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

[SLy]

After a few seconds you make the choice to forget about counter-picking and go with the character you know best.

And this will seperate the people who are the good vs the people who are just good at the game.

 

[Eji1700]

In your scenario, how would that be any different from what happens now? If someone picks Zod on Lex, there's not much Lex can do.

The thing with character lock though, is that it decreases the chances of that happening. That's the whole point of variations.

Yes but that's normal counter picking. I won game 1 with lex, you countered zod. Counterpicks factor heavily into tier lists, but that's at least normal, and for whatever reason I figued that lex would be a good game 1 person(advantage vs whomever).

The issue with variation switch is that it lets the winner counterpick the loser. So lets say lex has some magic variation that trounces zod(and all of his hypothetical variations). Now you've already got a bad matcup to start, which is normal, but it gets worse because you can NEVER choose zod to counterpick lex, because the lex player will just switch variations.

To be simple, character A has 3 variations which all lose to zoners. Character B has 2 variations that lose to zoners and 1 that wins vs them.

If you don't do a "winner is locked" format, you'll never choose character A. Character B is just flat out better because he's got a variation that covers the weakness of the other 2, so you can play the first 2 when they'll win, and then switch to the 3rd if they try to counterpick them. In fact in the worst case scenario, you'd never even need to pick the 3rd style, as just by existing no one would EVER choose a zoner vs character B.

 

[Rip Torn]

That's my point. Winner/Variation forces just that, a lock. So with 89 other variations to choose from the likelyhood of being 8-2'd or 7-3'd on counter pick is much higher if you're playing a character based on variation. Every match would be a Aquaman vs Catwoman fest. Top Tier will end up, say 5 characters who have 2-3 variations that can deal with most of the cast decently. Where as with winner/variation lock then it would be pointless because only a few variations would be used to prevent 7-3 counters. You prefer 5-7 Top tier characters out of 30 or 5-7 top tier variations out of 90? That's pretty much what it boils down to.

I don't think it would be 5-7 top tier variations out of 90... it would be more like 15 top tier variations out of 90 and a higher percentage of the cast would be represented in top tier (with nothing to hold back any 1 individual variation).

 

[HeroesNZ]

Yes but that's normal counter picking. I won game 1 with lex, you countered zod. Counterpicks factor heavily into tier lists, but that's at least normal, and for whatever reason I figued that lex would be a good game 1 person(advantage vs whomever).

The issue with variation switch is that it lets the winner counterpick the loser. So lets say lex has some magic variation that trounces zod(and all of his hypothetical variations). Now you've already got a bad matcup to start, which is normal, but it gets worse because you can NEVER choose zod to counterpick lex, because the lex player will just switch variations.

To be simple, character A has 3 variations which all lose to zoners. Character B has 2 variations that lose to zoners and 1 that wins vs them.

If you don't do a "winner is locked" format, you'll never choose character A. Character B is just flat out better because he's got a variation that covers the weakness of the other 2, so you can play the first 2 when they'll win, and then switch to the 3rd if they try to counterpick them. In fact in the worst case scenario, you'd never even need to pick the 3rd style, as just by existing no one would EVER choose a zoner vs character B.

Except you're talking about the extremest possible situation.

In the Lex scenario, you're also assuming that Lex has a variation that beats every variation of the initial character, forcing the switch to Zod in the first place.

And again, how is this any different to what we do now? Apart from the fact that it's so much more unlikely to happen.

Let's say I only play Arrow and Batman, and the opponent plays Aquaman. I lose the first match with Arrow, but I can't switch to Batman because that's just as bad.

Also, you can't just assume that Character A will never be chosen. Not everyone plays a top tier, in fact most people don't give a shit about whether their character will be top tier or not because they're character loyalists. Nightwing generally loses to zoners, yet many have played him in tournament when instead they could have just played Batgirl.

I understand the point "the winner can counterpick the loser", but for starters, how likely will it be that 1 variation beats a whole character. Secondly, how would it be any different to sticking out a bad MU as a character loyalist in IGAU/MK9?

 

[RoboCop]

The issue with variation switch is that it lets the winner counterpick the loser. So lets say lex has some magic variation that trounces zod(and all of his hypothetical variations). Now you've already got a bad matcup to start, which is normal, but it gets worse because you can NEVER choose zod to counterpick lex, because the lex player will just switch variations.

I'm not sure I follow. If the winner has to choose first, how can he counter-pick? I can't see how variation-switching does anything other than reduce the effects of counter-picking. The winner is stuck with his same character and has to choose his variation 1st; the loser has all 72+ variations to choose from.

Even if such a dire MU did somehow exist, allowing variation-swapping wouldn't make things worse than they already are for the Zod player. Either way he would want to choose a different character when fighting Lex.

 

[Fractured_Shadow]

So have people figured out that variation lock is retarded yet?

 

[SaltShaker]

I don't think it would be 5-7 top tier variations out of 90... it would be more like 15 top tier variations out of 90 and a higher percentage of the cast would be represented in top tier (with nothing to hold back any 1 individual variation).

This is where we disagree then. No way in hell there would 15 top tier individual variations. It would create 1 variation only ever being used by the same 5-7 top tier characters. Not 15 variations among a bunch of characters.

But we aren't gonna see eye to eye so I'll let someone else fight the good fight lol.

 

[SaltShaker]

So have people figured out that variation lock is retarded yet?

Nope. Every now n then I try to drop in and explain but then get exhausted n quit lol.


On another note, we've yet to disagree on a single thing ever. Like literally not one lol.

 

[Rude]

We now have people qouting match-up numbers for a game they have not played, yet.

....Fuck it.

 

[Eji1700]

I'm not sure I follow. If the winner has to choose first, how can he counter-pick? I can't see how variation-switching does anything other than reduce the effects of counter-picking. The winner is stuck with his same character and has to choose his variation 1st; the loser has all 72+ variations to choose from.

Even if such a dire MU did somehow exist, allowing variation-swapping wouldn't make things worse than they already are for the Zod player. Either way he would want to choose a different character when fighting Lex.

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

In the choose first situation I still see issues. Double blind I go in with a generalist character, and then variation swap before you pick to counter your main, now because i've got a character with a good general and extreme variation which just locks you out of your main, even though I chose a general character first. The whole issue with both variation switches is that any and all balance issues are magnified, and trying to lower the effect of counter picking actually limits the number of viable variations.

Except you're talking about the extremest possible situation.

In the Lex scenario, you're also assuming that Lex has a variation that beats every variation of the initial character, forcing the switch to Zod in the first place.

And again, how is this any different to what we do now? Apart from the fact that it's so much more unlikely to happen.

Let's say I only play Arrow and Batman, and the opponent plays Aquaman. I lose the first match with Arrow, but I can't switch to Batman because that's just as bad.

Also, you can't just assume that Character A will never be chosen. Not everyone plays a top tier, in fact most people don't give a shit about whether their character will be top tier or not because they're character loyalists. Nightwing generally loses to zoners, yet many have played him in tournament when instead they could have just played Batgirl.

I understand the point "the winner can counterpick the loser", but for starters, how likely will it be that 1 variation beats a whole character. Secondly, how would it be any different to sticking out a bad MU as a character loyalist in IGAU/MK9?

I'm using extremes to demonstrate a concept. This applies to the "never be chosen" argument as well. If i main nightwing because I'm a loyalist fine, but i'm sure as hell going to want the ruleset that at least gives me a chance or lets me bust him out as a unique counterpick if I decide to eventually make him a secondary, not one where he's always going to be shut out.

As for,"..how likely will it be that 1 variation beats a whole character", that's the point, we don't know. NRS has done ok at balance but they are FAR from perfect, and I'd say it's completely within the realm of possibility. I already said we could change the system if the balance holds up, but I see no reason to start out with variation switch.

The whole point is that the game realistically has in the realm of 70ish characters if the variations are unique enough. By allowing variation switch all it takes is a few characters who've got 2 or 3 variations which matchup well vs certain archetypes to wipe out large swaths of the character list. If you force variation lock you can still counterpick them on game 2 with a specialist.

 

[Fractured_Shadow]

Nope. Every now n then I try to drop in and explain but then get exhausted n quit lol.


On another note, we've yet to disagree on a single thing ever. Like literally not one lol.

Sigh...It amazes me that NRS implimented an entire system that helps combat counter picking and people are not willing to use it.

In reference to your side note:

 

[RoboCop]

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

In the choose first situation I still see issues. Double blind I go in with a generalist character, and then variation swap before you pick to counter your main, now because i've got a character with a good general and extreme variation which just locks you out of your main, even though I chose a general character first. The whole issue with both variation switches is that any and all balance issues are magnified, and trying to lower the effect of counter picking actually limits the number of viable variations.

I'm using extremes to demonstrate a concept. This applies to the "never be chosen" argument as well. If i main nightwing because I'm a loyalist fine, but i'm sure as hell going to want the ruleset that at least gives me a chance or lets me bust him out as a unique counterpick if I decide to eventually make him a secondary, not one where he's always going to be shut out.

As for,"..how likely will it be that 1 variation beats a whole character", that's the point, we don't know. NRS has done ok at balance but they are FAR from perfect, and I'd say it's completely within the realm of possibility. I already said we could change the system if the balance holds up, but I see no reason to start out with variation switch.

The whole point is that the game realistically has in the realm of 70ish characters if the variations are unique enough. By allowing variation switch all it takes is a few characters who've got 2 or 3 variations which matchup well vs certain archetypes to wipe out large swaths of the character list. If you force variation lock you can still counterpick them on game 2 with a specialist.

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your point. I promise I'm trying, but it's just not making sense to me. In all of these examples, I just fail to see how unlocking variations makes these situations worse than they already are.

Let's take your Nightwing example. As it stands, you don't really see Nightwing in tournaments because he's so easily counterpicked. So even if you win the first match, you're stuck with Nightwing and your opponent can just pick up Superman to beat you. You are getting hard countered and will not want to play Nightwing in tournament.

But if Nightwing had a variation that allowed him to deal with zoners, then that entire situation is negated because of the chance that you will pick that variation. This may not totally alleviate all problems, but it certainly doesn't make it any worse than variation-lock.

It seems like your primary issue concerns counter-picking, which is where I'm having trouble following you. I literally don't see any way in which unlocked-variations are in favor of counter-picking. Sorry to quote myself, but this is how I see unlocked variations:

You're in Evo top 8. Your Lackey Ferra Torr just got destroyed by your opponent's Cybernetic Kano zoning, so you figure you'll go with a good counter-zoner.

You exit to the character select screen. Your opponent opens Kano's variation selection...and her cursor disappears. She secretly selects her variation and sits back.

You pause for a second. You were going to hard-counter that zoning bastard for an easy come-back; now you're not too sure. If your opponent went with Commando, your counter-zoning Displacer Raiden will get wrecked. If she stuck with Cybernetic then you're all good. After a few seconds you make the choice to forget about counter-picking and go with the character you know best.

Am I missing something?

 

[HeroesNZ]

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

In the choose first situation I still see issues. Double blind I go in with a generalist character, and then variation swap before you pick to counter your main, now because i've got a character with a good general and extreme variation which just locks you out of your main, even though I chose a general character first. The whole issue with both variation switches is that any and all balance issues are magnified, and trying to lower the effect of counter picking actually limits the number of viable variations.


I'm using extremes to demonstrate a concept. This applies to the "never be chosen" argument as well. If i main nightwing because I'm a loyalist fine, but i'm sure as hell going to want the ruleset that at least gives me a chance or lets me bust him out as a unique counterpick if I decide to eventually make him a secondary, not one where he's always going to be shut out.

As for,"..how likely will it be that 1 variation beats a whole character", that's the point, we don't know. NRS has done ok at balance but they are FAR from perfect, and I'd say it's completely within the realm of possibility. I already said we could change the system if the balance holds up, but I see no reason to start out with variation switch.

The whole point is that the game realistically has in the realm of 70ish characters if the variations are unique enough. By allowing variation switch all it takes is a few characters who've got 2 or 3 variations which matchup well vs certain archetypes to wipe out large swaths of the character list. If you force variation lock you can still counterpick them on game 2 with a specialist.

You literally just backed my point. If you're a loyalist, you're going to want the rule-set that gives you a chance. Character Lock is the optimal choice for character loyalists. In Variation Lock as a character loyalist, if we use your extreme examples then they'll be fucked anyway. In fact, they'll be even more fucked because the opponent effectively has 90 characters to choose from, while the loyalist has 1. In Character Lock, the opponent has 90 characters to choose from, however the Loyalist has 3.

The difference between the two is that in Character Lock, the chances of a loyalist being completely fucked are heavily reduced.

What I'm saying is that, for a Loyalist, if a variation does indeed beat an entire character then Variation Lock wouldn't help at all.

How exactly would those characters wipe out the character list? Surely you don't expect to accurately judge MUs based solely on character archetypes.

Fact of the matter is that MKX is most similar to Melty Blood/Arcana Hearts & so logic would dictate that we use rules similar to theirs. Especially considering that initially they had Variation Lock but changed to Character Lock because hard counterpicks were extremely prominent.

 

[SaltShaker]

Sigh...It amazes me that NRS implimented an entire system that helps combat counter picking and people are not willing to use it.

In reference to your side note:

LMAOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Haha!!! Truth!

 

[kabelfritz]

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

i dont see why anything else is even discussed, whats going on with this "winner picks Variation" nonsense. whats the point of it?

the only other scenario i could see, as this game is built around having different options for characters: both players are character locked, loser picks variation.
thatd be my personal favourite, but other people might wanna have it differently and everyone should have fun, so give em max counterpicking freedom.

i dont see why the winner should be involved into counterpicking though.

 

[Doombawkz]

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

i dont see why anything else is even discussed, whats going on with this "winner picks Variation" nonsense. whats the point of it?

the only other scenario i could see, as this game is built around having different options for characters: both players are character locked, loser picks variation.
thatd be my personal favourite, but other people might wanna have it differently and everyone should have fun, so give em max counterpicking freedom.

i dont see why the winner should be involved into counterpicking though.

Because they aren't? It helps prevent the game from turning into a game of rock paper scissors.

I can't see why anyone would want double lock. Other games with the similar variation system don't have it that way.

 

[SaltShaker]

Because they aren't? It helps prevent the game from turning into a game of rock paper scissors.

I can't see why anyone would want double lock. Other games with the similar variation system don't have it that way.

I gave up trying to reach em bro.

 

[kabelfritz]

Because they aren't? It helps prevent the game from turning into a game of rock paper scissors.

I can't see why anyone would want double lock. Other games with the similar variation system don't have it that way.

how is it not rock paper scissors when winner has to pick his variation first anyway?

 

[Doombawkz]

how is it not rock paper scissors when winner has to pick his variation first anyway?

Because its not likely that whatever character you pick will 7-3 all of his variations, giving him at least some opprotunity to make it possibly a 6-4 if he knows the MU, and in turn, you can play around it to force him into an uncomfortable spot.

Its like rock, paper, scissors, lizards, spock.

I gave up trying to reach em bro.

I never give up.

 

[Shark Tank]

We're not quite a 500 posts yet, but...just an honest question

Can anyone give me a situation where all-lock at it's worst would be better than variation unlock at it's worst in the context of hard counter picking?

 

[kabelfritz]

Because its not likely that whatever character you pick will 7-3 all of his variations, giving him at least some opprotunity to make it possibly a 6-4 if he knows the MU, and in turn, you can play around it to force him into an uncomfortable spot.

Its like rock, paper, scissors, lizards, spock.


I never give up.

but the winner's gotta blindpick variation for that.

i see that this actually not benefits counterpicking but staying with your character, which is imo a good thing. ive described often how i think that if 2 chars face off, both players might end up initially picking the variation with the least extremely negative matchups against all of the opponents variations and play it out instead of going rock, paper, scissors. this would also be encouraged by your rule.

my fear is that its overly complicated (it even took a while until everyone in injustice tournaments understood stage picking rules). also the game is intended to have variation counterpicks, what if the loser just changes variation, not character? whats the Point of that if the winner can still blind select a variation?

if you wanna build the rules around the game design, it should actually be character lock, loser picks variation. and it would be really cool if there was a function to do it quick after a match with no additional loading time.

 

[Doombawkz]

but the winner's gotta blindpick variation for that.

i see that this actually not benefits counterpicking but staying with your character, which is imo a good thing. ive described often how i think that if 2 chars face off, both players might end up initially picking the variation with the least extremely negative matchups against all of the opponents variations and play it out instead of going rock, paper, scissors. this would also be encouraged by your rule.

my fear is that its overly complicated (it even took a while until everyone in injustice tournaments understood stage picking rules).

It shouldn't be that hard since, as I said, a system already exists in other games.

Likewise, I do agree that instead of the strong being the ones with the most slant MUs in their favour, it'll actually go to the ones who have the fewest bad MUs but perhaps not the best winning ones.

 

[Doombawkz]

We're not quite a 500 posts yet, but...just an honest question

Can anyone give me a situation where all-lock at it's worst would be worse than variation unlock at it's worst in the context of hard counter picking?

Sure.

All-lock allows hard counterpicking.
Variation unlock makes it at least somewhat managable so long as you character isn't completely countered by another.

 

[Shark Tank]

Sure.

All-lock allows hard counterpicking.
Variation unlock makes it at least somewhat managable so long as you character isn't completely countered by another.

Sorry I had my question backwards. I edited it

 

[kabelfritz]

It shouldn't be that hard since, as I said, a system already exists in other games.

Likewise, I do agree that instead of the strong being the ones with the most slant MUs in their favour, it'll actually go to the ones who have the fewest bad MUs but perhaps not the best winning ones.

i edited this into my above post:

also the game is intended to have variation counterpicks, what if the loser just changes variation, not character? whats the point of that if the winner can still blind select a variation?

if you wanna build the rules around the game design, it should actually be character lock, loser picks variation. and it would be really cool if there was a function to do it quick after a match with no additional loading time.