Big Question No1 is seeming to bring up!! MKX tournament rules wise.

[SHAOLIN]

Here's a scenario for you guys:

I just won a match, me and my opponent go back to character select screen,so he/she could select a new character or variation.

Now here's the kicker: I decide to change my character's variation to counter-pick there new selection.

In the eyes of your opponent and spectators that seems kinda messed up right? I won......I don't deserve to counter pick the loser.

 

[coolwhip]

nope

every game that has this type of thing... doesn't lock the unique variation

so we'd be going against all the "no brainer" and obvious things

nope

Watch what I said ending up being the rule.

 

[Eric The Scruffy]

We like to overcomplicated issues. The answer to this is very obvious: Winner is locked to both the character and the style. It's really a no-brainer.

There's precedent to suggest its not that simple though. If it was that obvious why does SFIV go against it?
I know in Marvel 3 you're locked to character and order....anyone know if you can you change your assist type?

 

[ChatterBox]

Isn't the whole reason for variations to prevent counter picking and character switching? I say just character locked, if you want to make the winner pick variation before the loser does (on his/her new character) then I agree that makes total sense. Variations are stated to be there to work this way. Seems like a no brainer.

 

[Eldriken]

But then the loser has to worry about whether or not the winner is going to change variation. It shouldn't work that way. The idea of allowing the loser to counter-pick is the ability to make adjustments (albeit in this case, extreme ones, such as changing a character) to whatever just caused the loss. If the winner could change variation, then the loser is not playing what directly beat him.

Again, people like to over-complicated seemingly obvious issues.

That's why the SF4 Ultra selection rule would be in place.

"I think that SFIV may provide a decent template to work from in this regard. In SFIV there is a character lock...however the winner *IS* allowed to change their Ultra after the opponent changes their character, but *before* they select their own ultra." -Eric Z19

However, if the loser decides to just change their variation, the winner is locked to theirs.

 

[SHAOLIN]

Winner = Character locked, style can be changed.

Why should the winner be allow to counter-pick the loser?

 

[coolwhip]

That's why the SF4 Ultra selection rule would be in place.

"I think that SFIV may provide a decent template to work from in this regard. In SFIV there is a character lock...however the winner *IS* allowed to change their Ultra after the opponent changes their character, but *before* they select their own ultra." -Eric Z19

However, if the loser decides to just change their variation, the winner is locked to theirs.

I would take it a step further if we're going to allow the winner to change the character variation. I think if they are to be allowed to do it, they have to do it before the loser even picks his character. I think it's important for the loser to know exactly what he's coming up against.

Anyway, it's actually never too soon to discuss this, lest we end up with the embarrassment that was the first few months of Injustice in terms of both players (even the winner) being able to select their own stage for the 50-50.

 

[ChaosTheory]

Why should the winner be allow to counter-pick the loser?

Why should anybody be allowed?

 

[coolwhip]

There's precedent to suggest its not that simple though. If it was that obvious why does SFIV go against it?
I know in Marvel 3 you're locked to character and order....anyone know if you can you change your assist type?

I don't know why SFIV allows it, but it doesn't make sense to me. Let's distance ourselves from other games for a second, and think about this logically. I think it makes perfect sense that the winner should be forced to stick the same variation of the same character that won him the last match.

 

[Compbros]

So, here we go.



Condition(s) where winner can change variation:

1. If the loser changes their character. Winner has to choose variation before loser picks their's.

Condition(s) where winner can't change variation:

1. If the loser stays with character, even if loser changes variation.



That seems pretty fair.

 

[coolwhip]

Why should anybody be allowed?

I should be allowed to counter-pick after losing a match because I didn't pay money for a plane ticket + hotel + tournament fee in order to be tied up to one character.

 

[Eldriken]

So, here we go.



Condition(s) where winner can change variation:

1. If the loser changes their character. Winner has to choose variation before loser picks their's.

Condition(s) where winner can't change variation:

1. If the loser stays with character, even if loser changes variation.



That seems pretty fair.

Agreed.

Let's face it, either way, there's going to be a fuckton of counter-picking in this game. Or rather, while not necessarily everything will result in a counter-pick, it may just even up the fields a bit.

 

[Compbros]

I don't know why SFIV allows it, but it doesn't make sense to me. Let's distance ourselves from other games for a second, and think about this logically. I think it makes perfect sense that the winner should be forced to stick the same variation of the same character that won him the last match.

I disagree, variations can be seen as a way to compensate for certain bad matchups. If the loser is picking a different character then you should be allowed to choose a variation that may matchup better with that character. However, loser still gets "final say" as they pick their variation last.

 

[Eldriken]

I should be allowed to counter-pick after losing a match because I didn't pay money for a plane ticket + hotel + tournament fee in order to be tied up to one character.

The same thing should be applied to the winner to a degree, don't you think? Everyone is there to win. However, the winner shouldn't be able to completely even out the playing field, but just because they won, they shouldn't have to be forced to play a 3-7 or something of that nature.

If me being able to change my variation changed it from a 3-7 to a 4-6, that would be fine with me. I'd rather be able to do that than flat out counter-pick my opponent.

 

[coolwhip]

Mere minutes after this thread is created and I'm half-sure the first few months are going to be a clusterfuck with everyone arguing about the rules.

 

[SHAOLIN]

Why should anybody be allowed?

You're funny.

 

[ChaosTheory]

I should be allowed to counter-pick after losing a match because I didn't pay money for a plane ticket + hotel + tournament fee in order to be tied up to one character.

What makes you tied up to one character?

 

[coolwhip]

I disagree, variations can be seen as a way to compensate for certain bad matchups. If the loser is picking a different character then you should be allowed to choose a variation that may matchup better with that character. However, loser still gets "final say" as they pick their variation last.

I actually like this.

 

[Compbros]

Mere minutes after this thread is created and I'm half-sure the first few months are going to be a clusterfuck with everyone arguing about the rules.

Which is why it's better to get this hashed out early.

 

[SHAOLIN]

Mere minutes after this thread is created and I'm half-sure the first few months are going to be a clusterfuck with everyone arguing about the rules.

Tell me about....

 

[coolwhip]

The same thing should be applied to the winner to a degree, don't you think? Everyone is there to win. However, the winner shouldn't be able to completely even out the playing field, but just because they won, they shouldn't have to be forced to play a 3-7 or something of that nature.

If me being able to change my variation changed it from a 3-7 to a 4-6, that would be fine with me. I'd rather be able to do that than flat out counter-pick my opponent.

His question was "why should anybody be allowed to counter-pick?" though. Which implied that every set should be played under character lock rules, which sounds dubious to me. That's what I was responding to.

 

[Eric The Scruffy]

Why should the winner be allow to counter-pick the loser?

My ideal world scenario for it is that it still provides the loser counterpick options but cuts down on the amount of hard counterpicking available to them. Assume for the sake of argument that all Quan Chi's variation are a hard counter to Sub-Zero's grandmaster style. No matter what, its 8-2 matchup...but cryomancer only loses 6-4. That's still an available counterpick (and they will still exist in this game no matter how good a job NRS does), but its not a crutch that you can turn to as an easy way out.

 

[coolwhip]

Which is why it's better to get this hashed out early.

Which is exactly what i said in a previous post. But make no mistake about it, history taught us this isn't going to get "hashed out early." It's going to be a trial and error thing, unfortunately.

 

[ChaosTheory]

His question was "why should anybody be allowed to counter-pick?" though. Which implied that every set should be played under character lock rules, which sounds dubious to me. That's what I was responding to.

That is dubious. And it's the absolute opposite of what I meant to imply.

 

[coolwhip]

What makes you tied up to one character?

A rope. Some chains. Thick duct tape. Not being able to counter-pick.