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

[Doombawkz]

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.

They can't, though. If the loser doesn't change character, its double lock. The only time it isn't is when the loser changes character

 

[kabelfritz]

They can't, though. If the loser doesn't change character, its double lock. The only time it isn't is when the loser changes character

i hope people will understand that...

 

[Doombawkz]

i hope people will understand that...

I'm sure they will. They seem smart.

 

[Fractured_Shadow]

The OP really needs to allow us to see who voted for what.

People who never plan on attending offline events shouldn't even be in this thread.

Also I want to flame them.....










Mostly I just want to know who to flame.

 

[RoboCop]

i hope people will understand that...

I'm worried that there's this idea floating around that unlocked variations are just too complicated for our community to figure out. Anyone capable of reading frame data and making dozens of split-second decisions during the course of a match based on that frame data should have no problem learning "if my opponent changes characters, I can change my variation as long as I pick first". It's really not rocket science. Anyone who can't do that is not a tournament player and this decision is none of their business.

 

[Zoidberg747]

I'm worried that there's this idea floating around that unlocked variations are just too complicated for our community to figure out. Anyone capable of reading frame data and making dozens of split-second decisions during the course of a match based on that frame data should have no problem learning "if my opponent changes characters, I can change my variation as long as I pick first". It's really not rocket science. Anyone who can't do that is not a tournament player and this decision is none of their business.

This is one of the more bullshit excuses.

I can see some of the other ones, but saying it is too complicated is not a good excuse. No matter what we pick someone somewhere is bound to screw it up. That's why there are judges at tournaments.

 

[cyke_out]

Damn you NRS! Damn your eyebrows and your sheer brilliance! How dare you create an entirely new character selection system that has never been done in any other fighting game in the history of forever! How are we poor peons ever expected to solve this unprecedented problem that no other community has ever had to solve? I wish variation select had never come to us! It's a pox on all our households as this once great united community is now divided with no guidance on which road to travel. We are all lost and may the Elder gods have mercy on our souls.

 

[Konqrr]

The OP really needs to allow us to see who voted for what.

People who never plan on attending offline events shouldn't even be in this thread.

^^ this this this ^^

Also anyone who doesn't like or support counter picking doesn't take competitive fighting games seriously and need not be in this thread.

Seriously some people in this thread are posting about this like the hate mail I get about spamming moves.

I'm worried that there's this idea floating around that unlocked variations are just too complicated for our community to figure out. Anyone capable of reading frame data and making dozens of split-second decisions during the course of a match based on that frame data should have no problem learning "if my opponent changes characters, I can change my variation as long as I pick first". It's really not rocket science. Anyone who can't do that is not a tournament player and this decision is none of their business.

eek! no...

IMO the only other option than #3 is for full char/var lock or it WILL fracture the community and hurt the overall lifespan of the game.

 

[RoboCop]

IMO the only other option than #3 is for full char/var lock or it WILL fracture the community and hurt the overall lifespan of the game.

I think that's the only viable option for variation-unlock to work and to not split the community. One of the main arguments I keep seeing from pro-lock players is that unlocking variations allows the winner to potentially counter-pick the loser. As ridiculous as that is, I can get behind winner picking first. That doesn't mean the winner can't still do hidden select. The loser will know what character they're using, but not what variation.

All I care about is getting unlocked-variations, and I'm afraid a winner-picks-first rule is the only compromise that might see that happen.

Full-Disclosure: I voted for option 3, though I think Option 1 can work as well.

 

[nugava]

This is one of the more bullshit excuses.

I can see some of the other ones, but saying it is too complicated is not a good excuse. No matter what we pick someone somewhere is bound to screw it up. That's why there are judges at tournaments.

Shoutouts to Vanilla Injustice's PS3 failed button checks (Player 1-2-3-4).

 

[Compbros]

Today we got to see how a variation switch would play out.

Match begins at 1:07:38, variation switch happens after the first loss. Winner stuck with variation, loser switched. Match after variation switch beings 1:10:30.

 

[RoboCop]

And the way the team talks about variations, it's pretty heavily implied that they're meant to be switched out. They even mentioned at one point that they were directly invented to counter counter-picking. I can try to track down specific quotes if necessary.

 

[Duck Nation]

I have some what-if questions to float out, since I didn't see them come up:

How do you feel about your choice if there were, in theory, a character in the game who could say, 7-3 or worse anybody in the game depending on their variation?

How do you feel about your choice if there's a character who loses certain matchups crushingly depending on variation, but can turn just about anything to even if they can swap variation?

 

[Compbros]

I have some what-if questions to float out, since I didn't see them come up:

How do you feel about your choice if there were, in theory, a character in the game who could say, 7-3 or worse anybody in the game depending on their variation?

Addressing this one since i think it's aimed at my arguments. Still fine with my choice as the person that picks that character will pick that variation anyway. If they know it's such a great matchup against anyone then allowing them to switch variation if loser switches characters is null since they'll more than likely stick with that 7-3 variation. Oh wait, I misread the question as "they have one variation that 3-7's the cast" as opposed to "variation A may body 7 characters, variation B bodies 13, variation C bodies 5". Still fine with my choice as the opponent knows the character is dumb and 3-7's the entire cast no matter what so just picks their best character instead of attempting counter picks. With a variation lock the loser would just counter pick, then the winner would just pick the 3-7 variation. The 3-7 variation player still comes out on top with 2-1 (taking player skill outta the equation for this), nothing is changed with or without locks for the winner in this scenario.

 

[Duck Nation]

"Nothing is changed with or without locks" is a very much disingenuous statement. "Well they're just going to win two matches anyways" is a pretty glib way of looking at it; in that scenario you're giving people a way to almost always stay on top of their advantage.

That said, I think there's equally as poor ones coming from both sides of the argument. The only thing I see in this argument the more I think about is insufficient information to make an educated decision. We have examples of games that have gone both ways in similar situations - when Haketh brought up Arcana Heart for example, it was to discuss that they started one way and changed it later. Bringing up those scenarios was one minute way to highlight how additional information is going to make a huge difference in this decision; note that the scenarios I presented are not even mutually exclusive.

To be honest, it seems the closest thing to a good piece of information in the whole thread was this, which got glossed over (possibly because the man himself did not independently verify it):

For what it's worth, 16 Bit, a tournament veteran who has been working in QA on the game thinks Variation lock is how it should be played out.

And I should say, the only reason I feel it's even worth considering is because it implies that NRS is trying to make every variation stand on its own two feet and be complete enough to win any match in the game. Without any underpinning reason given, that inference is the best insight we have, and let me be clear: having to go off guessing what someone else might be thinking based on one tiny piece of information is as deficient as it gets.

@GGA 16 Bit, since I haven't seen you ring in at all here yourself, can you confirm or deny what Tortoise said? Are you allowed to give us any rationale either direction about what's being considered in-house?

 

[16 Bit]

No, it is not my place to say what NRS wants.

 

[SaltShaker]

And I should say, the only reason I feel it's even worth considering is because it implies that NRS is trying to make every variation stand on its own two feet and be complete enough to win any match in the game.

Did you watch the last stream? I'd say variation unlock/character locked is what was being heavily implied.

And the way the team talks about variations, it's pretty heavily implied that they're meant to be switched out. They even mentioned at one point that they were directly invented to counter counter-picking.

 

[UsedForGlue]

Winner is locked with character and variation, loser can change variation, winner can't. Stage locked.

If loser changes character, the winner can change variation. Stage locked.

Loser can opt to re-random stage, but can't also change variation and or character, both winner and loser will be variation locked upon the stage change.

Think all angles are covered. I'm sure this is similar somewhere else in the FGC.

 

[Duck Nation]

No, it is not my place to say what NRS wants.

Fair enough. So there we go: we've got less than nothing.

Did you watch the last stream? I'd say variation unlock/character locked is what was being heavily implied.

For tournaments, though? And even if we ride that logic, remember this is as spurious an assumption as the one I made above and 16 Bit pretty much just knocked on its ass. I still see nothing in this entire discussion that's convincing enough either way.

 

[Shark Tank]

But what does lord Paulo desire?

I mean at the end of the day, it going to come down to experimentation using science. Or as a laymen would say, trial and error to ultimately find out the most desirable rule set. Theoretic will only get us so far. My concern is that people won't experiment and we end up with the rule set the first tournament did forever.

 

[Duck Nation]

But what does lord Paulo desire?

@colt

 

[SaltShaker]

For tournaments, though? And even if we ride that logic, remember this is as spurious an assumption as the one I made above and 16 Bit pretty much just knocked on its ass. I still see nothing in this entire discussion that's convincing enough either way.

Yes. Contrary to TYM belief, MKX is not the first game to have character variations.

@UsedForGlue literally gave the definition on how the game should be played. There are only two groups that disagree.

Group 1) The people who don't know any better and think this is a brand new concept never been done before that needs to be figured out.
Group 2) Dinosaur logic people that are set in stone with "You win, don't switch" without no real explanation or reason than it's all they know.

Then there's Group 3), the group that has seen multiple fighting games already do variations successfully, and can clearly see the massive benefits to the games play with variation unlock in comparison to the opposite.

 

[Rip Torn]

Maybe we should run a new poll with only the first and last option (and make votes visible)?

@Compbros

 

[Duck Nation]

Then there's Group 3), the group that has seen multiple fighting games already do variations successfully, and can clearly see the massive benefits to the games play with variation unlock in comparison to the opposite.

I've seen multiple fighting games that have gone both ways on systems like this, and it comes down to what individually suits them. I'm sorry, but if you think that throwing this out as an "I know more than you" instance is going to work, you're wrong. I've been playing in the genre since SF2 and all it leaves me to take away is a giant question mark, because NRS has given us so very little to go on.

 

[RoboCop]

They've said in no uncertain terms that variations are meant to reduce the effectiveness of counter-picking. If anyone wants to help me comb through the streams and posts to find quotes, please let me know. I don't see how variations can help reduce the effectiveness of counter-picking if you are variation-locked. It's really as simple as that. Loser changes characters, winner can change variations. That is literally the purpose of variations.