How about you just practice hard enough to slap their shit in for even attempting to "be cheap". If the only thing that the person does is a horizontal projectile attack, why not do a jump in/projectile invincible move/armored move/hotblooded punish?
Is Injustice 2 considered broken???
- Thread starter PositiveGamer
- Start date
How about you just practice hard enough to slap their shit in for even attempting to "be cheap". If the only thing that the person does is a horizontal projectile attack, why not do a jump in/projectile invincible move/armored move/hotblooded punish?
What characters do you use? If you're genuinely interested in beating these characters than I could help you.
If you want to talk about poor tutorials then I'll point you in the direction of tekken 7. I love Tekken don't get me wrong but they should have put something like a tutorial that is beneficial to new players. I'm learning everything from YouTube and Aris lol.
There is a penalty for those characters. Typically they're pretty awful up close. Get Fate or deadshot in a corner and go wild. Saying that zoning shouldn't occur at all is like getting frustrated because you can get juggled in Tekken.
Who's really not learning the game then?
stanislavskov
Banned
They did learn the game. I mean, they're not the ones complaining about "spamming".
ãInaba Residentã
Banned
It sounds like you're the one who isn't learning the game if you don't want to learn to adapt.
The ironing is delicious.
csquared587
Member
You should think about the tools Canary has vs. someone like dr. fate. If a dr. fate tried to rush down a canary player, he would have no shot whatsoever. His entire gameplan is based around ranged attacks, so he is shit at rushdown. They are playing it how they should.
Like me with green arrow. If I play batman or canary, I will light up the screen with zoning and arrows. If I play vs. Dr. Fate, I am rushing him down all day.
Like me with green arrow. If I play batman or canary, I will light up the screen with zoning and arrows. If I play vs. Dr. Fate, I am rushing him down all day.
I feel like dumb posts like these reveal you haven't ever actually tried zoning against good players. That shit is exhausting and difficult to do, even in games like IJ2 where the zoning is pretty decent.
You don't have to enjoy playing against it, but you should respect the amount of effort it is.
You know, I actually zone against people BECAUSE it frustrates people. Good. More wins for me. I like winning (and I do rush down in games as well, but I can turn it on and off depending on who I'm playing).
The fact that you call things cheap and you didn't even think about forward dodge roll.../smh
Look at high level tournaments, pro players get around zoning and blow people up for just doing it. I'll be frank, calling things cheap instead of sitting down and trying to exhaust all options to get around it is a sign of being weak mentally (which other players exploit! Most of fighting games is mental!). Do you think pros complain about it? Or do they hit up training mode and figure that shit out?
I'm not saying you have to enjoy playing against zoning or have to go "pro" to beat it, but you have to acknowledge that if you don't put the effort in, you won't see results.
And also, you may call it an observation thread, but you are complaining.
Are you serious?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_R4wlhMffg
Particularly: https://youtu.be/T_R4wlhMffg?t=11m11s
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
MKX was not like this.
Weltall Zero
Member
You can blame the game, if you feel it's unbalanced, whether that means too poweful, too easy to perform versus the complexity of countering, or anything else.
You can blame yourself, if you feel it's your own lack of expertise that's making you unable to overcome that strategy, and try to improve.
What you cannot do is blame the players. They are playing by the rules: the rules of the game, not some subset of chivalrous rules that you or anyone makes up.
If the game is broken, find another game. People can, will and should use every tool available to win, otherwise you're playing different games. And most importantly, you'll never find out if that tactic was as powerful as you thought.
My brother is low level, he knows it's frustrating but he also knows he can either eat it or do something about it. He doesn't care enough to do something about it so he just eats it.
GinoFelino
Member
DZ_b_EZ
Member
Dead serious. I went from interested in the campaign to never touching it. The final two matches were okay, but I was already tired of watching the game at that point.
Tekken 7 on the other hand.....
You were only interested in the cinematics but found the actual gameplay you didn't even experience boring? I won't argue that some matches can be boring, as just like any fighting game it depends on skill level, characters used and the people playing. I love Tekken but despite it being a fighting game, it is a WAAAAY different type of game. Personally I would rather watch Honeybee flash matches than JDCR Grand finals at every event.
roflwaffles
Member
Aside from the Honeybee matches, the entirety of Injustice 2 top 8 actually soured me on the game. I was slowly losing interest playing it before EVO and I dropped it completely after EVO.
Leafhopper
Banned
Wouldn't call the game broken but, just not fun for me personally. I kinda dig watching it now and then competitively. Kinda feel the same about all NRS games really.
Check out some combo breaker and CEO 2017 videos. I watch almost every fighting games top 8 but Injustice at CEO this year was the most hype fucking thing I've seen all year. Well, to be fair Tokido's Evo win was hype as fuck, too.
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
You just described counter picking, not unbalanced gameplay.
I also stopped reading when you started complaining about players being cheap. Nothing is cheap. Learn to deal with it. If you can't deal with your main you might want to jump on that counter pick bandwagon... Either that or just keep complaining?
Professor Beef
Banned
Saw "cheap," instantly knew what I was getting into reading the rest
Kabuki Waq
Member
Me and my friends are casual players and at our level it is completely broken as zoners have a big advantage and do not have to work as hard.
You know the game is doing something right when salty threads like this pop up. There would be no thread if nobody cared.
Must be some geniuses at Capcom then.
Rynocirator
Member
The bio part was a good indicator too.
lucebuce12
Member
lmao
gameplay threads, then.
But I guess there are some weirdos out there that care about Nemesis, Marmaduke and Firebrand.
*DEAD* I love you, Luce.
Professor Beef
Banned
I'm a nice guy and I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt at that point.
Yeah that Aquaman final win killed my interest. Honeybee would have won if not for cheap chip damage and spam.
It's patched now, you can come back
Acerac
Banned
Moridoom is bullshit though.
Just because there is a theoretical way to beat something doesn't exclude it from being unfun for players and spectators alike.
*edit*
I see in your later posts that you believe if something can be beaten it is fine. There is no point in furthering this conversation.
Professor Beef
Banned
To be fair, bullshit is what you have to expect when it comes to Marvel
lucebuce12
Member
I know exactly what you mean.
Chronospherics
Member
The game is pretty unbalanced, and Black Canary is pretty bad because she has a hard time dealing with the zoning.
But with that said, zoning is intentionally built into the game, and a lot of the cast can combat it pretty effectively.
Personally the zoning in the game isn't for me, I don't enjoy that type of game. I enjoyed playing Robin but having to spend most of the match wading through projectiles (which do a pretty significant amount of chip damage), isn't my idea of fun.
However it's not broken. It's just not appealing design, for me. One of the things I really hate is seeing people die at tournaments to chip damage projectiles. It's just straight painful to watch and feels unfair. Often the last hit comes off of a knockdown, then they wake up only to get hit by a meaty projectile. It's a stupid sequence of events, and I would argue bad design - why let your opponent get up if they will only die? There's no gameplay value for either player in that experience.
I think it's fair to say that the game has some pretty easy to play strategies that tend to result in success, and equally, it's fair to say that you don't like the gameplay design in certain areas. While it's perhaps unfair to call it cheap, the term ultimately often just expresses the players disatisfaction with the games design, an expression I think they're perfectly enttled to.
For me, I don't like Injustice's zoning. It's not that I need to 'learn to deal with it'. I don't enjoy the gameplay it creates. I don't like how one sided some of the fights can feel (counter picking is one argument, but it's also fair to say I enjoy fighters where each character feels more closely matched) and I don't enjoy having to play a guessing game against projectiles - because of how fast they tend to be, its often anticipation rather than reaction that's required, i.e., quite often, you're forced to make a guess (or hard read) if you want to get in and deal some damage.
But with that said, zoning is intentionally built into the game, and a lot of the cast can combat it pretty effectively.
Personally the zoning in the game isn't for me, I don't enjoy that type of game. I enjoyed playing Robin but having to spend most of the match wading through projectiles (which do a pretty significant amount of chip damage), isn't my idea of fun.
However it's not broken. It's just not appealing design, for me. One of the things I really hate is seeing people die at tournaments to chip damage projectiles. It's just straight painful to watch and feels unfair. Often the last hit comes off of a knockdown, then they wake up only to get hit by a meaty projectile. It's a stupid sequence of events, and I would argue bad design - why let your opponent get up if they will only die? There's no gameplay value for either player in that experience.
I think it's fair to say that the game has some pretty easy to play strategies that tend to result in success, and equally, it's fair to say that you don't like the gameplay design in certain areas. While it's perhaps unfair to call it cheap, the term ultimately often just expresses the players disatisfaction with the games design, an expression I think they're perfectly enttled to.
For me, I don't like Injustice's zoning. It's not that I need to 'learn to deal with it'. I don't enjoy the gameplay it creates. I don't like how one sided some of the fights can feel (counter picking is one argument, but it's also fair to say I enjoy fighters where each character feels more closely matched) and I don't enjoy having to play a guessing game against projectiles - because of how fast they tend to be, its often anticipation rather than reaction that's required, i.e., quite often, you're forced to make a guess (or hard read) if you want to get in and deal some damage.
Well, yeah.
One player put you into a position to take that damage. Seems like the value would be learning how to put a player in that position, and on the other side, learning how to avoid it.
Seems good to me.
PositiveGamer
Member
After reading all replies, it is clear the game is not broken but it has some issues..
I will continue to get better by following several replies from here...
Thank you all..
I will continue to get better by following several replies from here...
Thank you all..
Yeah, nobody goes into Marvel expecting fair and balanced stuff. LOL
I mean they're entitled to call it cheap, but we're gonna laugh at them if it's not actually cheap. Calling something cheap is usually just being lazy, and it's hilarious to us who have more experience in other fighters since there's way worse stuff that we dealt with fine.
You should try zoning yourself, it'd give you A) A better perspective on how difficult it can actually be against good players and B) Even if you prefer a different playstyle, you can learn the "holes" in this gameplan better if you try it first hand.
Chronospherics
Member
Then end the game. If you're willing to put the player into a position where they can't win, then the game should have already ended. It's the same reason why supers don't do the full animation if your opponent dies on the first hit on Street Fighter. It's just a tedious waste of time.
When the player stops making meaningful decisions that can have an impact on the game, it stops being gameplay. In this case, both players stop making those decisions - I feel that's bad design.
It kills hype moments too. From a spectators perspective it's a straight up boring sequence of events to watch. No comebacks, no momentum shifts. Ultimately, sometimes you can't avoid taking chip damage in a game like Injustice, and while the chip itself is arguably fine, having that be the blow that kills you is understandably frustrating.
SFV has a fair amount of design criticism that are fair, but not being chipped out by specials is not one of them, in my opinion.
PositiveGamer
Good shit. The people in the OT are always helpful.
Gameplay decisions is what led to the situation, so, I absolutely disagree that it "stops being gameplay." There's always a chance for user error.
I won't stop playing until my character falls down, gets back up, and then falls down again.
If it was "bad design," and people really had an issue with it, then they probably would have addressed it sometime between now and 1992. I personally don't like that a method of attrition suddenly isn't viable at the end of the match. It makes certain characters a lot stronger and others much weaker. It's all part of a strategy, and all of that goes into decision making from the character you choose to how you use meter throughout the round. To frame it as just that moment at the end of the round and saying "it's no longer gameplay" ignores EVERYTHING that happens from the start until KO.
Also, I don't care about what's entertaining for a spectator. Spectators are fickle. Just like trying to appeal to the people bitching about deadshot, try to chase the people watching, and the game suffers for the people playing.
I kinda like how some fighting games (like SFV) prevent chip deaths outside of super. But I don't mind chip deaths either. If the opponent got into that situation in the first place, then oh well, and it does take some timing to meaty someone's wakeup in some games.
It can be frustrating, sure, but eh I don't think it's a bad game design decision just because it's not "hype".