The Argument Against Variation Lock

[AK L0rdoftheFLY]

But they wouldn't necessarily, that's where mind games come into it.

The winner could think okay, I just beat his variation 1 sub with my variation 1 scorp so he'll switch to variation 2 sub so I'll switch to my variation 2 scorp to counter.

But under blind pick, the loser might be thinking okay, I just lost, but he's going to expect me to change to variation 2, so he'll pick variation 2 as well. In this case, I'll just pick variation 1 again which actually beats his variation 2.

The winner can anticipate all he wants, he's still not going to know what the loser might do and so this will create a bit of hype and tension straight from the get go. Even more so as the set progresses too.

that is not what I am suggesting at all.

Exactly, meaning that you'll be forced to make reads at the character select screen. That sounds ridiculous to me.

Know that what he is saying and what i am saying is different.

The winner may only change variation if the opponent changes character. I kind of agree with the no blind select peace now. This way loser always gets final counter pick.

To state one last time:

Winner is always character locked...
Winner is also variation locked unless the loser changes character.
If this happens, the winner must still select his variation first allowing the loser a chance to counter.
First match is only match that can be hidden select, random stage always.

 

[cyke_out]

@cyke_out

What we're talking about here is a distinct tactical advantage given to the loser of a match. It's a handicap by definition for the winner. Is it not?

Yes, but I don't think that's a bad thing.

A single character set or tourney stifles character variety. It limits the players choices to a select few characters that have solid match ups versus the entire cast. Only die hard character loyalist would pick a character with lopsided match ups. If I play t hawk I would lose almost instantly at the select screen if my opponent picked blanka.

If I could switch after getting ass handed to me, I'm more likely to use t hawk for the majority of my matches. But if I can't and I feel like the risks of facing my 8-2 match up is too great, I will move on to a new main, just like everyone else. So then we have a tourney scene composed of the same few characters.

Plus, after I switch and get my win, my opponent can also switch too. Frankly I would rather watch and play in a 2-1 set versus a 2-0 set.

 

[ChaosTheory]

@cyke_out

There's the difference between us. We simply disagree about allowing advantages. That's a sense of entitlement that I don't grant. I picture Chris Farley in Black Sheep telling David Spade where to move his checkers because he keeps losing. It almost strikes me as whining.

"I lost. I deserve a boost."

Personally, I get off playing these games from besting my opponent with as little outside interference as possible.

And you mentioned it, so I'll clarify. I'm not supporting that both players be locked to their character. The opposite, really. I'm all for character variety like you said. I want all parties to be free to choose who they want.

Basically, I like blind select. The way SF4 does it online is good. Worry about your character, I'll worry about mine. If you want to counterpick with your pocket whoever, that's fine. But you might be wrong.

 

[HeroesNZ]

that is not what I am suggesting at all.

Know that what he is saying and what i am saying is different.

The winner may only change variation if the opponent changes character. I kind of agree with the no blind select peace now. This way loser always gets final counter pick.

To state one last time:

Winner is always character locked...
Winner is also variation locked unless the loser changes character.
If this happens, the winner must still select his variation first allowing the loser a chance to counter.
First match is only match that can be hidden select, random stage always.

This this this this this

/Thread

 

[Jim]

that is not what I am suggesting at all.

Know that what he is saying and what i am saying is different.

The winner may only change variation if the opponent changes character. I kind of agree with the no blind select peace now. This way loser always gets final counter pick.

To state one last time:

Winner is always character locked...
Winner is also variation locked unless the loser changes character.
If this happens, the winner must still select his variation first allowing the loser a chance to counter.
First match is only match that can be hidden select, random stage always.

What do you think should happen if someone goes to stage select? Does this work the same as character change or only apply if they switch characters? Yours is the best of the ideas that I don't like, ultimately I'll go along with whatever the community decides but I still feel very strongly about variant lock.

For some reason several posters in here have thought I got angry about my reply. Not really sure where they got that but anyway I am glad we are at least talking about this ahead of time. The last thing anybody wants is to have the first few tournaments be total cluster fucks. And I strongly believe that if we go with any of the change variant rulesets we will see this.

 

[juicepouch]

Infraction for "useless post" pls!

oh no not a useless post infraction

 

[HeroesNZ]

What do you think should happen if someone goes to stage select?

Stage select is always random, like Injustice. If they go to straight to stage select then random stages are picked. If they change character/variation then random stages are picked.

 

[d3v]

I don't want to have to be playing footsies at the Character Select Screen. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want the Evo 2015 Finals to come down to "Oh, I thought he was gonna pick Inferno Scorpion so I picked Displacer Raiden, but he actually picked Ninjutsu Scorpion so I got bopped".

Then sucks for you because counter picking is an accepted part of competitive fighting games. As the old saying goes "the game begins at the select screen." Knowing who your opponent might pick is an important part of playing competitively.

 

[Konqrr]

Isn't that option 2 that I listed?

No, you have winner has to pick variation first which doesn't make sense. That just complicates things.

 

[d3v]

Really, just follow the EVO rules from USFIV and modify for MKX.

Winner may change Ultravariation but only after loser picks character.

 

[AK L0rdoftheFLY]

No, you have winner has to pick variation first which doesn't make sense. That just complicates things.

I disagree. It actually is a compromise with the people who want variation lock to still allow the loser a chance to counter a possible variation change.

It is the only way a variation switch makes sense to me

 

[AK L0rdoftheFLY]

Really, just follow the EVO rules from USFIV and modify for MKX.

Winner may change Ultravariation but only after loser picks character.

picks a different character.

If the loser keeps character but changes variation, the winner has to keep his same character and variation as first match.

Careful when you keep it too simple as some things are left out. I have seen this mistake many times already in other posts and it is part of the confusion.

 

[HeroesNZ]

Then sucks for you because counter picking is an accepted part of competitive fighting games. As the old saying goes "the game begins at the select screen." Knowing who your opponent might pick is an important part of playing competitively.

Bruh, at which point did I say that I was against counter-picking? Have you read any of my posts? I was talking about how Blind-Select is a less favourable method.

 

[Paul the Octopus]

Then sucks for you because counter picking is an accepted part of competitive fighting games. As the old saying goes "the game begins at the select screen." Knowing who your opponent might pick is an important part of playing competitively.

This "not wanting to play footsies at the character select screen" talking point is nonsense.

Even with variation lock, you have to guess before game one since that is double blind character (and variation) choice. And in a set where players plan to counterpick, the first game is the one that matters most (if players are evenly matched its the only one that matters, period).

So you're doing this whether you like it or not.

 

[Konqrr]

I disagree. It actually is a compromise with the people who want variation lock to still allow the loser a chance to counter a possible variation change.

It is the only way a variation switch makes sense to me

Why encourage counter picking? We will just have Rooftop Day/Pit cycles all over again but this time with variations instead of stages.

My way makes the better player win with their character and options available to them.

 

[AK L0rdoftheFLY]

Why encourage counter picking? We will just have Rooftop Day/Pit cycles all over again but this time with variations instead of stages.

My way makes the better player win with their character and options available to them.

can you explain your way to me? I don't want to guess.

my thought it...if we have 90 diff characters there will be a hard counter to almost every variation. Statistically speaking, it will likely be a lopsided counter. If the winer is locked to their variation, then the loser can just go straight to the hard counter. This actually will make the hard counters sometimes less effective because the loser can control if the winner is var locked or not.

help me better understand your way

 

[haketh]

Just fucking go with the Melty Blood/Arcana style for simplicities fucking sake, if the loser goes back to character select screen winner can change variation. Boom, bam, simple done. Stop worrying so much about counter picking, it's a natural part of fighting games.

 

[Paul the Octopus]

Just fucking go with the Melty Blood/Arcana style for simplicities fucking sake, if the loser goes back to character select screen winner can change variation. Boom, bam, simple done. Stop worrying so much about counter picking, it's a natural part of fighting games.

The bigger point that many people are failing to see is that variation switches mitigates counter picking, it doesn't increase it. As long as it's done right.

Not sure I can explain it any better than I already have. I'm trying to be nice but variation lock goes against both logic and precedent (melty blood and arcana heart), and there's no reason to do it other than a misguided sense of tradition and fear of complexity.

 

[Badboy Takuma]

lol this thread is still going on haha

lets keep the rules like in mk9, but: if loser go screen select the winner is allowed to change variation.

 

[cyke_out]

Agreed, winner can change variation only after loser selects new character but before loser selects that characters variation.

Simple, easy to understand, and the way it's done in other games.

 

[Jim]

The bigger point that many people are failing to see is that variation switches mitigates counter picking, it doesn't increase it. As long as it's done right.

Not sure I can explain it any better than I already have. I'm trying to be nice but variation lock goes against both logic and precedent (melty blood and arcana heart), and there's no reason to do it other than a misguided sense of tradition and fear of complexity.

It isn't that we don't see your side, it's that we don't agree with it. My reasons for wanting variant lock have nothing to do with counter picking. There isn't something you haven't explained enough, we get it but don't agree. There are many good reasons to have variant lock that both myself and others have pointed out several times in this thread.

We can have a normal discussion without you talking down to people who don't agree with you.

If we shouldn't have variant lock, then why should we have character lock? If you think variant lock would only be continuing meaningless tradition then why should we continue that tradition?

 

[coolwhip]

If anyone's argument tries to portray this situation as simple in any way, and you're acting surprised that some don't "see" your point, please, stop. This is clearly not as simple as it sounds.

 

[AK L0rdoftheFLY]

It isn't that we don't see your side, it's that we don't agree with it. My reasons for wanting variant lock have nothing to do with counter picking. There isn't something you haven't explained enough, we get it but don't agree. There are many good reasons to have variant lock that both myself and others have pointed out several times in this thread.

We can have a normal discussion without you talking down to people who don't agree with you.

If we shouldn't have variant lock, then why should we have character lock? If you think variant lock would only be continuing meaningless tradition then why should we continue that tradition?

Well...that might not be your reason but it has been for most other people wanting variation lock. I would love to hear an argument that has less to do a counter picking. Would you mind explaining it to me?

 

[Jim]

Well...that might not be your reason but it has been for most other people wanting variation lock. I would love to hear an argument that has less to do a counter picking. Would you mind explaining it to me?

Here's my answer from earlier in the thread. The closest to it having to do with counter picks is the worry that the counter picks from allowing variant unlock will delay tournaments. I don't have a problem with the counter itself, just the delay.

The point of character lock is the winner must stick with their set of tools. What difference does it make if those tools change based on the character or the variant selected? Your rules won't promote 5-5s they promote sitting and constantly guessing what variant the loser is going to go with based on what variant you go with. You don't want boring tournaments like Aquaman vs Catwoman? Well you probably don't want boring tournaments of select screen vs stream time. This will not make matches more exciting, it will cluster fuck tournaments.

The only reason you are saying this should be allowed is because of the way it is selected. If the game play were identical but Sub-Zero had three faces at the character select we'd all call it character lock to Sub-Zero - Unbreakable and leave it at that. So how does the loser picking a new character or variant to deal with that particular Sub-Zero differ in anyway than picking a new character to deal with a character like we did in MK9 and IGAU?

You also didn't address another element this brings in. Does simply switching the stage by the loser allow the winner to change variants or not? Not huge but another factor.

If you honestly think people will know and understand these rules for tournaments you are very badly mistaken. I had to explain the stage select rules for IGAU to opponent this weekend when he selected his own stage.

Also to the guy saying wait until it comes out. Hell no. We are going to be doing release day tournaments for this. Lets have the rules in place from the get go. There will not be a magic new ruling from Paulo that will make us go 'Oh ok now we have our rules'.

 

[16 Bit]

I agree completely with Jim.