PDA

View Full Version : Season 6 State of Balance Follow-Up



FredEx919
09-28-2018, 09:05 PM
Hello, warriors! We’ve recently posted our Season 6 State of Balance blog post (https://forhonor.ubisoft.com/game/en-ca/news-community/164-335553-16/state-of-balance-season-6-recap), and have noticed quite the response to it! We want to address a few points that have been brought up, since we think there is currently a perceived divide between what we think and what you think we think.


1. How is this data used?
Let’s be very clear on this: as stated in the “What does the Data mean” section of the blog, the Win Rate and Pick Rate matrices are not at all the sole determinants of balance within the game, nor are they even a primary driver. They are best used to find the trends – especially after a patch. Such as, what are the effects of a buff, or a nerf, or a bug fix, etc - who is going up or down, how far do they move in relation to where they were before, etc. Often, it’s most useful to know if there’s something we need to investigate further - but our balancing decisions are not solely determined by the heroes’ positions within these matrices.

Also, note that this post has come in rather far from Season 6 (we’re now almost in Season 8!) and the data in it only represents the data from Season 6, not the current state of the game.


2. What relevance does the top 2.5% of players have?
The data set used for Duel was “the top 2.5% of For Honor players in Duel on PC and Console combined, according to our skill rating”. This means that this data presented in the blog does NOT include new players who just picked up the game. (It should be noted, though, that the team does also look at the data across all skill levels.)

We take the top 2.5% because we need a large enough sample size to see trends - but yes this sample size is larger than, for example, the set of tournament-level players would be, and therefore the data will be less representative of tournament-level balance.

The question of “is this top 2.5% useful” has been brought up internally, and by some of you, for Season 4, 5, and now 6’s State of Balance blog posts. We hear you on this – and our intention for the future is to pull from the top players in Ranked Duel instead.

3. Centurion/Lawbringer/Shugoki?
There has been an uproar about this sentence in particular from the Season 6 State of Balance blog post:
“The suspicion is that the other top characters (especially Centurion, Lawbringer, Shugoki) would beat Conquerors by countering, and not by initiating combat”. --(Season 6 State of Balance)


What is important to remember is that this really means:
“The suspicion is that the other characters listed at the top placements within the Top 2.5% win rate matrix – such as Centurion (3rd), Lawbringer (6th), and Shugoki (7th) - are only able to beat Conqueror by counter-attacking. We believe their weak openers aren’t allowing them to win, and only the strength of counter-attacking options nets them wins against Conqueror.”


We have no illusion that these characters are “top tier”, or that they have good enough openers to beat the actual top tier characters. We wrote “top characters” to mean “the characters who have the highest Win Rate among the top 2.5% of players, as noted in the graphic of the matrix above”. And we specifically called out Centurion, Lawbringer, and Shugoki, because it is unexpected to see them at the top of the 1v1 Win Rate. It would have been weird not to mention them.

It seems the wording of our sentence caused this confusion about a massive gap between player perception and dev perception, and that’s our mistake for the bad wording. However, we want you to understand that the Fight Team doesn’t consider any of those 3 as top tier characters, and we believe they all require improvements to their initiation moves.

4. Next steps?
That said, on the Fight Team, we feel the more immediate balancing problems are such topics as:



dodge roll (which allows opponents to avoid many heroes' mix ups in 1v1 and 4v4, and should see some improvement in Season 8)
Wu Lin buffs based on Open Test feedback (We’ll share what exactly these buffs are soon, but we want to let you know that our goal is making combat exciting and competitive, and that direction represents the global intentions of the Fight Team.)
the general ineffectiveness of offense (in 1v1 and 4v4)


In terms of the “ineffectiveness of offense", generally it's a topic that applies to the entire roster. While defense is still extremely good, the ability to successfully initiate combat or sustain combat is still globally weak - it’s better than it was, but it still has improvements to go. This is in addition to character-specific inability to initiate combat (such as Shugoki’s difficulties for instance).

Merci!

-The Fight Team

Soldier_of_Dawn
09-28-2018, 11:23 PM
So what is the developers' current take on light spam for both PC and console?

Needsbalancing
09-28-2018, 11:28 PM
So what is the developers' current take on light spam for both PC and console?

Watch Meges video on light spam. It makes a lot of since. Light spam is here to stay at least for those who can’t counter it yet.

His video is on youtube.

EvoX.
09-28-2018, 11:30 PM
It seems the wording of our sentence caused this confusion about a massive gap between player perception and dev perception, and that’s our mistake for the bad wording. However, we want you to understand that the Fight Team doesn’t consider any of those 3 as top tier characters, and we believe they all require improvements to their initiation moves.

Well, holy hell - here's the long awaited glimpse of a hint of a Centurion rework, at long last.

I await the day patiently, Ubisoft.



the general ineffectiveness of offense (in 1v1 and 4v4)


In terms of the “ineffectiveness of offense", generally it's a topic that applies to the entire roster. While defense is still extremely good, the ability to successfully initiate combat or sustain combat is still globally weak - it’s better than it was, but it still has improvements to go. This is in addition to character-specific inability to initiate combat (such as Shugoki’s difficulties for instance).

This particular part is the most interesting thing. I wasn't aware global changes to offense were still being thought of, so hopefully this is something meaningful.

The_B0G_
09-29-2018, 04:54 AM
About number 3, the win rates of Cent/Shugo/LB against Conq are all under 40%, closer to 30% for a couple of them. How is that even worth mentioning? Do they have actual stats that tell them that they won by counter attacking or are they assuming because those heroes are all trash tier? I just don't understand why they would bring up what these 3 did when all 3 have terrible win rates against conq.

It just seems like they're trying to justify such terrible heroes being so high in the stats, because it makes no sense and makes the statistics look like BS. The top 2.5% with such weak characters in the top rankings doesn't make sense, you can shut out any of the 3 just by blocking and CGB'ing, I'm surprised they were being picked at all.

Knight_Raime
09-29-2018, 07:13 AM
I like some of what was said here. But I still don't buy into point 1. Maybe they're just bad at wording themselves. But if they don't base their changes/lack of changes mostly around win rates then they need to explain why they noted the tourney players opinion about aramusha but defer to his win rate for why he's not being looked at. I don't doubt that they look at/listen to tourney/competitive players. But it doesn't seem like their feedback is ever really impactful.

EDIT: Also. Their skill based ranking is based around win rate. Which is flawed. So how can these stats even be taken seriously?

RexXZ347
09-29-2018, 03:34 PM
I don't buy it too. If they thought that it's only a word misunderstanding, then why would they want to buff the conqueror? Really, when they posted this conqueror controversy they mean what they said. Then when people got angry they make excuses. Only a child woukd buy it.

FinnOfTheHorde
09-29-2018, 04:29 PM
Just say: WE WILL BUFF/REWORK LAWBRINGER AND SHUGOKI.
Simple fix.
If devs cant fix thier own game maybe players can.
Why you are adding cool armors for unplayable heroes...

dedric_branford
09-29-2018, 09:23 PM
the community got riled up bcos of some uncanny and unfounded reasons. i think now the devs made it clear to us their intentions . great job guys:o:o:o

Illyrian_King
09-29-2018, 11:25 PM
I am looking forward a lot to Marching Fire, but you really need to fix LB, Shrek and Legendary. They are unplaybale.

It took you 5 seasons to fix parry. You are too slow with balancing. The whole community would appreciate it much more, if you brought more frequent balancing patches, even if you mess things up ... as long as you fix it again.

CandleInTheDark
09-30-2018, 02:06 AM
I am looking forward a lot to Marching Fire, but you really need to fix LB, Shrek and Legendary. They are unplaybale.

It took you 5 seasons to fix parry. You are too slow with balancing. The whole community would appreciate it much more, if you brought more frequent balancing patches, even if you mess things up ... as long as you fix it again.

Problem there is the certification process. I believe changes could only really be made that quickly on the PC. I keep reading League of Legends make balance patches every two weeks...well yeah, neat, they don't have to run them by Sony and Microsoft first as that is a PC exclusive title and you can't compare them.

What I would like to see though is to have a test server on the PC that every week or so has small changes made to it that people can feedback on. The problem there is that again this isn't really feasible for console unless it is something that the devs put out there at the closest window they can to implementing any of it, the issue there being if they are using a window to do that then they might delay patches in the main state even more (though it is the only way I see them escaping more you only balance for PC rants). The only way I can see this working is change things on any rhetorical PC test server every week, have one a month with the current PC build for console, leave enough of a window they get feedback from everyone before they begin certifying the console patch and then essentially a patch every two months to one a season with the culmination of those tests and the feedback.

Specialkha
09-30-2018, 08:14 AM
Certification does not take 2 months to achieve, 2 weeks at best.

And how others games that are on console and pc fare about patches? Cod/Overwatch, etc... they get patches far more faster and with less delay between.

May I remind you it took them 2 months to get out the first patch at release? (and it was to buff the PK, lawl, even there devs did not have a clue how to balance their game)

Jazz117Volkov
09-30-2018, 08:22 AM
In terms of the “ineffectiveness of offense", generally it's a topic that applies to the entire roster. While defense is still extremely good, the ability to successfully initiate combat or sustain combat is still globally weak - it’s better than it was, but it still has improvements to go. This is in addition to character-specific inability to initiate combat (such as Shugoki’s difficulties for instance).

Thank the lord.

If I may contribute a few suggestion.

Each hero should have more stamina, but specifically the cost of feinting is the biggest offender I think. It should start at 50% the attack's original cost but quickly escalate if you spam it without performing other actions. So an attack that costs 12 stamina, if feinted, will only cost 6. This would be a huge boost to offensive play because most attacks can be parried from neutral so your only options are feinting and deliberately whiffing. Feinting is the optimal choice but it's just too expensive to maintain. The stamina system punishes you for using your kit to it's full potential. One, maybe two successful mix-ups and you're OOS. It's a very frustrating artificial barrier on aggressive playstyles.

The other thing I would suggest, though I think it would need a bit of testing, is chained lights shouldn't be interrupted by blocking, neutral lights, yes, just not chained lights. To stop a lot of the heroes in the game, all you need to do is change your guard stance. And on that note, I think blocking should cost more stamina, and escalate, so the more you block without performing other actions, the more it costs.

These changes would mean some of the cast, primarily the assassins with their 400 ms lights, would need some tweaking. I mean, light spam is a major complaint in the community already, yet apparently the fight data indicates that it isn't overly effective...why have it then, if it annoys so many? Idk, seems there's some dots that don't connect. What I do know is unreactable attacks must not be the answer to the aggressive playstyle problem.

CandleInTheDark
09-30-2018, 08:58 AM
Crossposting this from reddit as I posted it relatively alte in the game (in terms of the comments visible limit being reached)


Ok so there is one issue I very much take with the original post.

In the state of balance you acknowledge that a bug giving static guard heroes an instant guardswitch severely hampered all of the assassins and that the only top half assassin is one that doesn't rely on a barrage of lights, fair enough.

That is the set of data and the blog though that you also chose to lay out your claim for light spam being ineffective. Now is it just me or is that a claim you can only really make if the results we see now hold up in the next one or two win matrices?

This isn't to say that light spam is severely overpowered (though I do believe, as someone who mostly plays assassins, that faster attacks, even within a chain, should have the tradeoff of less damage), nor is it to say that some people don't need to practice a little more before they vent, but I believe that the timing of making that case seems flawed, especially when before the bug three of the top five were assassins and a further assassin was in the top half making that four out of six. I also feel that there are ways of making offence challenging to deal with at top level play that don't involve 400ms lights such as soft feints off of heavies and slower lights.

To me all this data shows on that score is that the only assassin that stayed strong was the only one not crippled by a bug that made the other three in the top half drop places because it is better to use a shaman's whole kit rather than lights in the first place and in my view across the board viable kits should be the aim for all heroes in any case.



Certification does not take 2 months to achieve, 2 weeks at best.

And how others games that are on console and pc fare about patches? Cod/Overwatch, etc... they get patches far more faster and with less delay between.

May I remind you it took them 2 months to get out the first patch at release? (and it was to buff the PK, lawl, even there devs did not have a clue how to balance their game)

I don't claim to know the ins and outs of certification though I had guessed it was around two weeks based on the delay of early patches between PC and console. The reason I said months though is if they had console based feedback then they need to go with that two weeks from the PC build (bearing in mind if they change the PC build then the console players are testing something different) and have time to get that feedback.

Things would go a lot quicker if they only had a PC test server, push through a bunch of changes, test and feedback a week with changes halfway through it if they want to test giving or removing a few ms, wait two weeks certification to push through the ones that got most approval if that seems a good idea or make more changes, the issue is console players are already saying the devs only balance for PC, if they want two feedback rounds for console and then to push through a patch, assuming roughly two weeks, that is six weeks for certification alone (two weeks for each test phase and then the patch itself), even with only one round of console feedback that is a month. So it is a matter of pick your poison, push through changes quicker in any test server scenario and have more rumblings that the devs only balance for PC or add one for console and take longer over it.

People keep saying that League of Legends balance every two weeks and wouldn't it be great if there was that pace of balancing, it would only they forget League of Legends is a PC exclusive and they don't have to bother with certification. If the certification period is around two weeks then, even with no time to see how changes affect the game, from starting the first certification period to the second of the two patches dropping would be a month which is why they do as much as they can that don't require certification because they can get it in with a maintenance. My thought on a test server was they can get more done in that time, certainly if it is PC only but even with console it would be based on a period of player based testing and feedback on changes that are perhaps too vast for the main game with the consideration of we have to wait another certification process if we break it.

As to the PK buff, if I recall, that was about making sure that guaranteed damage from her deflect actually was guaranteed as her deflect was not landing on everyone and that is more a bug fix than a buff, no other deflect missed down to not having the range if the opponent doesn't move. Before you bring up raiders being PK killers, because I can see that coming now, given that was early on in the game's run, if in the first 10,000 1v1 matches between a PK and raider ended with the raider winning 6000 of them then that the raider is a hard counter to PK is a reasonable assumption to make - of course we later found it was more likely the raiders were more skilled at the game but that is a matter of some things take time to learn and why, as they say in the blog, the win/loss is more an indication of how changed affect the game rather than their only source of balancing.

Klingentaenz3r
10-01-2018, 08:10 AM
I don't buy it too. If they thought that it's only a word misunderstanding, then why would they want to buff the conqueror? Really, when they posted this conqueror controversy they mean what they said. Then when people got angry they make excuses. Only a child woukd buy it.

You sure sound much more like a child. Did not comprehend the context of what was said before and even when it is outlayed before you you still struggle to get the bits together and revise the thing from the right perspective. The wording was in some parts very poor yes, but the message could still come across. And to put it out for you clearly: Even though the word "buff" was mentioned in the conq's state section there was never a word about buffing the conq.

Klingentaenz3r
10-01-2018, 08:41 AM
I like some of what was said here. But I still don't buy into point 1. Maybe they're just bad at wording themselves. But if they don't base their changes/lack of changes mostly around win rates then they need to explain why they noted the tourney players opinion about aramusha but defer to his win rate for why he's not being looked at. I don't doubt that they look at/listen to tourney/competitive players. But it doesn't seem like their feedback is ever really impactful.

EDIT: Also. Their skill based ranking is based around win rate. Which is flawed. So how can these stats even be taken seriously?

As far as I understood what they said about Aramusha is that according to their data the nerf of the side dodge recovery did not seem to have any clear effects on his winrates. Which actually is easily explained - not many players used it. As a result "THIS" (they were still talking about the dodge recovery) won't be subject to be looked at any time soon.

in the segment "What does the Data mean?" they just talk about the data controversy as a whole and state that Aramusha has a 50% winrate - while tournament players see him rather weak but new players have a difficult time with him.
They basically say here that this is really weird to them too andeven though he has the perfect 50% that he cannot be regarded as a character that they could orientate on to balance others.

Why they mentioned that? Well I guess it was to show that this data sample has to be taken always with a grain of salt. It can be interesting but also misleading. The right conclusions have to be made in conjunction with other sources. Begs the question then why we don't get a much more overall view on the state of balance.

Knight_Raime
10-01-2018, 06:11 PM
As far as I understood what they said about Aramusha is that according to their data the nerf of the side dodge recovery did not seem to have any clear effects on his winrates. Which actually is easily explained - not many players used it. As a result "THIS" (they were still talking about the dodge recovery) won't be subject to be looked at any time soon.

in the segment "What does the Data mean?" they just talk about the data controversy as a whole and state that Aramusha has a 50% winrate - while tournament players see him rather weak but new players have a difficult time with him.
They basically say here that this is really weird to them too andeven though he has the perfect 50% that he cannot be regarded as a character that they could orientate on to balance others.

Why they mentioned that? Well I guess it was to show that this data sample has to be taken always with a grain of salt. It can be interesting but also misleading. The right conclusions have to be made in conjunction with other sources. Begs the question then why we don't get a much more overall view on the state of balance.

Even though you worded it better than they did it still doesn't really address my issue.
Because it's not acknowledging what the nerf did to him. Nor are they going to change him at all despite supposedly listening to top tier feedback.

The current perception right now is that they care too much about win rate. They say they look at a multitood of things. But it doesn't feel like it.
It doesn't help that they've back peddled on their previous statements with both lawbringer and valk on the back bone of their data on win rate.

Even if they didn't use win rate as their main driving point their data is based on their skill system. And their skill system is based on wins. So the data is flawed at the base.

Moratexo
10-01-2018, 06:59 PM
Jesus the developers literally don't play the game... top charakters are centurion, lawbringer and shugoki??
I don't want to flame you guys but you say that u want reactionforcing moves on charakters and want to buff weak tools, lawbringer can't start a fight because he has NO OPTIONS, if the enemy is out of stamina lawbringer AND shugoki can't do **** to force the enemy to an reaction, they can't trigger pressure with ANY of their attacks because their simply too slow or they don't have options to go offensive.
Shugoki and Lawbringer are by far not the top tier characters... please listen to the community and don't just look at your data!
Many people have the same opinion and i hope you will take a look on the reality in for honor... there are more issues as I wrote here...

CRIMS0NM0NKEY
10-02-2018, 01:37 AM
Just say: WE WILL BUFF/REWORK LAWBRINGER AND SHUGOKI.
Simple fix.
If devs cant fix thier own game maybe players can.
Why you are adding cool armors for unplayable heroes...

This made me laugh cuz its idiotically true.

Klingentaenz3r
10-02-2018, 07:51 AM
Jesus the developers literally don't play the game... top charakters are centurion, lawbringer and shugoki??
I don't want to flame you guys but you say that u want reactionforcing moves on charakters and want to buff weak tools, lawbringer can't start a fight because he has NO OPTIONS, if the enemy is out of stamina lawbringer AND shugoki can't do **** to force the enemy to an reaction, they can't trigger pressure with ANY of their attacks because their simply too slow or they don't have options to go offensive.
Shugoki and Lawbringer are by far not the top tier characters... please listen to the community and don't just look at your data!


We know, they know. U would know IF you had actually read the thing OR at least read the official follow up - explanation from FredEx919 right at the beginning of this thread you've decided to post in.

Stop being mindless sheep and act without thinking. Did you came from spliced? Even though he displayed miserable reading comprehentabilty he already put a follow up video out there admitting that his first take was wrong. If you came here because you got triggered by some words out of "the state of balance" like "top tier characters" you should learn how to read.

Other than that welcome to the forum.



Even though you worded it better than they did it still doesn't really address my issue.
Because it's not acknowledging what the nerf did to him. Nor are they going to change him at all despite supposedly listening to top tier feedback.
.

Thx. I'd say their acknowledgment on the nerf is basically: "seems like it didn't have an impact - therefore it seems alright and we leave it like that". So yes it is ignoring that they took a very specific perk or gimmik Aramusha had as a character and replaced it with nothing. However that is also true for the former Warlord and it was for the better at that time.

Aramusha on the other hand needs a indeed a good rework but I guess they currently have just no idea how to address him without making him more problematic on the entry levels (would be nice if they would acknowledge that or at least show what community ideas they find intreguing and what maybe idea they have in mind the direction should be - that also applies to all the other heroes too as we are so often just left in the dark of what they think and do until the actual finished rework is handed to us).

RexXZ347
10-02-2018, 05:19 PM
You sure sound much more like a child. Did not comprehend the context of what was said before and even when it is outlayed before you you still struggle to get the bits together and revise the thing from the right perspective. The wording was in some parts very poor yes, but the message could still come across. And to put it out for you clearly: Even though the word "buff" was mentioned in the conq's state section there was never a word about buffing the conq.

And you sounded like an idiot. You need to read between the lines and use your brain to understand why they said that. There is this word "excuse" that they use just to get out of trouble. Don't read as to how they said it. Read and understand it WHY they said it in the first place, ubisoft die-hard fanboy.

Klingentaenz3r
10-03-2018, 10:48 AM
And you sounded like an idiot. You need to read between the lines and use your brain to understand why they said that. There is this word "excuse" that they use just to get out of trouble. Don't read as to how they said it. Read and understand it WHY they said it in the first place, ubisoft die-hard fanboy.

Ah man, the extent to which you played yourself with your very own statement. Are you even old enough to play this game? You just proved my point that you are indeed just acting like a child. You are not even following your own advice and look at the things in a reflected manner instead you get triggered easily and decide to keep holding on onto a simple minded and paranoid perspective just out of blind despite. Sure you can do that but it most certainly just lets you look like the idiot here. The fact that you throw random accusations around just show that you just got no foothold in your argumentation at all (and possibly a lack of character). Seriously me a diehard fanboy? Out of all people you pick me for that? Thx for the good laugh.

RexXZ347
10-03-2018, 12:08 PM
Ah man, the extent to which you played yourself with your very own statement. Are you even old enough to play this game? You just proved my point that you are indeed just acting like a child. You are not even following your own advice and look at the things in a reflected manner instead you get triggered easily and decide to keep holding on onto a simple minded and paranoid perspective just out of blind despite. Sure you can do that but it most certainly just lets you look like the idiot here. The fact that you throw random accusations around just show that you just got no foothold in your argumentation at all (and possibly a lack of character). Seriously me a diehard fanboy? Out of all people you pick me for that? Thx for the good laugh.

LOL. You are so funny. I am not reflecting what i am. I am just stating facts and the fact that you are easily fooled by just turn of words is in itself an idiotic way and you telling me like a child is such an idiotic way. Clearly you are an idiot. You can't even prove what i said and you just attacked my character instead of proving your point. I pity you because you are clearly a ubisoft fanboy that deny to the fullest. It's easy to deny here in public but logically speaking you are clearly a fanboy and an idiot. Are you even psychologically healthy to play this game?

Ubiflowessence
10-03-2018, 08:47 PM
Hey guys. Please be respectful of each other when on the forum. We are all passionate about making the game as great as possible and you have a right to voice your opinions, but please be respectful of other opinions as well.

Klingentaenz3r
10-08-2018, 09:21 AM
LOL. You are so funny. I am not reflecting what i am. I am just stating facts and the fact that you are easily fooled by just turn of words is in itself an idiotic way and you telling me like a child is such an idiotic way. Clearly you are an idiot. You can't even prove what i said and you just attacked my character instead of proving your point. I pity you because you are clearly a ubisoft fanboy that deny to the fullest. It's easy to deny here in public but logically speaking you are clearly a fanboy and an idiot. Are you even psychologically healthy to play this game?

You're just "stating facts"? Like the "fact" you thought conqueror is subject for a buff while anyone who would read the paragraph properly would understand its reference? It is more a fact that you were just not able to read properly and comprehend to begin with.

I am not fooled by a turn of words - I understood the initial statement. Their follow-up statement is just a confirmation to me. For you since you were already consumed with your own interpretation sure it must be like an excuse especially since you clearly just don't want to think of yourself possibly being in the wrong. However, you were. And don't get me wrong. I don't like the outcome of the state of balance report nor how it was lacking their overall view and the inclusion of their other influence sources and the picture they'd paint and how impactful that would be for the overall state of balance. But this is a different topic. You were wrong and unfair about it. That is why I called you out.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I am liking ubisoft (I oftentimes don't and you would/could know if you would look around in this forum).

The way you are calling names and throw out unfounded, ridiculous and somewhat rude accusacions without any ground is just moronic behaviour. You seem derailed and desperately trying to get back at me. Stating questions like "Are you even psychologically healthy to play this game" prove that and raise concerns if this - by any chance - could not be a possible issue for yourself since everything you stated and threw out when you lashed out on me could easily describe and fit your writings well enough (except the fanboy).

Since this conversation is dead already and we would have to wait for more information leads this also basically is the last I would wanna state in this thread.

Sweaty_Sock
10-08-2018, 12:51 PM
This is the damn problem.... The only people left with shugo are the ones who didnt jump ship to shaman/zerk/current op char.

Reworks:
You ruined conq (rep 17 at rework) for me
you ruined orochi (rep 22 at rework) for me
you ruined warden (pushed through to rep 60 because... but you killed my fav hero) for me

Current
Im now playing shugo & warlord, why... challenge over spam/broken combo

Anything I love in this game gets turned onto a dumb button masher