The death of the combo: putting the 'fight' back in fighting games

[The Lone Dragon]

Capcom gaveth, and now with SF4, Capcom has the chance to taketh away.

Prepare for lots of crazy talk...

Ever since SF2 invented the combo as we know it, an interesting trend has since developed in fighting games...namely, a decrease in actual "fighting".

Nowadays, the preferred (and effective) strategy is to "take the fight away from your opponent" rather than "fight better than your opponent"...this is a direct result of the existence of "the combo". Why ENGAGE your opponent in a true contest, when it's easier to DISABLE your opponent and inflict damage uncontested? That's exactly what a combo does, after all.

For example, in the jump from Tekken 4 to Tekken 5, the series increased the effectiveness of juggles. Players responded rationally. Now, the name of the game is to find your character's fastest, safest launchers or stuns, use them as often as possible, and then tack on extra hits when it connects for a total of 50%+ damage. And, if you're near a wall, the tacked on hits continue as you play the wake-up game, gaining an extra 20-30% of mix-up damage. All of this extra damage, after the initial hit, is UNCONTESTED. Player 2 has little to no opportunity to defend against it. By definition, this is not a "fight".

Then there's Alpha 3 where V-ism owns the zone. The "fighting" aspect ends the minute that V-ism flash appears and Player 2 is launched. The ensuing 5 - 10 seconds become a one player game, where Player 1 is competing with him/herself to complete that combo they practiced in training mode for 5 hours yesterday. Player 2 can't tech out or defend. All they can do is wait for Player 1 to finish. Uninvolved. By definition, this is not a "fight".

The same is true for any combo heavy game where simple, basic launchers or starters can lead to extra, uncontested, substantial damage. The "fight", by definition, is lost.

Now, I'm not criticizing these types of games at all. I'm just pointing out how rare the "combo" seems to be in other competitive gaming environments:

Basketball- When you score a point, the other team gets the ball. You don't get an opportunity to keep tacking on extra shots. The other gets to RESPOND.

Football- When you score a touchdown, you kick off and give possession to the other team. You can go for the extra point, but the other team can CONTEST it and it's not guaranteed. Plus it's very little damage (only 1 or 2 points).

Soccer- When you score a point, the other gets the ball. Period.

Hockey- Face-offs...both sides have a chance to contend.

Baseball- At all times, the defense has a say in whether the offense scores. The defense is never sitting back watching as the offense scores points...except for a home run. And, the only way to hit a home run is if the defense allows a bad pitch.
So, the defense always has a say.

Tennis- Position resets every time someone "does damage" a.k.a. scores a point. No tacking on damage for extra points.

Checkers- Turn based. Both sides have adequate opportunity to contest the opponent's advances.

Chess- Ditto.

The only exception I can think of is pool or billiards. But, as I said, it's the exception.

As you can see, "combos" are NOT the preferred method of determining a winner...even if they are fun to perform.

Now...

Imagine a fighting game without combos. Or, at least, not as we currently know them.

Imagine a game where you can't "tack on" extra hits for extra damage.

Imagine a game where you actually have to work for every last bit of damage you inflict...and you get a chance to contest every bit of damage inflicted upon you.

I.e. putting the "fight" back in fighting games.

Wouldn't the winner of THIS style of match TRULY be the better player? Wouldn't this theoretically solve the problem of balance and broken characters? Wouldn't this eliminate infinites and mechanical gameplay? Thinking, mindgames, and psychology would be at an all time high.

It could be pretty awesome.

For example, look at Hanzo from Samurai Shodown. Usually in fighting games, when the other player hits you and you aren't blocking, your defensive options are exhausted. You simply go into the stun animation and wait for it to finish, hoping they won't hit you some more. However, Hanzo and Galford have a move where you hold LK during the stun animation, and he teleports outta there.

Or in Kensei: Sacred Fist, when Saya presses a certain button during a gut stun she falls down with a kick launcher.

That's the type of thing I have in mind. Defensive options DURING the stun animation. Perhaps if you press the correct button at the right time, it can shorten the stun length...or can alter the animation so that you evade subsequent attacks...or it decreases damage...etc.

And, of course, your defensive options could vary depending on how quickly or how accurately you press the button combinations. If you're too slow, your stun animation will be the worst, and your opponent can tack on extra hits.
If you react immediately (or anticipate it) then your stun animation will be cut totally and you'll be able to block extra hits.

This is just one example. Another idea would be air control, like in Soul Calibur so that you can contend juggles. Or just frame hit stun escapes that allow you to go on the offensive from a clever defense (just like in real life).

You get the gist...

A more dynamic overall fighting experience. Instead of the traditional "I hit you a few times then maybe you hit me a few times" dance that we've had since SF2, why not make it all FLOW...just like a good martial arts film or the SF4 trailer. A constant, unyielding test of wits and execution until someone doesn't get up.

It would look cool, and it would balance itself. The perfect "combo" of appearance and gameplay.

I know combos can be fun and all that...but, If Capcom wants to revolutionize the genre (again), this is the perfect opportunity to try something new.

Just a suggestion...any opinions?


BTW, the closest example I could think of that resembles this idea would be Urban Reign. If you've ever played it (and I recommend you do), you'll know that there's no blocking and there are no true combos (unless you involve super moves). There's only an evade button that allows you to dodge, evade, and reverse attacks when timed properly. It looks tight when you and your opponent are good at defending, and the battle really begins to flow together.

[Radiantsilvergun3]

You don't want the removal of Combos. You wan't the removeal of log winded combos. theres a diffrence.

[The Lone Dragon]

You don't want the removal of Combos. You wan't the removeal of log winded combos. theres a diffrence.

Well, the number of hits doesn't concern me...what I really want is the removal of extra damage that you didn't necessarily earn. Sure, you earned the launcher or the starter. But, all the damage after that is free and unearned in a sense.

[goodm0urning]

Traditional Street Fighter gave us a combo system--links, buffers, short chains, and so forth--that I think strikes a perfect balance. Special systems like customs or magic chains might have taken things into long-winded territory, but that's not what I'm talking about. I agree with you to a certain extent, that the game shouldn't be all about who can get the first hit in and start the ridiculous 95% combo. But it shouldn't be all about getting in, getting one hit off, getting out, getting in, getting one hit off, and so forth. That would be ridiculously simplistic.

[NegroNinja]

Ah the 2-3 hit combo, that takes me back.

[Hellion]

Just make it look like the fucking trailer.

[Sasmasta]

[draws circle on screen with paint brush]

THE SUN COMES OUT! OMG!

[/Okami]

[Dencore]

I actually have been thinking about this for a while.

[The Granby]

Well, the number of hits doesn't concern me...what I really want is the removal of extra damage that you didn't necessarily earn. Sure, you earned the launcher or the starter. But, all the damage after that is free and unearned in a sense.

Ummm.... don't get hit by the launcher/starter?

Usually good games balance out things that are capable of starting massive combos like:

#1 Making the combo start unsafe (bad on block, long whiff animation)
#2 Making the combo hard as hell to do
#3 Making the combo conditional (distance, character, meter, etc. dependent)
#4 Some other random gimp (can be jumped over, can be ducked, can be sidesteped [3D only], needs counter hit, etc. etc. etc.)

I mean, would it make you feel better if we just had that one move do all the damage at once?

Ryu c.forwards you and it does 40% in one hit cause he counter hited.

New combo system would be cool, but getting rid of what has been in the series since the first SF2 would not be cool.

[Hellion]

THE SUN COMES OUT! OMG!
Pardon me for saying so but you've got a bangin av!

[Silks]

And while we are on this subject, let's make sure there's none of that shit where 80 percent of the fight happens in the fucking air. I'll never understand that bullshit. Floating around and doing huge combos = horrible fg

[UnknownEnemyZero]

I highly doubt it will happen, they're just fun to do I suppose and helps create more flair and show into the fight, not a fight that looks like it's just rock, paper, scissors 50 times in a row in a 99 second clock. They'll find a good balance I believe, and place faith in their experience at making fighting games.

[Shinryuuken_SA2]

You might be looking more for a true fencing game à la Bushido Blade then. I understand your concept and I find it pretty interesting. IMO a great way to minimize the roles of combos would be to implement a stamina system à la ready to rumble, or AOF, where you can't actually perform any more move once it's depleted. Better than damage scaling IMO. Don't totally remove combos, but don't make the game a 1 player game once said player got the combo starter (which aren't easy to land, but still). I also agree with the guy who said that combo starters should be a little more risky. None of that Chun c.MK crap, for instance (even though I'm pretty sure that was unintentionnal).

[Humbag]

i Didnt ebe biooer to read this but ut sucks so bad

you suck and wa y to pepresent IL asshole

god amnis im so druin k its no ooooooeeven funny

[angelslayer13]

lol so ok let me get this straight for the next street fighter game you want capcom to make it play like a regular non combified game of pokes.... ok.

[r3ko]

Have you played Knock out Kings, i know its boxing, but I think you would really enjoy it from what you've said.

Basically fighters started to get really combo heavy after the SF2 era, I guess in an attempt to compete with 3D fighters, 2D fighters responded with bigger combos with alot more going on screen. And over time, combos started to move away from how they were originally.

In a game like ST, outside of simple 2 or 3 hit combos, most combos are used for punishing your opponents mistakes or taking full advantage of the opening you made in their defence, but they are necessary. You can quite happily get along in a game like ST without ever doing combos. Over time though combos changed roles gradually, untill they became a fundamental part of our strategies and what is considered playing the game properly. You can't even begin to compete unless you at least know your characters BnB combos nowadays. Imagine trying to play a game like GGXX or MVC2 without knowing any combos?

[Shinryuuken_SA2]

i Didnt ebe biooer to read this but ut sucks so bad

you suck and wa y to pepresent IL asshole

god amnis im so druin k its no ooooooeeven funny

You sound like I do right now in RL.

[Crab_Lips]

Basic combos are fine. Long-winded combos, chains, and "infinites" need to go.

The basic concept behind a combo is--you hit someone hard enough to create an opening that allowed for additional hits. They've just taken it too far in recent games, that's all.

[r3ko]

Also I don't know how you feel about naruto or anime fighters, but the Naruto Hero games on the PS2 have an interesting system that deals with combos. As long as you have chakra (meter) its possible to escape any combo at any time by performing a kawarimi, which teleports you behind your opponent. Meter is not scarce either, you start off with it full, and you collect lots of it when you land hits on your opponent, so your hardly ever without.

This in itself becomes alot more complex, cause you can kawarimi trap your opponents, by anticipating when you think your opponent will kawarimi and get them when they appear behind you by various means, such as using a special/super attack that has a 360 hitting zone, or by backdashing so you land behind them instead when they reappear, but if you do this stuff at the wrong time it could all backfire on you. Also continual kawarimiing really dips in your meter, so sometimes you might want to block rather than kawarimi, and wait for the most opportune moment. But you take block damage from all attacks and every character has at least 1 gaurd crushing attack, so you can't just block all day.

Anyway it creates some good mind games, and some really franatic flowing fights. May not be the most balanced games in the world, but they are alot of fun and I suggest you check it out at least to see what i am on about, even if its not your thing.

Heres a tournament video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PGyn4AlqNg

Thats basically the jist of the game, i haven't really played them since no.3, (its on no.4(accel)now, 5 comes out in december i think) cause lots of infinites started popping up. As you can see in that vid, at 1.30 an infinite starts cause that player has no chakra. And since you can't block mid combo (duh) they can't escape as no chakra to kawarimi out of there. And thats what the game pretty much boils down to between 2 evenly matched opponents. Fight till someone runs out of chakra and the person who runs out first will most likely lose.

[Windlord0]

You list all those sports and ignore that boxers throw combinations, and martial artists blend from attack to attack to maybe a submission.

also the length of combos is rarely the sole reason for a character being top tier. Their ability to move and zone and set up situations is a big thing. So instead of having to land 5 hits into 5 long combos to kill the opponent would they just die in 5 normal hits? I loved bushido blade, but within its own little genre. Combos in traditional fighting games are still good.

[brian]

3 hit combos or less please.

Edit: I guess 4 is ok sometimes.

[Airthrow]

You list all those sports and ignore that boxers throw combinations, and martial artists blend from attack to attack to maybe

Combinations are not unblockable after the first hit in boxing/MMA, real life isn't videogames.

[Silks]

Airthrow: besides sharing a ton of good stuff in this horridly poop filled sf4 forum, I must also give you props for that avatar. A fan of the Dollar movies is cool with me

[No Limitz]

C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!:wgrin:

Now, you don't really want that do you?

[ObsidianZ]

"Real life isn't video games"

Exactly. So why should we be trying to model our games on real life? Just because a sport or a board game (which, by design, almost HAS to be turn based) gives you opportunity to come back at every single second, doesn't mean a fighting game has to be so lenient.

OP said that mindgames would be at their peak without combos. I say combos promote mindgames and yomi just as much. If you make a mistake, the penalty is a high damage combo. But just because you make a mistake doesn't mean you lose. The other player still has to work for his damage. First he has to create the opening, then he has to have the execution to pull of the combo.

If you reduce the game to a series of "mindgame, poke, mindgame, poke, mindgame, poke" it turns into an exercise in probability, with each player winning half the time. With combos, mindgames mean so much more because you don't have as many chances to screw up.

And with damage scaling, the offensive player has to work even harder just to get in a little bit more damage.

*ObZ

[RisunoMeijin]

C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!:wgrin:

Now, you don't really want that do you?

No. No I dont. Not at all.

[Silks]

C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!:wgrin:

Now, you don't really want that do you?

Speaking of which, I have to post this to lighten the mood around the newly-formed, overly-heated sf4 forum.

Dennis Alexio breaks long-winded combos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NbdgOiaoQA&NR=1)

You don't win fights with that tip tap shit!

[Oro's Other Arm]

I think supers, combos and such should stay, but they should only be a part of the full arsenal. No one concept should be the be-all end-all of combat, save for beating your opponent. Some games make supers the focal point of the match — everything you do eventually is only a build up to a super, and once that's used, the cycle repeats. Some are like that with combos — you're only working to find an opening to use your combo. They should all be an essential part of a character's repertoire, but no one piece should overshadow all the others to the point where that's all people do.

[rogueyoshi]

how are you forgetting about burst....

[MonsterZodd]

so....everyone turns into vega and we have a poke party? i'll pass, thanks.

[EznorbYar]

I think the idea of having no combos at all is ridiculous and would make for a very boring game.

The idea of having some sort of defensive ability while in stun has merit though. If there was some technique available to a stunned character to avoid or reduce the possibility of getting comboed, it would add a very interesting new dimension to fighting gameplay.

[Silks]

No combos would be retarded no doubt. But smaller combos only please. And don't base the entire game on landing two-digit-plus combos. You know, those 50 hitters n shit.

[CoolWater]

Well, the number of hits doesn't concern me...what I really want is the removal of extra damage that you didn't necessarily earn. Sure, you earned the launcher or the starter. But, all the damage after that is free and unearned in a sense.

Sooooooooo................. you want Soul Caliber?

[Steve F]

C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!:wgrin:

Now, you don't really want that do you?

I wish I could rep you for that Killer Instinct reference. Scratch that, my friend has Premium, I am gonna make him rep you.

[RockCho]

Combinations are not unblockable after the first hit in boxing/MMA, real life isn't videogames.

Actually combos can be unblockable, if the attaker is good enough to. However, it is a result of mindgames, strength & speed, and training. Usually, a combo lands when an attack lands that leaves an opponent psychologically pressured, or outright momentarily physically incapable of countering/blocking an attack. This doesn't translate well into a fighting game, since the opponent doesn't suffer any physical restrictions from a successful attack, so the penalty is stun recoil.

But yea, I agree with "real life isn't videogames."

Extremely long winded combos are kind of boring, but at the same time, combos that involve ONLY 2 or 3 joystick movements (SF3, C groove CVS2) kind of feel limited these days, so it's not an easy answer to find.

[Hellion]

Speaking of which, I have to post this to lighten the mood around the newly-formed, overly-heated sf4 forum.

Dennis Alexio breaks long-winded combos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NbdgOiaoQA&NR=1)

You don't win fights with that tip tap shit!

:clap: More please

[Gutter Trash]

I always found standing combos to prettier than juggle combos.

My biggest complaint about Tekken was that that the juggling always looked ugly, when the victim floats in the air he gets hit in the nuts to be juggled....
that is right, do a juggle in Tekken and keep them floating, you always hit them in the nuts... and the jabs to keep them up there are ubber ugly.

Many of my NON-fighting gamer friends all get turned off by juggles in 3D fighters but they all love Street Fighter because it's beautiful.

Street Fighter combos are pretty.

Now onto Street Fighter: I love ST styled combos, links, cancels, limited juggles (limited). I love 3S styled combos and super cancels. (making most Super Arts in SF3 as QCFx2 motions helped charge characters combo into Super Arts more fluently than the Super Combos for charge characters in ST)

Please don't be mad at me, but I don't like V-ism and I don't like Yun's SA3.

[power333]

It is a good idea. More stategy. Less execution barriers. Less waiting around while you get hit. I see 2 problems with it:

1 - No way you're gonna get support from the srk community towards this. Most people here don't want to ever get rid of any skill they have acquired in the past, like combos or even parries. That's why anything different makes so many people call a new game trash. That's why some 40-year-olds still play ST like is their religion only because they rather keep their games really simple with barely any options all the time (Sagat vs Sagat anyone?).

2 - Casual gamers will probably not like it, and thats the biggest problem. It lacks the WoW Factor

[f_man]

im not buying your argument.

why dont you just boil the game down to straight up rock paper scissors. and then let it ensue into random pokes. do you know how fun it'd be to see people throwing random pokes the entire game?

its always fun to see someone get punished for whiffing an unsafe move, because you anticipate the opponent to retaliate massively. if you see someone whiff a super, you dont get all excited because you get to punch them once, and then go back to blocking.

this argument would carry more validity if you aimed for dmg scaling (a la guilty gear). i can understand a-ism or yun boiling down to meter xx bait xx super xx annoying. i dont understand getting rid of combos.

[Project]

I dont think getting rid of combos is a good thing. After all most of us started playing fighting games because of the potential combos lended to fighting games. I for one only picked up 3s to shoulder people to death with urien.

What you can do though is implement a modified burst system from guilty gear. Now if you ever played that game you can build a burst meter which serves as a combo breaker but It has some draw backs. Like if you opponent anticipates that your going to burst out of his combo he can bait the burst then start a new combo. But if your good with your burst it can stop any combo dead in its tracks. What I think sf4 can do is not give you a meter but make it so that at certain points in a combo or after certain moves that stun or place a player at a disadvantage your allowed to counter or evade the next move while transitioning into your own attack and so forth. Now the same as with burst if the counter or evasion is anticipated they can be baited.
For example ken lands a crouching mk on ryu. Lets say that kens c.mk give him enough advantage to combo into a fireball. the ryu player should have a small window where he can either counter kens follow up fireball with a dp or evade the fireball by rolling to the side. Now if the ken player thinks that the ryu player will attempt a counter move he can wait as the ryu player dp whiffs giving the ken player a new opening for attack. This would bring a flow to the fighting that I think the op is really saying that they would want. This would also raise the amount of strats and mindgames played during the course of a match. Well this is just my idea. I would also like to see catch grabs like those seen in VF put in SF for the first time.

[The Chief]

As foreign as this theory may sound it seems feasable and even playable if it can be done perfectly.

A system where locking down your opponent with poke strings where the oponents only options are blocking or counter via looking/making the attaker whiff (or have moves that could be considered pressure breakers ex: c.strong will be stand.RH)

I've always been a fan of high defense over impressive rush down. Games where your attacks have to be planned in order to land them.

It could work but it may turn alot of people away.

Combo videos will turn into poke string videos.

[Shiro887]

That's such a bad idea. Turn a fighting game into a poking game.

Performing combos is one of those things that makes you want to keep playing the game. You see gameplay footage, you see a guy landing some combos and you think to yourself "Wow, I want to learn how to do that shit!" So you pick up the game and learn it. Once you get that combo down and can actually land it, you can feel pretty good about yourself.

But watching a video game of everyone poking each other..not very appealing.

[Dandy J]

I love doing combos but honestly I think in concept it's a good idea.

And anyone saying a game would be horrible without combos, seriously you can go watch high-level ST matches on youtube where combos don't/barely come into play, or only go as far as 2 hits.

You could make moves only cancelable on block haha.

[ObsidianZ]

^Yeah, but fights are over in less than 10 hits.

*ObZ

[The Chief]

That's such a bad idea. Turn a fighting game into a poking game.

Performing combos is one of those things that makes you want to keep playing the game. You see gameplay footage, you see a guy landing some combos and you think to yourself "Wow, I want to learn how to do that shit!" So you pick up the game and learn it. Once you get that combo down and can actually land it, you can feel pretty good about yourself.

But watching a video game of everyone poking each other..not very appealing.
Today people tend to look at what combos are available in the game rather that the actual gameplay of the game itself.

I'm the type that looks at the depth level of gameplay over what combos can be done.

When I see a match video I don't look at what combos we're landed. I look at how players maneuver their characters and position themselves to land clutch attacks. How well they use their options. The combos I look at AFTER I understand the match up itself.

An intense match with Zero combos but high level offense and deffense are more impressive to me than a combo fest.

The idea of street fighter 4 not having a rule based combo system would not turn me away from the game at all.

[Hellion]

Not all supers combos are "multi-hitting combos." Some end up being 2 in 1's because you cancel low forward to massive 1 punch supers whatever.

Combos do exist in real life, but taking them out from SF completely is a bad idea.
And why compare SF to real life anyway?
It's like a anime bloodsport with hadokens and mega-psycho crushers and green man-beasts abound.
People don't jump or superjump that high in real life.
People don't through hadokens

Also when you're cornered it's roughly analogous to being against the ropes in boxing you're going to get slaughtered unless you're pulling off a rope-a-dope like some Ali wannabe, and even then it isn't always guaranteed to work, ala Marciano destroying your guard by hammering away at your arms, if that's where you're coming from by "bringing the fight back in fighting games."


...
Hey where are those tip taps at?:sad:

edit: The Chief's right. The setups, the gameplan that leads to them and everything that leads to the combos require more emphasis, but basic combos are here to stay and hell why not supercombos as well?
You ever see Dela Hoya land those high# combos after dazing his opponent, or that one martial artist who loved his "scissor kick takedown" move? (I forgot his name or the name of the kick but it was clearly his favorite) Those could be considered "supers" or even the startup of the same.

I guess you want stuff like breaking King's multi-move bone breaking ground moves in Tekken, but this isn't the cage, nor is it "as real as it gets."

[TheStreetzKing]

so would u prefer a custom combo like in alpha 2? makes more sence because it only last the given amount of time, and its not a guarenteed shit load of damage

[Son Them All]

And the perpetual battle that will no doubt rage until this game is released continues. People wanting to digres all the way back almost 20 years and bascially get SF2 again, and people who don't...this time it's "zomg combos oh noes!". Guh..

While I would agree things like Vism combs, dust loop chains, tengu stone and geneijin juggles going on forever, are quite superfelous and shouldn't be nearly as long as they are but the long combos you have a problem with also SHOWCASE SKILL. Want to pull of a good Aegis combo? Partition/buffer your ass off or it doesn't work.

Gotta find a balance. I like GG's burst option so while you can't get out of all combos it's in your power to at least strategically use a potential combo in your favor.

But forreal....stop hoping to get SF2 again. That's what HD is for.

[goodm0urning]

And the perpetual battle that will no doubt rage until this game is released continues. People wanting to digres all the way back almost 20 years and bascially get SF2 again, and people who don't...this time it's "zomg combos oh noes!". Guh..

...

But forreal....stop hoping to get SF2 again. That's what HD is for.Asking for the removal of absurdly long combos and built-in systems that are made for them (e.g. V-Ism, A-Groove) does not entail asking for another iteration of SFII. SF4 very well might have the absence of those things in favor of the inclusion of new, utterly non-SFII gameplay mechanics.

However, asking for those special combo systems to be reinstated basically IS asking for another iteration of previous games, or at least parts of them. What many people seem to want isn't a new entry in the series--just a greatest hits version with their favorite bits of the previous games.

[Chrno]

I'm ok with 10-hit limit combos...but MvC2-type hardcore no chance, (along with XVS, MVC, etc. etc.) are lame.

[chunbelievable]

Shin Samurai Spirits... god I loved that game. Just the right amount of pokes versus specials, distancing, set ups and combo strings. Too bad teh tiers were so off, ther was Ukyo, everone else, Nakoruru. Series went to serious shit after that as well.

Not to get off subject, good article Dragon, you bring up some great points. I miss the intense tactical fights of SF2 and SamSho2 but learing the big combos for me was like doing a sonic boom for the first time. Doing combos for me was like discovering new moves all together.

Not just executing a special but really using it to inflict damage. The more difficult the combo became the newer the move for me. There are so many good difficult combos that often you would never see the same one performed by two opposing players.

Eliminating the art of combos in respect can kill the art of the fight as well. The combo seperates SF from Chess, keeping it not just tactics but allowing for the ability to make the game your own through the move (combo) of your own design.

[Dandy J]

so would u prefer a custom combo like in alpha 2? makes more sence because it only last the given amount of time, and its not a guarenteed shit load of damage
Alpha 2 cc does anywhere from 50% to 100% depending on the character and what level they activate at. Chun can do upwards of 60% at level 1 midscreen.

[polarity]

Plus they're unblockable if they weren't blocking low when you activated, blow through normals at close range, and they're totally safe if blocked. :confused:

[arstal]

One idea- combos do a lot more damage when the 1st hit is a counter hit?

Maybe have stylish-looking target combos that require a CH to start.

I wouldn't mind burst (at the cost of a level of meter) entering the game, or being able to burst your super meter like you could in SSIV/SSVSP to get out of stuff and do more damage. (you see it used less in Special due to the threat of meditation)

[Arsenal]

I do not understand the argument of "OMG! 40 hit combos! CHEAP!". The fight isn't the combo/super/etc, it's the moments leading up to the combo; the setup. That's where the true "fight" occurs.

Also, if everyone can do a super/combo/infinite/high damage juggle/etc, then the playing field is pretty leveled in that aspect (NOT talking about anything else other than the best option for punishing an opponent's mistake).

[margalis]

SF2 combos are fine because to set them up you have to do some real work. It's actually hard to land combos against good players, especially if they know to avoid certain setups.

VCs are a good example of a really bad kind of combo because they are easy to land.

[kmasera]

SF2 combos are fine because to set them up you have to do some real work. It's actually hard to land combos against good players, especially if they know to avoid certain setups.

VCs are a good example of a really bad kind of combo because they are easy to land.

quality post, you basically summed up my thoughts on this =]

[MAGUS1234]

just make all combos potentially long but that are all like 2 frame links, that would be sick. So anytime someone lands like a 3 hit combo its like OmG!!!

[Radiantsilvergun3]

just make all combos potentially long but that are all like 2 frame links, that would be sick. So anytime someone lands like a 3 hit combo its like OmG!!!

That would suck.

[arstal]

The key is risk/reward ratio. Combos that require risk to land, or require a massive screw-up by the opponent, are fine. The one combo that annoys me is the half damage off a jab/short. That's when I feel cheated. (One reason I hate FATSAK in SFA2)

[goodm0urning]

The key is risk/reward ratio. Combos that require risk to land, or require a massive screw-up by the opponent, are fine. The one combo that annoys me is the half damage off a jab/short. That's when I feel cheated. (One reason I hate FATSAK in SFA2)Yuh?

[Crap]

Yes...lets make everything slow paced Samurai Shodown where a delay happens after EVERY FUCKING HIT

[Luigi-Bo 87]

I've always liked the ability to combo into special normals from KoF. CvS2 would've been so much better if it had that. SF4 should have a system like that, allowing you to link a normal off of a landed punck or kick.

[arstal]

Sakura has a really scrubby mash short into super that doesn't take a lot of effort- just whirl the stick until you get it out. You can even whirl the stick backwards and get a comboed super.

Yeah, it's not what the pros do, but it's easy and it works.

FATSAK is an old old inside joke.

[Corner-Trap]

Eliminating combos has to be the dumbest suggestion so far. So instead of punishing my opponents mistake, or taking advantage of an opening with a combo, you want me to capitalize on it with a single attack? Where's the fun in that? The whole game would devolve into a hit and run affair.

[Arsenal]

Combos allow for the PLAYER's personal style to shine through when using the character.

[MAGUS1234]

You should see me paint the fence with Bison! Truly amazing

[Mychale]

Agreed. Some shit needs to change. I don't want it to be easy for scrubs to come in and the run the same jab jab short BS they've been running for god knows how long in this game. Def need to see some change.

[Phoenix Fury]

I don't think that combos should disappear, but I don't think that SF4 should be about trading combo exhibitions until someone runs out of life. Most of the stuff in the non-Marvel Capcom games is okay if you discount the Custom Combos, though I'm more of a fan of the SF2 stuff.

[Corner-Trap]

I love how the SFIII combo system works. Simple normal>special>super strings, and limited juggles are perfect IMO.

[Jaur]

I believe that "extended combos" should be removed. Long combos restrict the defensive aspect of fighting. The removal of extended combos would enable reverals, blocking, and parrying to play a more important role in the game. At the moment, most reverals or blocks can't be used during a combo hitstun. Taking out extended combos adds depth to the game. At the moment, learning extended combos and offensive techniques take priority over most defense choices. Now, defensive options are mostly restricted to avoiding being placed into a long combo by your opponent. Very long combos are uninteresting to watch. Depending on the character, a lot of games are a matter of zoning and poking until someone chokes, which leads to the opponent unleashing a 20 second long combo, virtually ending the round.

In most movies, cartoons, and in general forms of media, fighting and martial arts is usually portrayed in a series of back and forth blows and short combos, with many blocks and reversals. Long combos should be removed because they restrict defensive aspects, make the game more shallow, and are uninteresting to watch.

[Hellion]

Agreed. Some shit needs to change. I don't want it to be easy for scrubs to come in and the run the same jab jab short BS they've been running for god knows how long in this game. Def need to see some change.

...The usual run-ol'the-mill scrubs I lay waste with can't even short x 3 to super, and can barely do something braindead easy like Hibiki's b&b in CvS2. The only thing they know how to do really is mash Fierce and roundhouse for footsies and random supers.

I'm not sure I understand you.

[YuuFone]

I agree with what you saying man
SF4 shouldn't have those wack combos
it should be like SF2 it's more fun that way (in my prespective)

really long combos really don't intrest me that much
Thats why i'm playing ST

[Hellion]

*snip*

Perhaps you want something like a 10 hit combo limit, with any further hits resulting in the knockdown?

Outrageous supers that have 10+ hits would be limited in the amount of damage they do to punish moves because some of those 10 powerhit slots would've been taken up by d.lk x 3 or the lone d.mk xx 10 hit (more like a 7 or 9 hit now) super?

The individual hits of the supers could do more damage of course than the shorts and stuff, it'd just mean that to get the max effect you'd have to be on top of your execution and just know that your d.lk or d.mk or counter-hit high priority all owning d.HP *cough* Sagat *cough* would hit?

[Corner-Trap]

I simply don't understand why some people are against combos. Over the years there have been so many options to avoid getting hit by combos, even more recently they've added techniques to help defend yourself even while in a combo, and game mechanics have even been set in place to lessen the overall effect of combos. If that isn't enough for you then I don't know what is.

[AudioCG]

I simply don't understand why some people are against combos. Over the years there have been so many options to avoid getting hit by combos, even more recently they've added techniques to help defend yourself even while in a combo, and game mechanics have even been set in place to lessen the overall effect of combos. If that isn't enough for you then I don't know what is.

Apparently all people want out of a NEW game is an old one........

"just make it like SF2"

"no combos they are cheap"

"Only one super bar, like SF2"

etc, we are getting THAT game, its called SF2 HD Remix:wasted:.......

[Chachi]

every character will have 300+hit combos

those who fail to learn them get thrown out the arcade and beaten

[Xiii]

You let Capcom do what they do best, even if it's not the original team doing it, every Street Fighter that's come out has been different enough to stand on it's own. We don't need a Dynasty Warrior franchise and as much as I love some of the stuff they've already done, I'd rather see new shit. Not sure where they COULD go, but I'm interested in finding out.

[The Lone Dragon]

Lots of good stuff to reply to...

Combos allow for the PLAYER's personal style to shine through when using the character.

Personally, I disagree...nowadays with the internet and forums like SRK, one person's combo becomes everybody's combo. That's what combo videos are for, right? Combos can be taught. Strategy must be learned.


so....everyone turns into vega and we have a poke party? i'll pass, thanks.

Eliminating combos has to be the dumbest suggestion so far. So instead of punishing my opponents mistake, or taking advantage of an opening with a combo, you want me to capitalize on it with a single attack? Where's the fun in that? The whole game would devolve into a hit and run affair.

lol so ok let me get this straight for the next street fighter game you want capcom to make it play like a regular non combified game of pokes.... ok.

I'm not calling for SF4 to become Karate Champ, where you reset both players' position after each successful hit. Deemphasizing combos does not automatically reduce the game to a poke fest or hit and run fight. If you hit someone, you would still gain an advantage...just not a GUARANTEED advantage (i.e. an extra free hit).

For example, take a combo that Ryu has had in basically every game he's ever been in: Jump Roundhouse > Crouch+Fierce > Fierce Fireball. In pretty much every game so far, you get 3 hits as long as the first connects.

However, in my proposed system the first hit doesn't guarantee the subsequent hits. Using one of the new defensive "in-stun" options, the opponent could reduce stun time and block the crouch fierce and fireball.

But, remember, Ryu would still be on the offense. He still gets to complete the combination, even though the last two hits are blocked. He could still have frame advantage, better positioning, and the chance to dictate the next move.

Also, remember, the defensive stun recovery would be dependent on a player's timing and execution. If you mess it up or react too slowly, the crouch fierce and fireball would then connect just like usual. So, on the offense you are still encouraged to link combinations of moves together...just don't expect to land every hit, dependng on your opponents defensive ability.

Thus, in a way, it's not TOTALLY eliminating combos...it's giving the defense an OPPORTUNITY to diminish the effectiveness of combos through skill.

"Real life isn't video games"
Exactly. So why should we be trying to model our games on real life? Just because a sport or a board game (which, by design, almost HAS to be turn based) gives you opportunity to come back at every single second, doesn't mean a fighting game has to be so lenient.


Why not? I mean, sure, unrealistic fireballs and 50 spinning pile-drivers are obviously cool with me...

But, in terms of the basic logic behind the game system, why not take a realistic approach? When two players lock horns, the goal is to determine which is the better fighter, right? So, when one player is determined "the winner", we don't want flukes, we don't want BS, we don't want broken-ness interfering...

So, why not take a little hint from games that have been developed and honed for centuries? No one ever accuses chess of being broken...or soccer...or tennis. That's become these games have it down. They are good at determining who's better than who.

We want that clarity in our fighting games, don't we?

Also I don't know how you feel about naruto or anime fighters, but the Naruto Hero games on the PS2 have an interesting system that deals with combos. As long as you have chakra (meter) its possible to escape any combo at any time by performing a kawarimi, which teleports you behind your opponent.

Fight till someone runs out of chakra and the person who runs out first will most likely lose.

Interesting...reminds me of GG burst...

In the last Naruto game I played (a few years back for Gamecube), Rock Lee's gate opening super was a little overwhelming...it could hit from anywhere onscreen, and it basically killed you in one hit.

I imagine they've changed things since then...

T.L.D.

P.S. Back to Karate Champ, though...that has to be the perfect fighting game. Every point is earned. No combos. No infinites. Both players have identical movesets. It might be boring...but it ain't broken. If you can beat people in that game, then YOU ARE BETTER THAN THEM IN THAT GAME. No questions asked. Can you always say that with other, more current fighting games?

[Henaki]

Combos should be tactical.

More damage for lack of a knockdown?
Less damage to corner the enemy?
Gain more meter or don't knock the enemy into the corner?
Buy time by using a long, complicated combo?

I think a lot of combos are stupid, but there's some interesting things that can be done, I'd like for SF4 to expand how useful combos are as a choice, not extra damage.

Of course thats my opinion :/

[Hellion]

However, in my proposed system the first hit doesn't guarantee the subsequent hits. Using one of the new defensive "in-stun" options, the opponent could reduce stun time and block the crouch fierce and fireball.
Maybe something Bushido Blade-ish where you're stunned because you blocked wrong and you can dash back out of the way (IN SF2's case, back into the corner. Heh.)
But to go into a block?

If you want to kill said combos I'd rather make it so each successive hit can be landed with link timing but the windows become tighter and tighter and eventually become 2 frame links and 1 frame links rather than deal with letting them go into a block in that scenario.

I do like varied movesets though like Raidens weird looking rekka chain thing that ends with a grab. Perhaps you can make something like that techable but...



Both players have identical movesets. It might be boring...but it ain't broken.

It ain't deep neither.
What'd be the point of having lots of characters if they all played like shoto clones?
Can you say the same in other games?
With all the knowledge and skill and the need to adapt to all the varied tactics you'll run into, I think the answer is undeniably yes.

[BlodiaVulcan5]

the game would be completely boring and tedius.

keep combos in.

[HeaTBlazn]

Ive only read the first post..

and Id like to ask..

do you want this game to be like dead or alive? or what?

being able to counter while your ground comboed?

or do you want it to be like rock paper scissors?

Combos are a part of real fighting man.
if your gonna get hit or knocked down or something, theres no way your opponent is going to give you breathing space.

[Xiii]

However, in my proposed system the first hit doesn't guarantee the subsequent hits. Using one of the new defensive "in-stun" options, the opponent could reduce stun time and block the crouch fierce and fireball.

In your proposed system, how would you deal with the fact that Ryu could just reversal DP after the first hit connects? I don't think a system where you have to guess block on the offensive against any character with a DP to be very fun. Offense comes down to really 2 things hypothetically in a Ryu vs Ryu match, Jump in Fierce -> block or DP so that you might possibly hit first or in most cases you would trade. If you're fighting a character that doesn't have a DP then you could substitute the DP for a throw instead. In theory, I feel tired thinking about it already. Plus most complete combos usually end with a knockdown and that time is when the player that's supposed to be on the defensive recollects their concentration and continue the match. There would be a constant back and forth that would just numb my mind because there isn't any real break until someone lands a knockdown and there really isn't much of a way to do that unless you sweep.

Also in your system, what do you propose we do with say... Ryu's hurricane kick? As it is, he wouldn't use it anymore because it knocks down on hit but there's not really a reliable way of hitting it.

[TS]

This thread should be irrelevant because if every character has anywhere near the same combo ability it's a flaw in the game.

[Mychale]

Whats there not to understand? I don't understand your meaning. Scrubs run the same shit they have been running since I don't know when like ST. Usually they are the casual 3S players that don't want to learn the game anyways and only play on the side. I have had my fill of them to know I assure you. If you don't understand then I suppose thats a good thing. For you :wgrin:

Of course I would love to see combos in SF I mean thats a given. But... I don't want to see the same old shit we have been seeing for over 10 years which people still do and its sickening and if that means taking characters out or drastically changing them; then so be it. We'll see i am sure capcom will do something different with this game.

Apparently all people want out of a NEW game is an old one........

"just make it like SF2"

"no combos they are cheap"

"Only one super bar, like SF2"

etc, we are getting THAT game, its called SF2 HD Remix.......

Which saddens me the most. I know once HD releases all over for Sf4 at least until they realize its basically the same damn game. Much like when A3 came out which i hate btw but, at least it was totally different from A2 and Sf3. So I do hope capcom releases HD first so everyone can get the wackness out of their system once SF4 comes out.

[Aion]

How about ground combo's, where the receiver of attacks still has a chance to reverse/escape the combo?

And juggles should be included, but shouldn't be extensive. Realistically, and extra 1-2 hits maximum (maybe 3); but they shouldn't be floating in the air. It's gotta be realistic so a low-mid height launch where the opponent falls down real fast, so you have to make use of the opportunity real fast; so you can either jump in the air and like, kick them back down for more damage, or stay on the ground and time something like a mid roundhouse to connect with the opponent as they fall.

So you've got to be real quick to capitalize on your openings, meaning that it ALWAYS takes skill, thus meaning you always earned that extra damage.

There should be no techs of course.

[tataki]

last time i checked, doing some combos = FUN. doesn't matter if they are easy or hard, even tho i prefer easy. AC jam loop is pretty easy and it's just fun for me to do...
combos also impress the casual people and lure them to the game. (the marvel series is what brought many of today's fighting game players to try the genre)
and if you haven't noticed the best combos can only be done if you are really close to the opponent. and poking from max range won't get you as much combo ability (=damage). better options are your reward for getting in really close which isn't an easy task. kinda like SPD.
also what henaki said.

[Khiempossible]

options during hitstun? go play doa. Speaking of which, it's gameplay that makes combos seem good or bad. ST is full of Touch of Death combos, but they rarely come into play because their incredibly difficult to land. What you're really looking for are approriately balanced risk/reward scenerios. The harder it is to setup the combo the more damage the combo should do. That's why people hate activate so much. It counters every move in the game and is safe if you fuck up.

[The Lone Dragon]

In your proposed system, how would you deal with the fact that Ryu could just reversal DP after the first hit connects? I don't think a system where you have to guess block on the offensive against any character with a DP to be very fun.

No, what you're describing is like a "post-hit parry" where you can regain complete control during hit stun....

That's not quite what I had in mind. My idea is to give the defense an opportunity to defend during a hit stun, but not counter attack. So, offensive Ryu would have no fear of a reversal DP from defensive Ryu and could complete his string freely.
It's just that offensive Ryu might not connect successfully on all the subsequent hits.

Think of Weaponlord, where there were lots of different guard stun animations and durations. That's what I have in mind. So, when you successfully peform a hit stun recovery (and that's an IF. All this stuff I'm proposing depends on execution) you will be able to defend, but maybe you go into some special guard animation that lasts longer than the regular guard stun.

So, you'll successfully protect your life bar from the combo, but you allow the offense more time to mount another offensive string or mix-up.

Also in your system, what do you propose we do with say... Ryu's hurricane kick? As it is, he wouldn't use it anymore because it knocks down on hit but there's not really a reliable way of hitting it.

SF3 Hurricane kick? Well, that's not really much of a combo starter anyways, so it could remain unchanged.

SFA3 Hurricane kick? I could see air-control anti-juggle options or tech escapes. Or just leave it as is (lower dizzy-ability, though). It's not the type of combo threat I'm generally concerned with...



A lot of people here seem to think that combos are the only interesting way to inflict damage on your opponent. I mean, there are mix-ups, frame advantage, keep away, zoning/distance, projectiles, and my personal fave GRAPPLING.

Grapplers aren't know for combos, and yet they are still viable and FUN. All the folks from this thread (http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=137188&highlight=grappler ) should be totally be in support of combo de-emphasis...

[Arsenal]

Personally, I disagree...nowadays with the internet and forums like SRK, one person's combo becomes everybody's combo. That's what combo videos are for, right? Combos can be taught. Strategy must be learned.

Although it's true that every character has their own BnB combos, to say that combos do not allow the player's personal style to shine through on his character is incorrect. If you watch RX's Urien and Pierre's Urien, you will see some of the same BnB combos being performed, but you will notice that Pierre rarely goes for anything other than the standard unblockable setups, rarely does Urien's "ping-pong setups, and NEVER does Urien's UOH xx EX Aegis setups. I'm sure that Pierre could do all these things if he wanted to (execution isn't that inhibitive), but he simply elects not to. That is not his personal style.

Conversely, you'll see RX use every Urien trick in the book. Is this because RX might have a greater understanding and knowledge of the character? Yes. But it's also because that's his style; to use cool-looking combos that yield about the same amount of damage/stun than the "vanilla" combos tha Pierre elects to use. To say that "one person's combo becomes everybody's combo" is over-simplifying things too much.

[white shadow]

I'm soooooooooo glad Capcom isn't listening to us.

I don't even know why anyone would worry about scrubs doing dial-a-combos, because if they're so scrubbish you shouldn't have to worry about losing to them unless...

[Arsenal]

I'm soooooooooo glad Capcom isn't listening to us.

I don't even know why anyone would worry about scrubs doing dial-a-combos, because if they're so scrubbish you shouldn't have to worry about losing to them unless...

Exactly. The actual moves/commands/inputs used to deplete your health is irrelevant; it could be a juggle/combo/infinite/loop/super/high damage poke/etc..., it's all the same. The sequence of events leading up to the opportunity to land the death move(s) is where the true fight occurred. EVERY game has it's own bullshit. But like I said, the "bullshit" itself is largely irrelevant. If you're getting hit by someone's bullshit, you have to think to yourself, "what did I do/did he do to put myself in the position I'm currently in?"

[ill_will]

I'm soooooooooo glad Capcom isn't listening to us.



thank you

[UltraDavid]

I don't care about combos at all, they're 100% uninteresting to me. I don't want to bother learning them, I don't think they should be a barrier to entry, and I think it's retarded when new games have these long extended loop combos. Boring!

I don't want no combos because I like the fact that reaction plays at least some part in the game, but I don't want anything more than a few hits.

The length of combos or difficulty of inputs required to deal damage is irrelevant for strategy purposes, but it's not irrelevant for the entry of new gamers. Guess what one of the big reasons I don't play stuff like Arcana Heart or Melty Blood or anyone other than Potemking in GG? What, I'm gonna sit down and learn multiple 20 hit combos? I'll pass, thanks. It's just another stupid barrier between picking up a game and playing strategically.

Options during hitstun? Dumb, yet another strategy-devaluing guess we'd have to deal with.

[The Lone Dragon]

The sequence of events leading up to the opportunity to land the death move(s) is where the true fight occurred.

True. I'm just suggesting that we increase the proportion and influence of the "fight" part, and less of the "death moves" part.


If you're getting hit by someone's bullshit, you have to think to yourself, "what did I do/did he do to put myself in the position I'm currently in?"

You also have to ask "if I can do anything about it". Personally, I'd find the game more enjoyable, more interactive, and more meaningful if the answer is "yes" more often than it is "no."

[Crab_Lips]

A friend of mine can combo like nobody's business. I'm not nearly as good as he as is at using combos.

I beat him more than he beats me!

[Arsenal]

A friend of mine can combo like nobody's business. I'm not nearly as good as he as is at using combos.

I beat him more than he beats me!

Like I said, the actual moves used to deplete your health is irrelevant, it's the sequence of events prior to the move that is where you lose/win the fight.

[white shadow]

You also have to ask "if I can do anything about it". Personally, I'd find the game more enjoyable, more interactive, and more meaningful if the answer is "yes" more often than it is "no."

Most fighting games have multiple defensive maneuvers (Alpha Counters, JDing, Pushblocking, Teching etc...) to counter this, how is that not a limitation of offense?

The way I see it, if the person is able to consistently hit a combo on you, it is simply because they are better offensively than you are defensively, simple as that.

Unless the game's engine was inherently flawed from the beginning or a character is so unbalanced and overpowering that other characters (not the player) cannot defend against such offense, which in that case it means the game or character is "broken."

Seriously, how is a combination not realistic in fighting? They exist in boxing, muay thai, etc... all those sports are filled with combinations.

In my estimation a 34 hit combo that does 25% of an opponent's health is much better than a 3 hit combo that does 80%- regardless of how hard it is to do because there will ALWAYS be players who will push a game to its limits and beyond. Making a combo harder with 2 frame links and other garbage only further separates those who can simply use muscle memory and innate skill, over those who simply persevere to learn the game and combo sequences.

Fighting games are just that, a game that is meant to exhibit fighting, not a fighting simulator. Games = fun, and combos are an addition to increase this fun based on a clever reward system that engages us.

The reason why most players like seeing footsies in fighting game because subconsciously they know that smart, well placed footsies can potentially lead to combos, not because they enjoy the seeing footsies and exclaim, "OMG did you see how he out-poked him there?! Man that was too good!"

Adapt or die, that is the fighting credo I hold true.

[Kamui]

This is a bad idea on so many levels. Combos are more than just a means of dealing big damage when you get an opening. Combos give the offending player far more advanced attack options in a variety of situations. They force the aggressive player to pay close attention to whether their own attacks are hitting or not and make decisions based on the result. They add flexibility. Removing combos or making more changes to something as simple as hit stun would do nothing to increase the complexity of a game when combos already do so much for fighting games.

For example, a basic attack opening for Ken in 3rd Strike is crouching LK x 2. A strong player knows that even if their intuition tells them that their attack is probably going to hit, the defending player still might guess correctly and block the attack. When it hits, the Ken player can cancel into a super to score damage and a knockdown. When blocked, the player doesn't cancel into the super, which has a heavy recovery, and instead goes for a follow-up attack, like walk up throw, crouching MK, walk up crouching LK x 2 to again, etc. In a game without combos, the attacking player never has to make decisions like this, they only have to keep an eye open for their opponent's defensive options, like reversals, or continue attacking.

Additionally, players can also use choose from a variety of different combos to force their opponent into different hazardous situations. Some combos for instance inflict more stun damage than another, but may inflict less overall damage than other combo options (Note, CvS2 Kyo has several combo options like this). A character may have a choice between a combo that inflicts more damage, or a combo that leaves their opponent in a bad position (like near a corner). Long loop combos in some games actually do less damage than shorter combos, but the length of the combo frustrates some players, making it easier to dissect their next attack plan once the combo ends.

If there were no combos, the risk versus reward aspect for fighting games would be terrible. What would you replace the combo with in situations where you get a direct opening, a throw? If that were the case, the throw would have to do a ton of damage to ensure the player receives the damage bonus they deserve for anticipating such a huge mistake. If a throw did that much damage, then it would end up being the dominant attack option during basic close range guessing games, making normal attacks the lesser option. You would then have the increase the damage of normal attacks, which would then end up inflicting too much damage in situations when they shouldn't (like from middle range). You would then have to pad systems with damage modifiers depending on the situation, all because a few players want to simplify a game (I.E. are lazy and don't want to learn better ways to attack - combos). Even then, the attack options available wouldn't have the flexibility of a combo, nor would they look as cool or be as fun to perform.

Finally, there's nothing wrong with wanting to implement systems that encourage memorization and technique. This is a basic foundation for most video games, not just Street Fighter. Combos do exactly that. Taking combos out says you're interested in making a game easier, which is no different from the people that don't like to play "hard games" in general. Yes, occasionally you'll find a player winning because they're good at combos and not because their ability to read their opponent is strong. There's usually nothing wrong with that though, offering a myriad of systems that allows each individual player to use their best asset in battle, whether it's memorization, being a good judge of distance, or reading people well, injects variety and gives everyone a chance to play well. Only in rare circumstances do combos become an actual problem.

[Kamui]

That's a pointless system to have though. You have to think about why the system exists and what it actually does for the game. This is not a system that really takes very much technique, nor does it help make the game more interesting or fun. I'll bet players could learn to buffer the defensive input into other attacks to ensure they escape hitstun whenever they're forced to commit to an action. At high level play, something like this would result in players doing it every single time they get hit, questioning why the game has hitstun at all. Even if with the inescapable guard stun that initiates after they leave hitstun, all you're doing is breaking the game down to individual hits that take less technique to perform. This only makes it easier for less advanced players to attack.


That's not quite what I had in mind. My idea is to give the defense an opportunity to defend during a hit stun, but not counter attack. So, offensive Ryu would have no fear of a reversal DP from defensive Ryu and could complete his string freely.
It's just that offensive Ryu might not connect successfully on all the subsequent hits.

Think of Weaponlord, where there were lots of different guard stun animations and durations. That's what I have in mind. So, when you successfully peform a hit stun recovery (and that's an IF. All this stuff I'm proposing depends on execution) you will be able to defend, but maybe you go into some special guard animation that lasts longer than the regular guard stun.

So, you'll successfully protect your life bar from the combo, but you allow the offense more time to mount another offensive string or mix-up.

[UltraDavid]

From the defending player's point of view, it doesn't make any difference whether Ken's crouching short goes into a super, a custom combo, or just does a lot of damage on its own (assuming all lead to the same post-hit situation); in every case, as far as the defending player is concerned, getting hit with one crouching short leads to getting hurt and getting knocked down. The reason I'm still cool with combos is that, as was mentioned, I like the fact that hitting the opponent with crouching short can lead to multiple things, that is, it's interesting from an offensive point of view.

More importantly, though, I think there is very definitely something wrong with rote memorization. It dissuades a lot of people from picking up games, even for people like me who play fighting games a lot. Like, I'm just not going to bother learning how to play 3S Yun, most of the GG cast, and so forth, because I just don't want to spend the time. If even I'm not going to do it, that says a lot about how open the game can be to people who've never played fighting games before, and that's bad for our scene.

When games have big difficult combos, it takes a long time before new players can even begin to really play. That is, they can pick up CvS2 A-Bison, and they might even know that he's really good, but if they can't paint the fence they really aren't playing A-Bison; not until they master that annoying technique can they say otherwise. And again, that's bad news for our scene, because for new players, the main draw our games have (the strategy) is obscured in a lot of flashy nonsense.

Plus game designers consistently create characters and game engines that result in very high damage, but they believe that that damage is balanced out by the fact that performing it is very difficult; see everything from VCs to A-groove to 3S Yun. The fact that something is difficult does not mean it's less useful, it only means that fewer people can use it successfully.

Combos are fine as an idea; big combos are retarded and harmful to the strategy and the scene.

[Arsenal]

From the defending player's point of view, it doesn't make any difference whether Ken's crouching short goes into a super, a custom combo, or just does a lot of damage on its own (assuming all lead to the same post-hit situation); in every case, as far as the defending player is concerned, getting hit with one crouching short leads to getting hurt and getting knocked down. The reason I'm still cool with combos is that, as was mentioned, I like the fact that hitting the opponent with crouching short can lead to multiple things, that is, it's interesting from an offensive point of view.

I disagree with this sentiment. How is the offensive character's move branches not interesting to the defender, when it's up to the defender to use the information available to formulate a counter-attack/appropriate block pattern? If I'm the defender, and you hit me with Ken's crouching short, it makes a difference to me what the character's able to do, what the player usually does out of habit, what the risk/reward is for that choice, and how all those things effects factors other than damage dealt and knock down.

[UltraDavid]

It doesn't make a difference if, as I assumed, the outcome is the same with any of the attacker's options. I just assumed this to illustrate the fact that combos, as combos, are uninteresting strategically. The only time they become interesting, and the only reason I want combos, is that sometimes they lead to different things, and when that's the case the defender might have to play differently under some circumstances.

[Keits]

For example, look at Hanzo from Samurai Shodown. Usually in fighting games, when the other player hits you and you aren't blocking, your defensive options are exhausted. You simply go into the stun animation and wait for it to finish, hoping they won't hit you some more. However, Hanzo and Galford have a move where you hold LK during the stun animation, and he teleports outta there.


That's the type of thing I have in mind. Defensive options DURING the stun animation. Perhaps if you press the correct button at the right time, it can shorten the stun length...or can alter the animation so that you evade subsequent attacks...or it decreases damage...etc.





I take it you haven't played Naruto Gekitou Ninja Taisen for gamecube then?

[Luigi-Bo 87]

Kakashi ftw chumps! I've only payed the first one, but me and my friend would go back and forth with the teleport shit until one finally ran out of meter. They should add a counter button but have it not be broke ass like in DOA.

[Keits]

GNT4 is the most playable version, but even it has tons of broke shit. Still really fun though.

[ShinGouki00]

I saw this crazy japanese tactic that they use to prevent combos in japan.

It's SO SICK.

It was called BLOCKING.

[Keits]

In japan, its called Guarding. Blocking is Parrying.

[Mychale]

Lol. You guys tickle me. I say fuck the foundation and totally change the fundamentals as we know them to be. I'm sick of these scrubs coming running the same old short short jab combo bullshit. I say this a million times. How can the series go anywhere if we are stuck in this comfort zone. Thats just my opinion of course.

[Darkside3024]

Just make it look like the fucking trailer.

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Oro's Other Arm]

I love fighting games, but I hate rote. I like smaller, shorter combos because I want there to be something more to comboing than the "lather, rinse, repeat" of "learn a combo, execute the combo 1,000 times, memorize" that usually comes with the longer ones. I don't want them to be such a big part of the game that if I don't want to spend days perfecting a small handful of combos for one character then I can't play the game.

[Radiantsilvergun3]

I can't believe someone negged me for my first post. Jeeze.

[ElderGOD]

If you don't like combos there's always SF2. If you love them then there's MvC2.

SF4 should be a good balance.

I like the combo system in 3S.

[SnickerSnack]

@ Lone Dragon:

Not to be offensive, but I really think that, if I understood you correctly, the reasons you give for the removal of guaranteed combos are completely pointless: your biggest point is that combos allow "extra" guaranteed damage, but this begs the question: At which point the damage becomes "extra" damage?. You seem to be taking only number of hits into account, and that makes no sense.

As an example: I'm playing Dic in ST and I have no charge, playing against Ken. Ken whiffs a jab DP while I'm not too close to him: I'll probably punish him with standing RH.

Meanwhile, my evil twin is playing Robo-ky in a GG machine just besides me. He has no tension and is playing against Sol. Sol has S VV blocked: My evil twin will probably punish Sol with a short gatling to knockdown to mat.

Which one of these is the one giving me "extra" damage? The second example? Just because it has a bigger number of hits?

My point is that the fact that whether the damage comes or not from multiple hits is highly irrelevant to the point you're trying to make. Which is not to say that having combos doesn't alter the way the game works in multiple ways, just that your particular reason doesn't makes too much sense to me. If you want more instances of interactivity in any given round (that's not necessarily a good thing) you might just as easily reduce the overall damage output of the game: A game where every hit leads to combos with 50 hits and every hit causes 1 pixel of damage is, in this regard, the same as a game where every normal causes 50 pixels of damage, supposing the opponents end up in the same position afterwards (the former would be considerably more boring, though).

Having that said, combos definetly alter the way the game is. Here are some pros and cons to combos, in the way I see it:

Pros:
-Allow multiple positional and damage options from the same connected move, permiting such things as choice between knockdown and little damage, high damage but no knockdown, different positional advantage depending on your gameplan, etc.
-Force player to react to see whether or not his move really conected, and how it connected, for proper followup. This should be clear enough.
-Allow another form of reward from positional advantage. Some combos are only possible from specific positions or situations, and this may or may not be your character's "best" position for the match, allowing interesting choices of management of risk/reward. This also ties with next point.
-Allow gross mistakes to be punished for high damage without necessarily overpowering individual moves. If a person whiffs a VV against my Robo when I have full gauge he will probably eat a LOT of damage, which is understandable, while adding a single move that caused that much damage would most likely be completely bah-roken.
-If not excessive, makes the game more entertaining to watch. That is actually pretty good to attract new players.

Cons.
-Often require excessive non-strategically relevant skills, desencouraging many players by requiring that they have to spend countless hours hitting a dummy before they can even start to really play.
-Most likely a lot harder to balance (that's might be just uninformed opinion, though).
-Contributes to the creation of the scrubby types who think knowing combos=skill.
-If excessive, might make the game really boring to watch (see: A3 infinites).

There's probably a lot more of both pros and cons that I just can't think of, right now.

All in all, I'm all for having a simple, easy to learn, combo system with strategical relevance (lots of choices from it, position and move-dependant combos, etc.).

I just wold like to point out that how combos are dealt with in a game also significantly alters how the game "feels", which has actually quite a lot of relevance.. at least to me. I wouldn't like to see a SF with GG-like combos, for example.

[UCRJesse]

The idea of this thread is fucking dumb. Basically you just want to play double dragon vs. mode and have no combos? Fighting games are not beat em ups so I'm sorry that you have to have execution to play them. The big 3 games have such versatility to their combo systems that allow for different ways to decide on the fly what you want the outcome to be, whether you are going to sacrifice a little damage for better position, or whether you're going to go for an easier combo because you know you'll execute 100 percent.

[CrimsonDisaster]

Where were these kinds of threads back when 90% of the US just did low fierce in CvS2?

[Crap]

Lol. You guys tickle me. I say fuck the foundation and totally change the fundamentals as we know them to be. I'm sick of these scrubs coming running the same old short short jab combo bullshit. I say this a million times. How can the series go anywhere if we are stuck in this comfort zone. Thats just my opinion of course.

By that logic, the smash community is scrubs for being gay for FD.

hmm....you may be right...

Wait...its true. Why lay in the past? The point of sequels is to EVOLVE!

[ElderGOD]

Where were these kinds of threads back when 90% of the US just did low fierce in CvS2?

Too busy complaining about CC's and roll cancels, then came the broken c.fierce threads.

[CrimsonDisaster]

Too busy complaining about CC's and roll cancels, then came the broken c.fierce threads.

Actually there wasn't all that much whining about CCs and RCs at first... but there has almost always been whining about c.fierce.

[Hellion]

Actually there wasn't all that much whining about CCs and RCs at first... but there has almost always been whining about c.fierce.

I think the evolution there was first
c.fierce -(d.hp with tiny feet walkin right)->RC's (morph to blanka ball to the right)->CC's (Morph to shosho):rofl:

[MuD]

WITHOUT reading the (entire) thread:

How about a technique that just makes you fall? I mean, youre getting juggled or combo'd, and you use meter to just make the next move whiff. Like old school games when you were blinking, and moves would just go through you. Maybe with some pushback.

And to keep it from being too turtley (sp?), make it make youre total meter capacity diminish. Like, after you use it, you cant use lvl 3 supers cuz it your meter wont fill enough. And the more you use it the higher the rate of degradation. So it can save you, but it costs you.

[alchemist78]

Yeah I hate super long combos I can't get out of. But I do like combos such as Akumas LK, LK Tatsu, HP Shoryu in 3S. Its effective damage wise, but doesnt go for ages.

[The Lone Dragon]

First of all, I'd like to get something very clear.

A single hit that does 50% damage is NOT the same as a 10 hit combo that does 50% damage.

Theoretically, they seem the same. And, after the fact, they seem the same. But, in terms of game design and balance, they are totally different.

A game designer WILL NOT let a one-hit 50% damage move get out the front door without balancing the heck out of it. However, a 10-hit combo that does 50 damage is much harder to balance because it's harder to predict. Game designers cannot possibly predict EVERY combo that the crazy fighting game community can come up with. Designers have a deadline. Players don't.

Look at SFA3. Zangief's level 3 FAB does about 50 or so (a single move). So does a good V-ism combo from Akuma or Ryu (a combo move). Both can do similar damage. But, which is easier to get your opponent into? Which is safer to attempt? Which is more of an immediate threat at any given moment? V-ism, V-ism, and V-ism. That's why you see videos
with V-ism characters dancing hesitantly around each other. The wrong twitch can cost you half your life. That's simply not true with FAB. Or any other single-move super.

You see, Capcom couldn't possibly have predicted how overwhelming V-ism combos would be. Otherwise, they would have simply ditched A-ism and X-ism, because V-ism dominates them.

There are lots of single hit, big damage moves, but they're generally balanced and made fair by start-up, punishability, avoidability.
Combos, on the other hand, are often the things in fighting games that lead to top-tierism.

Chun-Li in Third Strike, anyone? Yun in Third Strike? Infinites in...any game? Look at Tekken 5, and the characters that were considered top-tier there. They had NICE combos and follow-ups that were unavoidable. And, easy.

Single hits = easy to balance
Combos = harder to balance

THAT'S the difference.



Adapt or die, that is the fighting credo I hold true.

Adapt to what? This is a proposition for a game that hasn't come out yet, so we're not obligated to adapt to anything. This is supposed to be a brand new game.

And, just so y'all know, it's not as if I've been boycotting fighting games until now. I've been playing and enjoying fighting games for a good 20 years now. And, I use combos when I need to. All I'm doing now is making a suggestion for a possible new direction. SF4 has to redefine itself for the new age.

It's not "adapt or die". It's "evolve or die".

This is not a system that really takes very much technique, nor does it help make the game more interesting or fun.

How could you possibly know that when we haven't specified any details whatsoever about execution of this system? First of all, I would definitely prefer that the hit-stun recovery require skill and timing (no mashing).

I'll bet players could learn to buffer the defensive input into other attacks to ensure they escape hitstun whenever they're forced to commit to an action.

Second, WHO EVER SAID THIS OPTION SHOULD BE FREE? I think it should require a sacrifice of life and/or meter. That way it doesn't really matter if expert gamers can do it every time. They won't want to. It would be yet another decision that players must make, which adds
dimension to gameplay. Decision making seems to be important to you, right?


Combos give the offending player far more advanced attack options in a variety of situations. They force the aggressive player to pay close attention to whether their own attacks are hitting or not and make decisions based on the result. They add
flexibility. Removing combos or making more changes to something as simple as hit stun would do nothing to increase the complexity of a game when combos already do so much for fighting games.


Like I said above, the hit stun recovery option would not be free. This means that after the first hit connects, the person on the defense will lose something, no matter what.

Allow me to illustrate:

Scenario 1: Ken does LK X 2, and player 2 blocks it. So, Ken decides not to cancel into super, for fear of punishment.

Scenario 2: Ken does LK X 2, and player 2 gets hit. So, Ken decides to cancel into super. Player 2 chooses not to use hit-stun recovery because player 2 doesn't want to sacrifice the life/meter needed to activate it. Player 2 eats the super combo.

Scenario 3: Ken does LK X 2, and player 2 gets hit. So, Ken decides to cancel into super. Player 2 chooses to use hit-stun recovery, and is protected against subsequent hits from
the super combo (tick damage still hurts, though). However, player had to sacrifice meter/damage to do this. Plus, the hit-stun recovery time is longer that regular guarding recovery time, so Ken is safe from
punishment in either Scenario 2 OR 3.

As you can see, Ken is STILL encouraged to hit-confirm, and commit to super when his LK X 2 connects. The hit-confirm decision making process is still intact. It's just a little different.

Actually, there are now MORE decisions to be made on BOTH sides, offense and defense.

You have to think about why the system exists and what it actually does for the game.

It exists to let the defense mitigate the effect of combos...STRATEGICALLY.

It also serves at a way to revolutionize a game system that's been in place for nearly 20 years. SF4 IS A NEW GAME. This thread is simply a suggestion for a new direction, folks. That's all.

Instead of finding a possible problems with my system, why not think of ways of adjusting it to solve these possible problems? That would be more productive for everyone, and we'd actually have a shiny new game system to show for our troubles.

After all, none of this is set in stone...it's just an idea that's open to input.

The idea of this thread is fucking dumb. Basically you just want to play double dragon vs. mode and have no combos?

BTW, let me differentiate between "combos" and "combinations".

"Combos" (sequences of guaranteed hits that come after a successful first hit) are what my system deemphasizes...

"Combinations" (sequences of attacks that flow together such as two-in-ones or strings) are still encouraged. So, no this won't turn into a poke-fest or "Double Dragon". You are still encouraged to
link attacks together, and pressure your opponent with them.

I can't believe someone negged me for my first post.

Jeeze.

That's okay...people have negged me bacause they disagree with me. On a discussion forum. Imagine that...

But, if people always kept their mouths shut for fear of disapproval, we'd never evolve.

So, speak your mind. Get your ideas out there.

[SnickerSnack]

I'm gonna assume that a portion of The Lone Dragon's last post was, at least in part, directed at my previous post.

First of all, I'd like to get something very clear.

A single hit that does 50% damage is NOT the same as a 10 hit combo that does 50% damage.

Theoretically, they seem the same. And, after the fact, they seem the same. But, in terms of game design and balance, they are totally different.

<SNIP>

Single hits = easy to balance
Combos = harder to balance

THAT'S the difference.

Dude.. I even said that in my previous post, here, referring to combos:

-Most likely a lot harder to balance (that's might be just uninformed opinion, though).

And this also has relevance on the issue:

-Allow gross mistakes to be punished for high damage without necessarily overpowering individual moves. If a person whiffs a VV against my Robo when I have full gauge he will probably eat a LOT of damage, which is understandable, while adding a single move that caused that much damage would most likely be completely bah-roken.

My point wasn't that single hits and multiple hits are the same in every single situation, my last post was particularly adressing what I considered the main "reason" for the creation of this theoretical system (though I *should* have made myself clearer), the specific mentality that can be represented by these quotes:

Nowadays, the preferred (and effective) strategy is to "take the fight away from your opponent" rather than "fight better than your opponent"...this is a direct result of the existence of "the combo". Why ENGAGE your opponent in a true contest, when it's easier to DISABLE your opponent and inflict damage uncontested? That's exactly what a combo does, after all.

All of this extra damage, after the initial hit, is UNCONTESTED. Player 2 has little to no opportunity to defend against it. By definition, this is not a "fight".

Player 2 can't tech out or defend. All they can do is wait for Player 1 to finish. Uninvolved. By definition, this is not a "fight".

The same is true for any combo heavy game where simple, basic launchers or starters can lead to extra, uncontested, substantial damage. The "fight", by definition, is lost.

As you can see, "combos" are NOT the preferred method of determining a winner...even if they are fun to perform.

Imagine a game where you actually have to work for every last bit of damage you inflict...and you get a chance to contest every bit of damage inflicted upon you.

I.e. putting the "fight" back in fighting games.

Wouldn't the winner of THIS style of match TRULY be the better player?

My previous post's point can, more simply, be expressed with these questions: Why is hitting a character with a single move that causes X damage more of a "fight" than a small series of assured hits that cause the same? How does it makes one a better player? How is it any less uncontested damage?

[CrimsonDisaster]

The Lone Dragon:
I would type an essay on why your idea is flawed, but the easiest way to put it is that your ideas for implementation just don't work since they're being applied to a simplistic idea of combos as extra damage, without looking at the implications of messing with the things that make combos work (hitstun, mostly).
You're also not thinking through the balancing of your own idea, either. Hitstun-recovery adds extra blockstun and does damage to you?
In the Ken example floating around, all this leads to is Ken doing short short, look for hit-stun-recovery, throw/strike mixup either way (except the defensive player bones themself even harder if they did it). This becomes even worse of an issue if you don't let people do it after a super-flash or in the middle of supers (because when else are you going to pay that kind of cost for a move)- instead of adding a viable defensive option, it makes the offense even more potent because he can still do his basic mixups except now the defender can just arbitrarily hurt themselves and still be left in pressure.
And if you tie this hitstun-recovery to your life or super meter, it further encourages the "build-meter-and-wait" kind of gameplay... if the hitstun-recovery mechanic isn't totally worthless, or banned because it's broken.

You would have to think this system through a lot better... and really, Guilty Gear already has a workable system of this mechanic in bursts, which are way better implemented than your idea. Bursts create all kinds of decision-making points without dumbing down the attacker/defender dynamic (it actually matters if you get hit,, and since the cost of bursts isn't tied to your super meter, using your burst doesn't kill your ability to attack or defend.
On the flip side, Big Bang Beat has a high-cost hitstun-recovery option (tied to your super meter) that can be done in juggles and/or right after a superflash, and that is one of the mechanics that makes BBB a hilariously broken game.

[The Lone Dragon]

I'm gonna assume that a portion of The Lone Dragon's last post was, at least in part, directed at my previous post.



Dude.. I even said that in my previous post, here, referring to combos:



Actually, that was directed to everyone who's been saying that damage is damage regardless of how it's inflicted. And, a lot of people have been saying it...



My previous post's point can, more simply, be expressed with these questions: Why is hitting a character with a single move that causes X damage more of a "fight" than a small series of assured hits that cause the same? How does it makes one a better player? How is it any less uncontested damage?

Because, the series of hits is probably a degree easier to initiate that the single hit, due to the balancing issues we both acknowledged. The more hits to a combo, the more likely it is that the designer did not predict it or did not effectively balance it.

The Lone Dragon:
You're also not thinking through the balancing of your own idea, either. Hitstun-recovery adds extra blockstun and does damage to you?
In the Ken example floating around, all this leads to is Ken doing short short, look for hit-stun-recovery, throw/strike mixup either way (except the defensive player bones themself even harder if they did it).

How is this option-confirm any different than the traditional one?
Currently, in traditional SF3, all Ken has to do is look for hit connect, then he can just complete his super.

My suggestion might even lead to THREE different option-confirm possibilities: block, hit, or stun-recover. How would you react to each? More depth for both sides.

Also, doesn't the degree of "bonage" you mentioned depend on the degree of damage sacrificed? Or the degree of meter sacrificed? Or the state the defender is left in post hit-stun recovery? And his/her options during hit stun recover? What if the stun-recover animation causes the activator to roll away safely. Or what if it doesn't? The point is that NONE of this has been defined yet, and it would be crucial to determining how flawed this system is.

You would have to think this system through a lot better...

True...unfortunately, I don't have a team of play testers to try out my theories. Nothing described here is set in stone. Of course, I'd (or "WE'D", which I'd prefer) have to develop it more. Everything here is just for example, and it could benefit from tweaking. It's the IDEA I'm selling.

And, I definitely don't think my idea is dead in the water, doomed to fail.

It's different than what we're used to, hence the general outcry against it. Change is tough. No one wants to do it. I'm sure parrying got burned at the state when it was first proposed. Alpha counters...burst...V-ism...ditto. People have since accepted it all.

Still, there has been some support, throughout the thread if you look for it.

[BigRick70]

I don't really like that hit-stun recovery idea... it might give to defenders the option to reduce damage taken however, it doesn't really add much to the offensive side of the ball. CrimsonDisaster is also right when he mentioned that the game might become more meter-dependant if you tie this mechanic to the super meter.

Guilty Gear has already a better system in place with Burst.
Also Smash Bros. has a cool system in place called directional influence (DI).

Basically what DI does is that you can affect the direction in which you are sent flying... hold left and you'll be sent a little bit more to the left, hold right and you'll be sent a little bit more to the right. DI makes the defender stay in the ''fight'' even though he is in hitstun because he can affect his opponent's combos. Good DI from the defender will either allow him to escape from damage or take reduced damage. On the other hand, bad DI will allow your opponent to combo you longer. Sometimes there's even room for guessing games between attacker and defender, so there's a lot of depth in there.

I'm not against the fact that you want to give options to the defender when he's being comboed, but you don't really need it in a game like SF3 where combos aren't that long in the first place (minus the genei-jin and the juggles). If the engine leaves room for longer combos, then that kind of system becomes necessary.

For a new system, I would suggest something more visual than just hitstun recovery. Something like being able to choose to fall on the ground after certain attacks could work, if we put some OTG attacks in there. In that kind of system, the defender could choose to not take damage and choose to put himself in a disadvantageous position, however the attacker might be able to deal more damage if he reads that move.

[Kuprin]

Honestly I like the idea of breaking and defensive moves, but make combos more flexible. The simplest thing, as much as I don't like parries, is red parry out of hit stun. Then you have to mix up DURING your combo as much as setting it up, and the mind games become constant, rather than in spikes. Now, if we had something that worked *sort of* like a parry, but only during hit stun, we'd be set. Perhaps make a "super version" of that as well, like an Alpha Counter? An example would be:
Ken goes low strong into shoryuken. Zangief gets hit by the low strong, but as Ken launches himself into the Shoryuken, Gief sees it coming and grabs him out of it. No massive damage or anything, but enough to make Ken think twice about being predictable.

Some moves should be so fast they just combo, though - you shouldn't be able to break multi-hit supers, etc; MAYBE the slower spin moves, but not faster ones like Necro's EX tornado, or Rolento's baton roll. Stopping that shit comes once, or is very hard.

[azis]

I like this idea, and I share some thoughts.

I think that, rather than taking combos out, I could be less damaging, with the "damage reducer" curve more proeminent, and, as classical SF (not Alpha 3, for example), combos should be naturally just few hits, unless if it includes Supers.

You just want to aim for strategy, and I like it.

But for some risks, there should be also rewards, and combos are one. It rewards the attacker for opening the guard. Otherwise, turtles would be always in advantage.

[Ninja Wallace]

I don't think this is a bad idea. If done right, it could work really well. I just don't think it's for Street Fighter.

[aykay]

play fight night round 3 if you want a game like this. (tip tap counter sway tip tap THWACK stagger tip tap hug tip tap sway counter sway tap tap DING DING DING!!)

I like street fighter because it's street fighter. make a sf game that's NOT street fighter and watch me not play it.

[The Lone Dragon]

CrimsonDisaster is also right when he mentioned that the game might become more meter-dependant if you tie this mechanic to the super meter.

Well, SF is pretty super dependent as it is (V-ism, alpha counters, 3S Chun-Li, 3S Yun) but, I wouldn't be opposed to a seperate Burst-like meter. Of course, the introduction of yet another meter on screen might scare casuals away...

Basically what DI does is that you can affect the direction in which you are sent flying... hold left and you'll be sent a little bit more to the left, hold right and you'll be sent a little bit more to the right.

Like Soul Calbur's air-control? I mentioned something like that before...I think it could work. It would definitely add a new dimension...

For a new system, I would suggest something more visual than just hitstun recovery. Something like being able to choose to fall on the ground after certain attacks could work, if we put some OTG attacks in there.

Someone else suggested something like that. Actually, Sophitia's knee throw from Soul Calibur 2 has something like that, doesn't it? I think if you hold down during it, your character falls to the ground preventing Soph from following up.

Honestly I like the idea of breaking and defensive moves, but make combos more flexible. The simplest thing, as much as I don't like parries, is red parry out of hit stun. Then you have to mix up DURING your combo as much as setting it up, and the mind games become constant, rather than in spikes.

I was afraid to use the word "parry", because I thought people would freak out even more...but, yeah, I was toying with the idea of a hit-stun parry. But, unlike regular parries, stun recovery parries wouldn't let you counter attack immediately. They'd only reduce damage or prevent you from being launched...

I don't think this is a bad idea. If done right, it could work really well. I just don't think it's for Street Fighter.

I like street fighter because it's street fighter. make a sf game that's NOT street fighter and watch me not play it.

I don't know...it's hard to innovate and evolve without breaking SOME rules. Every SF sequel has added something that would have been considered blasphemy once upon a time. Air-recovery, air-blocking, super moves, grooves, guard breaks, throw escapes, alpha counters, parrying...

I don't think this system HAS to be any different from those ideas...depending on how it's implemented.

[Shungokustasu]

You gave every example about sports except the one sport that is similar to fighting games. Boxing. No 1 uppercut then back to your corner bull-crap there.

[margalis]

There is nothing wrong with combos, the problem is with long boring combos and skewed risk/reward.

In SF2 the only time you land a long combo is if you knock someone down at close range and then cross them up or jump over a fireball at the right time. Pretty fair. In SF3 you can hit confirm off a low short - dumb.

In SF2 fireballs are powerful so it makes sense that jumping over one with good timing gives a good payoff. Similarly knocking someone down at close range then crossing them up is not very easy to do either.

The best way to think about combos is to think of them as single moves that do that same damage as the combo did. Does it make sense that jumping over a fireball and kicking someone does 40% damage? Sure kindof, fireballs are really strong so you take extra damage during the fireball animation...does it make sense that a random low short does 40% damage? Uh...not really!

Hit confirming a low short into super has exactly the same risk as doing a low short without meter, has basically no risk, and suddenly is super powerful. It just doesn't make sense.

Edit: Drat callmeanewb beat me to it:


it's gameplay that makes combos seem good or bad. ST is full of Touch of Death combos, but they rarely come into play because their incredibly difficult to land. What you're really looking for are approriately balanced risk/reward scenerios. The harder it is to setup the combo the more damage the combo should do. That's why people hate activate so much. It counters every move in the game and is safe if you fuck up.


High five callmeanewb!

[The Lone Dragon]

You gave every example about sports except the one sport that is similar to fighting games. Boxing. No 1 uppercut then back to your corner bull-crap there.

In boxing or UFC or MMA or whatever, there are no set hit stuns where one fighter is obligated to stand still with arms down while the other fighter gets to hit again free of charge.

That phenomenon is the real "bull-crap."

In real fights like boxing, both fighters are always moving, even when getting punched. There are no free hits. You can strike your opponent dead on in the face, and still get KO'd from the side by a punch your opponent initiated before you hit them. The decision making process on both sides is continuous.

There are "combinations", of course. But, "combos" are rare, unless one person REALLY hits the crap out of the other and dazes the opponent...in which case, the fight is probably over already.

There is nothing wrong with combos, the problem is with long boring combos and skewed risk/reward.

Exactly. And, combos are more likely to have a skewed risk/reward ratio than single hits. That's why I recommend regulating them more.

[polarity]

im glad i dont feel compelled to have a huge drawn out argument with you like i did with others in the parry thread because thankfully theres absolutely no chance anyone will ever listen to you<