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.

MK9

Noob
If I pick subzero ( stance hidden)
You pick scorpion (stance hidden)

Subzero wins

I have to stay subzero ( I pick my stance first but hidden)
Now you are free to pick who ever you want , but you don't know what stance I choose)

You can counter pick to you best ability, don't mean I choose the same same stance as match one, I won rd one, why should I be at a disadvantage rd 2?
 

Atriox

Here... I am a god!
F23 IS Superman though, but, to answer this, variations of course are gonna alter strategies but, for the most part, things like spacing, normals, and movement remain unchanged so it's not like going from Superman to Zod, it'd be like playing Superman without heat zap but with air lasers.
Tell that to Cryomancer Sub-Zero. :p His normals change quite a lot with the addition of swords and hammers to his basic strings. Of course not every character will have a variation that will change basic strings but it is still a thing that has to be considered.
 

ruff321

Noob
Many other games like Melty Blood and Arcana Heart already have a system like this in place. I see no reason as to not follow suit. If loser decides to change variation then winner is locked in both character and variation. If loser changes character winner can change variation. I don't see why we have to be different when fighting games have already had a system in place that involve variations.

I'm sure @haketh could explain more, if he feels so for the 100th time.
Seriously this thread should've ended here. This is the ONLY logical and fair solution.
 

Briggs8417

Salt Proprietor of TYM
I don't see why a player who wins shouldn't be allowed to change variations against loser if he changes character. If someone goes to try and pick an all out cp I don't see why winner shouldn't be allowed to equip himself against it. Loser lost he shouldn't get complete advantage at the character select screen for not playing as well.
 

Konqrr

MK11 Kabal = MK9 Kitana
Many other games like Melty Blood and Arcana Heart already have a system like this in place. I see no reason as to not follow suit. If loser decides to change variation then winner is locked in both character and variation. If loser changes character winner can change variation. I don't see why we have to be different when fighting games have already had a system in place that involve variations.

I'm sure @haketh could explain more, if he feels so for the 100th time.
This x99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
 
I don't understand how people are saying that the variations will not drastically affect the play style of a character. How in the holy hell can anyone make that claim right now?
 

cyke_out

Noob
I don't understand how people are saying that the variations will not drastically affect the play style of a character. How in the holy hell can anyone make that claim right now?
You are right, that's a bold claim to make and one I don't agree with. However, it's irrelevant. Regardless of how much the variations change the core character, the winner should still not be variation locked.
 

Paul the Octopus

Slow Starter
Whether or not variations drastically change a characters play style is a red herring. If this is your objection please re-read the arguments that @THTB and @haketh are saying and really think about it please. It's doesn't actually matter - character lock but variation switch should never allow the winner to have an advantage over the loser, regardless of how varied the variations are. Loser needs to just think of a counter pick that covers all options (winner only has three options/variations). If the loser accidentally picks somethig that beats one of the winners variation and loses to another that's his bad - it was completely foreseeable.

The real pros and cons as far as I can tell is that variation lock is quicker/simpler but allows for more severe counterpicking (imbalanced match ups). Other than speed/simplicity I haven't really heard a logical argument for variation lock other than "it's always been that way." If that were a valid argument we should have kept loser counterpicking stage in injustice, not played w patches, etc. Just because that's the way it was orginally.
 

aldazo

Waiting for Havik
Variation-change also allows for an interesting meta game. It's like limiting a player to 3 characters. Imagine you lose to Johnny Cage in tournament. You can try to counterpick, but your opponent can choose either Cage, Jade, or Sektor. Of course, variations won't be that drastically different, but it's the same concept. (This is assuming the variation-change can still be hidden, even if chosen first).
That was an innovative aprox. Thinking of this we can realize that choosing variation lock is like moving away from the current standard while choosing character lock could be considered the closest to it.

For example lets consider MK9 with a 30 chars roster, usually winner stay locked, so while he has acces to 1 char the loser has access to 30, so the counterpick ratio will be 30/1.
Now lets consider MKX with a 30 chars roster, if character lock is chosen then the counterpick ratio will be 90/3 that equals 30/1; on the other hand if variation lock is chosen the counterpick ratio will be 90/1 thus lessening the winner chances proportionally, even more if you consider that the chances of 7-3 match ups being present increase as well.

Thus choosing character lock would be more alike with what is currently in use, this would be a reason (I assume) why the other communities chose character lock instead of variation lock.
 
Last edited:

THTB

Arez | Booya | Riu48 - Rest Easy, Friends
I don't understand how people are saying that the variations will not drastically affect the play style of a character. How in the holy hell can anyone make that claim right now?
Who has said this?
 

THTB

Arez | Booya | Riu48 - Rest Easy, Friends
I saw one or two, couple pages back. Too lazy to look. Compbros maybe?
Is it this post?
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.
 
Is it this post?
No. Let me punish myself by going back in time to find it.

P.s. Why are you concerned with it lol

@THTB 6 pages in and my eyes are bleeding. If it is of the utmost importance I will call in sick for work tomorrow and dedicated my time to finding the culprit.
 
Last edited:

Swindle

Philanthropist & Asshole
If most of you want to turn Chess into Checkers by locking everything, then I suppose there is no convincing you. My solution was the most appropriate for the beginning development of the tourney game, the MB/AH system proposed by haketh and THTB is the close second-best option. Everything else is for simpletons.
At least Vandy said he is going with the MB/AH version to start with. #ASmallVictory
 

Sultan

Kitana, Scorpion
Many other games like Melty Blood and Arcana Heart already have a system like this in place. I see no reason as to not follow suit. If loser decides to change variation then winner is locked in both character and variation. If loser changes character winner can change variation. I don't see why we have to be different when fighting games have already had a system in place that involve variations.

I'm sure @haketh could explain more, if he feels so for the 100th time.
This sounds like the only alternative to character+variation lock that I can honestly get behind.
 

NRF CharlieMurphy

Kindergarten Meta
I read a few replies

I don't think it is fair to create a Poll that doesn't have "Loser chooses freely. Winner chooses freely between variations with winning character. Both are hidden select."

The variations, while allowing for specialized type fighters, also will create inherent and rampant counter picking, which will result in .... fairly unhype and blah matches.

As long as the variation itself can be hidden selected, then the character is the only thing that should lock on a winner. Everything else should be a decision the player has to live with.
If not ... again... i foresee MANY matches that are lopsided and tons of counter picking to overcome.
 

ChaosTheory

A fat woman came into the shoe store today...
I cant believe the last option is winning! Cmon. then why do we have the variations in game! If looser changes character, winner should be able to change variation
Really, the other three options allow the winner to change in some capacity. It's more like winner locked vs. not locked. In which case it's 45% to 55% against winner lock.
 

Compbros

Man of Tomorrow
why not wait until the game comes out to decide?

What. Additional knowledge. About Variations. Do we get. From waiting til the game is out? Sorry, but this has been asked several times and there is NO reason to wait. Variations change things about a character, some are big changes and others are small, what do we learn from waiting that allows us to make a more informed decision?
 

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
Last comment: The way I see it is this -- people always constantly complain about their bad matchups in fighting games, but hopefully this is counteracted by the developer generally balancing the fighting game. So what this means is, the stronger characters hopefully don't have a ton of matchups that are very bad; but they also hopefully don't 8-2 75% of the cast.

Now, with a variation system, if the differences in playstyle between variations are significant, you might be introducing the option to *make* some matchups into bad matchups. Or to make matchups that might already be bad, worse. The conventional thought of "variations allow me to even up the matchup" doesn't apply if your opponent is constantly trying to pick the worst combinations for your character and variation, and vice versa.

Imo, constantly flipping a bad matchup in one direction or the other doesn't make for great gameplay or tournament experience. We've seen this a bit in Injustice with character roulette and it never seems to be a positive thing.. Half the time it doesn't even work out well for the people trying to do it -- but the other half the time the audience boos as we watch another week 3 Aquaman fight a snorefest of a match to knock a Catwoman out of pools.

The great majority of the most exciting matches happen when people stick to their guns, take a pause and a deep breath between games and figure out what happened, reassess, and then figure out how to play better. When they pull out every trick in the book, and dig deep into their character's options before giving up. So from a standpoint of encouraging the best possible gameplay, I'd side with encouraging the meta to be more about one player vs. another, rather than one pick vs. another (less HearthStone, more fundamentals).

If you can't get it done without trying to hard-counter both your opponent's character and his variation, focus on becoming a better player.. But trying to buy the right to double-counterpick players who are better, in the hopes of scrubbing out a win due to them being at supreme disadvantage, doesn't ring well and likely isn't very good for the tournament future of a game.
 

haketh

Noob
If you can't get it done without trying to hard-counter both your opponent's character and his variation, focus on becoming a better player.. But trying to buy the right to double-counterpick players who are better, in the hopes of scrubbing out a win due to them being at supreme disadvantage, doesn't ring well and likely isn't very good for the tournament future of a game.
Except it's been shown to not have a negative impact at all ever for the games that have had it before. And get the IGAU example out of here, that shit only worked because how good & easy Aquaman was.
 

Konqrr

MK11 Kabal = MK9 Kitana
Counter picking is reality.

It will happen regardless of variation lock or not.

What you will get with option 3 (Winner is not variation locked if loser changes variation and/or character.) is the ability to maintain a competitive edge if your opponent counter picks you. That, to me, is lessening the amount of counter picking.

I'll take full on character and variation lock if the community can't come together to support an existing ruleset that works in other games with variations like this... but I don't like it.

And fuck that "winner picks variation first if opponent changes characters" bullshit. Get that shit out of here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.