This is a poll about guaranteed damage...

[werewolfgold]

In a perfect world, given, we'll say, standard execution prowess (not everyone can be that Desk guy), how much damage should one be able to get from a successful attack and the follow up combo? Before being forced back to neutral, or before the opponent can counterattack or hold? For parameter purposes, lets say it's a 25 frame attack that you're starting out with.

On one hand, too low of damage allows for more mistakes and sloppy gameplay. And there is risk/reward to consider. Yet, I'm not a huge fan of getting hit and then for all intents and purposes being able to put down my controller and go make myself a sandwich (I guess that's more of a "how long does it take before I can do something again" thing). I mean, Bushido Blade is cool as a concept, and it's realistic, but there may be some downsides.

This is kind of general, since things can get complicated with damage modifiers and lifebar size preferences. But, where do you think that the sweet spot is? Just curious. With this game being what it is, I wanted to take everyone's temperature.

Full disclosure: I think 25 - 35% is decent. 35 - 45% is acceptable as well. Kind of a "3 strikes, you're out" feel to it.

 

[DR2K]

Should be relative to the attack. No one wants to lose 70% to Kasumi or Christie's jab.

 

[synce]

You should get 30% guaranteed for capitalizing on opponent's mistake. In VF5FS a featherweight like Eileen can chop 70+ pts off heavyweights on NH and the lifebar in that game is like 220. In DOA5 that kind of damage is impossible for most characters (it would have to be around 90pts in 1.04)

 

[d3v]

Should allow for as much damage as the player can string together.

 

[RoboJoe]

To me, combos and the guaranteed damage they give are the icing on the cake that is the neutral game.The neutral game is the intense part where you have fun strategizing and thinking and when you win there, you get to relax and enjoy your reward of guaranteed damage, which is also fun.

Doa needs high damage as a reward because you have to go through so many hoops to get the damage in the first place. On top of that, high damage brings the losing player closer to their next do over (the next round) without punishing the player who did well and outfoxed his opponent by giving them a point. Overall, it will make players spend more time being on equal ground due to rounds being decided faster and everything being reset.

However, I do feel transitioning through rounds in the blink of an eye is also annoying and do want to give people the chance to enjoy the poking game more and a chance to learn more about your opponent's tactics before the situation resets with a new round, so I'm against 100% combos in singles. I think 75-90% off max launch is good, with more situational moves giving higher end damage.

 

[Matt Ponton]

I voted for 35-45% because it follows the law of 3s.

If you play any game from the arcade days to even today, well not so much today because games treat the player like they're dumb in comparison, there is the law of threes. That is why almost every game gave you three lives, three chances if you would, per credit. It's why most boss fights have you perform the "weak point" attack in three repetitions. Two lives the player feels they were shortchanged, four lives makes them feel fatigue or lack the danger, three has been the happy medium. Therefor, I voted for the 35-45% because 33% is a nice normal hit damage, and 50% would be acceptable for me on hi-counter or being attacked by slow attacks.

 

[WebHead]

I swear if there was any more guaranteed damage in this game they would make money having doa in the casino.... (LUCK!!!!!)

 

[Julius Rage]

5 to 15 %.

if I catch you with a launcher then I probably want a minimum 20%
of that bar if im Zack. More for some, less for others.

In Tekken a good chunk of your bar is lost on the ground if your opponent guesses how you're getting up (and if they guess wrong you can put them in some real bad spots)

The more you play other fighters the more you realize
how much DOA has in common with them...DOA is just different because the tiers.don't mean nearly as much
as in other games.

 

[CyberEvil]

Man, this thread must have gone on a new miracle diet.

If it starts to get back to the way it was before, what with all of those wasteful excesses...

Then I'll just fucking instaban anyone contributing. Game on!

 

[Tones]

Higher guaranteed damage from neutral vantage would change game play. I don't know if it will be for the games best interest to have it like so but I think it's interesting enough to test it out, see what happens.

I'm thinking 2 things... it will force players to change 2 things, player will be forced to be either more dynamic or more static (safe). More dynamic with movement and/or attacks as in to force the opponent to open up more, more of a gamble or more standstill, willing to eat more throws as they don't do 60% health. Assume neutral is between the current normal and counter and that the dashing status is change to match this, player movement will change quite a bit.

5 to 15 %.

if I catch you with a launcher then I probably want a minimum 20%
of that bar if im Zack. More for some, less for others.

I like the variety the game already has with having the options to deal 20-30% health with 1-3 hits and ending it with something that knocks them back as opposed to maybe dealing more. Variety as in you can manipulate the rhythm, spacing/range, stage control, and perhaps provides a step up. These options won't be appealing at all if they are doing last than half the amount of damage the juggle option (say 5-15% compared to 20-30%) provides. It will take away the game's flavour.

It's step backwards.

 

[virtuaPAI]

I voted for 35-45% because it follows the law of 3s.

If you play any game from the arcade days to even today, well not so much today because games treat the player like they're dumb in comparison, there is the law of threes. That is why almost every game gave you three lives, three chances if you would, per credit. It's why most boss fights have you perform the "weak point" attack in three repetitions. Two lives the player feels they were shortchanged, four lives makes them feel fatigue or lack the danger, three has been the happy medium. Therefor, I voted for the 35-45% because 33% is a nice normal hit damage, and 50% would be acceptable for me on hi-counter or being attacked by slow attacks.

This sounds just about right.

 

[d3v]

I voted for 35-45% because it follows the law of 3s.

I misread that as the "law of 3rd Strike." Then again, that would basically call for 35-50% damage of a hit confirm with some exception.

That said, I do prefer the "let people do as much damage as they can as long as they have the skill to do so" philosophy.

 

[werewolfgold]

Since my last post got deleeeeeeted (le sigh), I'll repost how I feel about touch of deaths (and I'll keep it shorter).

I feel like, even on the giving end, that touch of deaths don't really allow for much of re-strategizing mid-round if the first time you get hit, it's over. Like if you lost a game of chess as soon as one of your bishops bites the dust or something. That's kind of a weird comparison, but I think people get kind of cheated in that regard. And, though people play multiple sets for a reason, I think it's more interesting if the concept extends even down to the round level.

And, obviously, with counter hits and such, you should be able to get a little more damage than the "standard".

Edit: Someone voted less than 5%? Duuuude, that match would take forever...

 

[MasterHavik]

55 to 65% gets my vote. I mean let me drop you a ps allstars example. There are characters in the game that have parries. i.e. Radien, Kratos, Sly, Sackboy, Nariko, Heihaci, and Dante. If you hit any of these character on the first hit you are able to combo into whatever you want from an ap burst to oki setup with your level 1 if you have one. All their parries work on the first hit, not the second, not the third, or whatever. So it's a commitment, especially to playing someone like Sly since he can't block. Giving everyone guaranteed damage of some sort will not only make this game more balance, but more of a commitment to holding. But that is my two cents.

 

[Tones]

Edit: Someone voted less than 5%? Duuuude, that match would take forever...

You haven't played Guilty Gear have you.

 

[werewolfgold]

You haven't played Guilty Gear have you.

Well, that's for other reasons. I can smack you with Venom's Double Head Morbid once with no other follow up and get more than 5%. Perish the thought if the game ALSO had max 5% damage on everything.