[Discussion] Injustice Tournament Rules?

[9.95]

I agree on the 2/3, people just asked me for 3/5 because of how they arent used to the stage interactables yet. I agree with you 100%..

2/3 it is.. learn to MBDC past interactables, not ask for more games.

I appreciate it sir...

I know lots of people want 3/5... and if the game is fast enough to warrant it, the adjustment can be made in time.

 

[Compbros]

just look how damaging combos are, juggles easily got to 50-60%, 2/3 might be ove rvery quick

So was MK, characters can take a third of your life with one combo. It's different with the round system and breakers but I still don't believe this game is fast enough to justify it. Within a few months maybe but right now people will not have a good enough grasp to be able to open people up for those high damage combos.

 

[RiBBz22]

I don't mind the match starting out on a random stage just because I could see down the road only a few stages getting played once they all get completely broken down. At least this will get more stages some exposure as long as they don't have to be banned for other issues like lag, glitches, etc.

The 50-50 select is cool in theory, but just because it is in the game I am not sure if we should use it in tournament. I would think that the loser should be able to have the option to change their character and switch stage if they want to.

 

[Juggs]

I think it should be the 50/50 thing at first, then loser picks the stage. That sounds like a good starting point, imo.

 

[Compbros]

50/50 at start, loser decides if they wanna pick a new stage OR character.

 

[cyke_out]

I don't mind the match starting out on a random stage just because I could see down the road only a few stages getting played once they all get completely broken down. At least this will get more stages some exposure as long as they don't have to be banned for other issues like lag, glitches, etc.

The 50-50 select is cool in theory, but just because it is in the game I am not sure if we should use it in tournament. I would think that the loser should be able to have the option to change their character and switch stage if they want to.

Why? This is not allowed in any other game where stages matter. Why is Injustice any different? the 50/50 result at least gives the loser a chance of getting the stage he wants, otherwise, make each pick completely random. No way the loser gets to just pick his stage out right.

 

[Dizzy]

I've made the argument for 2/3 in another thread, glad to see we are starting with that.

Interactables I believe and hope will be banned in the future. I agree that the first couple tournaments (Civil War, NCR, what have you) should at least experiment with interactables. That said, I really hope by UFGT interactables are banned. We'll have to see how it plays out in the coming weeks.

The stage selection is something I really disagree with. The 50/50 option makes no sense, it was clearly added as a feature for online play so you aren't stuck with one player selecting the stage in a game where stages can greatly benefit you. We are not playing online though, we are at a tournament. It should have standard tournament rules for a game with stages that give large benefit based on which side you are on/which character you are.

Rule should be random stage, loser can re-random or rematch. Their choice. Standard FGC rules for games that the stage affects matches greatly. (Soul Calibur, Tekken, etc)

 

[Compbros]

Interactables I believe and hope will be banned in the future.

Why?

 

[cyke_out]

Well, if Stage transitions and interactables are banned, then Stage selection won't even matter.

 

[Deftonesrc]

If interactables get banned, this game is done. It's designed around them. I personally wouldn't travel to play a game I haven't been playing in my living room. I'm sure a lot of new players would feel the same. They would feel slighted going to a tourney and being told that half their strategies are null.

 

[RiBBz22]

I've made the argument for 2/3 in another thread, glad to see we are starting with that.

Interactables I believe and hope will be banned in the future. I agree that the first couple tournaments (Civil War, NCR, what have you) should at least experiment with interactables. That said, I really hope by UFGT interactables are banned. We'll have to see how it plays out in the coming weeks.

The stage selection is something I really disagree with. The 50/50 option makes no sense, it was clearly added as a feature for online play so you aren't stuck with one player selecting the stage in a game where stages can greatly benefit you. We are not playing online though, we are at a tournament. It should have standard tournament rules for a game with stages that give large benefit based on which side you are on/which character you are.

Rule should be random stage, loser can re-random or rematch. Their choice. Standard FGC rules for games that the stage affects matches greatly. (Soul Calibur, Tekken, etc)

Yeah, that is a pretty solid idea. Maybe instead of letting loser counter the stage also, they can just re-random the stage.

 

[cyke_out]

If interactables get banned, this game is done. It's designed around them. I personally wouldn't travel to play a game I haven't been playing in my living room. I'm sure a lot of new players would feel the same. They would feel slighted going to a tourney and being told that half their strategies are null.

It'd be like playing Tekken or SC with only endless stages since some people think walls or ring outs are broken.

 

[Dizzy]

Why?

I'll make a different thread about it later. I said in the post above that it obviously makes sense to have the first few tournaments with interactables on due to that being closest to default rules. After those tournaments then we can re-assess them.

 

[Tom Brady]

I think it should be the 50/50 thing at first, then loser picks the stage. That sounds like a good starting point, imo.

no, the 50/50 option is there to prevent the loser for getting the stage pick. Start with random stage, if you lose you can 50/50. BUT.. remember, the random stage may actually be no character adv, trying to 50/50 may result in you losing the 50/50 and getting a stage where your opponent is more comfortable.

 

[Compbros]

I'll make a different thread about it later. I said in the post above that it obviously makes sense to have the first few tournaments with interactables on due to that being closest to default rules. After those tournaments then we can re-assess them.

Re-asses I agree with but I don't agree with an outright ban. I honestly don't believe they will impact matches as significantly as people believe but we'll see.

 

[Justice]

absolutely not. As soon as someone loses EVERY 50/50 and loses the set, coming down to the wire, they will argue that if they could have won at least ONE 50/50 that they would have won. People will come away thinking they didnt get out played, they got out lucked. NO WAY! This way, at least ONE choice will be totally random.

Agreed. But you of all people should know that people are going to find a way to bitch about something just cuz And let's face it, how many people are going to lose every 50/50 ? Also too, there is no room for bitching since it's an agreed-upon rule before you even plan your trip to the tournament.

I have the same attitude with Stage Select in Injustice as I do in MK9: it's a nice edge to play on a map you know inside and out or better benfits your character. If you can't win without a certain stage, then you can't win.

 

[Chaosphere]

agree 100% w/ tom. stage selections have ALWAYS been like this and should've been like this for mortal kombat.

Agreed... except in mk9 some stages cause weird whiffed jump kick properties and hella lag... ESPECIALLY on PS3.

 

[Juggs]

Interactables I believe and hope will be banned in the future. I agree that the first couple tournaments (Civil War, NCR, what have you) should at least experiment with interactables. That said, I really hope by UFGT interactables are banned. We'll have to see how it plays out in the coming weeks.

Why would they be banned? We don't even know how much they'll affect gameplay yet. They are different, they make the game play really unique. We can't ban them this early just because we're afraid. They're apart of the game, just because they CAN be banned doesn't mean they should be. The stage transition thing, I think, is different though. I can see transitions being banned, but down the line once we've made sure they deserve to be banned.

The stage selection is something I really disagree with. The 50/50 option makes no sense, it was clearly added as a feature for online play so you aren't stuck with one player selecting the stage in a game where stages can greatly benefit you. We are not playing online though, we are at a tournament. It should have standard tournament rules for a game with stages that give large benefit based on which side you are on/which character you are.

That actually makes sense. Because if both players choose a stage in the beginning, and it's 50/50, it basically is going to always give whoever gets lucky an advantage in the first game.

Rule should be random stage, loser can re-random or rematch. Their choice. Standard FGC rules for games that the stage affects matches greatly. (Soul Calibur, Tekken, etc)

^ I have to agree with this.

 

[Tom Brady]

GGA Dizzy

There are situations where the interactable is guaranteed, like after certain hard knockdowns in certain positions, but thats RARE and extremely situational. I have a pretty good exp vs intractables and you can just MBDC them and full combo punish your opponent. If you are too far to MBDC, then you can always jump and/or back dash the interactable.

Rather then say you hope they get banned at some point in the future, I say tell ppl to swallow it up and learn to deal with them properly. Last thing I want is ppl playing and thinking "GOD... I cant wait till these get banned". That has people not learning to deal with them, rather just waiting for the inevitable ban on them.

They stay on unless something game breaking is found. There is ONE interactable that is buggy that I dont want to mention at this point, but its only one.

 

[Juggs]

no, the 50/50 option is there to prevent the loser for getting the stage pick. Start with random stage, if you lose you can 50/50. BUT.. remember, the random stage may actually be no character adv, trying to 50/50 may result in you losing the 50/50 and getting a stage where your opponent is more comfortable.

So basically, if you lose, it's standard to be random, but you have the option to 50/50 it? But if you lose the 50/50, your opponent gets the stage advantage (presuming the stage gives them an advantage anyway)?

That will really stop stage counter-picking when you lose, or at least make it a gamble, so I agree to this.

 

[RiBBz22]

If the stage interactions are so broken that we have to turn them off in tournament it will kill a lot of the hype for the game (for me at least). More so just for the fact that I knew they were in the game to begin with. I don't think any Smash Bros argument comparing the randomness of the items in that game versus the stage interactions in Injustice hold any water.

 

[cyke_out]

I don't see an issue with loser having the option of randoming the stage pick or going for the 50/50. the random stage pick means both players might get a stage neither of them wants, while the 50/50 could hurt the loser more since there is the chance the winner wins the coin toss. It should be the loser's call which poison he wishes to pick. Again, this is different from all other games, but I don't see it being too out there.

 

[Tom Brady]

So basically, if you lose, it's standard to be random, but you have the option to 50/50 it? But if you lose the 50/50, your opponent gets the stage advantage (presuming the stage gives them an advantage anyway)?

That will really stop stage counter-picking when you lose, or at least make it a gamble, so I agree to this.

Yes, if loser wants a new stage, you have the option to go with the re-random stage or try to 50/50 the stage select which could actually hurt you.

 

[Briggs8417]

2/3 sounds good, as well as Stage interactions being on. I like the idea behind random select for the stage, and loser picking for 50/50. However, I think a good way to do it would be for the first game to have both players decide on a neutral stage where neither could really gain advantage, then after that let loser decide, but that is almost the same idea behind random stage select so I would be cool with either.

 

[Tom Brady]

1. 2/3 matches
2. Interactables and Transitions ON
3. Random stage for the first game. If the loser wants a new stage, they have the option for another random stage, or to 50/50 the stage select. Random stage means the stage AND stage level that is pre-selected by the game at the character select screen.


also updated the OP