tl;dr: Yun, Urien, Ken, Akuma and Chun-Li are like easy mode. I would object less to their inclusion if lower/mid-tier characters were beefed up / easier to use in comparison.
Fixed.
Ryu is not as easy to use as these other characters - I'd say nerf these characters (less on Akuma due to his weak weak weaksauce HP) and beef up on Q, Necro, Oro, and Sean.
Those characters need all the help they can get to survive high level play.
Seriously? I'd rate Ryu as second easiest after Makoto. You can be sloppy with your timing and the combos always come off flawlessly. Perhaps we ought to better define what metrics we're using for these things.
In normal play, I'd rate Ryu high as well - but in high level play that considers frames for pros/cons for each moves and parrying moves - Ryu has a definite lack of advantage here compared to the high tiers and even mid tiers like Dudley.
Trying to find high level plays of Ryu players in 3S tournaments is very hard since Ken pretty much covers everything Ryu can do and faster and better.
I want to see a fighting game that actually makes good use of a 3D area. Like a Ninja Gaiden/Devil May Cry/God of War freedom of movement. I don't see why you should always be facing your opponent... If you're dumb/slow enough to let him get behind you, maybe you deserve a kick in the butt.
Of course, there are problems. Freedom of control would lead to inherently sloppy/haphazard fights at times. Also, it's not exactly easy to jump by hitting "up" or do a quarter circle forward when you're moving around in three dimensional space. (Maybe assign jumping to a button and hold a button when performing a special move?)
At any rate, I think it would be pretty cool.
Also, I have a stupid and mildly embarassing question. Are professional wrestling games lumped into the "fighting games" category? My girlfriend and I have been having a blast playing No Mercy on my N64 lately, but I have a bugged cartridge, so I was considering picking up Smackdown vs Raw 07 for $20. Is it any good, or skip it? (Or wrestling games are ghey, lol?)
In normal play, I'd rate Ryu high as well - but in high level play that considers frames for pros/cons for each moves and parrying moves - Ryu has a definite lack of advantage here compared to the high tiers and even mid tiers like Dudley.
Trying to find high level plays of Ryu players in 3S tournaments is very hard since Ken pretty much covers everything Ryu can do and faster and better.
True. Ryu's best combo that I've seen is EX side kick to Shoryuken, which is just infinitely more difficult than Shoryuken canceled into SA3, not to mention harder to hit with.
I want to see a fighting game that actually makes good use of a 3D area. Like a Ninja Gaiden/Devil May Cry/God of War freedom of movement. I don't see why you should always be facing your opponent... If you're dumb/slow enough to let him get behind you, maybe you deserve a kick in the butt.
Of course, there are problems. Freedom of control would lead to inherently sloppy/haphazard fights at times. Also, it's not exactly easy to jump by hitting "up" or do a quarter circle forward when you're moving around in three dimensional space. (Maybe assign jumping to a button and hold a button when performing a special move?)
At any rate, I think it would be pretty cool.
Also, I have a stupid and mildly embarassing question. Are professional wrestling games lumped into the "fighting games" category? My girlfriend and I have been having a blast playing No Mercy on my N64 lately, but I have a bugged cartridge, so I was considering picking up Smackdown vs Raw 07 for $20. Is it any good, or skip it? (Or wrestling games are ghey, lol?)
Iron Pheonix?
Sounds more like Power Stone to me.
Man, Power Stone was awesome. Why hasn't Capcom made any more of those since the Dreamcast?
True. Ryu's best combo that I've seen is EX side kick to Shoryuken, which is just infinitely more difficult than Shoryuken canceled into SA3, not to mention harder to hit with.
Man, I feel like we're all playing different games, because that kind of thing is easy for me. Making Ibuki or Akuma work consistently feels like a chore in comparison.
Here's a new question for you, though: Should Ryu, Ken, et al be in Street Fighter IV?
The only thing I can do in Street Fighter games is jump in with a fierce kick followed by a sweep, leading directly into a hurricane kick/hadoken/shoryuken. Occaisionally, I get away with a throw. I only use fierce moves, as I cannot begin to assign certain punches/kicks to specific situations.
Once in a while in SFA3 I like to fancy it up by juggling with Akuma's hurricane kick followed by a shoryuken while they're still in the air. That's about my limit in Street Fighter.
The only thing I can do in Street Fighter games is jump in with a fierce kick followed by a sweep, leading directly into a hurricane kick/hadoken/shoryuken. Occaisionally, I get away with a throw. I only use fierce moves, as I cannot begin to assign certain punches/kicks to specific situations.
Once in a while in SFA3 I like to fancy it up by juggling with Akuma's hurricane kick followed by a shoryuken while they're still in the air. That's about my limit in Street Fighter.
Man, I remember when I was younger, and my parents were in a bowling league, they had Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat machines that all the kids would play on. The only tiers we had back then were the tears of children running to get another quarter and get back in line. I could beat several people using variations of the Ryu set-up you described, maybe with a double dragon punch, or uppercut-fireball. I got it on the SNES and just played, until eventually I was invincible. People would choose my character for me, their friends would distract me (once even covering my eyes for an entire round), but I couldn't be stopped.
I think that was the last time in my life that I accomplished anything. It was totally worth it. I'm planning on riding it out until I'm 80, then maybe I'll save a kitten from a tree, or something.
Pretty much the best example of my streetfighter knowledge is that I can sometimes Pull off that retarded Makoto loop.
That reverse half circle throw+HP+qcf MP+And then whatever and pray that you guess right hopefully the throw again.
If you get lucky and land a second throw the rounds basically done.
I sometimes have trouble with the second grab, but her rushing QCF punch can combo into Seichusen Godanzuki, so I usually go for that instead, and the uppercut at the end of SG can be comboed into two rushing punch juggles.
I was a little upset with SF3 at first, because a lot of moves won't juggle (especially after getting used to SF alpha's easy juggles). But after figuring out stuff like this, that was probably a good decision.
But, enough of SF Talk...how about Voldo's new ass spikes, huh?
True. Ryu's best combo that I've seen is EX side kick to Shoryuken, which is just infinitely more difficult than Shoryuken canceled into SA3, not to mention harder to hit with.
Man, I feel like we're all playing different games, because that kind of thing is easy for me. Making Ibuki or Akuma work consistently feels like a chore in comparison.
Here's a new question for you, though: Should Ryu, Ken, et al be in Street Fighter IV?
Man, making Akuma work is a dream. SA3 is the best (slightly shorter bar than his SA1 or 2). J.Fierce to LK Hurricane to F. shoryukenxxSA3 = doom. You've gotta get good at parrying to have a chance with Akuma, however.
I think that Ryu, Ken and Akuma need to be in SF4, but I'd prefer if that game ended with Akuma's death to resolve the whole shotokan storyline, like the death of Geese Howard in Fatal Fury 3. I'd also prefer for Fei Long, Yun, and Yang to return, as well as Alex and maybe Urien. I'd cap it there for returning characters, at least in the initial release.
Incidentally, if you like Ryu watch Fighter in the wind. It's practically a movie about Ryu.
That movie was pretty cool once he finished his training and showed back up, steam rolling over people. Showing up in a dojo, whipping out some practice gear and pads, then offering it to the people you just challenged so they don't get hurt . . :^::^:
Man, I feel like we're all playing different games, because that kind of thing is easy for me. Making Ibuki or Akuma work consistently feels like a chore in comparison.
Here's a new question for you, though: Should Ryu, Ken, et al be in Street Fighter IV?
Man, making Akuma work is a dream. SA3 is the best (slightly shorter bar than his SA1 or 2). J.Fierce to LK Hurricane to F. shoryukenxxSA3 = doom. You've gotta get good at parrying to have a chance with Akuma, however.
I think that Ryu, Ken and Akuma need to be in SF4, but I'd prefer if that game ended with Akuma's death to resolve the whole shotokan storyline, like the death of Geese Howard in Fatal Fury 3. I'd also prefer for Fei Long, Yun, and Yang to return, as well as Alex and maybe Urien. I'd cap it there for returning characters, at least in the initial release.
I can't get Akuma's great combos consistently, but his mediocre combos are a snap to do.
As far as somebody dying, I find it hard to believe that everybody has been in all these world class fights without even getting crippled. In the half-done Street Fighter fan-game I made, the opening scene was Satsu Sakura Shun Goku Satsu-ing Akuma. I pretty much only did the opening scene because I just couldn't deny the possibility of cease-and-desist letters.
Speaking of which, how many meters could you put up with in a realistic 3d fighter? I have stamina which depletes as you block or attack, but refills in only a few seconds once you stop blocking / running / attacking. I have energy, which instead of being a progress gauge until you get a stock, is a continuous meter like MP for magic spells in an RPG. I haven't implemented it yet, but I'm thinking of a man-shaped damage icon which would display limb-based damage with color codes. Is this too much, even for veteran fighting fans?
It depends - if the controls is easy enough to understand, then it wouldn't be a problem.
People can understand complicated system much faster than their fingers can understand complicated controls.
The problem I see most people have with the "best" 3D fighting game right now, VF5, is not the complicated system.
It's how the controls are set up where the regular strategies require a heavy learning of the controls instead of the system itself, which puts people off.
The advantage Tekken has over VF is its much easier to understand controls.
Although I prefer the fighting system of VF, the complicated control methods really turn me off.
Ryu is not top tier because he does not have a decent poking game whatsoever. His only good pokes are cr.mk and st.mk. His sweep is pretty slow and everything else doesn't really combo.
Ryu's entire game is based around getting up in someone's face and guessing correctly into a big stun/damage combo. If you're unable to get in on someone with a good poking game (e.g. Ken, Chun, Dudley, Urien), you're going to lose the round, every time.
Also, if you want examples of Dudley doing big damage, watch videos of Kokujin.
Man, I feel like we're all playing different games, because that kind of thing is easy for me. Making Ibuki or Akuma work consistently feels like a chore in comparison.
Here's a new question for you, though: Should Ryu, Ken, et al be in Street Fighter IV?
Man, making Akuma work is a dream. SA3 is the best (slightly shorter bar than his SA1 or 2). J.Fierce to LK Hurricane to F. shoryukenxxSA3 = doom. You've gotta get good at parrying to have a chance with Akuma, however.
I think that Ryu, Ken and Akuma need to be in SF4, but I'd prefer if that game ended with Akuma's death to resolve the whole shotokan storyline, like the death of Geese Howard in Fatal Fury 3. I'd also prefer for Fei Long, Yun, and Yang to return, as well as Alex and maybe Urien. I'd cap it there for returning characters, at least in the initial release.
I can't get Akuma's great combos consistently, but his mediocre combos are a snap to do.
As far as somebody dying, I find it hard to believe that everybody has been in all these world class fights without even getting crippled. In the half-done Street Fighter fan-game I made, the opening scene was Satsu Sakura Shun Goku Satsu-ing Akuma. I pretty much only did the opening scene because I just couldn't deny the possibility of cease-and-desist letters.
Speaking of which, how many meters could you put up with in a realistic 3d fighter? I have stamina which depletes as you block or attack, but refills in only a few seconds once you stop blocking / running / attacking. I have energy, which instead of being a progress gauge until you get a stock, is a continuous meter like MP for magic spells in an RPG. I haven't implemented it yet, but I'm thinking of a man-shaped damage icon which would display limb-based damage with color codes. Is this too much, even for veteran fighting fans?
I find that, when it comes to fighters, KISS reigns supreme. That's Keep It Simple, Stupid for those who were thinking of the awesome rock band.
Look at VF5. Nothing outside the health meter. Same for Tekken. Soul Blade had life bars and weapon bars, but there's a reason the weapon bars didn't make it into Calibur. 2D games, really good ones, don't have much beyond the life bar and the super bar.
There's a very good reason for this. The more things you have to keep track of, the less the parties involved will actually fight. Let's take a look at Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike for an example. In that game, you've got your block meter (to discourage the excessive turtling that hallmarked SF2), life gauge, super gauge, and time to keep track of. Now, think of each of these bars as resources the player has access to. Each resource informs player decisions. Higher life than your opponent can force several moves, like baiting the opponent into a bad attack, especially if there's only 15 seconds or so left in the round. Time management forces each player to lay their cards on the table, so to speak, in as short a time as possible. Super bars benefit directly from the parrying mechanic, and high super bars force all kinds of interesting play decisions (EX moves, supers, etc.). The players take all of these resources in at a glance and through that make play decisions.
For instance, I usually play Akuma and my friends usually Ken or Chun-Li. We are by no means great players, but we've got none too little skill. In an average match, I can count on going down in life early due to combos and Akuma's ludicrously pathetic defense, forcing me to watch the clock and my life bar closely. However, due to Akuma's fairly high offense (he does tons of guard damage, is the fastest shoto in terms of move speed, etc.) my opponents realize that at no point does the life bar really gauge who is ahead. Gradually, they realized that the best way to fight Akuma was to watch the super bar, not the life gauge, and from that information they could figure out what offense I was planning which is far more useful information than my life total. Especially when I threw a round to keep my guage at 2 bars, forcing extreme defensive play from my opponents as no one wants to suck a Kokuretsuzan or Shun Goku Satsu.
Basically, think of everything you put onscreen as resources. Each bar conveys information that directly impacts gameplay, and truly high level thought on fighters centers not just on priority and hit boxes but how much information you're conveying to the player. One of the reasons Bushido Blade was so successful is that, comparitively, it offers so little information to the users. No life gauge, no time limit, no super bars or even super moves. Put simply, the game kept all the most pertinent information to itself. The impact on the gameplay, compared to other more standard fighters, was tremendous.
I couldn't give more specific advice barring a playtest of your game, and not to say it doesn't sound interesting, but one of the key elements of game design is recognizing how your impacts don't just affect the game but the user as well. I believe that simplicity is really the key to keeping fighting games manageable, but then again Guilty Gear is a horribly complex fighter and is a total blast to play so I could be totally wrong.
but then again Guilty Gear is a horribly complex fighter and is a total blast to play so I could be totally wrong.
Not to discount everything else you said, but I want to emphasize this. Guilty Gear is at the very edge of acceptable complexity for me. However, VF5 just doesn't seem complex enough (aside from the tedious memorization of frame data interactions).
It might be my RPG lust mixing with my fighter lust to birth a new and disgusting creature, but peanut butter and chocolate found success in this avenue. Basically, what I'm asking is if something this complicated is of any interest to anyone but me. There doesn't seem to be a lot of overlap between RPG and fighter fans.
On the other hand, your comment about Bushido Blade makes me wonder if it's a good idea to keep all the complexity but just not show any definitive details. For instance, a cloud of energy whose opacity ranges from 0-25% could be a good substitute for a flashing "SUPER METER STOCK" display.
EDIT:
Rethinking it, Guilty Gear isn't any more complex than what I'm talking about, but it just presents no information about itself internally. I had to read GameFAQs a few times to figure out what the hell a False Roman Cancel was even supposed to do. Perhaps it's not as complex as it is opaque?
The more things you have to keep track of, the less the parties involved will actually fight.
*cough*Guilty Gear and MvC2*cough*
Also, there is no guard meter in 3S. There is Stamina, Stun, and Super Art meters.
I believe you could still guard break, but I've not got the game in front of me at the moment.
I did mention Guilty Gear in the last part of my post, and I fully recognize that complexity doesn't automatically mean "bad game." It does make the game exponentially more complex due to the very nature of fighting games. I mean, look how much information you're given when playing something as simple as SSF2T and think for a minute how much that influences your play. I find Guilty Gear, as a system, incredibly obtuse and hard to stand even compared to games like KOF2003 or CvS2. There's just so much crap to keep track of, so many little movements to consider, that all that information really changes the way I play the game. Not to say that isn't fun, because it is and Sol Badguy rocks your face, but depending on the market templewulf is aiming for it might not be a good call.
Also, my raging hardon for VF5 is not to be denied. I will Lei Fei all you motherfuckers and it will be awesomesauce.
Also, my raging hardon for VF5 is not to be denied. I will Lei Fei all you motherfuckers and it will be awesomesauce.
I haven't played VF5 yet, but one of the things that irks me about the VF series is the difficulty of the controls. You know Akira's rising knee in VF4? You do it by pressing G+K at the same time, then letting go of G in 1/60 of a second while still holding K. At that point, my brain isn't working on tactical decisions, it's focused on performing one stupid move! As a seasoned fighting game vet, I know I can't be in the minority here. I used to like Soul Calibur for avoiding this, but it's creeping into SC too with Ivy's throws and "just inputs".
My little homebrew aims to be pretty much the exact opposite. Your character should execute exactly what you want him to every time. That way, when you lose, it will be because you made the wrong decision based on my stupidly complex meters, not because performing Geese Howard's super move is ridiculous.
I agree on the simplicity thing. I recently got Last Blade 2, and having never played it I was excited. However most of the Neo Geo fighters have felt like weak stuff after playing all sorts of Guilty Gear, Street Fighter and what not lately, as I was pretty let down by the latest Samurai Shodown. Anyway, I had a god damned blast playing the game! I just kinda wish they didn't have the power vs. speed thing. Which again, goes more towards simplicities sake.
but then again Guilty Gear is a horribly complex fighter and is a total blast to play so I could be totally wrong.
Not to discount everything else you said, but I want to emphasize this. Guilty Gear is at the very edge of acceptable complexity for me. However, VF5 just doesn't seem complex enough (aside from the tedious memorization of frame data interactions).
It might be my RPG lust mixing with my fighter lust to birth a new and disgusting creature, but peanut butter and chocolate found success in this avenue. Basically, what I'm asking is if something this complicated is of any interest to anyone but me. There doesn't seem to be a lot of overlap between RPG and fighter fans.
On the other hand, your comment about Bushido Blade makes me wonder if it's a good idea to keep all the complexity but just not show any definitive details. For instance, a cloud of energy whose opacity ranges from 0-25% could be a good substitute for a flashing "SUPER METER STOCK" display.
EDIT:
Rethinking it, Guilty Gear isn't any more complex than what I'm talking about, but it just presents no information about itself internally. I had to read GameFAQs a few times to figure out what the hell a False Roman Cancel was even supposed to do. Perhaps it's not as complex as it is opaque?
Not to double post, but I've really got to reply to this.
I think the stamina bar will be an absolute monster to balance. If characters don't deplete the bar at a given rate (that is to say, each character drains the bar differently), then you've got a mechanic that can and will overtly reward either ridiculous offense (iuf blocks drain the meter more than attacks) or stupid turtling (if attacks drain the gauge more than blocks). If the stamina gauge is individualized for each character, then you look at something like the SF2 dilemma where players are forced into tactics, like the infamous downback charge for Guile because it's what the designers intended. At that point, the stamina gauge isn't really adding anything meaningful to the game.
To the MP gauge, same issue. MP gauges work fine for RPGs but RPGs aren't about split second decisions (at least, JRPGs aren't). Fighters are all about the moment, each second being its own event. MP gauges would only serve to restrict player choice, especially if onjly certain characters could refill the gauge and others couldn't. There'd be so much balancing issues with the gauge itself and at the end of the day, you've got to ask the question of whether or not it's really worth it. Will the gauge accomplish something a player couldn't? Think about playing a fighter and how every single move by an opponent determines your responses. An MP gauge is effectively doing the same thing, but the question is whether or not you want the players to play against your mechanics or against themselves. It's your game and totally your call, but gauges are a pretty huge decision and shouldn't be entered into lightly.
Damage icons worked fine for Fighting Vipers and the Yukes! wrestling games, but once again you've got to think about how implementing it affects the flow of your game. Is limb damage taken equally? That is, does your big huge bralwer (Hugo/Daigo/Zangief/Astaroth) take damage at the same rate as the faster fighters? If its individualized based on the fighter, you're running into the same balance issues as the stamina and MP gauges.
Something to really think about while developing a fighter is one simple truth. THere are more players of your game than there are game developers, and they're probably just as smart as you. Your game will, eventually, be dissected and its guts laid out on the interwebs in all the various forums for all the peoples to see. The simpler the game is, the easier it is to balance; the more complex, the more difficult. Guilty Gear and Street Fighter and King of Fighters are perfect examples of continuing game design in the face of player community demands. If games as simple as the King of Fighters series have been in nigh-constant development and improvement, imagine how much time you'd need to balance a game that included over double the number of gauges and thusly double the number of reosurces that all need to be balanced against each other.
I believe you could still guard break, but I've not got the game in front of me at the moment.
I did mention Guilty Gear in the last part of my post, and I fully recognize that complexity doesn't automatically mean "bad game." It does make the game exponentially more complex due to the very nature of fighting games. I mean, look how much information you're given when playing something as simple as SSF2T and think for a minute how much that influences your play. I find Guilty Gear, as a system, incredibly obtuse and hard to stand even compared to games like KOF2003 or CvS2. There's just so much crap to keep track of, so many little movements to consider, that all that information really changes the way I play the game. Not to say that isn't fun, because it is and Sol Badguy rocks your face, but depending on the market templewulf is aiming for it might not be a good call.
Also, my raging hardon for VF5 is not to be denied. I will Lei Fei all you motherfuckers and it will be awesomesauce.
I can't wrap my head around the Guilty Gear system either. However, your statement that as engine complextiy increases, offensive play decreases inversely is totally false. Players who choose to play games with complex engines will take the time to learn the intricacies of those engines and how to exploit their strengths as best possible. Both Guilty Gear and MvC2 actively discourage defensive play, quite literally in Guilty Gear's case (by making your super meter decrease with defensive play). Top level play in both of these games involves throwing out multiple offensive attacks in repeated succession in order to land the most damage possible. In order to balance against this barrage of offensive abilities, both engines are coded with multiple defensive abilities (Burst and Faultless Defense in GG, Alpha Counter, Snapback, and Ground Rolling in MvC2).
Now, the more complex an engine is, the smaller the high level community will be for that game. Guilty Gear struggles to have large turn outs at major US tournaments, even though it has a fairly large casual player-base. Marvel Vs. Capcom 2 was at one point in time the most popular US fighting game, but every year attendance decreases in tournaments. Both games have such high learning curves that new players are discouraged when trying to get into the games.
Street Fighter III: Third Strike and Tekken are now the most poplular US fighting games that are played at a tournament level. Both games are of the "simple to learn, difficult to master" school of game design. Which allows for a gradual transition from casual to tournament-level play. There is a reason Guilty Gear tournaments are huge at anime conventions, but fairly small at larger fighting game tournaments. The gap between casual and tournament level play is so large that it literally takes multiple months and years of serious play to reach a level where you are able to perform well in the larger fighting game community.
tl;dr: There is a place for both complex and simple fighting games, and both can have incredible depth. However, as the complexity of the game engine increases, the size of the high-level play community decreases.
EDIT: Also, believe me, there is no way to guard break in 3S.
whats so wrong with the down back charge for charge characters?
I love my hyper fighting Guile
and games that are hard to master are great!
Makes you feel like you've accomplished something when you start to get good, and keeps the button mashers down.
Although i REALLY dislike the parry in 3S, i feel like it slows things down when you compare it to Alpha gameplay.
Plus im oldschool and i really dont want to take the time to learn it
If the stamina gauge is individualized for each character, then you look at something like the SF2 dilemma where players are forced into tactics, like the infamous downback charge for Guile because it's what the designers intended. At that point, the stamina gauge isn't really adding anything meaningful to the game.
Are you saying that making one character defend better while another attacks better is too restrictive? Considering most characters have a fairly specialized area of play anyway, what's the difference if it's system-enforced for de facto enforced?
MP gauges would only serve to restrict player choice, especially if onjly certain characters could refill the gauge and others couldn't. There'd be so much balancing issues with the gauge itself and at the end of the day, you've got to ask the question of whether or not it's really worth it. Will the gauge accomplish something a player couldn't? Think about playing a fighter and how every single move by an opponent determines your responses. An MP gauge is effectively doing the same thing, but the question is whether or not you want the players to play against your mechanics or against themselves.
I actually don't get most of this paragraph. I think I explained the energy gauge pretty poorly, so I'll try again. Normal games have a "progress" bar and a number indicating how many super moves you can do. In my game there is only a number, and super moves don't take off 1, they take off the amount of energy the move costs, as spells in an RPG affect an MP gauge. Are you saying this restricts player choice by preventing them from making snap decisions because of additional math?
Damage icons worked fine for Fighting Vipers and the Yukes! wrestling games, but once again you've got to think about how implementing it affects the flow of your game. Is limb damage taken equally? That is, does your big huge bralwer (Hugo/Daigo/Zangief/Astaroth) take damage at the same rate as the faster fighters? If its individualized based on the fighter, you're running into the same balance issues as the stamina and MP gauges.
It's definitely based on fighter. I don't think balancing fighters against each other is the issue here. Other games already balance fighter health, they just don't spread damage across multiple limbs.
fighting fans dissecting balance
In a way, I think a game like this might be easier to balance in the end. Instead of completely reworking a character's moveset, you could just cut back on their health & increase a move's stamina cost. I really have to ask myself what kind of depth it would provide, though.
Also, my raging hardon for VF5 is not to be denied. I will Lei Fei all you motherfuckers and it will be awesomesauce.
My Shun Di laughs at your Lei Fei and will get him punch drunk so bad he'll need to enter rehab.
I had the very great misfortune of playing a good Shun Di player with my Lei Fei while I was in Japan. I don't... I don't really recall what happened after I put in my hundred yen. My ass was sore for like a week, though.
To templewulf, it seems like I've miscommunicated. I get your MP gauge now, what I thought it was was a meter that depleted even if you used special moves and not just the standard super combo. Making the players do additional math is something to think about, and for this I'd take a look at CvS2 and specifically the S-Groove. The S-Groove is a very interesting super bar system as it forces players to think about when to charge as well as pay attention to how many stored supers they have. Compared to, say, the Capcom grooves and the K-Groove it's a much more complicated system forcing many more player decisions. And really, it's still the simple addition and subtraction of the numbers 1-3 like a normal super gauge. The question here really should be whether or not this MP gauge is an actual mechanical difference than a normal super gauge or if it's just soemthing more cosmetic, a new way to subtract and add numbers.
To the stamina gauge, I really misspoke. What I'm trying to say is: does the gauge force characters into patterns any more than their normal move list already does? That is to say, does the gauge do something the character doesn't already do through virtue of their movelist and general playstyle. To use a a specific example, let's say it's SF2 and it has this stamina gauge. I'm playing Guile, and I've got these charge moves so already I want to play defensively. However, if my stamina gauge decreases less on attack than on defense, then I've got some issues. Conversely, if the stamina gauge rewards the defensive playstyle already enforced by the moveset, then it's not adding anything meaningful to gameplay. Basically, the stamina gauge will only serve to reward a playstyle that would evolve naturally, or handicap a fighter in a way that would make them unusable at high level play. At least, that's the way I see it without having played your game.
Actually it does deplete with normal special moves. The difference is that there aren't 3 tiers of moves (normal, special, super). Each move would be assigned its own stamina / MP costs. For instance, a fireball might drain nearly all of your MP, whereas a dragon punch might only drain half or a one-inch-punch might only drain 1/20th, while a jab or flicky kick might drain none. Regenerating MP is done by landing attacks, successfully using a parry/repel/dodge or charging. You can also go into MP debt, but that has other consequences outlined below.
To the stamina gauge, I really misspoke.
No, I was just being dumb reading it the first time. I get what you mean now. Let me elaborate on what I'm going for:
landing an attack drains an amount of stamina assigned to that attack
whiffing an attack drains the normal amount + some extra percentage
being parried drains the normal amount, plus that extra percentage for whiffing, plus a static (non-percentage) penalty for being parried
Blocking drains stamina relative to the power of the attack and the condition of your arms
Your MP is drained in the amount of damage your arms would have taken for blocking
If your MP is empty, your arms (or legs in the case of muay thai knee shield) take the block damage instead of your MP
Parrying and dodging increase MP, do not decrease SP
If your arms reach "critical" health, you can no longer block, but parrying & dodging are still viable
Given that blocking is discouraged, but timed defenses are especially advantageous, which way do you think this would go? I'm also seriously considering hiding all these details with only subtle indicators (the MP "aura", the SP...I don't know, sweat?); that way players would be more likely to fight intuitively, rather than mathematically.
Actually it does deplete with normal special moves. The difference is that there aren't 3 tiers of moves (normal, special, super). Each move would be assigned its own stamina / MP costs. For instance, a fireball might drain nearly all of your MP, whereas a dragon punch might only drain half or a one-inch-punch might only drain 1/20th, while a jab or flicky kick might drain none. You can also go into MP debt, but that has other consequences outlined below.
To the stamina gauge, I really misspoke.
No, I was just being dumb reading it the first time. I get what you mean now. Let me elaborate on what I'm going for:
landing an attack drains an amount of stamina assigned to that attack
whiffing an attack drains the normal amount + some extra percentage
being parried drains the normal amount, plus that extra percentage for whiffing, plus a static (non-percentage) penalty for being parried
Blocking drains stamina relative to the power of the attack and the condition of your arms
Your MP is drained in the amount of damage your arms would have taken for blocking
If your MP is empty, your arms (or legs in the case of muay thai knee shield) take the block damage instead of your MP
Parrying and dodging increase MP, do not decrease SP
If your arms reach "critical" health, you can no longer block, but parrying & dodging are still viable
Given that blocking is discouraged, but timed defenses are especially advantageous, which way do you think this would go? I'm also seriously considering hiding all these details with only subtle indicators (the MP "aura", the SP...I don't know, sweat?); that way players would be more likely to fight intuitively, rather than mathematically.
Okay, I'm going to be blunt here. This sounds about as entertaining as Evil Zone, a 3D fighter so bad that it was solely remarkable for DISTANCE THROWS. The basics of this system are really awfully complex and I'm not seeing the advantage.
What you've got to think about is that the math of fighters encourages, not discourages, intuitive play. There's a ton of subtle mechanics operating in the background of just about every 2D and 3D fighter that work toward removing the player from clockwatching and into the fight itself. This proposed system shares a lot, I think, with the Just Defend mechnic. Snap defenses are never a bad thing, after all. However, they require a LOT of playbalancing, and I bring up Just Defend over Parry because Just Defend is an excellent example of making a defensive mechanic too good. If you whiff a Just Defend, you just get a block which is not, altogether, a bad thing. If you whiff a Parry, you eat damage to the face. There is, in effect, no reason not to attempt a Just Defend, whereas with the Parry system there's the very real choice of attempting it or blocking the attack. With your proposed system, I see nothing but downsides to blocking and nothing to suggest that sidestepping/parrying is a bad choice. You've basically got a null choice, really. Blocking is always suboptimal (damage is taken to arms thusly decreasing attack power, eventually you'll be unable to block at all) whereas parrying and sidestepping has nothing but rewards. Sure, an unskilled player won't be able to dodge all the time but at the high level there's no tactical decision to be made there. In SF3, there's very real reasons not to attempt a parry and moreover there's siutuations where parrying is in fact a bad choice compared to a block.
Now, I'd love to get a handle on the game itself because that's the real test of any system, but the way that list reads to me your defensive game doesn't sound very interesting. Then again, Soul Calibur III's system of actively punishing the blocking player never did much for me anyway.
Sure, an unskilled player won't be able to dodge all the time but at the high level there's no tactical decision to be made there.
What about timing? I always thought the point of parrying was to provide a defensive option with high risk/high rewards. Considering a whiffed parry is going to get you comboed all to hell, isn't that a disincentive?
In SF3, there's very real reasons not to attempt a parry and moreover there's siutuations where parrying is in fact a bad choice compared to a block.
Now, I'd love to get a handle on the game itself because that's the real test of any system, but the way that list reads to me your defensive game doesn't sound very interesting. Then again, Soul Calibur III's system of actively punishing the blocking player never did much for me anyway.
I don't know if SCIII "actively punishes" so much as doesn't reward as much as rewarding a parry. In fact, when your attack is blocked, the blocker has a slight frame advantage. This is why you never want to finish a combo unless you're sure it will connect.
Now you've got me thinking about how much blockers should/shouldn't be punished.
Sure, an unskilled player won't be able to dodge all the time but at the high level there's no tactical decision to be made there.
What about timing? I always thought the point of parrying was to provide a defensive option with high risk/high rewards. Considering a whiffed parry is going to get you comboed all to hell, isn't that a disincentive?
In SF3, there's very real reasons not to attempt a parry and moreover there's siutuations where parrying is in fact a bad choice compared to a block.
Now, I'd love to get a handle on the game itself because that's the real test of any system, but the way that list reads to me your defensive game doesn't sound very interesting. Then again, Soul Calibur III's system of actively punishing the blocking player never did much for me anyway.
I don't know if SCIII "actively punishes" so much as doesn't reward as much as rewarding a parry. In fact, when your attack is blocked, the blocker has a slight frame advantage. This is why you never want to finish a combo unless you're sure it will connect.
Now you've got me thinking about how much blockers should/shouldn't be punished.
And that's really important. As your system is now, there's no tactical reward to blocking as it offers nothing but disadvantages. The reason I said blocking in SCIII is a punished mechanic is because there's so little one can do when blocking. Now, it totally stops damage which is aces, but against big hitters or just plain big hits blocking actually leaves you open to way more pain. Even blocking combos is problematic as in SCIII if you block a combo you have to wait for them to basically stop. There's no room for a quick drop of the block and counterattack. Notice how rarely blocking is utilized in high level SCIII play. THis is because that blocking, as a mechanic, is pretty subpar compared to parrying and dodging.
In SF3, sometimes if you land a parry you can still get hit. Notably Genei-Jin Yun, crappy-Jin Yang, Makoto, and Akuma can all "punish" an improperly timed parry. Against them, blocking and waiting for a counterattack are much more viable strategies than olol Daigo parry. However, blocking is also suboptimal in many situations, such as blocking a slow projectile (which is most assuredly a bait), and this complex interplay between parrying and blocking as defensive mechanics is what lends quite a lot of depth to SF3.
Notably Genei-Jin Yun, crappy-Jin Yang, Makoto, and Akuma can all "punish" an improperly timed parry. Against them, blocking and waiting for a counterattack are much more viable strategies than olol Daigo parry. However, blocking is also suboptimal in many situations, such as blocking a slow projectile (which is most assuredly a bait), and this complex interplay between parrying and blocking as defensive mechanics is what lends quite a lot of depth to SF3.
Isn't the "improperly timed parry" really the crux of the argument? Can't you punish anything that is improperly timed?
Obviously I'm more partial to "punish turtlers" than you are, so why don't you tell me what changes to my system would make you happier with it? My defensive options are: parry (back+guard; stops opponent and parrier, leaves parrier at slight frame advantage), dodge in place (neutral+guard; does not stop opponent but leaves dodger with better frame advantage than parry), repel (forward+guard; like a parry but pushes opponent back for breathing room), block (hold guard; blocker loses SP and MP, neither player has definite frame advantage)
I like the way VF handles turtles. There's no block punishment, but there are moves that get passed a block that take a longer time to preform. You can keep blocking but you have to be smart about it, and people can't abuse the block breaking moves because they can be countered.
Notably Genei-Jin Yun, crappy-Jin Yang, Makoto, and Akuma can all "punish" an improperly timed parry. Against them, blocking and waiting for a counterattack are much more viable strategies than olol Daigo parry. However, blocking is also suboptimal in many situations, such as blocking a slow projectile (which is most assuredly a bait), and this complex interplay between parrying and blocking as defensive mechanics is what lends quite a lot of depth to SF3.
Isn't the "improperly timed parry" really the crux of the argument? Can't you punish anything that is improperly timed?
Obviously I'm more partial to "punish turtlers" than you are, so why don't you tell me what changes to my system would make you happier with it? My defensive options are: parry (back+guard; stops opponent and parrier, leaves parrier at slight frame advantage), dodge in place (neutral+guard; does not stop opponent but leaves dodger with better frame advantage than parry), repel (forward+guard; like a parry but pushes opponent back for breathing room), block (hold guard; blocker loses SP and MP, neither player has definite frame advantage)
Tweak away, my friend!
By improperly, I meant that there are several times where parrying the characters would just be a bad idea, but as to your system here's what I would do:
Reduce options to Parry, Dodge, and Block. Block knocks the actual damage of the move down to 1/4 or so, but increases limb damage (if you keep that mechanic). Some attacks are unblockable. Your dodge implementation looks a lot like Budokai 3's, which is fine. Some moves need to be undodgeable, and as well Dodge should provide immediate fram advantage at the cost of MP. Parry needs to be a straight directional input, like SF3, as making it a button combination tends to make the mechanic more difficult to use (see the SC2+3 system of parries). Parrying should cost no SP or MP but the timing should be much harder than dodging and if a parry is missed the character should be left totally open to attack. Some moves are, of course, unparryable.
I would also add that each character should have at least one move that is unblockable, one move that is unparryable, and one move that is undodgeable. This gives the players several tactical options and ways to overcome defensive strategies. It also forces players to utilize a variety of defenses and most importantly keeps them thinking and making split-second decisions. The more choices you can make a player decide in the shortest amount fot ime while revealing as little information as necessary means the better a fighter you will have.
Reduce options to Parry, Dodge, and Block. Block knocks the actual damage of the move down to 1/4 or so, but increases limb damage (if you keep that mechanic). Some attacks are unblockable. Your dodge implementation looks a lot like Budokai 3's, which is fine. Some moves need to be undodgeable, and as well Dodge should provide immediate fram advantage at the cost of MP. Parry needs to be a straight directional input, like SF3, as making it a button combination tends to make the mechanic more difficult to use (see the SC2+3 system of parries). Parrying should cost no SP or MP but the timing should be much harder than dodging and if a parry is missed the character should be left totally open to attack. Some moves are, of course, unparryable.
I would also add that each character should have at least one move that is unblockable, one move that is unparryable, and one move that is undodgeable. This gives the players several tactical options and ways to overcome defensive strategies. It also forces players to utilize a variety of defenses and most importantly keeps them thinking and making split-second decisions. The more choices you can make a player decide in the shortest amount fot ime while revealing as little information as necessary means the better a fighter you will have.
So, you don't like the Repel mechanic? I put it in there to make large characters more viable. Is there anything about it that you don't like, or is it just too many options?
For block, I actually have the defender taking no damage, except to the arms in the amount of MP the attacker spent on the attack (or that damage will be absorbed by MP if you have enough). Considering the buffer of MP and the fact that you can charge it any time (as in the S-groove, iirc), blocking isn't really "actively punished" from my perspective. The only time you should be taking arm damage is if you're in "MP debt" by using a special move without enough energy.
I actually really, really prefer direction+block for parrying, because I sometimes accidentally parry in SF3 when going for a late dragon punch. Besides, if I have a button for block defense, wouldn't it be sort of jarring to have another type of defense that uses a direction? Why do you prefer one over the other?
How would you make a move unparryable or undodgeable from a realism perspective? I mean, what kind of move could I do in real life that you wouldn't be able to parry? So far, I have throws being unblockable, but I'm also stealing the grappling system from Fighter's Destiny to make them more of a back and forth affair.
Since you seem to have a lot of good ideas, what would you use as a combo breaker? Should there even be such a thing? I was thinking of having the MP-consuming, difficult to perform dodge be a way to turn the tide during a combo, but I don't know if that would be too much.
EDIT:
To be clear, I haven't implemented or playtested much past basic movements and a single punch animation. I'm just throwing out wild ideas to see how they're received.
Posts
I consider Ryu easy to use, because:
Not in the least. I can emulate pretty much any strat I can see, and dear lord you have to have good fucking timing or you are fucked in the ass.
She's a goddamn whore if you can use her well though.
GODDAMN WHORE.
Trying to find high level plays of Ryu players in 3S tournaments is very hard since Ken pretty much covers everything Ryu can do and faster and better.
XBL Gametag: mailarde
Screen Digest LOL3RZZ
True. Ryu's best combo that I've seen is EX side kick to Shoryuken, which is just infinitely more difficult than Shoryuken canceled into SA3, not to mention harder to hit with.
Man, Power Stone was awesome. Why hasn't Capcom made any more of those since the Dreamcast?
Here's a new question for you, though: Should Ryu, Ken, et al be in Street Fighter IV?
No need to thank me.
The only thing I can do in Street Fighter games is jump in with a fierce kick followed by a sweep, leading directly into a hurricane kick/hadoken/shoryuken. Occaisionally, I get away with a throw. I only use fierce moves, as I cannot begin to assign certain punches/kicks to specific situations.
Once in a while in SFA3 I like to fancy it up by juggling with Akuma's hurricane kick followed by a shoryuken while they're still in the air. That's about my limit in Street Fighter.
Man, I remember when I was younger, and my parents were in a bowling league, they had Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat machines that all the kids would play on. The only tiers we had back then were the tears of children running to get another quarter and get back in line. I could beat several people using variations of the Ryu set-up you described, maybe with a double dragon punch, or uppercut-fireball. I got it on the SNES and just played, until eventually I was invincible. People would choose my character for me, their friends would distract me (once even covering my eyes for an entire round), but I couldn't be stopped.
I think that was the last time in my life that I accomplished anything. It was totally worth it. I'm planning on riding it out until I'm 80, then maybe I'll save a kitten from a tree, or something.
That reverse half circle throw+HP+qcf MP+And then whatever and pray that you guess right hopefully the throw again.
If you get lucky and land a second throw the rounds basically done.
I was a little upset with SF3 at first, because a lot of moves won't juggle (especially after getting used to SF alpha's easy juggles). But after figuring out stuff like this, that was probably a good decision.
But, enough of SF Talk...how about Voldo's new ass spikes, huh?
Man, making Akuma work is a dream. SA3 is the best (slightly shorter bar than his SA1 or 2). J.Fierce to LK Hurricane to F. shoryukenxxSA3 = doom. You've gotta get good at parrying to have a chance with Akuma, however.
I think that Ryu, Ken and Akuma need to be in SF4, but I'd prefer if that game ended with Akuma's death to resolve the whole shotokan storyline, like the death of Geese Howard in Fatal Fury 3. I'd also prefer for Fei Long, Yun, and Yang to return, as well as Alex and maybe Urien. I'd cap it there for returning characters, at least in the initial release.
just once i'd like to see him in a fight where he wins or looses and no one wonders if the other guy was pulling punches.
Incidentally, if you like Ryu watch Fighter in the wind. It's practically a movie about Ryu.
That movie was pretty cool once he finished his training and showed back up, steam rolling over people. Showing up in a dojo, whipping out some practice gear and pads, then offering it to the people you just challenged so they don't get hurt . . :^::^:
As far as somebody dying, I find it hard to believe that everybody has been in all these world class fights without even getting crippled. In the half-done Street Fighter fan-game I made, the opening scene was Satsu Sakura Shun Goku Satsu-ing Akuma. I pretty much only did the opening scene because I just couldn't deny the possibility of cease-and-desist letters.
Speaking of which, how many meters could you put up with in a realistic 3d fighter? I have stamina which depletes as you block or attack, but refills in only a few seconds once you stop blocking / running / attacking. I have energy, which instead of being a progress gauge until you get a stock, is a continuous meter like MP for magic spells in an RPG. I haven't implemented it yet, but I'm thinking of a man-shaped damage icon which would display limb-based damage with color codes. Is this too much, even for veteran fighting fans?
As far as extra bars go, I'm rather partial to the stun-bar myself.
People can understand complicated system much faster than their fingers can understand complicated controls.
The problem I see most people have with the "best" 3D fighting game right now, VF5, is not the complicated system.
It's how the controls are set up where the regular strategies require a heavy learning of the controls instead of the system itself, which puts people off.
The advantage Tekken has over VF is its much easier to understand controls.
Although I prefer the fighting system of VF, the complicated control methods really turn me off.
XBL Gametag: mailarde
Screen Digest LOL3RZZ
Ryu's entire game is based around getting up in someone's face and guessing correctly into a big stun/damage combo. If you're unable to get in on someone with a good poking game (e.g. Ken, Chun, Dudley, Urien), you're going to lose the round, every time.
Also, if you want examples of Dudley doing big damage, watch videos of Kokujin.
Specifically:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWNPKCKd-a8
I find that, when it comes to fighters, KISS reigns supreme. That's Keep It Simple, Stupid for those who were thinking of the awesome rock band.
Look at VF5. Nothing outside the health meter. Same for Tekken. Soul Blade had life bars and weapon bars, but there's a reason the weapon bars didn't make it into Calibur. 2D games, really good ones, don't have much beyond the life bar and the super bar.
There's a very good reason for this. The more things you have to keep track of, the less the parties involved will actually fight. Let's take a look at Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike for an example. In that game, you've got your block meter (to discourage the excessive turtling that hallmarked SF2), life gauge, super gauge, and time to keep track of. Now, think of each of these bars as resources the player has access to. Each resource informs player decisions. Higher life than your opponent can force several moves, like baiting the opponent into a bad attack, especially if there's only 15 seconds or so left in the round. Time management forces each player to lay their cards on the table, so to speak, in as short a time as possible. Super bars benefit directly from the parrying mechanic, and high super bars force all kinds of interesting play decisions (EX moves, supers, etc.). The players take all of these resources in at a glance and through that make play decisions.
For instance, I usually play Akuma and my friends usually Ken or Chun-Li. We are by no means great players, but we've got none too little skill. In an average match, I can count on going down in life early due to combos and Akuma's ludicrously pathetic defense, forcing me to watch the clock and my life bar closely. However, due to Akuma's fairly high offense (he does tons of guard damage, is the fastest shoto in terms of move speed, etc.) my opponents realize that at no point does the life bar really gauge who is ahead. Gradually, they realized that the best way to fight Akuma was to watch the super bar, not the life gauge, and from that information they could figure out what offense I was planning which is far more useful information than my life total. Especially when I threw a round to keep my guage at 2 bars, forcing extreme defensive play from my opponents as no one wants to suck a Kokuretsuzan or Shun Goku Satsu.
Basically, think of everything you put onscreen as resources. Each bar conveys information that directly impacts gameplay, and truly high level thought on fighters centers not just on priority and hit boxes but how much information you're conveying to the player. One of the reasons Bushido Blade was so successful is that, comparitively, it offers so little information to the users. No life gauge, no time limit, no super bars or even super moves. Put simply, the game kept all the most pertinent information to itself. The impact on the gameplay, compared to other more standard fighters, was tremendous.
I couldn't give more specific advice barring a playtest of your game, and not to say it doesn't sound interesting, but one of the key elements of game design is recognizing how your impacts don't just affect the game but the user as well. I believe that simplicity is really the key to keeping fighting games manageable, but then again Guilty Gear is a horribly complex fighter and is a total blast to play so I could be totally wrong.
*cough*Guilty Gear and MvC2*cough*
Also, there is no guard meter in 3S. There is Stamina, Stun, and Super Art meters.
It might be my RPG lust mixing with my fighter lust to birth a new and disgusting creature, but peanut butter and chocolate found success in this avenue. Basically, what I'm asking is if something this complicated is of any interest to anyone but me. There doesn't seem to be a lot of overlap between RPG and fighter fans.
On the other hand, your comment about Bushido Blade makes me wonder if it's a good idea to keep all the complexity but just not show any definitive details. For instance, a cloud of energy whose opacity ranges from 0-25% could be a good substitute for a flashing "SUPER METER STOCK" display.
EDIT:
Rethinking it, Guilty Gear isn't any more complex than what I'm talking about, but it just presents no information about itself internally. I had to read GameFAQs a few times to figure out what the hell a False Roman Cancel was even supposed to do. Perhaps it's not as complex as it is opaque?
I believe you could still guard break, but I've not got the game in front of me at the moment.
I did mention Guilty Gear in the last part of my post, and I fully recognize that complexity doesn't automatically mean "bad game." It does make the game exponentially more complex due to the very nature of fighting games. I mean, look how much information you're given when playing something as simple as SSF2T and think for a minute how much that influences your play. I find Guilty Gear, as a system, incredibly obtuse and hard to stand even compared to games like KOF2003 or CvS2. There's just so much crap to keep track of, so many little movements to consider, that all that information really changes the way I play the game. Not to say that isn't fun, because it is and Sol Badguy rocks your face, but depending on the market templewulf is aiming for it might not be a good call.
Also, my raging hardon for VF5 is not to be denied. I will Lei Fei all you motherfuckers and it will be awesomesauce.
My little homebrew aims to be pretty much the exact opposite. Your character should execute exactly what you want him to every time. That way, when you lose, it will be because you made the wrong decision based on my stupidly complex meters, not because performing Geese Howard's super move is ridiculous.
Having said all that, you will eat my Pai.
Not to double post, but I've really got to reply to this.
I think the stamina bar will be an absolute monster to balance. If characters don't deplete the bar at a given rate (that is to say, each character drains the bar differently), then you've got a mechanic that can and will overtly reward either ridiculous offense (iuf blocks drain the meter more than attacks) or stupid turtling (if attacks drain the gauge more than blocks). If the stamina gauge is individualized for each character, then you look at something like the SF2 dilemma where players are forced into tactics, like the infamous downback charge for Guile because it's what the designers intended. At that point, the stamina gauge isn't really adding anything meaningful to the game.
To the MP gauge, same issue. MP gauges work fine for RPGs but RPGs aren't about split second decisions (at least, JRPGs aren't). Fighters are all about the moment, each second being its own event. MP gauges would only serve to restrict player choice, especially if onjly certain characters could refill the gauge and others couldn't. There'd be so much balancing issues with the gauge itself and at the end of the day, you've got to ask the question of whether or not it's really worth it. Will the gauge accomplish something a player couldn't? Think about playing a fighter and how every single move by an opponent determines your responses. An MP gauge is effectively doing the same thing, but the question is whether or not you want the players to play against your mechanics or against themselves. It's your game and totally your call, but gauges are a pretty huge decision and shouldn't be entered into lightly.
Damage icons worked fine for Fighting Vipers and the Yukes! wrestling games, but once again you've got to think about how implementing it affects the flow of your game. Is limb damage taken equally? That is, does your big huge bralwer (Hugo/Daigo/Zangief/Astaroth) take damage at the same rate as the faster fighters? If its individualized based on the fighter, you're running into the same balance issues as the stamina and MP gauges.
Something to really think about while developing a fighter is one simple truth. THere are more players of your game than there are game developers, and they're probably just as smart as you. Your game will, eventually, be dissected and its guts laid out on the interwebs in all the various forums for all the peoples to see. The simpler the game is, the easier it is to balance; the more complex, the more difficult. Guilty Gear and Street Fighter and King of Fighters are perfect examples of continuing game design in the face of player community demands. If games as simple as the King of Fighters series have been in nigh-constant development and improvement, imagine how much time you'd need to balance a game that included over double the number of gauges and thusly double the number of reosurces that all need to be balanced against each other.
I can't wrap my head around the Guilty Gear system either. However, your statement that as engine complextiy increases, offensive play decreases inversely is totally false. Players who choose to play games with complex engines will take the time to learn the intricacies of those engines and how to exploit their strengths as best possible. Both Guilty Gear and MvC2 actively discourage defensive play, quite literally in Guilty Gear's case (by making your super meter decrease with defensive play). Top level play in both of these games involves throwing out multiple offensive attacks in repeated succession in order to land the most damage possible. In order to balance against this barrage of offensive abilities, both engines are coded with multiple defensive abilities (Burst and Faultless Defense in GG, Alpha Counter, Snapback, and Ground Rolling in MvC2).
Now, the more complex an engine is, the smaller the high level community will be for that game. Guilty Gear struggles to have large turn outs at major US tournaments, even though it has a fairly large casual player-base. Marvel Vs. Capcom 2 was at one point in time the most popular US fighting game, but every year attendance decreases in tournaments. Both games have such high learning curves that new players are discouraged when trying to get into the games.
Street Fighter III: Third Strike and Tekken are now the most poplular US fighting games that are played at a tournament level. Both games are of the "simple to learn, difficult to master" school of game design. Which allows for a gradual transition from casual to tournament-level play. There is a reason Guilty Gear tournaments are huge at anime conventions, but fairly small at larger fighting game tournaments. The gap between casual and tournament level play is so large that it literally takes multiple months and years of serious play to reach a level where you are able to perform well in the larger fighting game community.
tl;dr: There is a place for both complex and simple fighting games, and both can have incredible depth. However, as the complexity of the game engine increases, the size of the high-level play community decreases.
EDIT: Also, believe me, there is no way to guard break in 3S.
I love my hyper fighting Guile
and games that are hard to master are great!
Makes you feel like you've accomplished something when you start to get good, and keeps the button mashers down.
Although i REALLY dislike the parry in 3S, i feel like it slows things down when you compare it to Alpha gameplay.
Plus im oldschool and i really dont want to take the time to learn it
I actually don't get most of this paragraph. I think I explained the energy gauge pretty poorly, so I'll try again. Normal games have a "progress" bar and a number indicating how many super moves you can do. In my game there is only a number, and super moves don't take off 1, they take off the amount of energy the move costs, as spells in an RPG affect an MP gauge. Are you saying this restricts player choice by preventing them from making snap decisions because of additional math?
It's definitely based on fighter. I don't think balancing fighters against each other is the issue here. Other games already balance fighter health, they just don't spread damage across multiple limbs.
In a way, I think a game like this might be easier to balance in the end. Instead of completely reworking a character's moveset, you could just cut back on their health & increase a move's stamina cost. I really have to ask myself what kind of depth it would provide, though.
My Shun Di laughs at your Lei Fei and will get him punch drunk so bad he'll need to enter rehab.
Steam: YOU FACE JARAXXUS| Twitch.tv: CainLoveless
I had the very great misfortune of playing a good Shun Di player with my Lei Fei while I was in Japan. I don't... I don't really recall what happened after I put in my hundred yen. My ass was sore for like a week, though.
To templewulf, it seems like I've miscommunicated. I get your MP gauge now, what I thought it was was a meter that depleted even if you used special moves and not just the standard super combo. Making the players do additional math is something to think about, and for this I'd take a look at CvS2 and specifically the S-Groove. The S-Groove is a very interesting super bar system as it forces players to think about when to charge as well as pay attention to how many stored supers they have. Compared to, say, the Capcom grooves and the K-Groove it's a much more complicated system forcing many more player decisions. And really, it's still the simple addition and subtraction of the numbers 1-3 like a normal super gauge. The question here really should be whether or not this MP gauge is an actual mechanical difference than a normal super gauge or if it's just soemthing more cosmetic, a new way to subtract and add numbers.
To the stamina gauge, I really misspoke. What I'm trying to say is: does the gauge force characters into patterns any more than their normal move list already does? That is to say, does the gauge do something the character doesn't already do through virtue of their movelist and general playstyle. To use a a specific example, let's say it's SF2 and it has this stamina gauge. I'm playing Guile, and I've got these charge moves so already I want to play defensively. However, if my stamina gauge decreases less on attack than on defense, then I've got some issues. Conversely, if the stamina gauge rewards the defensive playstyle already enforced by the moveset, then it's not adding anything meaningful to gameplay. Basically, the stamina gauge will only serve to reward a playstyle that would evolve naturally, or handicap a fighter in a way that would make them unusable at high level play. At least, that's the way I see it without having played your game.
No, I was just being dumb reading it the first time.
Given that blocking is discouraged, but timed defenses are especially advantageous, which way do you think this would go? I'm also seriously considering hiding all these details with only subtle indicators (the MP "aura", the SP...I don't know, sweat?); that way players would be more likely to fight intuitively, rather than mathematically.
Okay, I'm going to be blunt here. This sounds about as entertaining as Evil Zone, a 3D fighter so bad that it was solely remarkable for DISTANCE THROWS. The basics of this system are really awfully complex and I'm not seeing the advantage.
What you've got to think about is that the math of fighters encourages, not discourages, intuitive play. There's a ton of subtle mechanics operating in the background of just about every 2D and 3D fighter that work toward removing the player from clockwatching and into the fight itself. This proposed system shares a lot, I think, with the Just Defend mechnic. Snap defenses are never a bad thing, after all. However, they require a LOT of playbalancing, and I bring up Just Defend over Parry because Just Defend is an excellent example of making a defensive mechanic too good. If you whiff a Just Defend, you just get a block which is not, altogether, a bad thing. If you whiff a Parry, you eat damage to the face. There is, in effect, no reason not to attempt a Just Defend, whereas with the Parry system there's the very real choice of attempting it or blocking the attack. With your proposed system, I see nothing but downsides to blocking and nothing to suggest that sidestepping/parrying is a bad choice. You've basically got a null choice, really. Blocking is always suboptimal (damage is taken to arms thusly decreasing attack power, eventually you'll be unable to block at all) whereas parrying and sidestepping has nothing but rewards. Sure, an unskilled player won't be able to dodge all the time but at the high level there's no tactical decision to be made there. In SF3, there's very real reasons not to attempt a parry and moreover there's siutuations where parrying is in fact a bad choice compared to a block.
Now, I'd love to get a handle on the game itself because that's the real test of any system, but the way that list reads to me your defensive game doesn't sound very interesting. Then again, Soul Calibur III's system of actively punishing the blocking player never did much for me anyway.
I don't know if SCIII "actively punishes" so much as doesn't reward as much as rewarding a parry. In fact, when your attack is blocked, the blocker has a slight frame advantage. This is why you never want to finish a combo unless you're sure it will connect.
Now you've got me thinking about how much blockers should/shouldn't be punished.
And that's really important. As your system is now, there's no tactical reward to blocking as it offers nothing but disadvantages. The reason I said blocking in SCIII is a punished mechanic is because there's so little one can do when blocking. Now, it totally stops damage which is aces, but against big hitters or just plain big hits blocking actually leaves you open to way more pain. Even blocking combos is problematic as in SCIII if you block a combo you have to wait for them to basically stop. There's no room for a quick drop of the block and counterattack. Notice how rarely blocking is utilized in high level SCIII play. THis is because that blocking, as a mechanic, is pretty subpar compared to parrying and dodging.
In SF3, sometimes if you land a parry you can still get hit. Notably Genei-Jin Yun, crappy-Jin Yang, Makoto, and Akuma can all "punish" an improperly timed parry. Against them, blocking and waiting for a counterattack are much more viable strategies than olol Daigo parry. However, blocking is also suboptimal in many situations, such as blocking a slow projectile (which is most assuredly a bait), and this complex interplay between parrying and blocking as defensive mechanics is what lends quite a lot of depth to SF3.
Obviously I'm more partial to "punish turtlers" than you are, so why don't you tell me what changes to my system would make you happier with it? My defensive options are: parry (back+guard; stops opponent and parrier, leaves parrier at slight frame advantage), dodge in place (neutral+guard; does not stop opponent but leaves dodger with better frame advantage than parry), repel (forward+guard; like a parry but pushes opponent back for breathing room), block (hold guard; blocker loses SP and MP, neither player has definite frame advantage)
Tweak away, my friend!
By improperly, I meant that there are several times where parrying the characters would just be a bad idea, but as to your system here's what I would do:
Reduce options to Parry, Dodge, and Block. Block knocks the actual damage of the move down to 1/4 or so, but increases limb damage (if you keep that mechanic). Some attacks are unblockable. Your dodge implementation looks a lot like Budokai 3's, which is fine. Some moves need to be undodgeable, and as well Dodge should provide immediate fram advantage at the cost of MP. Parry needs to be a straight directional input, like SF3, as making it a button combination tends to make the mechanic more difficult to use (see the SC2+3 system of parries). Parrying should cost no SP or MP but the timing should be much harder than dodging and if a parry is missed the character should be left totally open to attack. Some moves are, of course, unparryable.
I would also add that each character should have at least one move that is unblockable, one move that is unparryable, and one move that is undodgeable. This gives the players several tactical options and ways to overcome defensive strategies. It also forces players to utilize a variety of defenses and most importantly keeps them thinking and making split-second decisions. The more choices you can make a player decide in the shortest amount fot ime while revealing as little information as necessary means the better a fighter you will have.
For block, I actually have the defender taking no damage, except to the arms in the amount of MP the attacker spent on the attack (or that damage will be absorbed by MP if you have enough). Considering the buffer of MP and the fact that you can charge it any time (as in the S-groove, iirc), blocking isn't really "actively punished" from my perspective. The only time you should be taking arm damage is if you're in "MP debt" by using a special move without enough energy.
I actually really, really prefer direction+block for parrying, because I sometimes accidentally parry in SF3 when going for a late dragon punch. Besides, if I have a button for block defense, wouldn't it be sort of jarring to have another type of defense that uses a direction? Why do you prefer one over the other?
How would you make a move unparryable or undodgeable from a realism perspective? I mean, what kind of move could I do in real life that you wouldn't be able to parry? So far, I have throws being unblockable, but I'm also stealing the grappling system from Fighter's Destiny to make them more of a back and forth affair.
Since you seem to have a lot of good ideas, what would you use as a combo breaker? Should there even be such a thing? I was thinking of having the MP-consuming, difficult to perform dodge be a way to turn the tide during a combo, but I don't know if that would be too much.
EDIT:
To be clear, I haven't implemented or playtested much past basic movements and a single punch animation. I'm just throwing out wild ideas to see how they're received.