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

[Compbros]

There's no reason to change the current standard of winner lock until we know more about the game to understand what rules should apply.

Arguments can be made that the winner can pick another variation, but to say we should start by that as default is wierd.

For example, things like character lock for tournament can also be looked at, but wouldn't everyone agree that as a default rule (one to be applied before we know how the game is played at tournaments) it is a horrible, terrible idea?

What more is there to learn in terms of variation beyond exactly how much they change a character, per character?


When should we start testing it out then? There's several local tournaments that are gonna be happening before the first regional/major, these seem like the best time to test it because, if we wait to long, the community will just accept the default (character + variation lock) just as we accepted interactibles in IGAU.

imo the best choice is the simplest one until the game is more fleshed out. Winner being locked makes sense.

When will that be though? It took months before people ran no interactible tournaments in IGAU and at that point the community had just accepted the mechanic. Do we wait until after the first regional? First major? Evo? Or do we use local tournaments such as NLBC to test these things out ASAP?

 

[Sultan]

Why would they be? The have different combo chains and specials but games have evolved since then and MKX doesn't involve the standard, across the board things of the old games. I don't think that's quite analogous. I don't see it that way though, at least not for MKX. Other games I'd say so but I'm not looking at other games, I'm only looking at it in the scope of MKX when it comes to characters and counter picking.


No, both ways will dictate how the game is played in tournaments. Your way is a method that most games go with and that's a complete lock, mine is one that few games go with. No matter which it still dictates tournament play. Character + variation lock is also not "tried and true" because it's an untested method for something like MKX where, by your own admission, the loser gets to counter pick with two characters (the base character and the variation) instead of one. I don't think it's complicated at all, I think the rules of the old Injustice stage/character switch before double random was more complicated than what I am proposing.


I don't know what will win out but I don't think we should stick with the norm of winner is completely locked since this game isn't like many others out there. There's more to look at per character switch.

When I say one will dictate I mean only one will be chosen and accepted by the scene at the end of the day.
And once again, from my perspective "character + variation lock" is simply "character lock" based on arguments I've already made. And character lock is completely "tried-and-true."

 

[Braindead]

Someone has probably already said what I'm going to say, but let me clarify why I think we should avoid variation lock.

The whole point of counter-picking is keeping things balanced. If the first match the winner's character had a big advantage on the loser's character (7-3 MU), we want the loser to be able to change his character and restore balance.

If you want the tournament to be variation-locked, then you are treating each variation as its own separate character. This means the game will have about 90 characters. When you have 90 characters, each character (variation) on average will have at least 7 or 8 variations that beat it at least 7-3 (we all know NRS' balancing record.)

When you lock variations, person A wins the first match. Person B can easily go ahead and pick a variation that is a 7-3 MU against A's variation. They will most probably win the next match. In the 3rd match, person A counterpicks with a variation that goes 7-3 again against B's variation. Person A will most probably win this match. The whole thing will turn into a ping-pong, and the person who won the first match in the set will most probably end up winning the set.

If you think this is delusional, think of EVO '13 grand finals. DJT wins the first match on Shao Kahn's Colosseum. Reo counterpicks with Rooftop - he has the bigger advantage. He wins the 2nd match. DJT counterpicks with Pit. He wins the 3rd match. Reo goes back to rooftop, wins the 4th. DJT goes to Pit, wins the final match. That was a ping-pong effect.

Now that wasn't a perfect example, but it shows the idea. The stages give advantage to a certain character, but doesn't change the MU drastically. Now imagine if it did change the MU drastically! Imagine if you can easily counterpick with a variation that goes 7-3 against the winning variation! The winner of the set will most probably be the winner of the first match.

If you do that, the counterpicking here is screwing up the balance instead of restoring it. When you allow the winner to change their variation, it gives the winner options and helps restoring the balance.

The loser will still have an advantage because the winner has to pick their variation first, and that's fine, because it's the whole idea to give the loser some advantage, but not give him a "free" win.

 

[insignis]

Before I answer let me say that I do believe it would be an advantage in your situation because now the winner gets a free game to switch character's so the opponent doesn't start to read and adjust to what they're doing. In some type of lock situation the winner is afforded no such advantage/mind game.

Now, I'll also answer your question with a question, which I don't really like doing: Why should the winner be given any type of advantage at all? Even double blind has the potential to allow for an advantage to the winner if they turn out getting a 7-3 match up in their favor.


To answer your question with an actual answer, I believe the loser should be given the best chance to level the playing field (this doesn't mean even the score), within reason, if they so choose.

Double blind is the closest thing to equality. The whole game set starts with it. If it ends up with a disadvantage for anyone it's the same as the first move after round starts - you have options, you can make a mistake and pay for it. i.e. I can tele-push as Ermac at the first second expecting you to jump, but you block and punish. You gained an advantage.

But in my question I asked a different thing. When score is 1-1 in FT2. Both players are at match point. Why one of them should have an advantage? Wouldn't it be right to place them in equal conditions?

 

[Compbros]

imo the best choice is the simplest one until the game is more fleshed out. Winner being locked makes sense.

When I say one will dictate I mean only one will be chosen and accepted by the scene at the end of the day.
And once again, from my perspective "character + variation lock" is simply "character lock" based on arguments I've already made. And character lock is completely "tried-and-true."

And I'm saying that you can't look at it so simply considering there's other factors at play here. Variation's add something beyond "character vs. character" and so we can't just use tried and true methods because this game doesn't follow tried and true character selection.

 

[Braindead]

But in my question I asked a different thing. When score is 1-1 in FT2. Both players are at match point. Why one of them should have an advantage? Wouldn't it be right to place them in equal conditions?

No, because if the first player won the first match fairly, then he deserves to have an advantage. Otherwise it would be like you took away his first win for nothing.

If I used Sub-Zero, for example, against your Cyrax, and I won, then you counterpicked with Kenshi, then my first win that I worked really hard on is gone for nothing. I don't deserve that. So I should get some advantage in the 3rd match.

 

[insignis]

If you do that, the counterpicking here is screwing up the balance instead of restoring it. When you allow the winner to change their variation, it gives the winner options and helps restoring the balance.

The loser will still have an advantage because the winner has to pick their variation first, and that's fine, because it's the whole idea to give the loser some advantage, but not give him a "free" win.

what stops loser from counterpicking winner's new variation choice?
Player1 won with ScorpionA. Player2 thinks "I'll beat him with Sub-ZeroB". Player1 changes variation for ScorpionC. Player2 thinks "well, in that case I'll choose ErmacC".
Afterall you end up at the same place with 7-3 because Player1 is always chooses first and Player2 makes decision based on that choice

No, because if the first player won the first match fairly, then he deserves to have an advantage. Otherwise it would be like you took away his first win for nothing.

If I used Sub-Zero, for example, against your Cyrax, and I won, then you counterpicked with Kenshi, then my first win that I worked really hard on is gone for nothing. I don't deserve that. So I should get some advantage in the 3rd match.

and what's the point of giving loser an advantage in second game if you have it in the third anyway? Just to make the set longer?

 

[Compbros]

Double blind is the closest thing to equality. The whole game set starts with it. If it ends up with a disadvantage for anyone it's the same as the first move after round starts - you have options, you can make a mistake and pay for it. i.e. I can tele-push as Ermac at the first second expecting you to jump, but you block and punish. You gained an advantage.

But in my question I asked a different thing. When score is 1-1 in FT2. Both players are at match point. Why one of them should have an advantage? Wouldn't it be right to place them in equal conditions?

I don't think it's equal though, in your scenario the winner can already be at an advantage of being up a score and then can further their advantage by getting an advantageous match up. Double blind seems risk/reward heavy and the loser assuming a lot of risk while being down in the set or having just lost the match seems backwards to me.

They're not completely neutral though because of something like momentum which isn't quantifiable but is an accepted thing.

 

[Braindead]

what stops loser from counterpicking winner's new variation choice?
Player1 won with ScorpionA. Player2 thinks "I'll beat him with Sub-ZeroB". Player1 changes variation for ScorpionC. Player2 thinks "well, in that case I'll choose ErmacC".
Afterall you end up at the same place with 7-3 because Player1 is always chooses first and Player2 makes decision based on that choice


and what's the point of giving loser an advantage in second game if you have it in the third anyway? Just to make the set longer?

But you can't do that. Once player 2 selected Sub Zero, he can't switch to Ermac. Those are the suggested rules.

 

[Braindead]

and what's the point of giving loser an advantage in second game if you have it in the third anyway? Just to make the set longer?

What if we started the first match with Sub Zero vs Kenshi? That's it? I'm fucked? The point of giving the loser an advantage is to restore some balance.

The current counter-picking system is obviously tested and has been working fine for 30ish-character games. No need to question it.

 

[insignis]

I don't think it's equal though, in your scenario the winner can already be at an advantage of being up a score and then can further their advantage by getting an advantageous match up. Double blind seems risk/reward heavy and the loser assuming a lot of risk while being down in the set or having just lost the match seems backwards to me.

They're not completely neutral though because of something like momentum which isn't quantifiable but is an accepted thing.

Loser doesn't have to rematch immidiately. He can stop and think. Momentum is gone. You can also consider minus morale after losing. But is it really a good reason enough to punish winner for winning when both of them have a match point and loser goes home?

 

[Compbros]

Loser doesn't have to rematch immidiately. He can stop and think. Momentum is gone. You can also consider minus morale after losing. But is it really a good reason enough to punish winner for winning when both of them have a match point and loser goes home?

Not necessarily, as I said momentum isn't quantifiable but if the loser takes a breather and then the winner opens them up immediately at the start of the next match the momentum is still there. I think it's a better proposition than potentially punishing the loser after they just lost. If someone is done 0-1 and picks a character then they know that a counter pick can happen and most pick accordingly. A double blind means the loser may be put in a negative situation regardless of what happens the match before.

 

[insignis]

But you can't do that. Once player 2 selected Sub Zero, he can't switch to Ermac. Those are the suggested rules.

such approach is questionable as it depends on how many characters will counter ALL variations of others. Game may end up where all Scorpions will counter all Sub-Zeros. And what if that rule will apply to more than a half of roster?

What if we started the first match with Sub Zero vs Kenshi? That's it? I'm fucked? The point of giving the loser an advantage is to restore some balance.

The current counter-picking system is obviously tested and has been working fine for 30ish-character roster games. No need to question it.

thta's why I suggest double blind. Nobody knows who you are playing as. Parity for all.

 

[insignis]

Not necessarily, as I said momentum isn't quantifiable but if the loser takes a breather and then the winner opens them up immediately at the start of the next match the momentum is still there. I think it's a better proposition than potentially punishing the loser after they just lost. If someone is done 0-1 and picks a character then they know that a counter pick can happen and most pick accordingly. A double blind means the loser may be put in a negative situation regardless of what happens the match before.

So afterall you punish winner for winning while trying to protect loser from random possibility which may affect each of both players.

Braindead made a good point with "ping pong" thing.

 

[Braindead]

Game may end up where all Scorpions will counter all Sub-Zeros. And what if that rule will apply to more than a half of roster?

Then that's a shitty unbalanced game. You can't do much about it.

thta's why I suggest double blind. Nobody knows who you are playing as. Parity for all.

Double blind is extremely risky. What if you messed up your character choice?
No one is going to pay money and go to tournaments and risk losing their matches because they messed up selecting their character. Think of being in EVO grandfinals and selecting the wrong character.

Come on.

 

[HeroesNZ]

Lmao, the argument for Variation Lock is that it's the simplest method.

Simple =/= Effective. You people argue that Variation Lock is what we're doing now and it's been proven to work, except MKX is not IGAU/MK9. It's a different game. Nobody has answered this question yet:

How is Variation Lock any different to letting the loser pick their stage & character in IGAU/MK9?

In Variation Lock you're giving the loser an insane advantage. It's fucking stupid lol.

I mean, imagine facing @FOREVER KING in Variation Lock. He'll be unbeatable lmao.

 

[Compbros]

So afterall you punish winner for winning while trying to protect loser from random possibility which may affect each of both players.

Braindead made a good point with "ping pong" thing.

Potentially punishing the winner is better to me than potentially punishing the loser. Why protect the winner with double blinds?

 

[insignis]

Not necessarily, as I said momentum isn't quantifiable but if the loser takes a breather and then the winner opens them up immediately at the start of the next match the momentum is still there. I think it's a better proposition than potentially punishing the loser after they just lost. If someone is done 0-1 and picks a character then they know that a counter pick can happen and most pick accordingly. A double blind means the loser may be put in a negative situation regardless of what happens the match before.

So afterall you punish winner for winning while trying to protect loser from random possibility which may affect each of both players.

Then that's a shitty unbalanced game. You can't do much about it.


Double blind is extremely risky. What if you messed up your character choice?
No one is going to pay money and go to tournaments and risk losing their matches because they messed up selecting their character. Think of being in EVO grandfinals and selecting the wrong character.

Come on.

What do you do in the first match? Pick character. And what happens if you do it wrong? You lose.

 

[Braindead]

What do you do in the first match? Pick character. And what happens if you do it wrong? You lose.

What?

I don't know how you can seriously consider double-blinding all your way through a tournament. No one is going to play in tournaments and risk picking their characters without being able to see what they're picking.

 

[insignis]

Potentially punishing the winner is better to me than potentially punishing the loser. Why protect the winner with double blinds?

I want to protect both by placing them in the closest to equal conditions. Double blind affects both.

 

[Compbros]

So afterall you punish winner for winning while trying to protect loser from random possibility which may affect each of both players.

There's potential for both to happen in either scenario. The winner may not be punished for winning if the loser doesn't switch character or chooses a worst match up but more comfortable character. I'd rather the chance for winner to be punished with an unfavorable match up than the chance for the loser to be punished with an unfavorable match up.

 

[Compbros]

I want to protect both by placing them in the closest to equal conditions. Double blind affects both.

It doesn't protect anyone though because the game isn't all 5-5's, it always runs the risk of being bad for the loser which is a worse option than being bad for the winner IMO.

 

[insignis]

What?

I don't know how you can seriously consider double-blinding all your way through a tournament. No one is going to play in tournaments and risk picking their characters without being able to see what they're picking.

You said noone will risk coming to the tournament to lose because of the wrong pick. The first thing you do in the beggining of the set is picking a character without knowing your opponents choice.

 

[insignis]

It doesn't protect anyone though because the game isn't all 5-5's, it always runs the risk of being bad for the loser which is a worse option than being bad for the winner IMO.

How? Winner may choose a bad matchup, too. How is it bad ONLY for loser?

 

[kabelfritz]

winner locked on both, loser picks both. that goes along with current fg Standards, grants the loser maximum freedom and keeps it as simple as possible.