What's new

some thoughts about the three variations

1. will it lead to more character loyalism?

People who played multiple characters for better chances in competition might stick with "one char" now. People who just like variety wont be affected, and maybe learn only their favourite variation of different chars.


2. will it lead to a counterpicking fest?

If it works like rock-paper-scissors, yes. if you start off with Raiden A vs Quan Chi B, which is, lets say, 6-4, you continue with Raiden A vs Quan chi C (4-6), then Raiden B vs Quan Chi C (6-4 again) and so on. it might even lead to more counterpicking than in any other game, because a different variation is not as hard to learn as a whole different character. i really fear the game flow is gonna be harmed by going back to the menu all the time. i hope NRS implement a quick select option for variations after each match.

Another possibilty would be that people pick the variation which overall does the best (has the least one-sided negative matchups, so no 3-7s and worse) against all three of the opponents variations. so we could see established matchups, like Kitana and Kano will always fight as B vs C. the reason is, if you have one variation that goes 7-3 against one of the other char's, but 3-7 against the other two, you will minimize the risk of getting counterpicked by picking a var that maybe goes, 5-5, 5-5, 4-6 from the beginning on.


3. what could be tournament rules?

this might be a bit of an unrealistic, restrictive but imo interesting idea. seeing that the variation thing is intended to benefit character loyalists, maybe it could be character lock for both, loser picks variation. i dont see it happening though.


4. will we ever see this game being played on master level or ist it too hard to learn all matchups?

that just depends on our dedication.




whats your take? in-depth discussion appreciated
 
Last edited:

Vagrant

Noob
maybe it could be character lock for both, loser picks variation. i dont see it happening though.
Yeah I don't want to lock losers into a character. Just seems unnecessarily restrictive imo and likely won't solve counter picking issues either since you still have variations that we're assuming will change matchups.

Definitely don't see it happening but there's always a chance I guess.
 
D

Deleted member 9158

Guest
Unless Boon and the goons do a good job balancing the game, it will probably turn into a counter-picking fest. With that being said, I am really looking forward to the countless threads debating tier positions of characters and all their variants.

;)
 

Compbros

Man of Tomorrow
1. Yes - People tend to pick up secondaries to deal with bad matchups of their characters or find ones that do what their character does but better. Now you have three opportunities to play the character you like.

2. Yes, but FGs are a counterpick fest anyway.

3. Could be any number of things, here's what I'd go with.

Winner is character locked, loser can switch character/variation. If loser is choosing a different variation then winner is variation locked, if loser chooses a new character then the picking is like this: (L) character -> (W) variation -> (L) variation.

4. High level play is a given, the variations are mostly the same characters with a handful of different strings/special moves. It's not hard to learn those extra options.
 

IrishMantis

Most humble shit talker ever!!!
I think to find out MU's with it you can have char x vs char y

and have their Mu's judged like

a v a
a v b
a v c
b v a
b v b
etc

so you iwll have 9 numbers than average them out and boom your mutch up!!!

I love this idea of having different variations is gonna be fun seen people argue about certain MU's
 

Barrogh

Meta saltmine
I think to find out MU's with it you can have char x vs char y

and have their Mu's judged like

a v a
a v b
a v c
b v a
b v b
etc

so you iwll have 9 numbers than average them out and boom your mutch up!!!
Lol, and what is the point of that average? A matchup numbers for two unexisting "average" characters?
Even if you could mix and match tools of different kits, you would still do so consciously, not relying on some "average" that has nothing to do with your opponent's gameplan or your strategy to beat that. But you don't even get to do so, you get to choose one of many sets of moves given to you by developers - exactly what you do in any other FG. MKX will be no different, there will just be a metric ton of matchups.

On actual topic: it will be easier to pick up secondaries IMO. Not only you will have part of execution down, but you will also keep many tools and thus you won't have to re-learn your spacing game entirely (unless your secondary choice changes exactly that). Although I see that as time passes, tournament players will still pick a different character altogether as their secondary if he's better at what player intends to do than another variation of his main. For example, if some D'vorah player wants to play keepaway because his opponents use powerful rushdown kits, and Cyberkano will end up better zoner than any of D'vorah variations, then differences won't be able to stop him, eventually.
 

IrishMantis

Most humble shit talker ever!!!
Lol, and what is the point of that average? A matchup numbers for two unexisting "average" characters?
Even if you could mix and match tools of different kits, you would still do so consciously, not relying on some "average" that has nothing to do with your opponent's gameplan or your strategy to beat that. But you don't even get to do so, you get to choose one of many sets of moves given to you by developers - exactly what you do in any other FG. MKX will be no different, there will just be a metric ton of matchups.

On actual topic: it will be easier to pick up secondaries IMO. Not only you will have part of execution down, but you will also keep many tools and thus you won't have to re-learn your spacing game entirely (unless your secondary choice changes exactly that). Although I see that as time passes, tournament players will still pick a different character altogether as their secondary if he's better at what player intends to do than another variation of his main. For example, if some D'vorah player wants to play keepaway because his opponents use powerful rushdown kits, and Cyberkano will end up better zoner than any of D'vorah variations, then differences won't be able to stop him, eventually.
I was a suggestions man no need to go all Rosa Parks on my ass
 

Barrogh

Meta saltmine
I was a suggestions man no need to go all Rosa Parks on my ass
Well, I'm sorry, I know I can be obnoxious quite often.
I believe that suggestions should be justified. We do have a convention on meaning of MU numbers, in short they represent an average theoretical outcome of set of games between 2 kits. By lumping several kits' numbers together as average we only get some numbers not applicable to any actual MU you can experience in game, they just don't have any meaning.

I also believe that there's no real gameplay-related meaning in trying to connect different kits on the basis that they are different variations of the same character. Sure, they share a lot of tools, but if that actually makes some MUs somewhat similar, then it will just be represented by similar MU numbers (so if differences between Xa and Xb don't make or break matchup with Ya, then we'll just say that both Xa - Ya and Xb - Ya MUs are, say, 5-5). In the end they are still different matchups, and the easiest thing to do is to just write down MU number for every kit, just like we always did since MU numbers became a thing.

Now, if some specific rules will be agreed upon where variations of a single character are distinguished from variations of different characters (like character lock, but not variation lock; or something like that), then we will do some statistical job on trying to estimate every group of kits players will be locked in (in this example, it's a character with all of his variations) and how it fares against other groups, but essentially it's the same as discussing those non-MU-related, but tournament-relevant things we always were aware of: general meta, counterpicks, "tournament survivability" etc. We don't really have to reinvent a wheel IMO.
 

WarlordRenegade

Founder of Team Renegade
I will be a sub zero loyalist and master all three of his variations one at a time!

As far as the loser character lock that is going to be anti hype, the loser is going to be able to switch variation and or character after a loss it's the only fair way to do it
 

IrishMantis

Most humble shit talker ever!!!
Well, I'm sorry, I know I can be obnoxious quite often.
I believe that suggestions should be justified. We do have a convention on meaning of MU numbers, in short they represent an average theoretical outcome of set of games between 2 kits. By lumping several kits' numbers together as average we only get some numbers not applicable to any actual MU you can experience in game, they just don't have any meaning.

I also believe that there's no real gameplay-related meaning in trying to connect different kits on the basis that they are different variations of the same character. Sure, they share a lot of tools, but if that actually makes some MUs somewhat similar, then it will just be represented by similar MU numbers (so if differences between Xa and Xb don't make or break matchup with Ya, then we'll just say that both Xa - Ya and Xb - Ya MUs are, say, 5-5). In the end they are still different matchups, and the easiest thing to do is to just write down MU number for every kit, just like we always did since MU numbers became a thing.

Now, if some specific rules will be agreed upon where variations of a single character are distinguished from variations of different characters (like character lock, but not variation lock; or something like that), then we will do some statistical job on trying to estimate every group of kits players will be locked in (in this example, it's a character with all of his variations) and how it fares against other groups, but essentially it's the same as discussing those non-MU-related, but tournament-relevant things we always were aware of: general meta, counterpicks, "tournament survivability" etc. We don't really have to reinvent a wheel IMO.
no need to explain yourself i was joking
no worries