Menu
By:
Filters
What's new

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

How should counterpicking be handled?

  • Winner can change variation if loser changes character, W. picks variation before L. picks variation

    Votes: 77 27.8%

  • Winner can change variation if loser changes character, W. picks variation before L. pick char.

    Votes: 20 7.2%

  • Winner is not variation locked if loser changes variation and/or character.

    Votes: 36 13.0%

  • Winner is character/variation locked no matter what loser does.

    Votes: 144 52.0%
  • Total voters
    277
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Slips

Slips

Feared by dragons. Desired by virgins.
I don't understand the point of the winner having to choose their variation first if the loser changes character. From what we've seen, the variations practically re-design how the character works. It's not like they get one or two moves or different a couple different properties on their moves to help deal with certain styles, they look completely different. So we are practically allowing the winner the option of changing a character on a win? Why not just let him pick any character and variation he wants after the loser picks their new character? It just doesn't make sense to me.

In Super Turbo, if I win with 'New' Ken and then someone counter picks, I can't go to 'Old' Ken to try and counter the counter-pick.
 
JHCRANE 14

JHCRANE 14

GO VOLS!!!
I never understood the flawed logic behind winner being locked to a character. Winner & loser can pick character & variation every time. Winner should not be punished for winning. Let them both choose there characters before every match. I hate counter picking and it needs to go in tournaments...Period!!! No winner lock at all.
 
Last edited:
Swindle

Swindle

Philanthropist & Asshole
Are we just ignoring the fact that hidden variation select has been confirmed?
I vote for no character lock, hidden variation select every time. Trying to bully MKX to fit into the mold of other games and their rules completely negates the whole point and purpose of the variations to begin with, IMO.
 
Prinz

Prinz

watch?v=a8PEVV6tt14
Winner should be character+variation lock, loser chooses whatever character or variation he desires. Variations should be treated as different characters in tournament.
For now no one knows how variation MU will turn out. But it is for sure that MU charts will be made based on character A variation B vs character B variation C, which is a treatment like 2 different characters. Thus, every character variation should be treated as a character in itself.
One very good example we have is Reptile, whose variations are only different in one aspect. Let's take his noxious vs Sub's unbreakable. Sub will most likely take less damage from the gas aura, which will be a direct counterpick to Reptile's variation. In the end, totally different MU.
 
Last edited:
Atriox

Atriox

Here... I am a god!
I still don't get this... so if the loser picks another variation of the same character, the winner is not allowed to change variation? But when the loser picks a whole other character the winner is allowed to change variation? What if the variation the loser picks is a 7/3 mu for the winner? That's like picking a completely different character to counter the winner's character. Of course not every variation of every character is gonna be a counter to someone elses character variation, at least I don't think so. But still the whole point of the concept is beyond me. It's still gonna be the same counter picking concept as before, most likely.
 
Swindle

Swindle

Philanthropist & Asshole
Eternal Darkseid said:
I still don't get this... so if the loser picks another variation of the same character, the winner is not allowed to change variation? But when the loser picks a whole other character the winner is allowed to change variation? What if the variation the loser picks is a 7/3 mu for the winner? That's like picking a completely different character to counter the winner's character. Of course not every variation of every character is gonna be a counter to someone elses character variation, at least I don't think so. But still the whole point of the concept is beyond me. It's still gonna be the same counter picking concept as before, most likely.
Click to expand...
...or people can follow my recommendations, and avoid all that shit. My way avoids the usual Counterpicking messes, while maintaining hype. Plus, it's perfect for the game in its infancy, until everyone gets a really good idea of how the variations are really going to play out over the games life.
 
Atriox

Atriox

Here... I am a god!
Swindle said:
...or people can follow my recommendations, and avoid all that shit. My way avoids the usual Counterpicking messes, while maintaining hype. Plus, it's perfect for the game in its infancy, until everyone gets a really good idea of how the variations are really going to play out over the games life.
Click to expand...
So you're implying that neither winner nor loser will be character/variation locked and both can hidden select different characters/variations at any times? Sounds.. weird. I get that it negates counter picking but seeing as most probably every variation will be a character in itself I just think it should be treated as such. Maybe I'm too hung up on the old shool tournament rules, I dunno.
 
insignis

insignis

Noob
Swindle said:
...or people can follow my recommendations, and avoid all that shit. My way avoids the usual Counterpicking messes, while maintaining hype. Plus, it's perfect for the game in its infancy, until everyone gets a really good idea of how the variations are really going to play out over the games life.
Click to expand...
I mentioned it in second post of the thread. I'm afraid the majority won't supprt it.

I really don't understand how shit with locks fixes counterpicking.
Player A wins and is locked. Player B counterpicks, wins and is locked. Player A counterpicks and wins. - people can't see the flow in such retarded system?
 
THTB

THTB

Arez | Booya | Riu48 - Rest Easy, Friends
Slips said:
I don't understand the point of the winner having to choose their variation first if the loser changes character. From what we've seen, the variations practically re-design how the character works. It's not like they get one or two moves or different a couple different properties on their moves to help deal with certain styles, they look completely different. So we are practically allowing the winner the option of changing a character on a win? Why not just let him pick any character and variation he wants after the loser picks their new character? It just doesn't make sense to me.

In Super Turbo, if I win with 'New' Ken and then someone counter picks, I can't go to 'Old' Ken to try and counter the counter-pick.
Click to expand...
Super Turbo runs off of a ruleset that is based on the arcade settings, and has done so since the beginning. The rules of variation freedom on character switch are used in Melty Blood and Arcana Heart, which both have arcade releases. I'm not entirely sure of the reasoning behind this, however. @haketh would be one to shed some light on why it's like this. On first glance, I'd assume it's because those games allow such for the champion.
 
T

trufenix

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

Compbros

Man of Tomorrow
insignis said:
I mentioned it in second post of the thread. I'm afraid the majority won't supprt it.

I really don't understand how shit with locks fixes counterpicking.
Player A wins and is locked. Player B counterpicks, wins and is locked. Player A counterpicks and wins. - people can't see the flow in such retarded system?
Click to expand...

Because that can be any fighting game, it's not exclusive to MKX, there's just more choices here thanks to variation but anything can turn into a counter pick fest and some matches in various games have.
 
insignis

insignis

Noob
Compbros said:
Because that can be any fighting game, it's not exclusive to MKX, there's just more choices here thanks to variation but anything can turn into a counter pick fest and some matches in various games have.
Click to expand...
Other games are irrelevant. MKX provides tools to kill counterpicking as phenomen. Ignoring that because other games are lacking of such is nonsense.

TOs changed number of required rounds for Injustice so what's the problem with character select? Or people are so stupid they won't be able to separate rules for MKX from rules for SF?
 
HeroesNZ

HeroesNZ

Baconlord's Billionaire Sugar Daddy
The entire concept of counterpicking is that the loser gets the advantage. However, the reason we don't give the loser too much of an advantage (i.e-being able to pick their stage as well) is because that would then make it extremely hard for the winner to win again.

With Variation lock, the loser gets an insane advantage. They're able to change both their characters, and variation. This is extremely illogical. You're essentially allowing the loser to pick a character & stage in IGAU/MK9. Imagine winning in MK9, just to see the loser pick Kenshi and Rooftop Day.

With Character Lock, it's infinitely more balanced:
1) Loser changes variation -> Winner is locked to variation.
2) Loser changes character -> Winner may change variation first -> Loser picks variation after the winner picks his.
3) Stages are always random.

Allowing the loser to choose their variation after the winner ensures that they have the final counterpick. In the first game, players just choose their character & variation, just like in IGAU/MK9.

Simple, and fair. No hidden select needed.
 
TopTierHarley

TopTierHarley

Kytinn King
HeroesNZ said:
The entire concept of counterpicking is that the loser gets the advantage. However, the reason we don't give the loser too much of an advantage (i.e-being able to pick their stage as well) is because that would then make it extremely hard for the winner to win again.

With Variation lock, the loser gets an insane advantage. They're able to change both their characters, and variation. This is extremely illogical. You're essentially allowing the loser to pick a character & stage in IGAU/MK9. Imagine winning in MK9, just to see the loser pick Kenshi and Rooftop Day.

With Character Lock, it's infinitely more balanced:
1) Loser changes variation -> Winner is locked to variation.
2) Loser changes character -> Winner may change variation first -> Loser picks variation after the winner picks his.
3) Stages are always random.

Allowing the loser to choose their variation after the winner ensures that they have the final counterpick. In the first game, players just choose their character & variation, just like in IGAU/MK9.

Simple, and fair. No hidden select needed.
Click to expand...
This! I don't see why it's hard for other people to grasp this concept.
 
insignis

insignis

Noob
HeroesNZ said:
The entire concept of counterpicking is that the loser gets the advantage. However, the reason we don't give the loser too much of an advantage (i.e-being able to pick their stage as well) is because that would then make it extremely hard for the winner to win again.

With Variation lock, the loser gets an insane advantage. They're able to change both their characters, and variation. This is extremely illogical. You're essentially allowing the loser to pick a character & stage in IGAU/MK9. Imagine winning in MK9, just to see the loser pick Kenshi and Rooftop Day.

With Character Lock, it's infinitely more balanced:
1) Loser changes variation -> Winner is locked to variation.
2) Loser changes character -> Winner may change variation first -> Loser picks variation after the winner picks his.
3) Stages are always random.

Allowing the loser to choose their variation after the winner ensures that they have the final counterpick. In the first game, players just choose their character & variation, just like in IGAU/MK9.

Simple, and fair. No hidden select needed.
Click to expand...
How letting anyone counterpick is fair in the first place? Why loser should have an advantage? When boxer wins a round does he let opponent to hit him few times to make it "fair"?

Fair is when everybody has equal options.

Player A wins. Both do another hidden select. - that is fair.
 
Compbros

Compbros

Man of Tomorrow
insignis said:
Other games are irrelevant. MKX provides tools to kill counterpicking as phenomen. Ignoring that because other games are lacking of such is nonsense.

TOs changed number of required rounds for Injustice so what's the problem with character select? Or people are so stupid they won't be able to separate rules for MKX from rules for SF?
Click to expand...

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.


insignis said:
How letting anyone counterpick is fair in the first place? Why loser should have an advantage? When boxer wins a round does he let opponent to hit him few times to make it "fair"?

Fair is when everybody has equal options.

Player A wins. Both do another hidden select. - that is fair.
Click to expand...
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?
 
HeroesNZ

HeroesNZ

Baconlord's Billionaire Sugar Daddy
insignis said:
How letting anyone counterpick is fair in the first place? Why loser should have an advantage? When boxer wins a round does he let opponent to hit him few times to make it "fair"?

Fair is when everybody has equal options.

Player A wins. Both do another hidden select. - that is fair.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Reactions: Mst
Sultan

Sultan

Kitana, Scorpion
Winner is character and variation locked makes the most sense. If I have a sub-character that challenges my characters bad matchups, and one of the said bad match-ups can simply change variation to have an advantage over my counter-pick, after they already beat me in the first set, then what's the point in letting the loser change characters? Allowing the winner to keep match-up momentum just doesn't sound right to me.

The only way I'd be down for the winner changing variations is if they must do that first, and I can then choose my character/variation. And even then, it's so trivial and overly-complicated at that point, you may as well just play by traditional fgc rules: you're locked in if you win.
 
Compbros

Compbros

Man of Tomorrow
Sultan said:
Winner is character and variation locked makes the most sense. If I have a sub-character that challenges my characters bad matchups, and one of the said bad match-ups can simply change variation to have an advantage over my counter-pick, after they already beat me in the first set, then what's the point in letting the loser change characters? Allowing the winner to keep match-up momentum just doesn't sound right to me.

The only way I'd be down for the winner changing variations is if they must do that first, and I can then choose my character/variation. And even then, it's so trivial and overly-complicated at that point, you may as well just play by traditional fgc rules: you're locked in if you win.
Click to expand...

But having a loser able to double counter pick to have a favorable character match-up and variation match up? Going L. char -> W. variation -> L. variation still allows the loser the final say in count picking but it doesn't allow them to have a major advantage by being able to counter pick two things the winner is locked into.
 
MIL

MIL

Noob
Has anybody asked NRS how they feel the variations should be handled? I know a lot of them pushed for the 3/5 injustice rule. Why not hear thier oppinion on this too.
 
Sultan

Sultan

Kitana, Scorpion
Compbros said:
But having a loser able to double counter pick to have a favorable character match-up and variation match up? Going L. char -> W. variation -> L. variation still allows the loser the final say in count picking but it doesn't allow them to have a major advantage by being able to counter pick two things the winner is locked into.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.