Regarding the Input Buffer in 2.0

I'm writing this post as a follow-up to a recent discussion about the reversal window added to TFH 2.0.

I am of the opinion normal reversal windows out of block ("input buffer" from here on out) should be the standard in fighting games. It is very concerning (though also funny) that the Z engine did not come with one. The addition of an input buffer reduces inconsistency in play, which is generally a good thing. Anyway, I raised an eyebrow at people calling the addition of an input buffer a "balance change."

I am viewing this through the lens of a relatively "seasoned" fighting game player. I do not claim that this is a perfect perspective- there are blind spots in my understanding of the game, but I believe I understand enough to know how it impacts high level play.

"TFH 2.0 has a lower skill ceiling than 1.0"

From a purely execution perspective, you aren't wrong. Input buffer means that players can land stricter punishes more consistently. But difficulty of execution is not the same thing as a hypothetical "skill ceiling" of the game. Before we talk about that though, I want to be perfectly clear- TFH 1.0 was not a fully developed game. I don't think this is even up for interpretation, the level of fundamental skill among the community was incredibly low. Even top players from this version of the game do not dispute this. 

Anyway, what does the presence of easier punishes do? It advances the level of play faster. If you were leaning on strategies that required the opponent to be unclean with their execution in 1.0- those strategies were going to be unsustainable in the long term. Once players cleaned up their execution, those strategies were going to stop being viable for use altogether. You would need to readjust your strategies. The input buffer is forcing you to readjust your strategies now rather than down the line. 

"But what about the 1f jab punishes?"

There were some extreme cases- one that Candel brought up was point blank magic spark punishes. This was a 1f punish on instant block in 1.0. Am I also saying that these would have been unsustainable strategies at a high level? 

Yeah, actually. If we were stuck with no input buffer for a very long time, this kind of punish would have existed. It wouldn't be 100% consistency, but it would be enough that ending a string in point blank magic spark would be a bad idea. 

Firecrackers are another example- they were comically hard to punish in 1.0, but players like Bubbleboots and Javamorris were consistent enough with punishing them that I stopped using them at that level of play. Besides the guaranteed callouts, those were an unsustainable strategy that I knowingly leaned on in 1.0.

"Weren't things like Oleander 22D intended to be punished by lights?"

(I'm not going to speak for the developers intent. Anything I say about the developer's intent is purely speculation based on my own experience. You have a direct line to the developers, and they've talked about this specific change already)

Oleander 22D is an interesting case. This reversal has a strange distribution of blockstun and recovery, which made it a fairly difficult punish in 1.0. For this reason, most tournament players- myself included, opted for a 5A punish. With the addition of the input buffer in 2.0, more players are attempting 5B punishes. But Oleander 22D did not have its frame data readjusted to "compensate" for the input buffer. I believe that if Oleander 22D was intended to be jab punishable, its frame advantage would have been improved to compensate for it. A consistent 5B punish on instant block wasn't out of the question for some characters in 1.0.

"The input buffer adds an advantage for the defender in places there weren't before"

This comes up the most when talking about magic trap, which is +2 on block. 

This is where I'm going to be extremely blunt. All I can say is "holy shit, learn your frame trap timings." This idea that the input buffer suddenly makes a +2 situation an advantage for the defender is actually one of the most of ridiculous things I have ever read. If the average netplay Ragna can blow me up for mashing after 2C, I promise that you can do it too. Just practice it. This is a situation that you are setting up as the attacker. If you cannot take advantage of +2, that is on you.

"This game is more about mashing vs not mashing rather than actually mixing up the opponent."

Guys, this is a simplified foundation for almost every fighting game: You have to establish that the opponent will actually block you before you can start mixing them up. Usually, characters who can do both at once have to spend some kind of resource or set up a specific situation first. 

As Tian, I have to train the opponent to not mash after 5B before I start mixing in flip. If I skip that step against someone, I will get punished. It is the same for almost every fighting game with an engine & game flow similar to TFH. This concept already existed at a high level in 1.0. 

And, seriously? Be glad that your opponents are mashing more. Players who mash out and lean on high risks are doing your job for you. 

So again, let's be clear about what input buffer is: Input buffer is a QoL change that allows us to advance the level of play faster. It is very much not a balance rework, because 99% of the things that it makes "unviable" were not going to be sustainable strategies in developed play anyway.