• As part of the relaunch of Skullheart, ALL previous threads have been archived. You can find them at the bottom of the forum in the Archives (2021) section. The archives are locked, so please use the new forum sections to create new discussion threads.

Possible new IPS

KhaosMuffins said:
Just keep in mind that this is an experiment for a reason. It's a bit too early to say that this new IPS change kills X character's damage and routes when we've only had our hands on this for a few hours. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but don't jump the gun just yet.
!!

Bonus points for winnie who doesn't actually play the game having a clearcut opinion
 
Ok so according to the patch notes it's any move you've used can't be used as a chain starter, but for some reason I can't get this to work:
j.HP -> j.HK -land>
c.LK -> c.MP -> s.MK -(short pause for light characters)> c.HP -dash>
s.MK -> s.HP -jump>
j.LK -> j.MK -> HK Airball -AirDashCancel>
j.MP -land>
s.LP -> s.LK -> s.MK -> s.HP -jump>
j.LP -> j.LK -> j.MK -> MK Airball

The IPS sparks go off at j.LP in the last line.
If I change the last 2 lines to this however it does work for some reason:
s.LP -> c.MP -jump>
j.LP -> MK Airball

And before anyone asks, yes I confirmed that it's the j.LP that the sparks start on.

EDIT: Eh, nevermind, I skipped the thing about not getting to use the same link twice
 
Don't see how combo creativity is all that important when in the end everyone ends up using the one most efficient damage-wise combo anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shiro_Shishi and Vladislav_Paizis
DARKNESSxEAGLE said:
s.MK -> s.HP -jump>
s.LP -> s.LK -> s.MK -> s.HP -jump>
Two s.HP enders. Can't link out of the second, j.LP triggers.

s.LP -> c.MP -jump>
j.LP -> MK Airball
There's a c.MP ender now instead, which means linking after it works

This is exactly how it's supposed to work, don't understand your problem.
 
Muro said:
Don't see how combo creativity is all that important when in the end everyone ends up using the one most efficient damage-wise combo anyway.

I don't use the most efficient combos damage-wise, I mostly use combos I made up that aren't character specific and are satisfying to me damage/resource-wise. Also, no Fortune/Val mirror match I've played on my level or higher has had someone doing the same combo... everyone has their own flavor.
 
IsaVulpes said:
This is exactly how it's supposed to work, don't understand your problem.
Checked the patch notes again and saw what you're on about now. My bad. Ended up with something doing more damage anyway.
 
Tried the new IPS and I had fun figuring some stuff out, nothing crazy but I liked it :3
 
After some thought, I still like the idea of undizzy with tracked moves adding more undizzy value to your combos (this change: http://steamcommunity.com/games/208610/announcements/detail/1912069459929996298), going from a 2x multiplier and increasing onwards to 2.5, 3x, 3.5x, 4x, etc. It still allows creativity in combos, but if you decide to stick to loops ending in the same ender, then your combo just becomes shorter but you can still use an ender that'll make restanding possible, give better reset options, etc.

Not saying that I necessarily dislike this new IPS, or anything. I just liked the other experiment more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCV and Hopscawtch
Remember it's an experiment. Your opinions are more helpful if you are analyzing instead of complaining.
Would you prefer nothing got tried and you just ended up with what I decided on? I'd think this experiment alone would show you why that's not preferable. :^)

DHC not carrying over IPS is a mistake. That will be fixed for the duration of the experiment.
Pummel Horse / Silver Chord thing will be fixed.

The difference between this and undizzy is that undizzy doesn't care what you did, so it limits everyone to nearly the same thing. This cares, so it limits everyone differently. And it does not affect resets because nothing carries over.
(Also srsly, "my Valentine combo used j.HP a lot and I liked it and now I can't" has little if anything to do with the discussion. I mean, it's a point, but it's only a point until you find something else.)

Another thing to try would be the old system just with higher damage scaling...but the thing is, damage scaling just makes the combos undesirable, rather than impossible.
Eh. It would make long combos less worthwhile, though.

(I could go the flying-screen route - no specials, dashes, or superjumps after using a chained j.HP/HK/special in the air. Heh. :^)
 
I can get over 11k with Solo Cerebella (which TODs v2 characters with even with Solo debuff) on the new IPS with 2 bars (it builds the second one) mid screen on everyone not named Double. Is this information useful?

Edit: Oh, it's off a c.lk too.
 
Last edited:
IMO:
- Enders can be repeated during Stage3, much like starters are allowed
(Right now Parasoul [c.HP > j.MK j.HP xx L.Toss, j.HP > s.MP] will trigger burst, which seems off) ← P.S. This wasn't the case on the Build I played on yesterday
- All normals/specials are tracked as enders, not just the actual enders - much like starters are
(Right now Parasoul [{Starterstuff}, s.MP s.HPx2 xx L.Tear, s.MP xx L.Egret, Dash c.MK s.HPx2+Assist, Dash c.LK] is a legit combo because it locks out Tear after the first string, then s.MP, then s.HP - rather than s.MP s.HP xx L.Tear locking out all three as enders)

And then either (Warning: Not really thought-out ideas - I'm not sure how far this would actually limit combos):
- Strings count all three main groups (Normal, Special, Super) as Enders at the same time
(so eg Parasoul [{Stuff}, c.HP > {Airstring} > s.MK s.HPx2 xx L.Tear, s.LP] would trigger because I used the c.HP earlier and am now reusing HP as the "Normal Ender" - This sounds really restrictive but.. well I think it's necessary to be restrictive :X Maybe with c. and s. counting as different normals again? Iunno)
- Undizzy gets reimplemented with either a smaller number (200?) and/or counting earlier (eg from Stage 3 on)
(I think I prefer this because I /really/ like the Undizzy Deterioration thing)
 
Mike_Z said:
Another thing to try would be the old system just with higher damage scaling...but the thing is, damage scaling just makes the combos undesirable, rather than impossible.
Eh. It would make long combos less worthwhile, though.
I actually would like something like this. Well I liked it as it was MDE, but let's just imagine for a moment that I don't think resets are as strong/stronger as/than a long combo. This way a long combo game plan can still exist in additon to a reset game plan.
 
Why cant we just have the old style with lower undizzy... Say 300 or so, with NO undizzy decay?

Perhaps even make undizzy start from first ground chain or first aerial link?
 
Dime_x said:
Why cant we just have the old style with lower undizzy... Say 300 or so, with NO undizzy decay?

Perhaps even make undizzy start from first ground chain or first aerial link?
How would it work with no decay? would they just get to burst eventually? That seems kinda weird IMO.
 
Fine... Decay at what it is now with 300-250 undizzy. Or whatever.
 
destruction_adv said:
How would it work with no decay? would they just get to burst eventually? That seems kinda weird IMO.
I was talking about undizzy that stops once the opponent comes out of hitstun, not undizzy that decays when coming out of hitstun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: destruction_adv
IsaVulpes said:
I'd /HOPE/ for the change to also be for shortening combolength and lowering damage,
But this is neither happening nor apparently actually wanted (MikeZ ples)

Has he come out and said that he doesn't want shorter combos? Or do you just mean that this specific IPS change isn't meant to shorten combos so much as give them more move variety.
 
I want to see what things REALLY do rather than what I think they'll do. You can read whatever you want into that. :^)
 
Proposal:
New system stays, undizzy is added back, BUT--

Instead of triggering green sparks when a chain begins if you have more than 349 stun, green sparks only trigger if you start a new combo with any stun.

Stun changed to deteriorate at a set rate with no maximum, example: 3 stun per frame. So a combo that causes 600 stun, god forbid, would force 3 and a third seconds of neutral afterward. Resets are still optimal, combos are still flexible. Also carry over IPS on DHC, and IPS-tracked moves do triple stun.
 
I already suggested the "leaving stun at whatever you bring it to and counting down" rathern that resetting to 350 and counting down.

But ... hitting you with 1 stun left = instant burst? No way, that's super frustrating just thinking about it.

I'd rather do undizzy multiplier for repeating/linking off the same thing more than once, and increase damage scaling / lower the minimum damage scaling. That way stuff's still available but less advisable.
 
After more testing, I managed maintain the overall damage of all my combos in almost every situation. So in the end for the people who complained about long and damaging, things are still long and damaging. I'm still getting over 8k with one meter with Val and Filia with the corners and my midscreens were never too damaging (around 5.5/6k) but they are all corner carries and they still do both.

Relearning stuff is indeed viewed as an issue to some players, like some top players even, so it's never good publicity. But that's fine too.

My biggest grip so far is: the new rules made some comboing moments trickier and tighter, and I feel like there will have a bit less means to reach an X amount of damage in a combo situation. Things got a little bit more character specific, before I had basically 2 variations and 1 Double only loop. I have 4 now (includes, light + short hitboxes now).

Combo-wise I like the fact that SG is like: Effective damage on high-level is X, find the way it suits you best to do it, there are plenty of options. I would be very sad if it turned into: Wanna be effective, here's Zero lightning loops, tight links lights into QCFHCBF supers etc. My point is, as long as options for combos remain somewhat balanced between the cast and rewards for longish combos still exist, I'll be fine with whatever system.

I'll keep testing stuff...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vladislav_Paizis
Mike_Z said:
Remember it's an experiment. Your opinions are more helpful if you are analyzing instead of complaining.
Would you prefer nothing got tried and you just ended up with what I decided on? I'd think this experiment alone would show you why that's not preferable. :^)

DHC not carrying over IPS is a mistake. That will be fixed for the duration of the experiment.
Pummel Horse / Silver Chord thing will be fixed.

The difference between this and undizzy is that undizzy doesn't care what you did, so it limits everyone to nearly the same thing. This cares, so it limits everyone differently. And it does not affect resets because nothing carries over.
(Also srsly, "my Valentine combo used j.HP a lot and I liked it and now I can't" has little if anything to do with the discussion. I mean, it's a point, but it's only a point until you find something else.)

Another thing to try would be the old system just with higher damage scaling...but the thing is, damage scaling just makes the combos undesirable, rather than impossible.
Eh. It would make long combos less worthwhile, though.

(I could go the flying-screen route - no specials, dashes, or superjumps after using a chained j.HP/HK/special in the air. Heh. :^)

Your posts seem to imply that something involving IPS or undizzy (or damage) is going to change no matter what and I'm still in favor of keeping it as it is in MDE even after trying both of the experiments. Let it rock.

As far as J. HP, it's not just because I "liked it" (and 3 times is not a lot), it's because Val has horrible enders in the air for bringing people back down from a launcher without doing a couple reps. They pop people up too high. The gimped combo I referred to is like the only one that can bring them down close enough to allow me to continue anything near optimal. That's the "something else". It's one of the strongest alternatives under the new system I see for Valentine so far. It's harder to link off of and people already know how I feel about the damage/meter/position loss from that combo.

Even then it carries the risk of passing over some characters midscreen and messing up the combo that way. It already has character specific problems (which I've ALWAYS had an issue with, thus trying to find something to get around that and still deliver satisfying damage). I'm really having a hard time imagining anything better not being character (or assist) specific.

It's not worth the time saved for Valentine to take a hit like that imo (and for people who are happy about Val taking a hit... if I wanted to be spiteful, I'd just catch you with a combo into her lvl 3 and let the whole thing play out to add the 3 seconds BACK to the combo). It's not like she abducted any kids and performed horrible experiments on them...
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaioLugon, Joe and Icky
Darklightjg1 said:
Your posts seem to imply that something involving IPS or undizzy (or damage) is going to change no matter what and I'm still in favor of keeping it as it is in MDE even after trying both of the experiments. Let it rock.

Out of curiosity, why are you in favor of MDE? I think the community in general is anti-huge combos, I'm curious about the other side.
 
Spencer said:
Out of curiosity, why are you in favor of MDE? I think the community in general is anti-huge combos, I'm curious about the other side.

It's 50/50, really.
 
View619 said:
It's 50/50, really.

Maybe...

Still, why do people prefer the old way? What is the justification for it? What is the counter to the criticism that it is too damage heavy, too assist dependent, and favors teams of 3?
 
I find Squigly way more harder to use now, at first glance she looks more disadvantaged than other characters, but I need to find different combos. Anyone got tips?

About undizzy, I think this should be brought back.
 
This system is kind of interesting to make combos less boring, but ultimately it doesn't make them much shorter and makes them a lot more complicated for some characters. I don't think the 'improvement' that this change is aiming for is really worth it.

Personally I'd like to see the undizzy limit go down (cut 1 or 2 chains off most combos) and reduce damage scaling to keep the overall damage relatively the same. That way combos are still less boring (because you spend less time stuck in them/doing them) and less intimidating for new players.
 
Spencer said:
Maybe...

Still, why do people prefer the old way? What is the justification for it? What is the counter to the criticism that it is too damage heavy, too assist dependent, and favors teams of 3?

I'm pretty sure SG will always favour teams of three and be assist dependent. I don't think the criticism has anything to with damage, it's about combo length. My counter to criticism that it's "too assist dependent and favours teams of 3" is that it's a team game and teams of three have the most options, so ofc they're the best choice.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: destruction_adv
Spencer said:
Out of curiosity, why are you in favor of MDE? I think the community in general is anti-huge combos, I'm curious about the other side.

Mde is the undizzy non beta pc version. Sde is the long combo (console) version... I think maybe you have them mixed up?

No one that i know of really prefers sde combo lengths.
 
I'm totally new to fighters (SG being my first), so I don't know if my input is that relevant here.

I have somewhat of an understanding of how this new system works, but the biggest thing I liked about the old system was that it worked, and it was also easy to make up a combo. Just don't start a chain with a move I already used - it was so simple.

I feel that this new system is going to make the game much harder to just pick up, for the newcomers. Furthermore, I also think it's a little too strict in that I'll now be restricted to use an exact combo every time I land a hit, rather than be able to make things up on the fly, if needed.

I'm sure you could argue that even under the old system, everybody ultimately searched and used the same optimized combos for their characters, but I personally can't do that - I would much rather adjust the combo to make it much easier for me to perform consistently than to stick to one transcript for the extra damage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaioLugon
Spencer said:
Out of curiosity, why are you in favor of MDE? I think the community in general is anti-huge combos, I'm curious about the other side.
Most people seem to be fine with the combo length in MDE. Combos are much shorter than SDE combos, and a hell of a lot shorter than vanilla combos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back