Street Fighter V

[Spencer]

No chip death is being used as a crutch for balance by artificially extending match length instead of actually balancing the roster.
So, in that sense, no chip death is bad because it enables devs to not put as much effort towards character balance while still giving the illusion of balance because characters appear to still have a chance to come back as long as they keep blocking even though they would have lost much earlier in the match if there was chip death.

I don't necessarily disagree, I just think it is too soon to tell. It might be exactly what the doctor ordered.

And I think it might seem like it is a buff to newer players, but I see it more as a buff to more veteran players. A good player is going to be much more difficult to open up.

SFIV as it is now has an illusion of equality. Even against good players, average players can luck out on occasion and make the game seem much more equal (based on health) than it really is.

Early reports on SFV is the opposite. More veteran players are saying it is highly punishing, and the gap between good and bad is larger (and it should be imo).

Edited to add:

@DukeMagus

Isn't death by chip (or chip at all) the extra rule?

 

[RemiKz]

I don't know how it will play out with SF5 and no chip death, by nature, is nicer to newer players because they don't die as often, but in the long run, but I don't think it actually brings any positives to the game.

Already went over this earlier.

Basically this makes it so "the battle isn't over until it's over". Sometimes you are in a situation where chip is inevitable and you lost the match before it's actually over. Character's like Seth come to mind where he would knock you down and leave you at chip death life; if you didn't do anything the fireball ended you, if you jumped or did anything else, his ultras would just get you instead.

No chip death gives you a minor comeback factor because you won't die from just blocking and it lets you actually fight back instead of being dead before actually being dead.

sonicfox only tied with that orie player because he used up his own lifebar to attack him when he could have just setup traps and have the opponent come to him or risk losing via timeout.

 

[Mike_Z]

Basically this makes it so "the battle isn't over until it's over". Sometimes you are in a situation where chip is inevitable and you lost the match before it's actually over. Character's like Seth come to mind where he would knock you down and leave you at chip death life; if you didn't do anything the fireball ended you, if you jumped or did anything else, his ultras would just get you instead.

That just means it's over, though. Defining "over" differently is weird. If you can put them in a situation where they are guaranteed to lose, they lose.
They had a lot of chances not to be put in that situation. Should the player in the lead be forced to go through many more seconds of play, and possibly lose, just to have to land a "legitimate" hit?
I don't think so at all.

 

[Spencer]

That just means it's over, though. Defining "over" differently is weird. If you can put them in a situation where they are guaranteed to lose, they lose.
They had a lot of chances not to be put in that situation. Should the player in the lead be forced to go through many more seconds of play, and possibly lose, just to have to land a "legitimate" hit?
I don't think so at all.

But by that argument, can't you justify things like unblockables and maybe even infinites?

Hell, 90% of the Zato unblockable arguments that I see is exactly "if you can put them in a situation where they are guaranteed to lose, they lose" and "they had a lot of chances not to be put in that situation".

 

[Kai]

That just means it's over, though. Defining "over" differently is weird. If you can put them in a situation where they are guaranteed to lose, they lose.
They had a lot of chances not to be put in that situation. Should the player in the lead be forced to go through many more seconds of play, and possibly lose, just to have to land a "legitimate" hit?
I don't think so at all.

I feel like I saw a greater number of exciting round finishes from SFV at E3 than I have in SFIV's entire lifespan, and I attribute that in large part to the inability of players to chip finish. I don't think I'd care for this kind of thing in Skullgirls at all (as the defensive mobility options in this game prevent too many boring chip finishes), but in a game like Street Fighter, it feels much more interesting to see a player actually have to exert effort to finish the round instead of simply going through the motions of throwing out a meaty fireball to get the kill.

 

[Ninja]

i'm just standing by the opinion that we'll need to get our hands on the game and test it out the whole not dying by chip thing thru 50+ matches and see if it improves the game in anyway.

 

[Mike_Z]

@Kai
Much of that in SF4 is attributable to the fact that placing a slow fireball over their downed body covers regular wakeup+quickrise or regular wakeup+delayed wakeup, as well as covering backdashes out of those. None of those wakeup options move you around, like rolls do in SFA/MvC2/BB/MvC3, and there isn't enough of a timing difference to avoid that projectile's movement. Merely enabling the player to adjust their wakeup position between two spots that can't both be covered by the same option fixes that.

I won't argue that it does make the game more fun to watch at intermediate level because you occasionally get to flail around more, but whether it makes the game BETTER at HIGH level is completely unrelated to that.

Anyway, I'm done with this topic. Debating it with people whose opinions I have disagreed with often over the course of SG just confirms that I still disagree with those people's opinions.

 

[Kawalorn]

Isn't death by chip (or chip at all) the extra rule?

No, because it applies to everyone and everything. If it applied to one character/certain kind of moves, that would be an "extra rule".

Now that I think about it, the extra rule is that supers can chip you to death.

 

[Cynical]

I can't believe that people think that "having to land one last 'clean hit'" is good in a series where an entire class of characters main goal is to use projectiles at a range where they have no real "clean hit" options to prevent the opponent from being able to use their "clean hit" options. Either you want the zoning character to have to go in to finish the round, or you want them to go for time-out; either way is awful.

Also, Carmine only proves that characters shouldn't have block infinites, not that not having chip out is good.

 

[dMags]

EX specials and supers can still kill on chip

 

[Cynical]

Without the threat of a chip kill, the person trying to get in can be a lot more conservative in their attempts to get in when they're at low life, and give the zoner very few options for punishing those attempts.

"Trying to make comebacks" isn't a real argument, since if you're knocked down against a fireball character and your life is within chip-out range, the match is already over. It's like saying "you shouldn't be able to kill a character with a combo, because it makes it harder to do comebacks".

 

[Covenant]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but to me it seems the main issue is time, not chip.

I mean if a zoning character locks down their opponent, they don't need to go in for a clean hit (which seems to be the assumption) as long as they have the life lead. I don't see both characters being at 0 health occuring often since damage is so high in this game; if it's an extremely rare occurrence I can't say it's problematic. If anything it's just moderately annoying to lose by time out, since they were probably going to lose anyway. A faster timer would alleviate the issue.

That said, this is all theory fighter. Something broken, or awesome, or inconsequential on paper can be completely different in practice. Since it's already in, let people get that practice in.

 

[dMags]

Without the threat of a chip kill, the person trying to get in can be a lot more conservative in their attempts to get in when they're at low life, and give the zoner very few options for punishing those attempts.

So what? it's just a different style of play, is that a bad thing? And again, they can spend meter TO GET THE CHIP KILL if they choose to

but anyway, as of right now, the whole 'no chip kills without meter' hasn't been an issue in any of the gameplay we've seen regarding SF5 ( I couldn't care less about UNIEL, its a totally different game with a different roster )....so whats the problem?

 

[Covenant]

It's like saying "you shouldn't be able to kill a character with a combo, because it makes it harder to do comebacks".

To be fair, the systems in many games actually imply exactly that.
The existence of various infinite prevention systems and things like undizzy do their best to prevent death from "a" combo and try to encourage more neutral game which gives players a chance to come back.

 

[Spencer]

The aggressiveness is the point. From what I understand, Capcom is trying to make SFV a little bit more aggressive than SFIV.

And they've managed to do that while keeping footsies (at least so far) which is fairly impressive.

Also, to say that zoners don't have a way to open you up is... wrong, No?

If you've got a life lead, the opponent is going to have to be unbelievably careful trying to get in meaning time is factor, or they'll have to take a risk meaning they are opening themselves up.

I think this remains to be seen how it plays out though. It doesn't seem like there's one true zoner in the mix, so maybe it breaks them... in which case it is a simple fix. I just think the hesitation towards it is a little premature.

 

[North888]

while yes, chip not killing may be a detriment to a zoner, but at the same time, shouldn't there be defense options against zoners? In SG, you can armor through peacock or pushblock and just find your way through the storm of bombs. BUT Peacock also has options to open you up and deal with close range scenarios. However, some zoners, like Carmine, leave MUCH less breathing room and make it much harder to get in. In instances like UNIEL, I feel chip not killing isn't really a detriment to the zoner, but a tool for balancing possibly ridiculous scenarios. If we look at how it affects said zoners, maybe it then allows you to make more creative or ridiculous zoners, because chip CAN'T kill, meaning you can make their pressure greater and make it harder to get through.

 

[Cynical]

So what? it's just a different style of play, is that a bad thing?

Yes, because forcing every character to go in is character homogenization.

To be fair, the systems in many games actually imply exactly that.
The existence of various infinite prevention systems and things like undizzy do their best to prevent death from "a" combo and try to encourage more neutral game which gives players a chance to come back.

I obviously don't mean that "the fireballer can't kill with chip" is the equivalent of "no ToDs". I mean it's the equivalent of "if Cammy does c.mkxxSpiral Arrow, and the spiral arrow would normally kill you, it doesn't", or, phrased another way, "you can only kill with the first hit of a combo". After all, in the c.mkxxSpiral Arrow situation, once you've been hit with the c.mk, there's nothing you can do to avoid losing.

while yes, chip not killing may be a detriment to a zoner, but at the same time, shouldn't there be defense options against zoners? In SG, you can armor through peacock or pushblock and just find your way through the storm of bombs. BUT Peacock also has options to open you up and deal with close range scenarios. However, some zoners, like Carmine, leave MUCH less breathing room and make it much harder to get in. In instances like UNIEL, I feel chip not killing isn't really a detriment to the zoner, but a tool for balancing possibly ridiculous scenarios. If we look at how it affects said zoners, maybe it then allows you to make more creative or ridiculous zoners, because chip CAN'T kill, meaning you can make their pressure greater and make it harder to get through.

The correct conclusion to draw from this is "Carmine is a badly designed character for her game", not "let's get rid of chip damage on fireballs in Street Fighter."

You're not going to have "creative" or "ridiculous" zoners in a Street Fighter game, and you shouldn't be asking for them, good god. I can't imagine anything as awful as trying to play against Nu 13 in a game with only single-jumps and no airblocking, even if her swords did no chip, roflmao.

 

[North888]

True. I can see that. I'm just trying to argue, at this point, that we should look at how it effects zoners vs non-zoners. What new options it gives non-zoners as a result, and how zoners in SF could possibly be redesigned to fit this mechanic? Getting more ridiuclous doesn't necessarily mean every character with zoning tools will become Nu-13. I'm thinking more along the lines of making fireballs more powerful or overall similar to how they currently are. Maybe give some low fireballs now and some more setup-types. Even with no chip deaths, such zoning tools could still work as far as getting a player to open up, move, and just generally be inhibited by your stream of projectiles. We don't have to think of this as either "Zoners are balanced because chip kills" and "No chip death means zoners are useless." There's evidence to say that a zoner can be done with no chip death and still be effective. You just have to give them the tools necessary to open the opponent up more than before.

 

[Cynical]

I don't think high/low fireball mixups have been fun in any game where they've ever existed, and they sure as hell have no place in a fighting game series that these days is practically defined by how rare good overhead options are.

Before you misinterpret the "these days" phrase, I don't mean that SF used to be filled with amazing overhead options, but rather that most newer fighting game series tend to be much more "block this the right way!" mixup oriented than Street Fighter, thus making "open you up" projectiles inappropriate in Street Fighter.

The main tool for opening someone up in Street Fighter is the throw. Think about the implications of this, and you'll realize that this is a dynamic worth keeping, in at least one fighting game series. Then realize what it means for zoning characters.

 

[dMags]

Yes, because forcing every character to go in is character homogenization.

I disagree that this mechanic is forcing every character to go in, I don't think it's doing that one bit. You're acting like it's a viable strategy to just sit and block once you reach your last pixel of health because that will force a zoner to go in on you.

 

[Fedora_Ninja]

The thing is, every character seems to have something to counter projectiles. Chun can V-skill past them/kikouken, Ryu can parry/fire back, Bison can reflect, Nash can swipe them/super/teleport, Cammy can spin knuckle, Birdie's AA ver. of headbut is projectile invul and can toss a can to interrupt the zoner. Considering how much zoning is discouraged in SFV, not being able to kill with chip is an extra pain for zoners.

As for being able to chip out people with EX and supers, hit confirming/blockstringing into them is rendered useless as long as the opponent has enough V-gauge to V-Reversal. Which means you have to walk up raw super/EX, which may not be the best idea.

 

[Sotherius]

The fact that in SFV we have 2 types of quick getting out of knockdowns, i think the most common chip death setups become less dangerous, so i think, the comeback factor is already in place by how the game is built, so death by chip is kinda unnecessary, i mean, if you can get up from a knockdown safely, then, is about the reactions and the correct reads for the player win, of course, considering that normals don't kill by chip (which they don't normally in SF), and the fact that we don't have FADC's, the player have to commit to attacking, so the game is more punishing in general, adding that to the fact that the stun bar fills very fast, you can have comebacks if the player is good enough to not get hit, and inver the situation and apply pressure, chip deaths are unnecessary, of course they make a difference, but i don't think we need them. And while i'm not a fan of them, i can play a game that have them in.

 

[Spencer]

The thing is, every character seems to have something to counter projectiles. Chun can V-skill past them/kikouken, Ryu can parry/fire back, Bison can reflect, Nash can swipe them/super/teleport, Cammy can spin knuckle, Birdie's AA ver. of headbut is projectile invul and can toss a can to interrupt the zoner. Considering how much zoning is discouraged in SFV, not being able to kill with chip is an extra pain for zoners.

As for being able to chip out people with EX and supers, hit confirming/blockstringing into them is rendered useless as long as the opponent has enough V-gauge to V-Reversal. Which means you have to walk up raw super/EX, which may not be the best idea.

I watched the E3 tournament, and I just watched the Valle Ryu win streak on Shoryuken, and I think it is fair to say that at least for right now projectiles are being used in the same capacity they always have.

Right now the game doesn't have a true zoner, so who knows how that will playout, and it is always possible that as the game plays out, projectiles grow weaker, but right now the only empirical evidence that we do have as shown that:

Projectiles are still strong.
People don't just sit back and turtle when they land on 1%.
The game is super aggressive contrary to the belief that this over encourages defense.
And it only affects a handful of games.

For my money, watching someone block for 20 seconds is no more or less boring than watching someone block and neutral jump for 20 seconds.

 

[Cynical]

On a side note, for all of those saying that they want a more aggressive Street Fighter, I'd like to point out that throwing fireballs around is an offensive act, not a defensive one.

Watch those O.Sagat mirrors. Which person is playing defense -- the one throwing fireballs (i.e., pushing a whole lot of buttons), or the one that's blocking?

 

[Spencer]

What's your point?

 

[Cynical]

My point is that "Capcom wants SFV to be more aggressive" isn't an argument against chip-out death because throwing projectiles to deal chip damage to someone is an aggressive act in the first place.

 

[dMags]

I think the no chip out deaths outside of meter is to avoid the knockdown setups followed by a fireball, but having that rule in place also allows them to make normals do chip damage without meaties being OP on wakeup to chip out. Also since your EX bars carry over each round and your Super comes directly from that meter ( i.e. no separate Ultra + Super bar like in SF4 ), its a big move to chip out one round using your super, it makes your resources more valuable and isn't as strong as chipping out via an Ultra like in SF4 for example

theres probably other reasons but thats the first that comes to mind for me

 

[Covenant]

I obviously don't mean that "the fireballer can't kill with chip" is the equivalent of "no ToDs". I mean it's the equivalent of "if Cammy does c.mkxxSpiral Arrow, and the spiral arrow would normally kill you, it doesn't", or, phrased another way, "you can only kill with the first hit of a combo". After all, in the c.mkxxSpiral Arrow situation, once you've been hit with the c.mk, there's nothing you can do to avoid losing.

Whether or not that makes sense depends on the game/system. It all does. Other games have mechanics like burst or combo breakers so you're not always put into a situation where you cant avoid losing. And that's one of the big points imo. One of the reasons I keep saying to see where it goes is because without in depth testing all we have is theory fighter. And while there's nothing wrong with theory fighter since it brings up possible issues, whether or not those potential issues are actually problematic in practice is a different issue that depends on all other gameplay related factors.

This is a new game with new systems/mechanics/pacing/damage. It's wise to bring up chip damage mechanics as a potential issue, but I don't believe it's wise to assume that it'll be a major problem without proper testing, especially this early while there's plenty of time and places for testing.

Spoiler: my personal view on chip

I personally like the fact that people cant turn off their brains and go for chip without meter. However, I think capcom should pay attention to how often players reach 0 hp from chip. If it happens too often then maybe do something like needing v-meter to avoid chip.

That said, I think the damage is too high to worry about chip so much. A clean hit mid match is practically death...

Lastly I think a lot of people are confusing zoning with pure keepaway. There are no pure keepaway characters in the SF series to my knowledge. There's are, however, zoners with various degrees of projectile strength. Take Dhalsim whom so many for example: he has one long range projectile outside of supers and one "get away" teleport. All his other special attacks are close range, all his other teleports put him right next to the opponent, and all of his long range normals have hurt boxes. How often do you see Dhalsim chip people from across the screen? Not nearly as much as theory fighter says he would due to system mechanics like delayed wakeup and quick rise. As a result Dhalsims are "forced" to go in if they want a kill without time out even though chip exist in the SFIV.....except they dont actually need to go in. They have the tools to keep the opponent in a specific area, so even though they could go in to get a kill, they dont need to.

Heck, technically Dhalsim already goes in to get kills. People get tagged by his limbs more often than his projectiles even though they can be hit. How often does Dhalsim win trades? With his health, not often. One of his go to zoning tools put his life at risk which seems to be the same reason some people are against no chip death. since it forces zoners to put their life at risk.

All I'm saying is that whether or not a lack of chip damage death is a problem depends on how the characters and other mechanics interact with each other not just on paper but in practice. A lack of chip could be terrible or awesome or "meh" for SFV, but we wont know for sure without extended testing.

Heck, I'm for no chip and think it needs testing. I'll be fine if chip death returns after serious testing, but I guess I'm just slightly irked that some seem unwilling put the mechanic through the crucible first.

 

[Cynical]

I think the no chip out deaths outside of meter is to avoid the knockdown setups followed by a fireball, but having that rule in place also allows them to make normals do chip damage without meaties being OP on wakeup to chip out.

Is every combo ever "OP"? There's literally no difference between sweep -> meaty fireball and c.mkxxfireball, aside from the fact that the former does less damage (well, and you have options like SRKing through the fireball on wakeup, but we'll pretend that reversals don't exist to simplify this). In both cases, once you're hit by the first move, you're guaranteed to take damage from the next one.

Whether or not that makes sense depends on the game/system. It all does. Other games have mechanics like burst or combo breakers so you're not always put into a situation where you cant avoid losing.

Sure, but Street Fighter is never going to have combo breakers. And it shouldn't. Why is Capcom treating chip differently than combos? (I know the real reason for this, BTW. If you think about it for a moment, it'll probably make you laugh at the idea of ever playing a fighting game made by Capcom again. Here's a hint -- Capcom isn't designing SFV for the players.)

 

[dMags]

My example was poor since you don't really plan a "knockdown followed by a chip out", you would simply try and beat them clean, but it happens without planning -> after a Super/throw that forces a hard knockdown, if it didn't kill them but they have a pixel of life, certain characters can plant the fireball on their wakeup, or can even use an invincible meterless special, and there is legit nothing they can do because all options are covered. Now in SF5, if you want that chip kill you need to spend meter, which wouldn't even be possible if the situation arises after a Super since you just spent it.

 

[Cynical]

You still haven't explained why it's OK for combos to do guaranteed damage after a first hit, but not OK for special moves to lead to a smaller amount of guaranteed damage after a hit.

 

[Covenant]

On a side note, for all of those saying that they want a more aggressive Street Fighter, I'd like to point out that throwing fireballs around is an offensive act, not a defensive one.

Watch those O.Sagat mirrors. Which person is playing defense -- the one throwing fireballs (i.e., pushing a whole lot of buttons), or the one that's blocking?

I watched. They alternated. Sometime projectiles were used to gain a bit of space(defensive+optional damage) and other times it was used to pressure the opponent or add additional damage (offensive).

Sure, but Street Fighter is never going to have combo breakers. And it shouldn't.

I agree with this. That said, I was merely using those as an example. I dont see capcom adding combo breakers, but I can see them doing their own take on the concept of avoiding some inescapable death scenarios in the future.

Why is Capcom treating chip differently than combos?

Dunno. Personally, I think they're experimenting with the strength of offense/defense and trying to make new~intermediate level players feel like they have a chance. This is the first time normals do chip damage. Offensive players that force opponent to block for a while and eventually land a hit get some bonus damage. It's the first time you cant (usually) die by chip. Players with good defense/reads aren't guaranted death in situations where they properly block a move (though doing so early in the match still brings them closer to it). At the same time there are fewer scenarios that mean unavoidable death for less technical playyers....even though the odds of them actually winning against better players seems even lower due to more technical gameplay.

(I know the real reason for this, BTW. If you think about it for a moment, it'll probably make you laugh at the idea of ever playing a fighting game made by Capcom again. Here's a hint -- Capcom isn't designing SFV for the players.)

I'd actually like to know your view. I won't be on these boards again until late night or tomorrow afternoon, so if I don't respond, that's why.

 

[Cynical]

I'd actually like to know your view. I won't be on these boards again until late night or tomorrow afternoon, so if I don't respond, that's why.

As fighting games have become more "e-sports", developers have started viewing spectator value as an important design factor, to the point where they're modifying character and system designs to be more "spectator friendly" (see : http://shoryuken.com/2015/05/15/top...oning-to-mortal-kombat-x-emerging-strategies/)

Look at the comments of any Street Fighter video on Youtube that has Choi or Daigo playing a fireballer, and you'll see endless complaining about "this guy is a n00b, all he does is spam!". Go around the casual gaming sites after any Evo, and you'll see tons of "waaaah waaaah all these "top" players are doing is throwing Hadoukens!" complaints.

Look at some Marvel 3 match vids and see the kinds of comments Chris G gets vs. the kinds of comments Marlinpie gets. Casuals get hyped for big combos (which are just boring, uninteractive routines in reality), but not for intense interaction with the opponent.

Look at how the most famous moment in competitive Street Fighter history is a moment in a game that is disliked by a lot of "old-school" Street Fighter players that showcases a mechanic that most of those players absolutely hated. And now realize that the mechanic was given to Ryu in SFV. And that Chun-Li has the same super that caused Evo moment #37 to happen. And that Capcom took pains at the reveal to point out that, yes, Ryu could full-parry that super.

Street Fighter V is being developed for spectators before players.

Don't like this trend? Save your $60, there is a better alternative.

 

[Vadsamoht]

Don't like this trend? Save your $60, there is a better alternative.

Unless you plan on playing online ever.

 

[Cynical]

KoF XIII still has plenty of people playing it online, and the Steam version has good enough netcode as long as your conection is 3 bars or better.

 

[Sotherius]

I like big combos, but when they are creative and varied. which fighting games don't normally have.

 

[dMags]

You still haven't explained why it's OK for combos to do guaranteed damage after a first hit, but not OK for special moves to lead to a smaller amount of guaranteed damage after a hit.

well first off there is no 'OK and 'not OK', this is legit at the point of my opinion vs. your opinion, but when the "smaller amount of guaranteed damage after a [special] hit" is going to kill, I think it's not OK. The original route they chose to take (e.g. the special move or whatever) wasn't good enough to kill me, but due to the mechanics of the game and their characters options, they are awarded the 'W' anyway via inescapable chip, and I don't like that. You don't have to answer this because honestly I don't feel like discussing it anymore, but WHY IS IT OKAY?

anyway, this discussion is getting way too deep for something that is legit not even proven to be an issue in SF5

 

[Cynical]

When the "FADC ultra guaranteed after a special hit" is going to kill, I think it's not OK. The original route they chose to take (e.g. the special move or whatever) wasn't good enough to kill me, but due to the mechanics of the game and their characters options, they are awarded the 'W' anyway via inescapable ultra, and I don't like that. You don't have to answer this because honestly I don't feel like discussing it anymore, but WHY IS IT OKAY?

EDIT: awwww, the page break means my post doesn't appear directly next to DMags's. Sad times.

 

[dMags]

sorry for a double post but if I did an edit you may miss this: We're also arguing something different than the original point. You said that no chip out deaths would kill zoning characters, and I disagree'd. This is different

When the "FADC ultra guaranteed after a special hit" is going to kill, I think it's not OK. The original route they chose to take (e.g. the special move or whatever) wasn't good enough to kill me, but due to the mechanics of the game and their characters options, they are awarded the 'W' anyway via inescapable ultra, and I don't like that. You don't have to answer this because honestly I don't feel like discussing it anymore, but WHY IS IT OKAY?

EDIT: awwww, the page break means my post doesn't appear directly next to DMags's. Sad times.

Oh so you mean when they choose to spend extra meter? which this whole time I've said is fine....

 

[Spencer]

Street Fighter V is being developed for spectators before players.

I don't know man, this also sounds like fear-mongering. From what I've heard, SFV is being more embraced by veteran FGers than newer FGers, but take away chip death on special and they are catering to "spectators before players".