What's new

For Honor

GAV

Resolution through knowledge and resolve.
When I hear someone use the term "viable" to defend glitches, I know he's a bum - and by bum, I mean a shitty person as a gamer.
 

freerf245

11 11 11 11
It isn't a complex concept.

In regular fighting games, there are two less variables in defending than in For Honor. These two added variables leave more room for error. If the game is fast, but reactable - it adds a level of realism.

With unreactable and safe attacks, plan of attack takes precedence over reactions and executions.

The developers have chosen this path so far. I'm not trying to sway you. We can agree to disagree on how things should work. I won't judge you personally over a disagreement.
Are you saying unreactable mixups make the game more fun and take more skill?
 

GAV

Resolution through knowledge and resolve.
Are you saying unreactable mixups make the game more fun and take more skill?
No. I'm saying the exact opposite of that.

I do think you need good, fast attacks - but not unreactable ones.

The path the developers have chosen is minimal unreactable attacks - and I agree that this path makes the game better.

Having a good plan should be a part of everyone's game, but reactions should matter just as much.
 

GAV

Resolution through knowledge and resolve.
I was messing around with the Raider unlockable zone attack and unlocking just before it hits makes any attack unparryable. Does the game just work this way?
 

GAV

Resolution through knowledge and resolve.
Proabably yea it looks reactable and you could just look at the animation anyways. Even if it wasn't reactable it would still be fair.
I won't judge you. I will judge your opinion though.

No ... just no...

What do you think, Consuela?
 
Last edited:
I won't judge you. I will judge your opinion though.

No ... just no...

What do you think, Consuela?
Making the flicker makes it even slower because you are basically doing the whole move with a cancelled move so technically you have more time to react, since it's so slow you could easily hit him while he's doing it. Even if you couldn't it would still allow for mind games and a much more offensive game
 
He gets a free heavy after Long Arm. He has a pseudo 50-50 mixup off his shove and he gets the shove for free after any block.

Once you get used to fighting him, its not that bad. I put him right there with Valkyrie now where he's good, but not OP. It just seems that way at first.
If we're talking about pc then you can react if he does a light or a gb . So not a true 50/50. You can even dodge if you want (iirc) there's legit proof of people guessing it right like 100% if you don't believe me. As for console I haven't played against any decent lb yet so I don't know
 
Reactions: GAV

GAV

Resolution through knowledge and resolve.
Making the flicker makes it even slower because you are basically doing the whole move with a cancelled move so technically you have more time to react, since it's so slow you could easily hit him while he's doing it. Even if you couldn't it would still allow for mind games and a much more offensive game
https://goo.gl/images/iohQGj
...in your opinion.
 

GAV

Resolution through knowledge and resolve.
If we're talking about pc then you can react if he does a light or a gb . So not a true 50/50. You can even dodge if you want (iirc) there's legit proof of people guessing it right like 100% if you don't believe me. As for console I haven't played against any decent lb yet so I don't know
LB is about where everyone should be. A good one will test your reflexes, but everything is reactable. Now, reacting correctly consistently is challenging, but this is what we should want.
 
LB is about where everyone should be. A good one will test your reflexes, but everything is reactable. Now, reacting correctly consistently is challenging, but this is what we should want.
How? Why should that be what we want? Skill in the game wouldn't have anything to do with getting better, there would be no skill gap just whoever has decent reactions. And what happens when players can easily react to everything. It's not like they'll mess up they are reacting to it!!!! If someone messes up they just don't have that good of reactions. How would someone randomly messing up on their reaction because of how slow they are not be a game of random just like a 50/50? By your logic it is the exact samething but only for the lowest of the low, this isn't helping or doing anything. Players that have good reactions don't mess up it's a dead game you both just sit there and block. The only time this would be fun is for bad players like you who can't and don't want to get better and think it's fun to just sit there and taunt your enemy because even he a great player can't beat you because the game has no skill gap at all.Basically advocating whackamole the fighter only you can hit all the moles easily and you don't win by doing it and can't win at all, aka not a game at all. What an abhorrent mindset, don't ever go into game design
 
Last edited:
Now your trying to dismiss me again.

We disagree on which direction the game should go. I don't want a game where we plan and guess.
No you don't want a game at all, just a basic reactions test with flashy lights.
Congrats you can react to a sword coming at you at very slow speeds that over half the population can do, you win! Oh wait no you don't, you don't get anything for this. This is just a waste of your time and money. There needs to be times when you're wrong, there needs to be times when you lose, there cannot be only winning because only winning is not winning at all. You need to have losing, you need to have risk and reward, you need to have times when you are wrong, it's what makes the times you are right actually meaningful
 
Last edited:

GAV

Resolution through knowledge and resolve.
How? Why should that be what we want? Skill in the game wouldn't have anything to do with getting better, there would be no skill gap just whoever has decent reactions. And what happens when players can easily react to everything. It's not like they'll mess up they are reacting to it!!!! If someone messes up they just don't have that good of reactions. How would someone randomly messing up on their reaction because of how slow they are not be a game of random just like a 50/50? By your logic it is the exact samething but only for the lowest of the low, this isn't helping or doing anything. Players that have good reactions don't mess up it's a dead game you both just sit there and block. The only time this would be fun is for bad players like you who can't and don't want to get better and think it's fun to just sit there and taunt your enemy because even he a great player can't beat you because the game has no skill gap at all.Basically advocating whackamole the fighter only you can hit all the moles easily and you don't win by doing it and can't win at all, aka not a game at all. What an abhorrent mindset, don't ever go into game design
Because its fast enough that there is absolutely no room for error or hesitation. You must block high, left, right, dodge, counter GB, or attack - and you must choose correctly within a narrowly reactable window. Given the situation, only one or two of these reactions are appropriate. You're seeing black and white, but how reactable is it - really? It is reactable, but not to everyone in most situations - or anyone in every situation - especially not with as many variables as this game's mechanics present players with. Players get conditioned and will act appropriately variably depending on the player's level of skill.
 
Last edited:

GAV

Resolution through knowledge and resolve.
No you don't want a game at all, just a basic reactions test with flashy lights.
Congrats you can react to a sword coming at you at very slow speeds that over half the population can do, you win! Oh wait no you don't, you don't get anything for this. This is just a waste of your time and money. There needs to be times when you're wrong, there needs to be times when you lose, there cannot be only winning because only winning is not winning at all. You need to have losing, you need to have risk and reward, you need to have times when you are wrong, it's what makes the times you are right actually meaningful
Players are wrong plenty without your envisioned glorified game of rock-paper-scizzors-lizard-Spock.
 
Because its fast enough that there is absolutely no room for error or hesitation. You must block high, left, right, dodge, counter GB, or attack - and you must choose correctly within a narrowly reactable window. Given the situation, only one or two of these reactions are appropriate. You're seeing black and white, but how reactable is it - really? It is reactable, but not to everyone in most situations - or anyone in every situation - especially not with as many variables as this game's mechanics present players with. Players get conditioned and will act appropriately variably depending on the player's level of skill.
No you don't have to choose correctly that would be what I'm advocating you idiot. You react to it not choose. It's really not that fucking complicated I see an attack I block it or cgb it. No you fucking idiot conditioning doesn't mean shit if everything is reactable I simply react to everything, if i am conditioned it doesn't matter because I'll just react to the thing that I was not expecting. The (very limited) amount of variables don't mean shit, you are REACTING to this stuff not reading. "It is reactable, but not to everyone in most situations - or anyone in every situation" no you fucking idiot it is only barely reactable for shitters, you're whole philosophy is based on a house of cards and it is disgustingly narrow minded, ever think about the possibility that you fucking suck and there are players out there who don't struggle with reacting. You act like its possible that utterly useless gimmicks would work in a competitive scene when we all know that's not true. By your own logic you are advocating much more random than a someone who wants real mixups, you are depending on whether or not someone has fast enough but not too fast reactions to sometimes block something and sometimes not, and even once you get that person (you) they are still going through a system of random of whether or not you'll react in time (which you have very little control over)
 

GAV

Resolution through knowledge and resolve.
@Basic Stupidity

Your entire premise within this argument is flawed. Look at the numbers behind the variables in defending in 4H and MKX.

In MKX, defending variables are block high, block low, tech or move.

In 4H, defending variables are block left, right, up, tech, parry or move.

There is an extra variable in 4H.

Now, lets look at the things you need to do quickly. In 4H, there are block one of three directions or move. In MKX, there are block one or two directions or tech. 4H still has one more variable.

Reactable is black and white, but when you push the boundaries of what is reactable - like 4H does - conditioning human error becomes part of the grey area.

I respect your opinion. I just don't agree.
 
@Basic Stupidity

Your entire premise within this argument is flawed. Look at the numbers behind the variables in defending in 4H and MKX.

In MKX, defending variables are block high, block low, tech or move.

In 4H, defending variables are block left, right, up, tech, parry or move.

There is an extra variable in 4H.

Now, lets look at the things you need to do quickly. In 4H, there are block one of three directions or move. In MKX, there are block one or two directions or tech. 4H still has one more variable.

Reactable is black and white, but when you push the boundaries of what is reactable - like 4H does - conditioning human error becomes part of the grey area.

I respect your opinion. I just don't agree.
You've got to be fucking kidding me. You are pathetic. You are defending for honor defense because you think it has one more variable than mkx. Never mind the fact you completely avoid addressing any of my previous points.

Mkx has armor, AAs, duck throws, duck highs, and back dashes. Many more options than for honor and even if it did I don't know what this would have to do with having an actual game and not a game. "Reactable is black and white, but when you push the boundaries of what is reactable - like 4H does - conditioning human error becomes part of the grey area." Once again you contradicted yourself, it is black and white, it's reactable or not consistently reactable, depending on how good of reactions the player has. How in the world would this be a good thing? The skill gap would literally be none existent, how does one get better? What do you do if you don't have fast enough reactions? What do you do if you and your opponent has 'too good' of reactions? How is it any different from random if your opponents reactions are not consistent enough to consistently block something? How do you beat someone with consistent reactions? How do you make reads? How do you beat your opponent and not the moves he is using? How does the gameplay vary and have a large replay ability? Your entire idea of balancing is a house of cards that has already fallen and been proven to be ineffective but you keep building it back up saying it is ideal
 
Last edited: