Belial
Kombatant
I know a lot of people think its too early to judge the game. On the other hand, when its out it might be too late, because I firmly belive NRS games have been featuring some design flaws for a long time, and INGAU beta proves they are here to stay.
1) NRS really needs to pick up on a "rule of three": fast, damaging, safe: pick two. It is a staple in fighting games for a long time. Othewise you end up with Supergirl with 7 frame start-up string, that is +7 on block and confirmable into combo on hit. I understand its much easier to shove stuff like this down our throats saying "its her gameplan" and balance the game around 1-move-characters, but we, as the community have to say "no" at some point.
2) NRS has to re-evaluate Risk/Reward. Lets look at the recent MKX balance patch, that had 50/50 nerfed and everyone seems happy about it. However 50/50 go all the way through FG's and there have been no complains about it. If you think about it a bit you realize its not 50/50 but Risk Reward off them: you got overhead/low mixup that's advantage on block into full-combo restands.
A good mindgame is when you have to set-up you strong options. For example when you have a safe, but weak-damage low-atack and powerful, but unsafe overhead. Or when both low and overhead are unsafe, but you can pay a bar and make ONE of them safe or plus etc. Then its skill: get into his head, annoy him spamming weaker option FORCE him into doing something. NRS safe mixups require no skill to use and thats what everyone hated.
3) NRS have to understand that characters cannot have it all. If you give something, you must take something. Top characters in NRS barely have any weaknesses. Actually lets look at Sorcerer Quan Chi - not even a top tier. He has mixup that can be made plus for a bar, has great damage, Hard Knockdown into setups, one of the best zoning, crazy range of normals and insane corner. His only weakness is lack of proper armor that makes other characters beasts against him in the corner. However he is a beast when he has you in the corner. That is not really balance, since his other tools are so good. Take away either zoning or mixup, allow rune to only be meter-burned on hit unsafe otherwise, so its only safe and powerful in the corner when you have portal out. And you have a character with a lot of weak spots, and one really-really strong. You made Alien terrible, if you cant have it any other way - make all characters terrible. It wont make balance perfect, but when everyone is bad ITS BETTER than when everybody is broken. Terrible character has lots of weaknesses to be exploited, where strong character has barely any.
4) Consider characters having a "role". In INGAU 1 NRS tried to create zoning, it was sort of terrible for a lot of reasons and now they butcher zoning in every game, creating lots of "hybrid" characters. Partially that stems from NRS poor implication of Risk Reward and rule of three.
Basically FG has 4 ways to win (it can be expanded, but as a framework)
- Zoning (everything concerning distance and range control)
- Mixup (everything that forces a guess on the enemy)
- Pressure (any mechanic that forces action, like chip damage, building a bar for atacking block etc, other FG have more of these)
- Defence (punishing unsafes, wiffs, parry, high or low crushes etc)
In regards to game mechanics that factors are supposed to be equally effective. A balanced char has these in some sort of equilibrium. For example char A has all 4 at 5/10, char B has Zoning and mixup at 10, but Pressure and defence at 0. These characters are equal in terms of mechanics. If disbalance occurs, its for either reason:
a) These 4 factors are not in balance (ie someone has all at 10)
b) Game mechanics favor a particular way to win making other 3 less viable thus favoring characters that have that one particular strength
5) NRS have to re-evaluate mechanics that are already in the game and look elsewhere for inspiration. I understand they may believe it makes game unique, but there's a lot of confusion in how they do things. For example some mechanics are aimed to force a reaction from people who block a lot. NRS have that covered by introducing the most ridiculous chip damage ever and on top of that meter is built for atacker. Its fine. But when at the same time you dont provide any means to actually "react" (parry, lowcrush, highcrush, invulnerability etc) you have that very mechanic work against itself. Ironically all defencive options cost meter and meter is only built by atacker. Thus this mechanic totally contradicts itself. And thats just one example.
As always share your thoughts on the matter. If anyone can bring this thread to NRS attention it would be most welcome.
PS: FYI I am a top player for various FG, having most succeded as Soul Calibur player (9 at EVO, top 8 at MLG, top 1 at EBO (european major), that really wants to love NRS games for their support and open approach to community, but I just cant enjoy them right now.
1) NRS really needs to pick up on a "rule of three": fast, damaging, safe: pick two. It is a staple in fighting games for a long time. Othewise you end up with Supergirl with 7 frame start-up string, that is +7 on block and confirmable into combo on hit. I understand its much easier to shove stuff like this down our throats saying "its her gameplan" and balance the game around 1-move-characters, but we, as the community have to say "no" at some point.
2) NRS has to re-evaluate Risk/Reward. Lets look at the recent MKX balance patch, that had 50/50 nerfed and everyone seems happy about it. However 50/50 go all the way through FG's and there have been no complains about it. If you think about it a bit you realize its not 50/50 but Risk Reward off them: you got overhead/low mixup that's advantage on block into full-combo restands.
A good mindgame is when you have to set-up you strong options. For example when you have a safe, but weak-damage low-atack and powerful, but unsafe overhead. Or when both low and overhead are unsafe, but you can pay a bar and make ONE of them safe or plus etc. Then its skill: get into his head, annoy him spamming weaker option FORCE him into doing something. NRS safe mixups require no skill to use and thats what everyone hated.
3) NRS have to understand that characters cannot have it all. If you give something, you must take something. Top characters in NRS barely have any weaknesses. Actually lets look at Sorcerer Quan Chi - not even a top tier. He has mixup that can be made plus for a bar, has great damage, Hard Knockdown into setups, one of the best zoning, crazy range of normals and insane corner. His only weakness is lack of proper armor that makes other characters beasts against him in the corner. However he is a beast when he has you in the corner. That is not really balance, since his other tools are so good. Take away either zoning or mixup, allow rune to only be meter-burned on hit unsafe otherwise, so its only safe and powerful in the corner when you have portal out. And you have a character with a lot of weak spots, and one really-really strong. You made Alien terrible, if you cant have it any other way - make all characters terrible. It wont make balance perfect, but when everyone is bad ITS BETTER than when everybody is broken. Terrible character has lots of weaknesses to be exploited, where strong character has barely any.
4) Consider characters having a "role". In INGAU 1 NRS tried to create zoning, it was sort of terrible for a lot of reasons and now they butcher zoning in every game, creating lots of "hybrid" characters. Partially that stems from NRS poor implication of Risk Reward and rule of three.
Basically FG has 4 ways to win (it can be expanded, but as a framework)
- Zoning (everything concerning distance and range control)
- Mixup (everything that forces a guess on the enemy)
- Pressure (any mechanic that forces action, like chip damage, building a bar for atacking block etc, other FG have more of these)
- Defence (punishing unsafes, wiffs, parry, high or low crushes etc)
In regards to game mechanics that factors are supposed to be equally effective. A balanced char has these in some sort of equilibrium. For example char A has all 4 at 5/10, char B has Zoning and mixup at 10, but Pressure and defence at 0. These characters are equal in terms of mechanics. If disbalance occurs, its for either reason:
a) These 4 factors are not in balance (ie someone has all at 10)
b) Game mechanics favor a particular way to win making other 3 less viable thus favoring characters that have that one particular strength
5) NRS have to re-evaluate mechanics that are already in the game and look elsewhere for inspiration. I understand they may believe it makes game unique, but there's a lot of confusion in how they do things. For example some mechanics are aimed to force a reaction from people who block a lot. NRS have that covered by introducing the most ridiculous chip damage ever and on top of that meter is built for atacker. Its fine. But when at the same time you dont provide any means to actually "react" (parry, lowcrush, highcrush, invulnerability etc) you have that very mechanic work against itself. Ironically all defencive options cost meter and meter is only built by atacker. Thus this mechanic totally contradicts itself. And thats just one example.
As always share your thoughts on the matter. If anyone can bring this thread to NRS attention it would be most welcome.
PS: FYI I am a top player for various FG, having most succeded as Soul Calibur player (9 at EVO, top 8 at MLG, top 1 at EBO (european major), that really wants to love NRS games for their support and open approach to community, but I just cant enjoy them right now.
