Chip damage...

[umgogo]

Well there's your answer right there. You're not into NRS games relative to others. Instead of trying to change them to fit into "every standard fighting game convention" go play one of those "standard fighting games" instead of trying to change something that you're hardly even invested in. Duh.

There is a difference between the statements "This doesn't suit my tastes, so it should change" and "This is just a bad idea, so it should change."

An admittedly extreme example: the first Guilty Gear game had relatively odd characters and plenty of long and highly damaging combos. Not everyone enjoyed those (especially in 1998), but they stayed and are now hallmarks of the series (i.e. most GG players play it because of them, not despite them). It also had Instant Kills that required no meter and would end the match in one hit.

Yes, the IKs made the game "stand out." Including them in this state was still a bad idea, and they were therefore changed into a more manageable form (which was IMO finally perfected 15 years later with Xrd's "combo into IK when the opponent's life is low in the final round"-system).

Now, of course normals doing chip damage is not as big a deal, but if zoners really need it to excel, then that begs the question of why zoning works the way it does in the first place.

As for damage scaling, how can you argue that, say, a quick overhead starter should not scale a combo more than a slow mid starter? That the average two-three-bar combo is not much more damaging than the average one-bar combo? Near as I can tell, about 90% of the viable combos in this game fall somewhere between the 20% and 40% damage marks. Is it any wonder that pressure/wakeup 50/50's are so dominant, when fishing for counter hits or hoarding meter for combos do not yield substantially better results?

tl;dr: NRS are slowly improving, but I feel that they are holding themselves back by sticking to 1992 conventions for their own sake, especially since MK1 was sub-par even for its time.

 

[Ares_Supreme]

There is a difference between the statements "This doesn't suit my tastes, so it should change" and "This is just a bad idea, so it should change."

An admittedly extreme example: the first Guilty Gear game had relatively odd characters and plenty of long and highly damaging combos. Not everyone enjoyed those (especially in 1998), but they stayed and are now hallmarks of the series (i.e. most GG players play it because of them, not despite them). It also had Instant Kills that required no meter and would end the match in one hit.

Yes, the IKs made the game "stand out." Including them in this state was still a bad idea, and they were therefore changed into a more manageable form (which was IMO finally perfected 15 years later with Xrd's "combo into IK when the opponent's life is low in the final round"-system).

Now, of course normals doing chip damage is not as big a deal, but if zoners really need it to excel, then that begs the question of why zoning works the way it does in the first place.

As for damage scaling, how can you argue that, say, a quick overhead starter should not scale a combo more than a slow mid starter? That the average two-three-bar combo is not much more damaging than the average one-bar combo? Near as I can tell, about 90% of the viable combos in this game fall somewhere between the 20% and 40% damage marks. Is it any wonder that pressure/wakeup 50/50's are so dominant, when fishing for counter hits or hoarding meter for combos do not yield substantially better results?

tl;dr: NRS are slowly improving, but I feel that they are holding themselves back by sticking to 1992 conventions for their own sake, especially since MK1 was sub-par even for its time.

NRS games aren't perfect in fact no fighting game is but for me this is the best of th best. I would never suggest changes for capcom games to fit my preferences because I am not invested in them at all and especially wouldn't try to make them more like MK because I already have MK.

As far as damaging combos and meter is concerned I don't really get your point. Are you arguing that they should break that 40%threshold or something else? I personally like the way combos are scaled for the most part though I agree to some extent on the overhead/mid starters situation.

Overall I just don't get why someone would suggest "standard" changes for a highly successful title with a large following as if this game were just up and coming.

 

[Poto2222]

Hey, while we're at it, let's remove the block button and make it back-to-block! And make projectiles trade! And remove x-rays and give all characters two Ultras! And Focus Attacks!

I mean, NRS games are trash, right?

 

[big j gleez]

I hate that there is so much chip damage. You can literally lose to players who aren't good enough to actually hit you with their combo. That fact alone is hard to stomach lol

 

[Ares_Supreme]

I hate that there is so much chip damage. You can literally lose to players who aren't good enough to actually hit you with their combo. That fact alone is hard to stomach lol

You're kidding right? Like seriously kidding right? Some character have insane unreactable 50/50s and most of these chipped based characters don't. Getting caught in chip pressure is just as much your fault as getting caught in a combo.

How hard is it to land a combo with a 50/50? You have a 50% chance every time...

 

[big j gleez]

You're kidding right? Like seriously kidding right? Some character have insane unreactable 50/50s and most of these chipped based characters don't. Getting caught in chip pressure is just as much your fault as getting caught in a combo.

How hard is it to land a combo with a 50/50? You have a 50% chance every time...

Nope. Not kidding at all. I understand some characters don't have 50/50s. Some do and still can chip you to death. Quan Chi, Shinnok , ect.

I enjoy playing the game, and understand to change the chip damage would be to overhaul so much with the game. It is a task that would be too big to change. It would basically make a new game and you would have to redesign some characters to create balance. I get it.

I just am not a huge fan of losing half my energy on moves I am blocking. I have adjusted my game and learned how to armor out of basically every string like this, but to say it is a dynamic I enjoy wouldn't be true.

I would rather people be landing combos rather than blocking long, drawn out, chip damage combos. It is just a bit silly to me. But it is what it is and how the game is played, so I adjust.

 

[Ares_Supreme]

Nope. Not kidding at all. I understand some characters don't have 50/50s. Some do and still can chip you to death. Quan Chi, Shinnok , ect.

I enjoy playing the game, and understand to change the chip damage would be to overhaul so much with the game. It is a task that would be too big to change. It would basically make a new game and you would have to redesign some characters to create balance. I get it.

I just am not a huge fan of losing half my energy on moves I am blocking. I have adjusted my game and learned how to armor out of basically every string like this, but to say it is a dynamic I enjoy wouldn't be true.

I would rather people be landing combos rather than blocking long, drawn out, chip damage combos. It is just a bit silly to me. But it is what it is and how the game is played, so I adjust.

I understand all of that but to suggest that someone isn't "good enough" is absurd. I'll assume you just mispoke.

 

[umgogo]

As far as damaging combos and meter is concerned I don't really get your point. Are you arguing that they should break that 40%threshold or something else? I personally like the way combos are scaled for the most part though I agree to some extent on the overhead/mid starters situation.

I think that combos that start with a move that is comparatively hard to avoid (such as a fast overhead or low) should scale more so that they do less damage overall. Conversely, combos starting with moves that are not as easy to land should do more damage overall.

The issue of how safe on block a combo starter is (and how costly it is to make it safe) should also factor into the equation.

Ideally, counter hits should be awarded with different properties - this often gives you a reason to use move A instead of move B to counter the opponent's move C if you think you anticipate it, even though move B is usually the safer choice.

All of this would make the 50-50/vortex less irksome to characters/players not focused on it because you would take less damage from it and have a better chance of evening the score once you get out of it (since other combos/setups would be more damaging).

As for meter, I believe that combos using more meter should do more damage overall (but still be subject to damage scaling, so that burning three bars on a combo starting with an easy-to-land move would only be worth it if it ends the round/match). This way, you could balance your use of meter differently (do I save it for a 60% damage combo that might be broken at some point, or do I go with a reversal/EX move/whatever?).

Personally, I am a "hoarder" - I like to save my resources for devastating combos, but that playstyle is moot when I gain all of 5-10% of damage for spending an additional bar or two.

Overall I just don't get why someone would suggest "standard" changes for a highly successful title with a large following as if this game were just up and coming.

As a modern, competitive game, I would say it IS "up and coming" (four years old). Let's face it, much of MK's following still consists of extremely... "casual" players, and much of its success/fame still stems from the "controversial" content. I AM impressed by some of the improvements NRS have made from MK9 onwards and I do realize that MK takes a lot of skill to master (certainly more than the - very popular - Dragonball and Ultimate Ninja Storm games). The look and feel of the game falls somewhere between 2D and 3D, which is welcome.

Even so, I am not surprised that a significant portion of the more serious/competitive FG scene (including more or less all of Asia, AFAIK) views NRS games as decent at best. Many aspects of them haven't evolved far enough (character variations), and others do not appear in other games because they are hard to incorporate (stamina bar, stage interactions), inherently limiting (every character having approximately the same normal attack range/damage and health) or just feel wrong to a lot of people (block button, the way you have to "cancel" normal attacks/strings "in advance").

So, yes, MK would need a fairly serious overhaul (and, frankly, more proficient developers) for it to become one of my favourite games, but even a few relatively minor adjustments would do some good. Injustice gave us button strengths and "hold back to block", and the MK fanbase didn't boycott it, so I don't see why we can't even get the latter as an alternative control method in MKX.

 

[Ares_Supreme]

So, yes, MK would need a fairly serious overhaul (and, frankly, more proficient developers) for it to become one of my favourite games, but even a few relatively minor adjustments would do some good. Injustice gave us button strengths and "hold back to block", and the MK fanbase didn't boycott it, so I don't see why we can't even get the latter as an alternative control method in MKX.

But Mortal Kombat isn't here to cater to you. Don't you get it. There is already a fan base--a growing one satisfied with much of the current direction. Also, Injustice != Mortal Kombat. I could list a million things about SF that I hate and think are god awful but at the end of the day I realize that this is very egocentric. How about you? It takes a lot to come into the NRS community and suggest that if one of the games did exactly as you say it would be better off for it as if it were anything more than unpopular opinion.

Also, NRS doesn't cater to Asia either. Flashy superficial anime cartoony graphics and mechanics aren't for everyone. This is why some people like me chose mortal kombat. I grew up playing SF and MK and when SF4 came out I was so excited, played it for a week, left it in the case until it was eventually lost it. You prefer Capcom games or some permutation of those games and you are entitled to feel this way but one does no simply say a game will be better if you insert some standardized mechanic here or there.

I think it's absurd to suggest that a totally different game should be the same as some other game because "asia considers it just 'decent' and because "it feels weird".

-.-

 

[lm Tweakk]

All that would do is take an element from the game and put even MORE emphasis on 50/50's

 

[Ares_Supreme]

All that would do is take an element from the game and put even MORE emphasis on 50/50's

This x 1000000

 

[umgogo]

You prefer Capcom games or some permutation of those games and you are entitled to feel this way but one does no simply say a game will be better if you insert some standardized mechanic here or there.

I think it's absurd to suggest that a totally different game should be the same as some other game because "asia considers it just 'decent'

I never actually said the game would be objectively better, but yeah... if 9/10 of the most popular franchises use mechanic X, and franchise Y is considered mechanically inferior by much of the global competitive sphere*... well, that's not coincidence.

* Asian and otherwise - the best FG players in my native Sweden dismiss it, and these boards just saw a debate concerning American aficionados who main other games not taking it seriously enough and blaming their disinterest on the numerous patches.

Call me an ignorant elitist if you wish, but I will not consider MK to be on the level of the other major franchises until it commands as much respect in the top circuits, worldwide. Then, I will chalk up my dissatisfaction to personal taste alone. I do not expect that to happen anytime soon, if ever. That doesn't mean I won't play it, or express my opinions on what I think are reasonable changes (the purpose of this thread and even this board, right?). Blind acceptance helps noone.

 

[Ares_Supreme]

Call me an ignorant elitist if you wish, but I will not consider MK to be on the level of the other major franchises until it commands as much respect in the top circuits, worldwide.

That's the part I take issue with though. No one is trying to convince you of anything at all. My voice is only here just on the off chance someone is looking at this thread.

 

[Poto2222]

Injustice gave us button strengths and "hold back to block", and the MK fanbase didn't boycott it, so I don't see why we can't even get the latter as an alternative control method in MKX.

You don't? Ok.

I'm outta here.

C ya.

 

[umgogo]

OK, let's end it here. I'm sorry if I sounded condescending. In the end, I'd much rather have a MK with flaws than no MK at all. (And I never thought I would say that between 1997 and 2011.)

 

[True Grave]

Man...............................................................you have must never heard of Kuh-Bawl. His is the chip damage King.

 

[The_Tile]

Man...............................................................you have must never heard of Kuh-Bawl. His is the chip damage King.

Pretty sure Sorceror Quan's chip is a little scarier...

 

[chackalacka]

no one like seeing or playing a KL or LK or Shinny and getting 30+ on chip from a block string with nothing you can do. Or you get out only to be at such life deficit that the game is all but lost. I appreciate the idea that chip is a thing in MK, but in 9 and again in X it is just to much imo. I do not think it needs to be taken out.. but these massive damage chip combo things are bad for the game in every way, especially for the viewers and it is viewers that turn into gamers, so it is vital to the growth of the game. If there is a evo finals and it is just some guy getting chipped to death in this way it is nothing but bad for nrs.

Couldnt agree more. People forget that its viewers and casuals that will determine the life of a franchise, and watching someone get chipped constantly is just plain boring. I could care less if its iconic, the fighting game scene has changed, and there needs to be a lot of adjustments to the block systems

 

[WakeUp DP]

This isn't SF, MK will never remove its block button, its chip damage or make normals 2-3 frames with 2-3frames reversals and AA dps...

 

[Ares_Supreme]

Couldnt agree more. People forget that its viewers and casuals that will determine the life of a franchise, and watching someone get chipped constantly is just plain boring. I could care less if its iconic, the fighting game scene has changed, and there needs to be a lot of adjustments to the block systems

One cannot simply be casual and be an authority on what needs to change in fighting games.

 

[gottagofast]

An admittedly extreme example: the first Guilty Gear game had relatively odd characters and plenty of long and highly damaging combos. Not everyone enjoyed those (especially in 1998), but they stayed and are now hallmarks of the series (i.e. most GG players play it because of them, not despite them). It also had Instant Kills that required no meter and would end the match in one hit.

Man,long comboes in other ggs are like 5 seconds short(even in xrd).

 

[GAV]

Chip damage is fine, but you should have to score a clean hit at the end of the round in order to win.

 

[cambros22]

Dont like chip damage, your always welcome to release block and take a combo.

 

[chackalacka]

One cannot simply be casual and be an authority on what needs to change in fighting games.

One can enforce a change that satisfies both ends of the spectrum

 

[Zephyrus]

it shouldn't be removed in this game, but I wouldn't miss it in the sequel.