Can we get a consensus on Character/Variation Lock rules?

[Atriox]

Can anyone pro winner change (by any method) explain why we shouldn't just allow the winner to change characters at that point?

That is exactly what I don't understand. Most variations are characters in themselves.

 

[Compbros]

We don't know how drastic some matchups will be or how different certain variations might be. It's entirely possible that certain characters beat half the cast in one variation and beat the other half in another. I'm not saying this is likely, but it's possible. You could have a character+variation (character 1) who's countered by another character+variation (character 2), but character 1 has a a variation that beats all of character 2's variations.

All I'm saying is, in theory, the opponent could be put in a position where they simply cannot counter the winner with their chosen character+variation, if the winner is able to change their variation.

And yes, I concede that the above is somewhat unlikely, but it's stuff like that that turn me off to the whole idea.

Also, it's always been the loser's privilege to chose a "major advantage" match-up, if one's available. I don't get why that should change. The winner can do the same when/if they lose, which, imo, makes it totally fair.

We know variations change a character which means the matchup itself will change, whether minutely or drastically is irrelevant because there's characters like Reptile that don't have a ton of difference between variations and then you have a Raiden where he gets ridiculous changes between variations. It will not be a generalized thing, variations will alter some matchups a lot and others will barely change anything.

I've mentioned this before as well, you're looking at it only from "the loser may not be able to have as much advantage as they like or the advantage may be negated" but you should also see it as "the loser could end up with too much advantage". I've brought this up before.

So, hypothetically, let's say you have someone picking Scorpion's A variation and wins. The opponent now picks Quan Chi, whom is good against all of Scorpions variation's regardless of what he picks, then you have them pick variation B which is the best choice for Scorpion A. Now, let's take it further and say Scorpion can change variation and that C is the best against Quan Chi regardless of Quan's variation. Even if it's still a bad matchup it gives the Scorpion player a better chance instead of having to deal with a character and variation counterpick.

The loser still has that chance, it just won't be ridiculous with both a character that does well against the winners character and a variation that does well against the winner's variation.

 

[insignis]

A free for all also isn't the answer if that's what you're advocating. The winner given free range to do as they please after a victory? That sounds horrendous even with hidden select as they can now switch up their entire game after a win with no restrictions. Seems awful, winner should ALWAYS be locked to the character they won with unless it's a reset in grand finals.

So your excuse for lock is "I can't adapt during the match so winner must have restrictions"?

Because a counter pick is not an automatic win.


Everyone has equal options for match 1, then the situation changes after.


You're saying we shouldn't compare one fighting game to another or "Other games are irrelevant" but now we should look at boxing as an example of what to do, rules-wise?

Sometimes it is an auto win when someone counterpicks something like 7-3.

Afterall everything goes to:

1) First match is equal

2) Second match in losers favor

3) Third match in losers favor (first winner is more likely to win)

Yes, loser may make a mistake and lose again but it’s not the point.


You can have basic rules which are OK for every game like time limits for round, default number of round per match, etc. But you should be flexible when game provides your perfect tools to solve issues other games have. I call to look at the game as at the distinct product rather than an appendix to the genre.

In Football (or Soccer), when a team scores the ball is given to the opposition.


In FG tournaments, when the winner wins the advantage is given to the loser. The winner just won. He's 1 point ahead, i.e- he has the best advantage a person could have. Why wouldn't you try to even things out by giving the loser an advantage?


If the winner then loses, then they get the same advantage. How is that not fair?

Still soccer is restricted by time. Not a number of scores. And how would you like if rules don’t let the winning team to swap players until the losing one will catch up? Or maybe lets give the losing team laser pointers to blind goalkeeper – that would be fair.


Our final line you say that it is fair to put the winner of the first game in advantage for the last one. A defeats B, B is in favor and defeats A, A is in favor and is more likelly to defeat B. In the end A is more likely to end up victorious.

 

[Compbros]

Can anyone pro winner change (by any method) explain why we shouldn't just allow the winner to change characters at that point?

Because even though variations change specials and some normals the characters, for the most part, still have a lot of standard normal, strings, and special moves. It's not like going from Scorpion to Ermac in MK9 and, because they both have a similar teleport, it can be seen that Ermac is just a "variation" of Scorpion. These aren't completely different characters, they're the same characters that play differently. AFAIK, Raiden doesn't have a variation that plays like Kitana, Kitana doesn't have a variation that plays like D'vorah, D'vorah doesn't have a variation that plays like Kotal. So on and so forth. Allowing a winner to just change character changes way more in a match up than a variation switch.

 

[Swindle]

We don't know how drastic some matchups will be or how different certain variations might be. It's entirely possible that certain characters beat half the cast in one variation and beat the other half in another. I'm not saying this is likely, but it's possible. You could have a character+variation (character 1) who's countered by another character+variation (character 2), but character 1 has a a variation that beats all of character 2's variations.

All I'm saying is, in theory, the opponent could be put in a position where they simply cannot counter the winner with their chosen character+variation, if the winner is able to change their variation.

And yes, I concede that the above is somewhat unlikely, but it's stuff like that that turn me off to the whole idea.

Also, it's always been the loser's privilege to chose a "major advantage" match-up, if one's available. I don't get why that should change. The winner can do the same when/if they lose, which, imo, makes it totally fair.

So what exactly is the problem with "Winner picks character, then Loser picks character, then both Hidden Select Variation"? This way, no one is "locked" into anything, Loser still has a potential advantage (unless he is purposefully picking a character in which all variations are losing matchups, WTF?), and the hidden select functions like another hype mindgame. This way highlights who the overall better player is, and encourages players to learn ALL of their characters Variations and how they matchup. Furthermore, since the game is brand new, and it will be a long time before we know the true extent of how the variations in MKX affect the matchups per character, this allows that information to be presented. Just locking-locking everything will really slow down the overall development, IMO. Plus, it's a dead easy ruleset - Winner picks first/Both hidden select Variation.

 

[insignis]

So what exactly is the problem with "Winner picks character, then Loser picks character, then both Hidden Select Variation"? This way, no one is "locked" into anything, Loser still has a potential advantage (unless he is purposefully picking a character in which all variations are losing matchups, WTF?), and the hidden select functions like another hype mindgame. This way highlights who the overall better player is, and encourages players to learn ALL of their characters Variations and how they matchup. Furthermore, since the game is brand new, and it will be a long time before we know the true extent of how the variations in MKX affect the matchups per character, this allows that information to be presented. Just locking-locking everything will really slow down the overall development, IMO. Plus, it's a dead easy ruleset - Winner picks first/Hidden select Variation.

doesn't MKX have a hidden CHARACTER select?

 

[Sultan]

We know variations change a character which means the matchup itself will change, whether minutely or drastically is irrelevant because there's characters like Reptile that don't have a ton of difference between variations and then you have a Raiden where he gets ridiculous changes between variations. It will not be a generalized thing, variations will alter some matchups a lot and others will barely change anything.

I've mentioned this before as well, you're looking at it only from "the loser may not be able to have as much advantage as they like or the advantage may be negated" but you should also see it as "the loser could end up with too much advantage". I've brought this up before.



The loser still has that chance, it just won't be ridiculous with both a character that does well against the winners character and a variation that does well against the winner's variation.

Firstly, a "variation" is just another character. Take whatever the final cast number is, and multiply it by 3. This is the basis of my argument: variations don't change anything, this isn't a ground-breaking mechanic, "variations" are individual characters distinct from every other character. They will each have individual match-ups, combos, tech, etc. Aside from having 2 other visual clones, variation 1, 2 and 3 of a character will for all intents and purposes be different characters. This is why I believe this whole debate is a non-argument, because a "variation" will not change the "character" or alter match-ups for the "character," because the variation is simply a distinct character.

Now that I've stated the basis of my argument for what a variation really is (imo), why should the winner be allowed to chose from one of 3 different characters when they win? It just doesn't compute with me.

And I disagree that I "should also see it as 'the loser could end up with too much advantage.'" I can try to see things from that perspective, but there's no such thing in my book. How can the guy that lost, the one that's on the ropes, be at an advantage? If I lose to a Zangief and I lost using Rufus in Ultra, I have every right to maximize my advantage with my pocket Dhalsim. And if I win, my opponent has every right to counter my Dhalsim with his pocket Rufus.

If NRS was really pushing the envelope here and I wasn't just choosing a different character when I was choosing a different variation, then yes, I'd agree that MKX doesn't have to conform to the general rules of competitive fighting games, but it's just another traditional fighter imo. There exists no mechanic in this game that justifies re-inventing the wheel.

 

[Sultan]

So what exactly is the problem with "Winner picks character, then Loser picks character, then both Hidden Select Variation"? This way, no one is "locked" into anything, Loser still has a potential advantage (unless he is purposefully picking a character in which all variations are losing matchups, WTF?), and the hidden select functions like another hype mindgame. This way highlights who the overall better player is, and encourages players to learn ALL of their characters Variations and how they matchup. Furthermore, since the game is brand new, and it will be a long time before we know the true extent of how the variations in MKX affect the matchups per character, this allows that information to be presented. Just locking-locking everything will really slow down the overall development, IMO. Plus, it's a dead easy ruleset - Winner picks first/Hidden select Variation.

If you look at my above post you'll see why I don't agree with this. The idea that a different variation of a character even exists is inherently flawed in my book, each variation is a distinct character.

EDIT: With that said, I wouldn't be mad if your proposed solution was implemented. It does have precedence. In KOF you can change your team order when you win, if the opponent chooses to do so or change their characters, and this is done secretly. I'd still prefer a rigid character+variation lock, though.

 

[Compbros]

So your excuse for lock is "I can't adapt during the match so winner must have restrictions"?

Is that what I said? I said it's a horrendous choice to allow the winner to do whatever they want after just winning. Did I say anything about a lack of adaptation? No, I didn't, so please don't put words in my mouth. If that was the case I'd simply say "no counter picking" because, as the winner, I'd have to adapt to the loser's counter pick. Winner given free reign after a win does not make sense to me.

Sometimes it is an auto win when someone counterpicks something like 7-3.

Afterall everything goes to:

1) First match is equal
2) Second match in losers favor
3) Third match in losers favor (first winner is more likely to win)

Yes, loser may make a mistake and lose again but it’s not the point.

You can have basic rules which are OK for every game like time limits for round, default number of round per match, etc. But you should be flexible when game provides your perfect tools to solve issues other games have. I call to look at the game as at the distinct product rather than an appendix to the genre.

No, it's not, there's no such thing as an auto win. I'm an adequate player but if I were to pick up Kenshi against, say, Jeremiah's Sheeva, there's no guarantee I'll win just because I have the favor in an 8-2 match up.


Everything doesn't go by what you said, a loser may not play based on favorable matchup but instead just try to switch up the character to change flow or picking a character they're more comfortable with. People go from 6-4's to 5-5's because they may be more comfortable with the 5-5 matchup character.

It's not about the loser "making a mistake", they could just be outplayed. Losing and winning isn't just "who wins this matchup" even if it's a 7-3: skill, match up knowledge, fundamentals, character's tools, what have you. All these things play a part in a game, not just "it's a 7-3 so sometimes it's an auto win". That's ridiculous.


We are flexible but "winner is locked" is one of those basic rules. Now it's just about how much the winner should be locked since we have a unique situation with variations but you're trying to argue change to a widely accepted rule across all FGs.

 

[Swindle]

doesn't MKX have a hidden CHARACTER select?

I'm sure it will.

If you look at my above post you'll see why I don't agree with this. The idea that a different variation of a character even exists is inherently flawed in my book, each variation is a distinct character.

Whether you agree with that point or not doesn't address or answer any single thing that I wrote. I asked a question (which you didn't answer), then I gave reasons to support my stance (which you didn't refute). You are just blindly saying "This game is no different from other games of it's type, so just use the same ruleset" - completely ignoring the fact that a potentially BETTER option is available.





They were right about you.

 

[Compbros]

Firstly, a "variation" is just another character. Take whatever the final cast number is, and multiply it by 3. This is the basis of my argument: variations don't change anything, this isn't a ground-breaking mechanic, "variations" are individual characters distinct from every other character. They will each have individual match-ups, combos, tech, etc. Aside from having 2 other visual clones, variation 1, 2 and 3 of a character will for all intents and purposes be different characters. This is why I believe this whole debate is a non-argument, because a "variation" will not change the "character" or alter match-ups for the "character," because the variation is simply a distinct character.

Now that I've stated the basis of my argument for what a variation really is (imo), why should the winner be allowed to chose from one of 3 different characters when they win? It just doesn't compute with me.

And I disagree that I "should also see it as 'the loser could end up with too much advantage.'" I can try to see things from that perspective, but there's no such thing in my book. How can the guy that lost, the one that's on the ropes, be at an advantage? If I lose to a Zangief and I lost using Rufus in Ultra, I have every right to maximize my advantage with my pocket Dhalsim. And if I win, my opponent has every right to counter my Dhalsim with his pocket Rufus.

If NRS was really pushing the envelope here and I wasn't just choosing a different character when I was choosing a different variation, then yes, I'd agree that MKX doesn't have to conform to the general rules of competitive fighting games, but it's just another traditional fighter imo. There exists no mechanic in this game that justifies re-inventing the wheel.

But it's really not, it's that same character with some changes. This isn't the Shoto's of Street Fighter whom have standardized specials with slight differences but they all have different normals, walk speeds, dashes, what have you. They are different characters with a hadokun, shoryuken, and tatsumaki. Raiden changes more than anyone as far as I can tell but if his normals, movement (minus teleport), spacing, w/e are the same across all variations as well as his lightning projectile and superman dive then it's not a completely different character, it's the same character except add this here and take that away there.


You say other fighters are irrelevant so let's just look at this in the space of MKX, variations aren't another character, they're character A, B, and C. We can't compare this to other things and say "the moves are different so it's another character", it's not IMO. It's the same character with X thing instead of Y. That's the basis of my argument, unlike other games we should see every variation as the same character with an A, B, or C instead of separating them and because of this way of thinking a simple variation change should not allow the winner to change their's but a new character should allow a winner to change variation because now you're not just fighting the same character except it's B instead of A, now you're fighting a completely different character and toolset as well as having to deal with either A, B, or C.


It seems that it's mainly a different way of thinking in how to treat the characters. People see variations as a different character whereas I don't.

 

[FinalBoss_FGC]

I don't see why it should be any different than any other fighting game. If you win, keep what you got.

 

[Treadmill]

The only thing that makes sense is the character and variation are both locked to the winner. It's simple.

 

[Compbros]

I don't see why it should be any different than any other fighting game. If you win, keep what you got.

Because it's not like other fighters.

 

[insignis]

Is that what I said? I said it's a horrendous choice to allow the winner to do whatever they want after just winning. Did I say anything about a lack of adaptation? No, I didn't, so please don't put words in my mouth. If that was the case I'd simply say "no counter picking" because, as the winner, I'd have to adapt to the loser's counter pick. Winner given free reign after a win does not make sense to me.

No, it's not, there's no such thing as an auto win. I'm an adequate player but if I were to pick up Kenshi against, say, Jeremiah's Sheeva, there's no guarantee I'll win just because I have the favor in an 8-2 match up.

Everything doesn't go by what you said, a loser may not play based on favorable matchup but instead just try to switch up the character to change flow or picking a character they're more comfortable with. People go from 6-4's to 5-5's because they may be more comfortable with the 5-5 matchup character.

It's not about the loser "making a mistake", they could just be outplayed. Losing and winning isn't just "who wins this matchup" even if it's a 7-3: skill, match up knowledge, fundamentals, character's tools, what have you. All these things play a part in a game, not just "it's a 7-3 so sometimes it's an auto win". That's ridiculous.

We are flexible but "winner is locked" is one of those basic rules. Now it's just about how much the winner should be locked since we have a unique situation with variations but you're trying to argue change to a widely accepted rule across all FGs.

You said it's horrendous because winner can entirely change his gameplay. Maybe I misunderstood you, sorry.

You use nuances like someone can outplay another. How can rules be based on that? MUs are calculated basing on equal skilled players, why such approach can't be used towards rules?

If game provides entirely hidden select (character and variation) why do you insist on ignoring it? If you win and we both go to hidden select - none of us will know opponent's choice which destroys problem with counterpicking and places us in an equal position for each match.

Yes, I suggest changes. World is going further and with new tools it is possible to change things in a better way.

 

[Compbros]

You said it's horrendous because winner can entirely change his gameplay. Maybe I misunderstood you, sorry.

You use nuances like someone can outplay another. How can rules be based on that? MUs are calculated basing on equal skilled players, why such approach can't be used towards rules?

If game provides entirely hidden select (character and variation) why do you insist on ignoring it? If you win and we both go to hidden select - none of us will know opponent's choice which destroys problem with counterpicking and places us in an equal position for each match.

Yes, I suggest changes. World is going further and with new tools it is possible to change things in a better way.

Don't worry about it, I just feel it's very, very bad to let winner get free reign on things since they just won.

We can't but we shouldn't make rules based purely on match up numbers because they're not the deciding factor or what people pick a different character all the time. That's all I'm saying. To say "the loser is just gonna pick the best match up and win so let winner choose a different character if they like" just doesn't make sense to me.

Because the winner of the last match has a built in advantage of being up a game unless they just tied the set. So to allow them to pick someone else in blind select they may provide further advantage because it's a favorable match up again makes no sense to me.

Change is fine but this change seems like a bad one IMO. People can suggest lowering the game clock to increase match speed or making it infinite so matches are won purely on who was better that round/set/tournament but it doesn't make them good. It doesn't make them bad either mind you but change for the sake of change is hardly progressive when the current way works very well.

 

[Sultan]

But it's really not, it's that same character with some changes. This isn't the Shoto's of Street Fighter whom have standardized specials with slight differences but they all have different normals, walk speeds, dashes, what have you. They are different characters with a hadokun, shoryuken, and tatsumaki. Raiden changes more than anyone as far as I can tell but if his normals, movement (minus teleport), spacing, w/e are the same across all variations as well as his lightning projectile and superman dive then it's not a completely different character, it's the same character except add this here and take that away there.


You say other fighters are irrelevant so let's just look at this in the space of MKX, variations aren't another character, they're character A, B, and C. We can't compare this to other things and say "the moves are different so it's another character", it's not IMO. It's the same character with X thing instead of Y. That's the basis of my argument, unlike other games we should see every variation as the same character with an A, B, or C instead of separating them and because of this way of thinking a simple variation change should not allow the winner to change their's but a new character should allow a winner to change variation because now you're not just fighting the same character except it's B instead of A, now you're fighting a completely different character and toolset as well as having to deal with either A, B, or C.


It seems that it's mainly a different way of thinking in how to treat the characters. People see variations as a different character whereas I don't.

So Ermac, H.Smoke, Scorpion, Classic Sub, and Reptile are all the same characters in UMK3? Since there only notable differences are special moves and combo chains. Of course, in UMK3 they're treated as individual characters, because they are. It's the same difference here. Any difference, no matter how minute, is a difference. To me, each variation of Reptile is a different character

And I think you're right in your final analysis: some people see variations as different characters (myself) some don't (you). The only problem is that one of these perspectives will dictate how this game is played in tournaments. Mine = character + variation lock, something tried and true; yours = something new, something that needs to be tested and explored, something potentially better maybe, but also unnecessarily complicated (imo).

I just think Occam's razor's going to win out in this debate. I won't be mad if I'm wrong and we go by something you or Swindle have proposed, but I don't see the point in the unnecessary.

 

[Doombawkz]

Ok so if I'm understanding the counter-argument, you guys are saying that variation change shouldn't be a thing because people might counterpick themselves?
Because thats the only way something like character lock but variation first-pick could be detrimental to the second player is if they shoot their foot.

 

[SaltShaker]

Those people that think it should be character and variation lock under all circumstances, you do realize how anti-hype that would make the game right?

Literally 95% of the matches would just be a counter pick, followed by a counter pick, followed by a counter pick, repeatedly until the set was over. Oh I lost against Kitana C, time to use Ermac B. Oh he lost so time to use QC A. Oh I lost time to use Kotal B. Oh he lost so goes back to Kitana C. Oh I lost so I go back to Ermac B. Set ends 3-2. How would that be hype???

That would be by far the least hype solution and it isn't necessary to go that route.

 

[insignis]

Don't worry about it, I just feel it's very, very bad to let winner get free reign on things since they just won.

We can't but we shouldn't make rules based purely on match up numbers because they're not the deciding factor or what people pick a different character all the time. That's all I'm saying. To say "the loser is just gonna pick the best match up and win so let winner choose a different character if they like" just doesn't make sense to me.

Because the winner of the last match has a built in advantage of being up a game unless they just tied the set. So to allow them to pick someone else in blind select they may provide further advantage because it's a favorable match up again makes no sense to me.

Change is fine but this change seems like a bad one IMO. People can suggest lowering the game clock to increase match speed or making it infinite so matches are won purely on who was better that round/set/tournament but it doesn't make them good. It doesn't make them bad either mind you but change for the sake of change is hardly progressive when the current way works very well.

ok, let's say I agree that score advantage is a thing (I don't really but whatever). When both players are at 1-1. Why loser have an advantage again? It's a match point for both of them. Still the winner is in disadvantage.

 

[Compbros]

So Ermac, H.Smoke, Scorpion, Classic Sub, and Reptile are all the same characters in UMK3? Since there only notable differences are special moves and combo chains. Of course, in UMK3 they're treated as individual characters, because they are. It's the same difference here. Any difference, no matter how minute, is a difference. To me, each variation of Reptile is a different character

And I think you're right in your final analysis: some people see variations as different characters (myself) some don't (you). The only problem is that one of these perspectives will dictate how this game is played in tournaments. Mine = character + variation lock, something tried and true; yours = something new, something that needs to be tested and explored, something potentially better maybe, but also unnecessarily complicated (imo).

I just think Occam's razor's going to win out in this debate. I won't be mad if I'm wrong and we go by something you or Swindle have proposed, but I don't see the point in the unnecessary.

Why would they be? The have different combo chains and specials but games have evolved since then and MKX doesn't involve the standard, across the board things of the old games. I don't think that's quite analogous. I don't see it that way though, at least not for MKX. Other games I'd say so but I'm not looking at other games, I'm only looking at it in the scope of MKX when it comes to characters and counter picking.


No, both ways will dictate how the game is played in tournaments. Your way is a method that most games go with and that's a complete lock, mine is one that few games go with. No matter which it still dictates tournament play. Character + variation lock is also not "tried and true" because it's an untested method for something like MKX where, by your own admission, the loser gets to counter pick with two characters (the base character and the variation) instead of one. I don't think it's complicated at all, I think the rules of the old Injustice stage/character switch before double random was more complicated than what I am proposing.


I don't know what will win out but I don't think we should stick with the norm of winner is completely locked since this game isn't like many others out there. There's more to look at per character switch.

 

[Compbros]

ok, let's say I agree that score advantage is a thing (I don't really but whatever). When both players are at 1-1. Why loser have an advantage again? It's a match point for both of them. Still the winner is in disadvantage.

Before I answer let me say that I do believe it would be an advantage in your situation because now the winner gets a free game to switch character's so the opponent doesn't start to read and adjust to what they're doing. In some type of lock situation the winner is afforded no such advantage/mind game.

Now, I'll also answer your question with a question, which I don't really like doing: Why should the winner be given any type of advantage at all? Even double blind has the potential to allow for an advantage to the winner if they turn out getting a 7-3 match up in their favor.


To answer your question with an actual answer, I believe the loser should be given the best chance to level the playing field (this doesn't mean even the score), within reason, if they so choose.

 

[Tony at Home]

There's no reason to change the current standard of winner lock until we know more about the game to understand what rules should apply.

Arguments can be made that the winner can pick another variation, but to say we should start by that as default is wierd.

For example, things like character lock for tournament can also be looked at, but wouldn't everyone agree that as a default rule (one to be applied before we know how the game is played at tournaments) it is a horrible, terrible idea?

 

[TotteryManx]

imo the best choice is the simplest one until the game is more fleshed out. Winner being locked makes sense.

 

[Sultan]

I'm sure it will.

Whether you agree with that point or not doesn't address or answer any single thing that I wrote. I asked a question (which you didn't answer), then I gave reasons to support my stance (which you didn't refute). You are just blindly saying "This game is no different from other games of it's type, so just use the same ruleset" - completely ignoring the fact that a potentially BETTER option is available.





They were right about you.

This very debate is formulated on the grounds that character variation introduces a new challenge to how we compete in MKX. That new challenge: that each character has 3 different forms, meaning we have to figure out a new way to compete in light of this new mechanic. I, however, don't see this as a new mechanic that changes the way we play fighting games, I see MKX, based on what we know, as being not unlike other fighting games. I see the tried-and-true system of winner's locked, loser isn't, working here perfectly fine. The reason why earlier argument applied to your point, is not because it responded to yours, but because my earlier argument is that there is no debate, everyone who thinks that MKX needs to re-invent the wheel seems to be arguing from the perspective I just argued against in this very paragraph. If you aren't, then I apologize for assuming.

The reason why I support a total lock: It's worked for every single fighter, and it will work perfectly fine for this one.

When you argue that the progress of MKX will be slowed by the tried-and-true method, you are anticipating a danger that I don't see. I don't see things getting stagnant or sluggish in the meta, I don't see this because I've been playing fighters for years and it's never been the winner-gets-locked rule that's hindered any particular game or scene - it's always been the game or scene that hurts the game. Either the game's not fun to play or the scene sucks and can't support a good game.

With all that said, as I added to my first post responding to you, I'm not against your suggestion, if anything it's my favorite alternative. I would happily play this game in the meta you described. And I agree with @SaltShaker that it would be more hype that way. But, I prefer simplicity to complexity