coolwhip
Noob
Then I misunderstood. But when you say "why should anybody be allowed to counter-pick?" doesn't that mean the loser shouldn't be able to change his character?
Then I misunderstood. But when you say "why should anybody be allowed to counter-pick?" doesn't that mean the loser shouldn't be able to change his character?
Hey...that's what I was saying earlier....
Yeah but I don't like YOUHey...that's what I was saying earlier....
Can anyone give me a legit argument against this that isn't "other games have done this in the past".
I mean why should either player be forced into choosing anything? Why can't both players remain free to choose however they deem fit, just like they do before match 1?
Including changing a character entirely for the winner?
I'm asking. You said "overcomplicated." Why not keep things completely neutral throughout a set? Again, it's neutral before game 1, why not keep it that way?
Why are we trying to eliminate counterpicking?
It's not handicapping if you're forcing a guy who just won a match with a character to stick to said character. Clearly, he wasn't handicapped since he won. A huge part of tournament play is making adjustments on the fly. That would be far more difficult if the winner were able to change characters completely, especially in a first to 2.
Right, he wasn't handicapped for the first match. But now we're going to make him handicapped for the second match. And if he loses that; we're gonna handicap the other guy for the third match.
Counterpicking is lame bruh.
Ok, quick sidenote, what podcast/episode was it that this came from? I've been wanting that as my ringtone for a long time.Yeah but I don't like YOU
You mean the Tom Brady soundbite? It's some episode of the KCP (Kryptonite Council Podcast). I want to say from last November but I can't remember off hand.
I think it's simple for the most part but you also have to consider stages. that makes things more complex because player/character x may feel like they can best player/character y in a set on stage a but not stage b. We already know that there will be some type of environment interaction involved so this must be considered. Now people, so not take what I am about to say as saying current ruleset is wrong, that is not my aim. My opinion is, however, in a tournament setting I believe random factors should be minimized to a degree. I also feel that inj ruleset somewhat encourages counterpicks, which is fine, it is up to the player to prepare themselves for that situation, but with intractables playing such an important role in the game, the selection of stages should be more controlled. I think this would increase character viability across the cast. Example, NW vs Sin is a 3-7 MU, one of NW's toughest matchups, so most would prepare themselves by having a character for those troublesome MUs. However, a character loyalist would have no options when he loses since stage selection is random. If there were stage counterpicks then there would be balance for those who are forced to lose the interactable war. I think any game where the environment plays a role in the MU should not be random, and an example would be Super Smash Bros, MK9, there could be other examples also.
None that mattered. This "debate" is asinine. Nobody cares about the incredible bendable rules of some 20 man anime side tournament that happens online or in the bathrooms.
I hear SFIV is pretty big.
In SF4 you get to repick ONE MOVE that you get ONCE MAYBE TWICE A MATCH. In MKX that ruleset would allow you to change Kano into a grappler with high and low parries (Commando) or a zoner with full screen anti-air lasers (Cybernetic). If you really can't see the difference between an Ultra and the lose / gain of Sub Zero's Ice Clone or Raiden's teleport, there can be no discussion.
This is one where we'll probably have to wait and see, but I feel like they probably wont be as match up changing as they were in injustice since they seem to be more subdued and standardized. The weird thing with balancing interactibles in injustice is that aside from the fact that you couldn't block them, there were basically 3 classes of interactible users. In MKX from what we've heard, they're mostly for mobility, you can block the ones that cause damage, and it seems to me like characters more or less use them all in the same way. As long as we don't wind up with a situation like what's happend with Zod, Manhunter, and Batgirl....we should hopefully be ok.
That "one move" and landing it is often the difference between victory and defeat in a match. It may be a different mechanic but it absolutely has an impact on matchups.
