[CP] News and Gameplay Discussion 2.0

[Litherain-XIII]

So why call makoto "honest" if she has a DP? Im curious to know by that logic lol

[StylisH]

I'd rather deal with straightforward characters like Ragna at S than the ones that can just vortex you to death.

 

My feelings are hurt.  I rather enjoy vortex characters....

[TagerTime]

Would you say it's...  Tager time?

 

 

*runs*

 

Bravo!! good sir, Bravo!!

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1233928590_citizen%20kane%20clapping.gif

[chzchan]

What's your definition of honest, then? Cuz Ragna is like, the definition of honest, IMO.

 

I view honesty from a risk + effort vs reward perspective. For example, if a character has a move that can be easily used in neutral with minimal repercussions that has a great hitbox structure, that is dishonest to me. But risk + effort is not limited to hitbox structure, but can include gameplan and properties of normals/specials. Also reward is not just damage, but final positioning, placement, overall resource gain, psychological advantage, etc.

 

Like a character can still be really bad, but have really dishonest moves and things they can do. I hear honesty often associated with how bad/weak a character is, but even bad characters have dishonest things they can do. Tsubaki, for instance, can make her DP slightly safer and prevent the opponent from getting a CH with their punish. From my perspective that is dishonest.

 

I have a feeling I will have a really difficult time explaining this and that I am probably severely misinterpreting "honesty" whatever the hell it may mean. It is good to get different perspectives, so I am going to ask what makes a character honest to you? I'm still really confused too.

[Tenryuga]

Xplain how Ragna and Jin are dishonest in 2.0. Is it because they have good things and are easy?

[Argent Zero]

(｀・ω・´) <  People who get tricked by the dishonest things are at fault

[chzchan]

 

Xplain how Ragna and Jin are dishonest in 2.0. Is it because they have good things and are easy?

 

I'm actually just waiting for someone to start proving me wrong instead of asking me to prove myself correct because I really have no idea if I should continue with my explanation with how wrong I could be about everything.

 

Also it isn't a 2.0 only thing. One other thing to note is that characters aren't completely honest or dishonest, but they have honest and dishonest things that they can do. It is a net value kind of thing to me. Like there are no characters that are 100% honest, but there are ones that are more honest than others. Again, this is based on my acute distorted view on all of this. Hell, I don't even think that what I am referring to should be labelled as honesty at all, but I can't think of another word for it.

[AchedSphinx]

The most honest character is Bang because he tells you everything he's doing as he's doing it.

[7thFonon]

I view honesty from a risk + effort vs reward perspective. For example, if a character has a move that can be easily used in neutral with minimal repercussions that has a great hitbox structure, that is dishonest to me. But risk + effort is not limited to hitbox structure, but can include gameplan and properties of normals/specials. Also reward is not just damage, but final positioning, placement, overall resource gain, psychological advantage, etc.

 

Like a character can still be really bad, but have really dishonest moves and things they can do. I hear honesty often associated with how bad/weak a character is, but even bad characters have dishonest things they can do. Tsubaki, for instance, can make her DP slightly safer and prevent the opponent from getting a CH with their punish. From my perspective that is dishonest.

 

I have a feeling I will have a really difficult time explaining this and that I am probably severely misinterpreting "honesty" whatever the hell it may mean. It is good to get different perspectives, so I am going to ask what makes a character honest to you? I'm still really confused too.

 

Having a good / safe neutral or strong hitboxes doesn't necessarily mean a character is dishonest though..... It does however mean your opponent might be forced to play an honest match with you. Which is a completely different thing (actually the exact opposite of dishonest).

 

When I look at what makes a character dishonest, it's usually is stuff like  -extremly high damage output for little risk that can be set up practically / regularly during matches  -strong / unseeable mixups that lead into more strong / unseeable mixups even if they're successfully blocked  -options that can easily punish the opponent with high damage while also being relatively safe to their opponent's options.

 

But yeah, pretty much it just has a lot to do with risk vs reward like you said.

[TITANIUM BEAST!!!]

So I can tell this discussion is probably going to devolve into silly stuff, but I'll just put forth how I feel and leave it at that.

 

Ragna is an "honest" character, IMO, because there is nothing overtly tricky or overpowered about the character. He does not have any really powerful mixups, no really confusing movement, no silly wakeup setups, nothing. He is a straight up neutral character that has to win by playing the neutral game better than the other player. He is very well equipped at neutral., but as noted over the history of the game, characters who play ranged game better than him tend to give him problems, and I think this is due to the fact that not only do they beat him at his own game, but if he actually gets in on them, it's challenging to break defense with him (you have to somehow trick the other person).

 

The only vaguely BS thing about Ragna, IMO, is his uppercut, because the invincibility is nuts and it's generally an effective tool to have in a game like BB, where offense tends to have big gaps.

Of note is that the only time Ragna ends up being a high ranked character tends to be when his damage off of his neutral game gets excessive (see CS1 and Extend), and even in these cases, characters who play neutral better still beat him, which is why he dropped in rank over time during CS1. With a lot of characters getting nerfed in CP2 and his damage once again being buffed to nutty levels, it makes sense that he would at least start out at the top. But given the nature of his character, only time will tell whether he'll stay there.

[chzchan]

I don't want it to devolve into silly stuff, but I guess it isn't a good idea to let it go on for long because it is only related to 2.0 and news by a tangent. I guess I understand your perspective now, though you do say that his uppercut is sorta BS which kind of sort of goes along with characters having certain aspects of them that are honest/dishonest. Thanks for the information.

 

Having a good / safe neutral or strong hitboxes doesn't necessarily mean a character is dishonest though..... It does however mean your opponent might be forced to play an honest match with you. Which is a completely different thing (actually the exact opposite of dishonest).

 

When I look at what makes a character dishonest, it's usually is stuff like  -extremly high damage output for little risk that can be set up practically / regularly during matches  -strong / unseeable mixups that lead into more strong / unseeable mixups even if they're successfully blocked  -options that can easily punish the opponent with high damage while also being relatively safe to their opponent's options.

 

But yeah, pretty much it just has a lot to do with risk vs reward like you said.

 

I agree with you. I'm going to use Nu-13 as an example here even though I don't have too much experience with her, so mains correct me if I am wrong.

 

I see her neutral game as honest because, even though it is incredibly powerful, if she makes a mistake, she will get completely screwed. There is nothing to cover bad or scrubby gameplay, at least in 1.X. Whiffing something as her means death, so I feel like the ratio is balanced. Then there's Azrael where you have to question whether it is even a good idea to try to attack him if he whiffs anything due to ridiculously low recovery and long active frames. I could also use the example I made of Tsubaki's DP that can be made safe because that option can be used to cover a huge mistake and mitigate risk.

[TITANIUM BEAST!!!]

The reason I used the word vaguely there is that uppercuts are pretty much part of 2D fighters, and Ragna still takes a huge risk for a fairly low return when he attempts one. The only time there's no risk attached is when you have meter and you know for sure that you're not gonna whiff. Playing around those limitations can be pretty simple for some characters when they fight him.

[chzchan]

Oh, well I take meter into account when I put all the characters on a scale since all characters have lower risk with meter if they are willing to spend it that way. It is already zeroed with meter on the scale.

[Appledash-]

Well even if Ragna uses meter to rc ID that's still a significant commitment of resources that he isn't always able to do. And of course if he whiffs that's still going to be a counter hit combo meter or not.

I always thought "honest" referred to characters with straightforward tactics and game play. The more basic a character is the more honest they seem to become, because they're tools are usually more focused on fundamental aspects of game play.

Sent from my RM-917_nam_usa_100 using Tapatalk

[Errol]

The reason I used the word vaguely there is that uppercuts are pretty much part of 2D fighters, and Ragna still takes a huge risk for a fairly low return when he attempts one. The only time there's no risk attached is when you have meter and you know for sure that you're not gonna whiff. Playing around those limitations can be pretty simple for some characters when they fight him.

 

only thing i take issue with here is that I don't think people calculate the return of an uppercut properly. the return isn't just the 1200 damage you got, the return is getting out of pressure that likely would have caused you to get hit and take a full combo, in exchange for doing some chunk of damage and putting them in pressure which you'll probably be able to get another hit off of.

 

shit otherwise people wouldn't mash them so much.  even more so the case when you've got a corner swap combo you can do if you land the dp...  it's a simple dp though, I don't think that's dishonest.  

 

I think Ragna is honest because, generally, if you can read what he is going to do you can beat it, in pretty much all areas of the game.

[Narroo]

To me, Dishonest are things like Teddie's Awakening Super: "Circus Bear."

 

Circus bear is a completely invincible, unblockable, full screen super with a super fast animation that cannot be reacted to.  You have to react to the super flash and know the timing and dodge it blind.  How much damage does it do?  Depending on the character and the version used, easily a third to half your health bar.

 

So, if you go into the fight without knowing that the thing is unblockable, or the timing on it, you're screwed.

 

There's nothing really as frustrating as loosing to a Teddie that you've been beating black and blue because he used Circus Bear on wake up and you simply don't remember the exact time to dodge the thing.

 

For a bonus, if you do the SP version, for an extra 25 meter he'll do the C version followed by the D version!  Two supers in one!  Two chances to get screwed up on a move with no counterplay!

 

That is dishonest if I've ever seen it.

[redsilversnake]

Circus Bear isn't really that threatening without a setup, though. Especially since many, if not all, characters in that game have moves that suspend them in the air, it's actually very easy to dodge.

[Darlos9D]

Circus Bear isn't really that threatening without a setup, though. Especially since many, if not all, characters in that game have moves that suspend them in the air, it's actually very easy to dodge.

 

Does "dishonest" mean "hard to deal with" though? I can't help but feel the term also implies a certain amount of unintuitiveness. Sure if you learn how to deal, you can deal. But "how to deal" isn't obvious.

 

I dunno, this whole conversation is weird man.

[Errol]

dishonest basically means i don't like this. there I said it.

[Darlos9D]

dishonest basically means i don't like this. there I said it.

 

Hah, yeah, it's like "overrated."

 

I tend to get really incensed about intuitiveness in fighting games (and video games in general) so that's probably where I'm coming from.

[Synyster17]

lol this topic. this isn't about bb guys plz.

 

circus bear isn't hard 2 deal with unless they do something with it like meteors or something. if you actually get hit with that move that way then u didn't know the setup or just got hit with it in the combo. if someone does it raw like a wake up bear circus than that is something you should never get touched by. and u can punish it with your characters anti air combo. that easy. quite easy to deal with. you don't even need to know what you are doing.

 

guys plz keep it on the bb topic or else our fun will b seized again.

[TD]

Black hole is dishonest. Safe instant overheads are dishonest. Being infinite Spider-Man is dishonest.

Anything unfair at a top level is dishonest. Below that and you're getting mostly opinions. Given the games development, dishonest in bb should be fairly easy to spot, it tends to be something the top and A+ tiers have in an otherwise decently balanced game.

[Dreiko]

Dishonest things aren't things where you need to know how to do this one thing perfectly in order to deal with them. They're things where even if you perfectly know what you're supposed to do, you still run a high risk of getting hit ANYWAYS. 50-50 unreactable mixups or unavoidable unblockable resets and other such things are dishonest.

[Moy_X7]

only thing i take issue with here is that I don't think people calculate the return of an uppercut properly. the return isn't just the 1200 damage you got, the return is getting out of pressure that likely would have caused you to get hit and take a full combo, in exchange for doing some chunk of damage and putting them in pressure which you'll probably be able to get another hit off of.

 

shit otherwise people wouldn't mash them so much.  even more so the case when you've got a corner swap combo you can do if you land the dp...  it's a simple dp though, I don't think that's dishonest.  

 

I think Ragna is honest because, generally, if you can read what he is going to do you can beat it, in pretty much all areas of the game.

 

I'm pretty sure he's aware of that, the thing is that you have much more to gain from successfully baiting and punishing a DP than if he were to land the DP.

 

Successful bait - high damage combos (unless you're Rachel or Tsubaki lololol) and a gain in momentum or you force him to spend his resources to get out of a sticky situation (Heat/Burst).

Successful DP - low damage and a gain in momentum

 

As far as the whole honest/dishonest thing topic, I find it silly to be honest (hue). Basically what I'm seeing is the use of "honest/dishonest" as a way to sugar coat "I don't think this is cheap/I think this is cheap".  We're not getting anything constructive out of this type of discussion. We're basically complaining about things we don't like and praising the things we think are not cheap.

[KayEff]

i'm surprised people aren't mentioning how silly crossup DP is