• Likes received 614
  • Date joined 4 May '17
  • Last seen 10 May

Private Message

80 286
  • 2
  • 24 Jan '19
  • The main discrepancy in the justification of this proposed change revolves around what a punish ought to be/what you think a punish is. Essentially what you are asking for is a guaranteed window of damage where your opponent just has to watch themselves take a hit for what I would consider to be a very very minor (and sometimes it's intentional) mistake. You can argue all you want about how the burden is then on the player that missed to dodge or do some cool movement as a way to react to this guaranteed damage window, but that isn't a practical/viable response (especially for new players). You don't seem to view forcing a cftp as punishment because it is a "slight stam disadvantage". I don't know about you, but losing 20-25 of my total stamina with just one move is a pretty hefty price to pay even more so if you're CFTPing constantly in a fight. That's fine though; the game shouldn't have stamina as the only punish because then it devolves into stamina warfare obviously. Coincidentally, however, forcing a significant stamina advantage off of a CFTP is not the only punish available to you. RB/Giru have already mentioned the punishes available to you, but you seem to dismiss these as punishes because of potential that you will be gambled. Morphing/dragging ensures that you aren't able to be gambled in scenarios like the ones you have in your video -- your opponent is parrying so incredibly early that you really should just be dragging or morphing him every time. It's no different than punishing a player who parries super early. Likewise, the potential to be gambled/read when you go to feint someone's combo windup certainly exists but that doesn't mean it isn't a feasible punish. That's like suggesting feints are ineffective because there always exists a chance that your enemy will just gamble into it. Regardless, that sort of interaction of potential gamble or them even reading your feint is good interaction, I think. This is the sort of depth RB was hinting at in his posts. In any case, as a player you always have choices/decisions to make in combat. This is no different: if you're concerned about the potential to be gambled/read, just take the stamina punish. Misses like the ones shown in the video, in my opinion, are not significant enough mistakes to warrant a guaranteed damage window. This would be especially brutal for new players who have little sense of range and constantly swing around missing. To be fair though I don't think in noob vs noob combat the noob would be punishing misses like these so the guaranteed damage window actually wouldn't be too bad. No way to be sure without watching noob gameplay/talking to noobs which leads me to the next point.
  • Similar to the feint thread that around a while ago, why are we speculating and putting out bold assumptions of what noobs are going to enjoy/feel/do? Based off of Shroud's gameplay, to me it appears that newer players don't really have any sense of punishment meaning that a guaranteed damage window or what we have now wouldn't affect a noobs intuition. Perhaps I'm wrong though, I don't really know -- I'm just going off of what I saw in Shroud's gameplay. Maybe we should ask some newer players about this supposed intuition to punish? This kind of change is derived from what you view as problematic with combat, not directly from what noobs view as problematic. You just talk about the intuition of noobs as a nice little supporting piece of 'evidence' for this change.
  • There are far-reaching implications if a change like this were to happen. I'll list them out and if you're confused I'd be more than happy to elaborate:

1 . Feels clunky
2 . Destroys a lot of important elements in teamplay
3 . CF window is already small -- you're taking away the ability to micro feint or even do a moderate feint thus leaving the player with only deep combo feints which is just taking away options/depth from the player.
4 . Happy feet would become a dominant/oppressive strategy with a guaranteed damage window like the one proposed. (1vx also probably fucked as a result)
5 . The only positive implication that I could think of would be a more grounded/methodical look to combat. Basically, players would engage more carefully and range play would have more merit. However, this would probably slow down the game considerably and discourage aggressive plays.
6 . Guaranteed damage never feels good (insiders, kick stun, etc)

7 44
  • 25 Nov '18
 Dominator — Code

We changed the way server configuration works back in build #14.
The required ini files will be generated on first launch within the Saved/Config directory.
Editing the default ini files is generally a bad idea since there's a good chance that your changes will be lost on an update.

Also please don't redistribute our server files outside of Steam since they're not publicly available while we're in closed alpha.
I deleted the download link.