I'd be more open to 270. But I'm pretty indifferent on 300 vs 270. 240 just isn't enough life imo. but as I stated on the competitive Group I'm done talking about the life bar. y'all have fun discussing it
Balance 240 vs 300 life
- Thread starter TRI Mike
- Start date
Dior
Member
DoA is pretty generous, there's no unblockable strike that can do a huge damage, insta KO's and bla bla bla, don't think you need to bother with the people if your character can deathfist someone or whatever, those who like 240, can take care of themselves.
Kill fast, die fast, sounds good to me.
300 no, 270 no, 240 yeah, less boring tournaments, yeah.
Kill fast, die fast, sounds good to me.
300 no, 270 no, 240 yeah, less boring tournaments, yeah.
That's still not enough damage for me, really. 300 is like two big setups and the other guy still lives with a chunk of health, even after the damage from pokes. Ideally, I want every character to have a reasonable chance of winning a round with two big reads.
EDIT: Oh, but I don't mean that characters should all do similar damage or that all characters should be forced to play the same way. If it's a character with hella spacing tools and hella pokes, I'd be cool if they had sadlife damage. :v
Last edited:
Anyone that thinks or says 70+ damage is not good damage really doesn't understand just how consistent stun > launch actually is.
240 will not balance anything and it will not teach bad players how to be better. A lot of you need to learn the game more before deciding to speak about a huge play factor for tournament settings.
And if you do not participate in tournaments or do not plan to, then you have no say in this matter.
240 will not balance anything and it will not teach bad players how to be better. A lot of you need to learn the game more before deciding to speak about a huge play factor for tournament settings.
And if you do not participate in tournaments or do not plan to, then you have no say in this matter.
Dior
Member
70+dmg is good, while I play on 240 hp ;d
I don't know about the others, but I think the game is balanced, if it's unbalanced on 240, it's unbalanced on 300.
And I don't care about random players being bad players, but among my friends (and people interested) yeah, they're getting better faster than usual. (people already explained the reasons)
And there's people that just can't join tournaments, due their local scene, countries, or whatever, but yet, they still playing competitively as they can, everyone here have their own experience and in this thread they can say what they want to say in order to help (or try...lol) the community, their word has value, like anyone else.
I don't know about the others, but I think the game is balanced, if it's unbalanced on 240, it's unbalanced on 300.
And I don't care about random players being bad players, but among my friends (and people interested) yeah, they're getting better faster than usual. (people already explained the reasons)
And there's people that just can't join tournaments, due their local scene, countries, or whatever, but yet, they still playing competitively as they can, everyone here have their own experience and in this thread they can say what they want to say in order to help (or try...lol) the community, their word has value, like anyone else.
TRI Mike
Well-Known Member
SR, those Gen Fu things are NOT guaranteed. So after a while of dying with them in 240, your opponent should use his/her brain to get out of it, instead of ruining our game by putting life in over 9000 just to survive a few set-ups from a single character, in a single stage.
Tenryuga
Well-Known Member
I think its stupid if the argument to leave it on 300 is specific characters do alot of damage. You guys need to consider that not every character gets stuns and is able to play the stun game at the rate other characters can. When you reduce the life bar it takes less setups for some characters to kill. If you already do huge damage thats not a concern to me because at least when I actually get damage on you its more significant than it is on 300.
Last edited:
Hmmmm ... interesting fact you've brought up here. Like already mentioned in this thread, anything lower than 300 life will force people to play more carefully and well-considered. On the other handside, it could put off even more new players. Eating two juggles with big damage and loosing a match against an experienced player without beeing able to do anything can make them (rage-) quiting the (whole) game even faster. (Rachel comes to my mind ... getting thrown around the stage all day long, yey)
Of course, one cannot get better and successfull without learning some basics, but most of you guy's should know that not everyone want's to study frame data to eternize and might get salty or frustrated very fast after some lost matches.
This problem might pertain the online scene more as the offline scene, therefore I'm sure, most of you won't care of this because this thread is more about discussing the life setting for (offline) tournaments. However, maybe someone else has also these concerns.
Tenryuga
Well-Known Member
It doesn't affect the online scene because if you are discontent all you have to do is change the life setting in options. I personally think 300 life sucks donkey dick so I play on 270 and some friends of mine prefer 240 so I'll play on that since strike damage actually feels significant for the majority on those settings as well as all forms of punishment. Some might argue this will mess with my performance in tournaments but it won't because I actually take less risks and do less stupid things on lower life settings so that will carry over when I have to play on 300.
You are right with that of course.
What I was thinking about is that when the overal life gets decreased (""normal" changed to 240), the variations like "large" or "largest" will be decreased too. And if we already see most people playing in lobbies with largest setting and avoiding something lower, it could put them of even more (online in this case of course).
Since I don't know about the opportunities players had in previous DOA games for life settings, I might be wrong with that mindset. If so, please give me a scolding.
Tenryuga
Well-Known Member
Being honest here the average DOA player online probably doesn't even know the values behind small > smallest > normal > large > largest and the amount of damage the cast does on average. You change the health setting it doesn't matter. What they see is "Largest" and not a numeric value. So long as they see "Largest" they are content.
Hmm... I'm not sure about this. Someone, who scurries not quite blindly through online lobbies will reconize that he will loose faster with a general lowered hp setting than one would like if he always gets high-countered while spamming out holds for example.
Last edited:
It's so annoying when a lobby uses Largest health setting with 3 rounds and no time limit. Matches can drag on for awhile, especially when I'm waiting patiently to play. But if I make a lobby with Smallest or Small life setting, nobody is going to come in the lobby. PSN casuals are content with Normal, Large, and Largest. They also seem very fond of Tag more than Solo.
So true ... I would call myself also a casual, but I still prefer everything below normal.
Berzerk!
Well-Known Member
As a tournament player and organizer one of the key concerns people don't realize here is it's really hard to get people hype for the game when rounds go too long and tournaments go way too long
This is a huge additional factor to the other very good reasons for having more decisive rounds
Let's run some tournaments this way and assess
This is a huge additional factor to the other very good reasons for having more decisive rounds
Let's run some tournaments this way and assess
RiBu
Active Member
It shouldn't be tournaments to test if it works or not. If this is really a community driven change to gameplay options then it should be at sessions first; hopefully with higher level players testing it...but with the size of the community I guess it'd really just boil down to enough groups getting together and saying they like the change....which is what I'm hearing from most of the people...sort of.