The DOA5U "Casual" thread. ^__^

Status
Not open for further replies.

BajiPigua

New Member
iMbTiXmnKFfz5.gif

I guess I interpreted that scene a little differently. I thought that Kasumi seen here is the clone that cut down Bayman's team, so that was also the target Bayman was tracking down the whole time (his "mark"), which means that was also the Kasumi we've played for two whole chapters in story mode. In other words, we've already played as that clone, and she plays just like... well, Kasumi. It doesn't make sense for that clone to be playable separate character.
 

Baal bal

Well-Known Member
I guess I interpreted that scene a little differently. I thought that Kasumi seen here is the clone that cut down Bayman's team, so that was also the target Bayman was tracking down the whole time (his "mark"), which means that was also the Kasumi we've played for two whole chapters in story mode. In other words, we've already played as that clone, and she plays just like... well, Kasumi. It doesn't make sense for that clone to be playable separate character.
Well i think it can also be interpreted that way, but that clone was not able to teleport with darkness like this one does. But this cliffhanger give us many room for speculation about her identity.
 

Ivan Osorio

Active Member
I really hope the "Marie Rose is paid" thing extends solely to Core Fighters, just letting it be known that her release will go for the same price as the already established characters, and not sell for "premium" because of novelty. Didn't TN went on record as saying future characters and stages would be free for the full version?

Mind you, nothing wrong with charging, it's their business after all. I'm simply not getting her at all then.
 

Keylay

Well-Known Member
If the new character is a Kasumi clone, it would be interesting if she plays somewhat like the end boss. A combination of all the ninjas moves. The ultimate ninja lol.
 

Juihau

Well-Known Member
Don't be ridiculous, of course if you put anything to it's paroxysm, it will turn out to be stupide -_-'
Moreover, something that would kill the game so that you can't play it properly don't fit in the definition of gameplay. Gameplay = way to play a game. If you have no chance of winning, it's not playing.
No playing = no gameplay, you can add something that will make one player to win instantly, but it can't be called gameplay, it's cheating.
However, you can go on with conter exemple, but it will take some time...
Now if you still believe in your last argument about balance, it's still a matter of time before an utterly unbalanced add is fixed.
I guess that this debate depends on your definition of gameplay. "If it kill the game, it's no more a gameplay" is my answer
I would first like to point out that a number of people have become jaded to TN's idea of game balance; attempting to bring about faith that something will eventually be fixed will only fall on deaf ears. That aside, 'broken' can be defined in a number of ways, which in this particular case seems to be 'breaking the balance of the game.' In this sense, it could be considered synonymous to, or a more extreme variation of, 'overpowered.' That is to say, playing Sarah does not render the game unplayable, she doesn't literally break the game; she is simply more powerful in many ways than the vast majority of the roster, thus 'breaking' the game's balance.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do not intend to argue on another person's behalf, nor do I believe myself able to do such; I simply find a problem in that you're arguing semantics, which in this case is highly subjective ("I don't think they'll add something with a negative impact on the game, because I disagree with your definition of broken") rather than addressing the actual point made ("I don't think they'll add something with a negative impact on the game, because <insert reasoning here>").

Again, don't get me wrong; what can be considered a bad addition is, as you had stated, highly subjective. Your argument just stood out to me in that you were no longer addressing the points made, but rather invalidating them by saying that the terms used, which have no real concrete definition and can change wildly based on context, are incorrect.


All that aside, however...
Princess_Zelda_TP_1263.png
I wanted to make a joke about this, but I can't actually think of anything.
 

Brute

Well-Known Member
Standard Donor
Don't be ridiculous, of course if you put anything to it's paroxysm, it will turn out to be stupide -_-'
Moreover, something that would kill the game so that you can't play it properly don't fit in the definition of gameplay. Gameplay = way to play a game. If you have no chance of winning, it's not playing.
No playing = no gameplay, you can add something that will make one player to win instantly, but it can't be called gameplay, it's cheating.
However, you can go on with conter exemple, but it will take some time...
Now if you still believe in your last argument about balance, it's still a matter of time before an utterly unbalanced add is fixed.
I guess that this debate depends on your definition of gameplay. "If it kill the game, it's no more a gameplay" is my answer
I could go point by point, but essentially, you're making a semantic argument and I won't be able to redefine how you use the word gameplay. But in the conventional sense, adding something where you hit buttons to affect the outcome is gameplay. IE: A person playing Akuma is "playing" as if they hit no buttons at all, they would lose. Furthermore, if you wanted to be competitive, both players could choose Akuma and level the field of gameplay. Thus, they are "adding gameplay," just at the sacrifice of the integrity they already had.

Again, these examples and hypotheticals illustrate an exaggerated point to easily highlight the issue. Even if it's not "breaking" the game, it can still be bad. For example, MK9 would honestly be better off without Kabal and Kenshi. They can be fun, sure, and they don't quite "break" it, but their presence kills the rest of the game's integrity due to how lopsided they make every other MU.
 

David Gregg

Well-Known Member
Paid Marie Rose means less people playing her and that part makes me happy.
When are we going to get the fire version of the lab stage at the end of the story? :/ Why didn't we already have it in vanilla?

Not necessarily happy but yeah it will be nice that less people will play her this way. And I don't think we'll ever get the cool destroyed version of Lab. :/
 

Klts3

Well-Known Member
It's stupid that we have to buy Marie. I'm not talking about paying for her, because me and many players will do it cause she's worth it. The problem is that if someone who won't buy Marie will want to buy whole DLC pack, he will have to pay for her outfit to. And she will definitely have a lot of DLC costumes.
 

Yurlungur

Well-Known Member
It's stupid that we have to buy Marie. I'm not talking about paying for her, because me and many players will do it cause she's worth it. The problem is that if someone who won't buy Marie will want to buy whole DLC pack, he will have to pay for her outfit to. And she will definitely have a lot of DLC costumes.

Actually we don't know that yet because the Japanese players think she's crap but then again i've never trusted the Japanese on 3d fighters anyways. (they assume ayane is shit tier).
 

David Gregg

Well-Known Member
It's stupid that we have to buy Marie. I'm not talking about paying for her, because me and many players will do it cause she's worth it. The problem is that if someone who won't buy Marie will want to buy whole DLC pack, he will have to pay for her outfit to. And she will definitely have a lot of DLC costumes.

I remember this coming up during a core fighters discussion (since they have that problem already). Although they might possibly sell her DLC outfits separately (i.e. she won't be in normal group character bundle packs but have her own instead).

Actually we don't know that yet because the Japanese players think she's crap but then again i've never trusted the Japanese on 3d fighters anyways. (they assume ayane is shit tier).

They also think Kokoro is god tier but I will hold my tongue on that subject. XD
 

deathofaninja

Well-Known Member
Premium Donor
News Team
Free? It's tiresome to repeat myself, but if you want a new character, how on earth can you expect him or her for free? Developer time should always be paid for unless they decide to be nice and give it to you for free.

Team Ninja is not Valve. They are not balling. They release outfits and charge that much money because first a lot of you ask for outfits more than something better, and they actually need the money. See the money as a donation to Team Ninja, and you get something cool in return.

Another reason they aren't like Valve is because in some senses they absolutely suck at listening to the community. They had NO IDEA we wanted Leon... and their response for not adding him? HE DIDN'T HAVE A STORY!

For Christ's sake... Team Ninja needs to wake their community manager the fuck up. We have a FB group dedicated to bringing back Tengu. Most of the competitive players want him back, and those are the people that keep the game alive... the people that buy all the costume packs play their part, but they don't know what the fuck is going on with this game mechanically, and outfits won't keep the game alive two years from now. Look at SBM.
 

David Gregg

Well-Known Member
... in some senses they absolutely suck at listening to the community. They had NO IDEA we wanted Leon... and their response for not adding him? HE DIDN'T HAVE A STORY.

But then they did add him b/c there was a high enough demand and the reality is there aren't enough people who want Tengu. So let's work on being more positive (including me) and getting more people involved in wanting him back b/c honestly we're coming across as constant whiners which pushes people away even more:

project revival.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ALL DOA6 DOA5 DOA4 DOA3 DOA2U DOAD
Top