Discussion The Dilemma of Armor Attacks

[IrishMantis]

Many of us expected that. All the hype and it finally reduces to a message in the screen...epic fail.

For all the hype on the Kounter system

l

 

[M2Dave]

Though I played Tremor with his great armor for the majority of my time with this game and people who play me will probably attest that I am an armoring fiend I think the changes(at least in my experience so far) are for the best. As much as such armored moves were defensive tools, they were also offensive ones. They offered so much reward and completely shifted momentum in many cases. And several armor attacks were so fucking good that they gave the character free offense, because the constant threat of an armor attack that does something like 30%+ with a great hitbox that may even offer great oki options was too intimidating.

The game is naturally offensive so all tools in the game, even defensive ones, will have some offensive utility.

I also should have mentioned in my first post how the lack of an armored attack resulted in much worse anti-aerial options for some characters and how some others entirely lost their primary strategy and are currently forced to play a style they were never designed to play.

 

[Rickyraws]

Yes, I had a problem w armored launchers.

The philosophy I follow is that invincible/armored reversals should ALL be punishable on block. This is still something NRS doesn't follow, but definitely a step in the right direction.

Motherfucker, how would you even know anything about this game when all you play is Paragon?

 

[RoboCop]

The thing @Sultani is saying that I do agree with, is that the current system puts way too much power in the hands of the aggressor, at least from a risk/reward perspective.

Most characters have safe (or plus!) meterless combo starters in the corner. If I know I can go for a 40% combo and at worst I eat a 15% armored wakeup, there's no reason not to go for that 40% combo. Even trying to bait the wakeup doesn't seem worth it since a lot of them are safe.

Overall, I think most armored launchers needed to go, but it really should have been handled on a character-by-character basis. You can't expect to apply a 1-size-fits-all strategy to a game with almost 100 characters and expect it to be balanced.

 

[ismael4790]

The thing @Sultani is saying that I do agree with, is that the current system puts way too much power in the hands of the aggressor, at least from a risk/reward perspective.

Most characters have safe (or plus!) meterless combo starters in the corner. If I know I can go for a 40% combo and at worst I eat a 15% armored wakeup, there's no reason not to go for that 40% combo. Even trying to bait the wakeup doesn't seem worth it since a lot of them are safe.

Overall, I think most armored launchers needed to go, but it really should have been handled on a character-by-character basis. You can't expect to apply a 1-size-fits-all strategy to a game with almost 100 characters and expect it to be balanced.

Couldn't agree more, man.

 

[jdghost]

Would back dashing on wakeup cover the invisible frames that you are asking for?

 

[SHAOLIN]

Would back dashing on wakeup cover the invisible frames that you are asking for?

Not all are created equal, unfortunately.

 

[jdghost]

Not all are created equal, unfortunately.

You have a point. It would have been nice if NRS would fixed this now that they want all the characters in a similar level.

 

[EMPEROR PRYCE]

Motherfucker, how would you even know anything about this game when all you play is Paragon?

Paragon has armored attacks... duh.

 

[ExpectFlames]

i wonder if this was the vanilla patch would it have sold 5 million copies?

 

[sn_meruem]

Supporting armoured launchers is the worst thing I've heard. I don't care if it's unsafe they shouldn't be a thing ever.

 

[Johnny Based Cage]

Wall of text inbound but I just agree with @General M2Dave that a one-size-fits-all approach to these games is never the right path. Not every character should have a DP or Flash Kick but those who are given such powerful tools need to be punished hard for misusing them.

The same logic could have been applied to this game. Certain characters should have unsafe armored launchers, others should have safe armor that doesn't launch and other characters still shouldn't even need any armored attacks at all. Just balance every strength with equal weakness.

And I get that they technically did kind of try to achieve some form of diversity by allowing some to mb their armor for launch at the cost of a 2nd bar and others to have 2-3 hits of armor on non-launchers and so on but I think the more logical solution from a fighting game standpoint than overhauling whatever weird armor-for-everyone shit they have going on here now is to simply let a handful of characters like - let's say - Tempest Lao for instance, armored launch you for a full combo on read with EX Spin but eat a full combo if you bait it.

Just don't hand it out like candy as the ever-wise @YOMI REO says and always appropriately balance it when it is given out. Alien had no business being able to throw out an armored flip at any time with such significant reward and such little risk, for example, but to overhaul the entire design around the fact that you let shit get out of control for a few characters is such a bad look for gameplay design.

NRS gets overzealous in combining perk after perk for certain moves/characters without giving them any weaknesses, and then they grab the torches and pitchforks to remove some of those perks from the game entirely in the aftermath as if they're the problem in their own right and not the fact that they weren't balanced with any disadvantages in those specific situations. Their next game will be Injustice 2. How about instead of running scared from all overheads, teleports, safe on block moves, and/or launchers that lead to 40%, maybe this time around they could just not combine those ALL into one move for one final DLC character that has no drawbacks whatsoever? How about they don't overhaul the entire game so nobody gets crazy chip damage or crazy meter-building, but they just don't combine those two things into a safe-on-block move for a character who yells like an idiot while he abuses it? Don't balance your game around the fear of certain gameplay design elements that can be overpowered when they aren't paired with any drawbacks, just fucking balance those things correctly when you do give them out and don't give them out to every single fucking character. Is this shit really that hard?

TL;DR: NRS thinks the way to balance a game where certain overpowered characters/moves have a bunch of advantageous gameplay elements and no disadvantageous ones is to tone down or otherwise overhaul some of those advantageous elements across the board for all characters rather than balancing those particular characters/moves out with disadvantages. NRS is wrong.

 

[Gengar]

I normally don't agree with m2dave... but he nailed it here.

Number one is my exact issue with this. There's no risk for just running at someone and pressuring. The aggressor gets to just ignore the possibility of getting blown up for over committing because there are no such things as invincible start up reversals that lead to any respectable damage anymore.

The 50/50 meta that everyone bitched about got buffed. If you get HKD once, there's no way you are getting up without spending a meter and risking getting blown up anyway.

Do you really not see the flaw here in your statements? 'there is no risk for pressuring' Since when is everyones pressure safe? Its not like you get to just endlessly push buttons, the majority of the cast is still -frames on their many of their strings, and strings that are not - start as highs or have too much push back to loop them over and over. and RC pressure was nerfed by the stamina changes so thats not as powerful either. Yes, you have to deal with more pressure, but it eventually ends and it is more in your favor to attempt to poke out and take your turn, specially cuz you dont have to worry about your poke being blown up for another 30%.

Which also leads to the 2nd half, you have fucking armor to get out of the pressure as well, many characters having 2 hit armor. blown up anyway? the armor is also safe in most cases. and then you HKD and its your turn, like, its so obvious. you are mad that if you get HKD once it is done, when you have 2 hit armor to avoid that problem as well as armor to knock them down and start your own pressure and put them in the same position.

Fucking babies cant handle playing the nuetral properly

 

[Addhad]

Let's hope this isn't the last patch and make aas consistent make all jump ins like LIU n we'll be good no more armored launchers to reliable aa so that's outta the picture n make armored launchers do less dmg if they are in. Lowkey tired of the double armor not the launchers... THE PUNISHABLE ONES AT LEAST YALL TREMOR PLAYERS BE MASHIN THAT ARMORED REVERSAL

 

[ExpectFlames]

Do you really not see the flaw here in your statements? 'there is no risk for pressuring' Since when is everyones pressure safe? Its not like you get to just endlessly push buttons, the majority of the cast is still -frames on their many of their strings, and strings that are not - start as highs or have too much push back to loop them over and over. and RC pressure was nerfed by the stamina changes so thats not as powerful either. Yes, you have to deal with more pressure, but it eventually ends and it is more in your favor to attempt to poke out and take your turn, specially cuz you dont have to worry about your poke being blown up for another 30%.

Which also leads to the 2nd half, you have fucking armor to get out of the pressure as well, many characters having 2 hit armor. blown up anyway? the armor is also safe in most cases. and then you HKD and its your turn, like, its so obvious. you are mad that if you get HKD once it is done, when you have 2 hit armor to avoid that problem as well as armor to knock them down and start your own pressure and put them in the same position.

Fucking babies cant handle playing the nuetral properly

What if playing the nuetral wasnt what i bought it for? What if dare i say i wanted armored launchers to supplement my inability to devote my life to understanding small things like frame traps. What if i wanted to force more experienced players to their knees with the threat of me stealing a turn for free with ex overhead god sword kotal. I dont think its a streatch to say that 60% of the people who bought it feel the same. I.E TYM stands for a very small percentage of the mk players.

 

[Lokheit]

I don't have much experience with Tremor, but shouldn't Crystaline ability to cover himself in armor, in addition of having run cancelable armor make him pretty good for the current meta where very few characters can take a hit and still start their combo like he can? As I said, I don't have much experience with him so I'm not sure about his viability, at least on paper he looks like one of the best armored characters right now.

I'm a bit torn about the armor launchers thing to be honest. I think that the ideal scenario would be is characters didn't NEED armor launchers to make their gamplay viable, this is for example Kenshi's case (well, the poor guy problems are bigger than that, like not being able to use half of his moveset if he's trying to win). At the very least he could have double meter armor launchers I guess, my Kennyjutsu feels a lot weaker for sure.

The way they made UB viable was allowing him to have armored launchers (with a setup, but an easy one to activate) and also making his parry much better (so he's one of the few characters that can really punish gaps now). It worked for him so far, it could work for Kenshi if his moveset isn't dramatically changed to compensate.

 

[UGL Preon]

The Problem: Some characters felt as though they were always in danger in terms of being pressured/chipped and that amor launcher was their way of turning the tied so they werent completely smothered.

Some had moves that had armor that only launched in specific situations in the corner. Combining the two has made it a little more difficult for some. But that isnt the only change. If you look at armor in a vacuum then yeah the change is silly. Since all armor was not created equal.

Run cancels are not as strong especially with the new stamina mechanics. And its a whole different world of meter managment. Numerous changes to normals castwide. The new armor situation is not perfect. Nothing in MKX is. However we will need more than two days. Give it at least six weeks.

 

[Gengar]

What if playing the nuetral wasnt what i bought it for? What if dare i say i wanted armored launchers to supplement my inability to devote my life to understanding small things like frame traps. What if i wanted to force more experienced players to their knees with the threat of me stealing a turn for free with ex overhead god sword kotal. I dont think its a streatch to say that 60% of the people who bought it feel the same. I.E TYM stands for a very small percentage of the mk players.

Then I say that your vision does not allign with paulo's and thats just too fuckin bad. This conversation has never been about 'what do the masses want.' Im sure plenty of the masses would love if they could ivan ooze their way to victory every game. Play something else if that is what you want. no game is designed by the public, it is designed by the devs and fits the vision they hold, not you. If you do not agree with that vision, particularly for the reasons that you outlined, then go play something else that is more attuned to your preferences.

 

[Gooberking]

Then I say that your vision does not allign with paulo's and thats just too fuckin bad. This conversation has never been about 'what do the masses want.' Im sure plenty of the masses would love if they could ivan ooze their way to victory every game. Play something else if that is what you want. no game is designed by the public, it is designed by the devs and fits the vision they hold, not you. If you do not agree with that vision, particularly for the reasons that you outlined, then go play something else that is more attuned to your preferences.

To be fair, nobody on the planet can seem to agree on what the vision of this game is or should be, and have spent months and months arguing as to why it should play such and such way, or be more attuned to thier personal preferences.
By this logic, nobody should be playing mkx and tym should be a ghost town.

 

[ExpectFlames]

Then I say that your vision does not allign with paulo's and thats just too fuckin bad. This conversation has never been about 'what do the masses want.' Im sure plenty of the masses would love if they could ivan ooze their way to victory every game. Play something else if that is what you want. no game is designed by the public, it is designed by the devs and fits the vision they hold, not you. If you do not agree with that vision, particularly for the reasons that you outlined, then go play something else that is more attuned to your preferences.

But paulos vison has changed multiple times i payed for mkx the game that released a year ago this is not that. Look im not mad it is what is. Was just trying to expand the debate is all

 

[B. Shazzy]

i wonder if this was the vanilla patch would it have sold 5 million copies?

LUL are you a johnny or kenshi player?

about 1% of those 5 million care about the competitive side of nrs games rest just do single player settle down there'll probably be more patching

 

[Gengar]

But paulos vison has changed multiple times i payed for mkx the game that released a year ago this is not that. Look im not mad it is what is. Was just trying to expand the debate is all

ToS that you agree to when you purchase the item gives NRS the right to make changes, unannounced, at any time, without your consent. The game is still playable (like objectively playable, fuck off with semantics.) Welcome to the world of digital goods.

WB Games may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Game at any time. WB Games may also impose limits on certain features or restrict your access to parts or all of the Game without notice or liability. You have no interest, monetary or otherwise, in any feature or content contained in the Game.

I get trying to expand the argument, but this particular avenue of discussion has no merit. you are not entitled to anything, so the argument of 'i bought X and I want it to remain how i bought it" is void.

You can appeal to Paulo by proposing changes based on what you consider to be balance, but if its simply 'put it back to how it was cuz i paid for that' then you have no ground to stand on.

 

[Gengar]

To be fair, nobody on the planet can seem to agree on what the vision of this game is or should be, and have spent months and months arguing as to why it should play such and such way, or be more attuned to thier personal preferences.
By this logic, nobody should be playing mkx and tym should be a ghost town.

I think paulo agrees on the vision, and thats also in part because he can change it as he sees fit at anytime. Kinda like Trumps net worth.

Balance is a subjective topic, we all have different ideas of what is and is not balanced, and all of our ideas are subject to change. The point i was making is not that we all have to agree or see it paulos way, but that if you are going to argue for change then it needs to be based on your subjective opinion of balance with the attempt to sway paulo into agreeing. The argument that I was responding to was not taking that approach, and was taking more of a 'consumer entitlement' approach with does not hold any water due to the EULA.

 

[Gooberking]

I think paulo agrees on the vision, and thats also in part because he can change it as he sees fit at anytime. Kinda like Trumps net worth.

Balance is a subjective topic, we all have different ideas of what is and is not balanced, and all of our ideas are subject to change. The point i was making is not that we all have to agree or see it paulos way, but that if you are going to argue for change then it needs to be based on your subjective opinion of balance with the attempt to sway paulo into agreeing. The argument that I was responding to was not taking that approach, and was taking more of a 'consumer entitlement' approach with does not hold any water due to the EULA.

I thought it read more like"I didn't ask for a change and got one" than it did "I want such and such change". And your response sounded like it could have been aimed at everyone who isn't NRS, but wasn't. Ergo subtext of casuals dont get a vote.

That's putting words in your mouth, and this phone thing makes to hard to follow, so I'll just take the explanation.

His comments on how this isn't the game he paid for is interesting as a debate topic on how much change is ok after sale. More change is being asked for. Who wants that, who doesn't and who gets a say?

 

[Gengar]

I thought it read more like"I didn't ask for a change and got one" than it did "I want such and such change". And your response sounded like it could have been aimed at everyone who isn't NRS, but wasn't. Ergo subtext of casuals dont get a vote.

That's putting words in your mouth, and this phone thing makes to hard to follow, so I'll just take the explanation.

His comments on how this isn't the game he paid for is interesting as a debate topic on how much change is ok after sale. More change is being asked for. Who wants that, who doesn't and who gets a say?

Its not that casuals dont get a vote, they do, but i think there is a right and a wrong way to go about it. WB makes the final call, but they of course are willing to listen their customers. They dont have to, but they do. If you want them to listen then you have to approach it from a balance perspective, thats what WB is doing afterall. The arguments that I was responding to were not doing that, they were demanding change or lack there of, based on consumer entitlement that they do not have. The game does not stay the same just cuz thats what you bought, but it would stay the same if what you bought is what WB considers balanced.

The argument proposed was 'What if playing the nuetral wasnt what i bought it for? What if dare i say i wanted armored launchers to supplement my inability to devote my life to understanding small things like frame traps.'
Which essentially breaks down to 'what if the things that WB is paying attention to and trying to promote are not what I am trying to do?' and the answer to that is 'too bad.' Take it a step further, if you buy a game specifically to do some glitch or whatever and that later gets patched out then thats just the way it goes. The devs hav an idea and anything that is counter to that will be removed.

If you want to argue that the neutral should be balanced and that armored launchers balanced it, by all means carry on. if you want to argue that you should be able to bypass the nuetrals balancing when that is blatantly counter to what the dev is trying to achieve then I think you are far less likely to get what you want.

His comments on the game being different from what we paid for may spark a fun debate, but ultimately the dev is allowed to change it as much, or little, as they want. Naturally companies want to build trust and good will with their consumer base so they dont just flat out ignore them and they do what they can to appeal to their user base, but they are not obligated to do anything. So the arguments of consumer entitlement are invalid.