Anyone think they should have added different stamina ratings for the cast?

[Garr123]

It seems like one of the big balance headaches could have been solved by giving characters that operate like grapplers (lobo, bane, shazam) higher stamina ratings to account for the fact that they usually have to sacrifice lifebar to get in and lack comparable ranged options/mobility to much of the cast. Right now the only real solution they'd have is giving them absurd damage or nerfing other characters' damage, since that's the only real variable they have to work with.

Think about it, some of the weaker characters might be well served by being beefier, but the only way to accomplish that at the moment would be to nerf the damage outputs on other members of the cast, when those characters might otherwise be fine. NRS taking a blunt approach with raw % based damage has somewhat curbed their ability to balance characters with a bit of specificity and finesse.

I mentioned grapplers because its the obvious thing, but character specific durability seems useful in general as a balancing tool and NRS have denied themselves that option.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Pig of the hut brought up the idea of character-based lifebars in his last podcast as a way to quickly and universally balance injustice, and while I personally love the idea, I don't think it's particularly well-received among developers and players alike, and thus, I don't think it has any chance of happening.

 

[RoGE]

Giving a character lower/higher health wouldn't be too effective as their tools matter more imo. A character like Kabal would still be ridiculous even if his health was around 60%

 

[NKZero]

I don't mind the idea of different life bars but I think it should be based on realism rather than character balance and hence I would probably say no because I would expect Superman to have greater health than the Joker. In the interest of balance, however, Joker should have more health. Thinking about it logically though, it doesn't make sense.

 

[PJbottoms]

I've always hated the differing health levels of character in other games and glad to see this one actually stayed the same across the boards. All differing stamina does is give you a creative "out" for balancing things instead of doing them properly.

 

[Cibernetico]

I've always been for this idea but NRS is a developer who has always done things differently from other fighting game developers. I'm pretty positive that they've never made a game were characters have different stamina numbers. I would welcome it but they never would. /just like they would never welcome making a game were projectiles actually clash.

 

[testyourpatience]

they already have a game like that. what's it called... oh yeah, sf. go play it.

 

[VOR]

I don't like it, plus it's never going to happen. i think giving some characters a better walkspeed and or dash would be a better idea. i also don't think anyone else's movement should be nerfed in the process.

 

[Garr123]

I've always hated the differing health levels of character in other games and glad to see this one actually stayed the same across the boards. All differing stamina does is give you a creative "out" for balancing things instead of doing them properly.

It's the exact opposite. Right now the only thing they can really change is a character's damage or ability to transition into damage. Zangief is the classic example: He does formidable damage and has an incredibly hard time getting in, but to allow him to weather the storm he has padding on his lifebar that he can spend getting in. In your opinion, the only ways to balance him would be to make it easier for him to get in, thereby ruining the design of the character, or further increase his damage, which would only be frustrating to opponents who get KO'd in two mixups.

Akuma is the other end of the spectrum. Strong zoning, strong vortex, great mobility, but one mistake likely means losing the round due to his low stamina.

Seriously, imagine if they had just given Scorpion 80-85% stamina. Scoprion main's would be happy because he still does respectable damage in his vortex and doesn't get punished for everything, retaining his play style; other people are happy because if he fucked up he'd basically lose a lifebar. Reminder that what they did was force Scorpion to take more risks over a longer time to KO an opponent, making him frustrating to play, which isn't the same as making it easier for opponent's to KO Scorpion while retaining what made him fun in the first place.

In the interest of balance, however, Joker should have more health. Thinking about it logically though, it doesn't make sense.

This is a pedantic argument. The game runs on a macguffin, the only thing you'd need to say is that different character's got different doses of the magical kryptonian serum that lets them be punched through buildings. Also, Joker has general issues with how he plays that aren't really tied to how much damage he takes.

 

[KeyserSoze]

It's the exact opposite. Right now the only thing they can really change is a character's damage or ability to transition into damage. Zangief is the classic example: He does formidable damage and has an incredibly hard time getting in, but to allow him to weather the storm he has padding on his lifebar that he can spend getting in. In your opinion, the only ways to balance him would be to make it easier for him to get in, thereby ruining the design of the character, or further increase his damage, which would only be frustrating to opponents who get KO'd in two mixups.

Akuma is the other end of the spectrum. Strong zoning, strong vortex, great mobility, but one mistake likely means losing the round due to his low stamina.

Seriously, imagine if they had just given Scorpion 80-85% stamina. Scoprion main's would be happy because he still does respectable damage in his vortex and doesn't get punished for everything, retaining his play style; other people are happy because if he fucked up he'd basically lose a lifebar. Reminder that what they did was force Scorpion to take more risks over a longer time to KO an opponent, making him frustrating to play, which isn't the same as making it easier for opponent's to KO Scorpion while retaining what made him fun in the first place.



This is a pedantic argument. The game runs on a macguffin, the only thing you'd need to say is that different character's got different doses of the magical kryptonian serum that lets them be punched through buildings. Also, Joker has general issues with how he plays that aren't really tied to how much damage he takes.

Great post.

I think the primary reason I am in favor of a character-specific stamina system is that I firmly believe it is a virtual impossibility to truly balance modern fighting games. The fundamental dilemma in a game like Injustice is that characters have vastly different special moves, ranges on their normals, walk-speeds, dash-speeds, normal attack speeds, damage outputs, traits, and hitboxes. From a purely theoretical perspective, the moment you introduce even the slightest difference between character attributes, you unavoidably induce imbalance. It's a logical certainty. There is simply no denying the fact that characters with differences in the areas I highlighted above will quintessentially play differently: More explicitly, they will have different strengths and weaknesses, experience both favorable and unfavorable match-ups with the rest of the cast, and generally speaking, be more likely to win in some situations than in others. (The term "situation" here can be thought to mean "specific opponent on a specific stage")

In point of fact, the very existence of expert player created "match-up charts" in any fighting game is a direct and unmistakeable confirmation of the reality that the game is, intrinsically, NOT balanced. In a TRULY balanced game, there would be no need for such entities because every match-up would, BY DEFINITION, be 5-5. Why? Because all characters would be endowed with the exact same capabilities and play identically to one another. . . . in other words, all characters would have the same moves. Of course, a game like this would be insanely boring and uninspiring and no serious person would endorse its construction.

Because of the inherent complexities of trying to "balance" a cast of characters equipped with all of the differences I have described, I find it a rather futile practice for the developers to be constantly engaging and re-engaging) in the process of balance patches (nerfs, buffs, and the like). It seems to me, a much simpler and more effective solution would be for the developers to fully and unapologetically embrace their creative juices and construct each and every character any way they see fit, unimpeded by the burden of constantly trying to "balance" anything. Make the character as overpowered and oppressive as you see fit. Anything goes. Whatever dude.

And when they are all done, in order to release a playable and enjoyable product to the public at large, simply test the shit out of the game, determine the general viability and prowess of each character, and assign each character a stamina rating based on that assessment. Would it ever be perfectly balanced? Of course not! Perfect balance in a complex, modern fighting game like Injustice is the quintessential pipe dream. It's a blind chase for the ever-elusive pot of gold. But I honestly feel that leaving all of the "balancing" solely to health bars would greatly simplify their efforts and exponentially improve their ability to at least EMULATE true, competitve balance. Think about it, would it not simplify and elucidate the argument greatly to be talking about tweaking ONE attribute (health/stamina/whatever you want to call it), as opposed to the seemingly countless list of characteristics that they could conceivably alter? Isn't this just common sense? And what's so obscene and taboo about altering stamina levels, anyway? How is it, fundamentally, any different from giving characters different damage outputs? Aren't we talking about the same conserved (or ultimately, non-conserved) quantity in either case?

 

[Tough business]

It has something to do with percentages

 

[haketh]

Stamina balancing is the laziest way of balancing, life should never be a reason to give a character little or shitty tools. The only character SF ever gets close to having this work right with is Zangief, and even then it's not that often. Look at games like KOF, Tekken, and VF that do not have varying health, all three are pretty balanced.

If you want games that actually use variable health as a balancing mechanic look at GG and BB.

 

[Garr123]

Stamina balancing is the laziest way of balancing, life should never be a reason to give a character little or shitty tools. The only character SF ever gets close to having this work right with is Zangief, and even then it's not that often. Look at games like KOF, Tekken, and VF that do not have varying health, all three are pretty balanced.

If you want games that actually use variable health as a balancing mechanic look at GG and BB.

Considering how well-balanced SF4 is and how a great portion of the cast is viable, I find this comment hilariously inaccurate.

Give me example of how it doesn't work, because as far as I can tell you're making an uninformed assertion without offering any support.

Here's a rough list of the characters who were used in the top 20 at EVO. Does this betray a game where the balance methods aren't working thereby caused a limited number of viable characters: Gen, Akuma, Hakan, Balrog, Makoto, Ibuki, Evil Ryu, Adon, Ryu, Cammy, Seth, Zangief, C. Viper, Rufus, Yun, Sagat, Sakura, Fei Long, Rose, Vega.

 

[haketh]

Yet how often do you see characters like T. Hawk and Honda? and most of those characters are in the Top 20 bracket outside of E. Ryu.

And people need to get off this notion that SSFIV is the only game to be pretty well balanced, and it's not hard when characters have extremely watered down tools accross the board.

 

[PJbottoms]

Considering how well-balanced SF4 is and how a great portion of the cast is viable, I find this comment hilariously inaccurate.

Give me example of how it doesn't work, because as far as I can tell you're making an uninformed assertion without offering any support.

Here's a rough list of the characters who were used in the top 20 at EVO. Does this betray a game where the balance methods aren't working thereby caused a limited number of viable characters: Gen, Akuma, Hakan, Balrog, Makoto, Ibuki, Evil Ryu, Adon, Ryu, Cammy, Seth, Zangief, C. Viper, Rufus, Yun, Sagat, Sakura, Fei Long, Rose, Vega.

I'm in complete agreement still, Haketh. As I said previously, it's an "out" for balancing. Instead of using creative character mechanics it's just easier to shave or add a few stam to that bar.

Garr, I'm not saying it doesn't WORK... I'm saying it's a lazy way of going about it just as Hak is.

People saying how balanced SF4 is always makes me laugh. How many times have they had to change things... and now doing it again? If it was so "balanced" they wouldn't need to constantly update it.

Also regarding your "example," just because someone is a specialist with someone doesn't make that character either good or balanced. Anyone who's been playing fighting games for any decent amount of time knows this. Reason we have such a varied top 10-20 in SF these days is because the game has been out so long and people have had time to discover the tech being used and polish their personal gameplay and skill. Also some of the characters mentioned were direct counterpicks in your list. Go ahead, try using Hakan in a character-lock tourney and see how far you go with him. Not happening unless you are one particular player or another. That's player skill, NOT game balance and not to be confused with each other. Just look at Makoto in your list. Haitani is going to beast with any character he plays due to his own skill. If Makoto was so "balanced" she would be viable for ANY player with a decent amount of skill to pick up and do well with if the game was as "balanced" as you think it is.

This adheres to any game. Don't think I'm picking on SF4 and capcom because I love their games just as much as any other developer.


TL;DR

I guess my main point here is, don't confuse your own opinion for fact, and it's opinions that are being discussed here.

 

[tataki]

Stamina balancing is the laziest way of balancing

It can work in complex games where each character has a ton of options and counter-options (GG) but doesn't work as well in simpler games with less options (SF).
Exhibit A:

Not much different from Scorpion's infamous Injustice shenanigans, even when not "too powerful", the matches still end up playing like crap.


That's why a character like Baiken for example can't work in a SF game. Something "too good" like free alpha counters can exist only because of lower health PLUS all the array of options the game provides to deal with them i.e. chaining to evasive normals, jump canceling, FRCs, setting up projectiles etc.

 

[Minh Giang]

for injustice: yes, also i want injustice 2 to be a completely different game compare to mk series.
for mk: fuck no, i want to keep the "%" damage system .

 

[OutlawNightmare]

Just give Bane start up invinciblity on forward dash.

Watch the lulz ensue.

Sent from my Gameboy Color using Tapatalk 2

 

[Garr123]

I'm finding the replies in this thread really amusing considering how different every matchup in SF4 feels when compared to Injustice, MK9, or even Marvel. I'd ask the question "Watered down compared to what?" I think you're mistaking nuance for something entirely different.

Also regarding your "example," just because someone is a specialist with someone doesn't make that character either good or balanced. Anyone who's been playing fighting games for any decent amount of time knows this. Reason we have such a varied top 10-20 in SF these days is because the game has been out so long and people have had time to discover the tech being used and polish their personal gameplay and skill. Also some of the characters mentioned were direct counterpicks in your list. Go ahead, try using Hakan in a character-lock tourney and see how far you go with him. Not happening unless you are one particular player or another. That's player skill, NOT game balance and not to be confused with each other. Just look at Makoto in your list. Haitani is going to beast with any character he plays due to his own skill. If Makoto was so "balanced" she would be viable for ANY player with a decent amount of skill to pick up and do well with if the game was as "balanced" as you think it is.

This is mind boggling and self contradictory in places but I'm gunna try to unravel the mess. So, your first point is that if someone decides to specialize in a character and thereby shows it to be viable, it doesn't necessarily mean it's balanced, despite that being pretty much the sole metric by which to judge balance by. This really is kind of nonsensical. So only generalists who use a variety of characters should be considered when judging the balance of a game?

Your second point is that the game has been out for 5 years and people have managed to make a ton of character's viable through practice, which in your opinion doesn't signify balance. Well, okay.

Then you mention Hakan and say he can't get very far in tournaments, unless you're a specific player and then he could maybe get far in tournaments -- your point being what?

Then you basically say that balance doesn't matter and that it's all about player skill, so why are you even talking about balance to begin with? If most characters would be viable in the hands of a highly skilled player, then that's also not balance in your opinion. What is balance, then?

Your next point implies that Haitani flew to another country and competed at the biggest major with Makoto on a lark, not because it's the character he felt he had the best chance of winning with. This is insane, but okay.

The last point is some sort of appeal fallacy, and claims that to be balanced a character must be viable in the hands of "ANY" player. You're basically arguing against one of the most fundamental tenets of balancing competitive games: You don't balance for the pubs, you balance for the professional scene. Players happen to have different strengths, and some characters are very difficult to use for even relatively skilled amateurs due to the execution and reactions required to play them effectively, but shine at the upper echelons of play. Apparently this means it is unbalanced? I don't think you get what balance is.

What do you believe balance is? Because you said it can't be judged by specialist players being very skilled with their character, then said it was primarily player skill, and finally turned a 180 in saying that a character being difficult and requiring skill means that character is poorly balanced.

TL;DR: are you okay? you seem vaguely confused.

Not much different from Scorpion's infamous Injustice shenanigans, even when not "too powerful", the matches still end up playing like crap.

Seth is a really technical character that requires smart reads and prohibitively high execution to be viable. There's a reason you don't hear complaints about him from anyone but bad players, and comparing him to Scorpion betrays a lot of ignorance.

Yet how often do you see characters like T. Hawk and Honda? and most of those characters are in the Top 20 bracket outside of E. Ryu.

T.Hawk and Honda, so there's two characters out of the cast. Except Mike Ross has placed highly quite a few times with Honda despite getting knocked out early this year at EVO. Pretty sure there were also two Hondas in top 8 at EVO a couple years ago, as well.

What do you mean by top 20 bracket? You mean tiers? So a ton of viable characters in a tier list is also not balance. Nothing is balance.

 

[tataki]

Seth is a really technical character that requires smart reads and prohibitively high execution to be viable. There's a reason you don't hear complaints about him from anyone but bad players, and comparing him to Scorpion betrays a lot of ignorance.

Execution has nothing to do with this. Also the amount of people who complain about him has nothing to do with me thinking he's designed badly. Like I said people can't differentiate between "overpowered" and "badly designed" anyway.

 

[Lex Luthor II]

Interesting idea.

But if you were to keep it inline with how much life/stamina a character would really have, or close to it, then Wonder Woman and Superman and Doomsday and Shazam/Black Adam would all have way too much life...

and if you just said screw it and did just for balance, well it would be weird to see Bane take more hits to kill than Wonder Woman or Superman nay?

 

[xInfra Deadx]

Can't do it on this engine, unfortunately...It would have potential to work too.

 

[PJbottoms]

Wall of text

I don't seem to be the one confused here.

My points are these in more simple terms without my own wall of text.

1) Balance in my opinion is based on how viable ONE character does against the entire cast of the game. In a perfectly balanced game, each player matchup would literally be a 5-5 matchup regardless of taking player skill into account. Meaning if you had 2 players of the same exact skill, they would have equal chance of winning regardless of the moveset of the characters being used.

2) Certain high-level players are not a good measure of balance. They can take the worst character in the game which is horribly unbalanced, yet be godlike with them. Just because that one person is winning incessantly with that character, doesn't necessarily mean the character is good, overpowered, or balanced.

3) My mention of Hakan for example was in reference to your list of varied characters. Only reason he was in that list in the first place was because he was a direct counter-pick for one particular match. Same with a few others you mentioned.

Everything else in your post you're either putting words in my mouth and saying things I never even came close to, or just plain failed in reading comprehension.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

And when they are all done, in order to release a playable and enjoyable product to the public at large, simply test the shit out of the game, determine the general viability and prowess of each character, and assign each character a stamina rating based on that assessment. Would it ever be perfectly balanced? Of course not! Perfect balance in a complex, modern fighting game like Injustice is the quintessential pipe dream. It's a blind chase for the ever-elusive pot of gold. But I honestly feel that leaving all of the "balancing" solely to health bars would greatly simplify their efforts and exponentially improve their ability to at least EMULATE true, competitve balance. Think about it, would it not simplify and elucidate the argument greatly to be talking about tweaking ONE attribute (health/stamina/whatever you want to call it), as opposed to the seemingly countless list of characteristics that they could conceivably alter? Isn't this just common sense? And what's so obscene and taboo about altering stamina levels, anyway? How is it, fundamentally, any different from giving characters different damage outputs? Aren't we talking about the same conserved (or ultimately, non-conserved) quantity in either case?

The problem though, is that stamina has no conception of matchups. So while a character having low stamina may make one matchup more balanced, it could completely destroy another matchup. It's easier to get around this when your characters have more universal archetypes and toolsets; but if you have a cast of wildly divergent characters, you could end up just shifting the good/bad matchups around rather than actually further balancing the game overall.

The only exceptions to this are characters who can pretty much play more or less the same in every matchup (and there are usually a couple of those in games like this). But while stamina works well in a game like SF, I'm curious to know how it would affect the matchups in IGAU.

 

[Justice]

Standardized health bars + interactibles = a game almost no one will play.