2-touch killed because he guessed right at round start and got one mixup on you. I think it'd make more sense to have the "per-round" counterpick system in a game where you need at least 4 touches to kill for no meter.
Ideally, the game would be balanced enough that you wouldn't need to counter-pick very often, or at the very least a "counter-pick" would never be a hard counter and only give you a slightly easier time vs your opponent as opposed to nearly guaranteeing you the win.
I think it's a great feature, but I don't think Pocket Rumble makes the most of it because of the way it is right now.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2013
- Messages
- 5,368
- Reaction score
- 14,537
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 43
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Website
- www.labzerogames.com
- Steam
- labzero_mike
- PSN
- MikeZWasTaken
I'll start by pointing out that Third Strike handles this by having ground hit reactions face the opposite way of the attacker's facing direction, and air reactions - including all knockdowns - face toward the attacker. Well-defined and perfectly functional. Thus, crossups work properly but if you are hit in the air you always fly away from the opponent. This is relatively easy to see with an Aegis Reflector: if Urien is facing to the right when he creates the Reflector, grounded characters will be knocked to the right regardless of where they are when they get hit by it, but airborne characters will be knocked back toward the side they were on when they got hit. You can determine this in a minute or so by checking, and you can do further research with Necro's s.Fierce/c.Fierce poking through opponents from behind them, or by hitting his air drills from behind with ground moves.
Skullgirls makes the default choice "face the opposite of the attacker's direction" but allows each hit to override that and force "face toward the attacker" just for that hit. I didn't end up using that very much, because the former method allows neat things like Parasoul back throw->Napalm Pillar and have them come back over your head.
An exceptionless solution is not always a better solution, especially when it comes to game feel.
Specifically regarding your video as shown:
The actual problem with that attack is the physical extent. If I were not going to add an exception or fix it 3s style, the way I'd fix that attack would be to vertically shorten the physical extent for Naomi (and possibly fix the extent on Techi's air hitstun but I dunno what that looks like) after impact, so that the victim can make it over her head at all times. If it were SG I'd turn off Naomi's physical extent during the explosion, too, but I dunno if you can do that or what.
Once I did that I'd experiment with whether there are ways to set it up so you can juggle after crossing up with it, since that's the cool stuff that you want to leave in. :^P
Since I love you I'll ignore the fact that you said "three moves now don't work, so rather than fix three moves I'd rather return to most moves working improperly". :^)
@Mike_Z
How did you get GGPO to send packets properly while using the steamAPI? Right now it looks like I'm going to have to modify GGPO to use Steam's p2p thing that uses steamID instead of IP address... which I'd really prefer not to do unless I have to.
(not sure if this forum is the best place to ask this since it has nothing to do with game design, but you can email me a response instead if you want)
How did you get GGPO to send packets properly while using the steamAPI? Right now it looks like I'm going to have to modify GGPO to use Steam's p2p thing that uses steamID instead of IP address... which I'd really prefer not to do unless I have to.
(not sure if this forum is the best place to ask this since it has nothing to do with game design, but you can email me a response instead if you want)