I support this post if we can all really understand what he is suggesting.
Basically he is saying that your main is not just 1 variation...it is 3 variations. If pig plays Quan Chi and I want to counter pick him...I need to pick a main that can counter all 3 variations of QC. Not just one other characters single variation.
In this instance, the winner can counter pick? Is that what you are saying?
Should tournaments be character lock? This way variations are the variety and counter picks are within a variation switch other than a character switch.
Basically this, but I wouldn't personally favor character lock...I think that goes too far.
As I've said before, my idea would be to use the ultra select rule from SFIV which under the evo rules goes like this:
Winner may change ultra (only if opponent changes characters), but has to pick ultra first after loser picks character.
EDIT: also, under this rule the losing player is allowed to pick the variation/ultra *AFTER* the winning player selects their variation/ultra...which means that even though the winning player can still prepare themselves for the counterpick, the loser still ultimately has final say.
With this rule there is still a level of counterpicking available to the player...but as you said, they have to be ready to counter an entire characters toolset....not just one variation, and that may potentially cut down on the amount of hardcounterpicking in the game.
Many will argue against this rule saying that Ultras do not compare to variations because variations change entire movesets while ultras only change one aspect of a character....but I think its more complicated then that considering that landing that one move in SFIV can often be the difference between victory and defeat.
That being said, after talking with filipinoman it sounds like the ultra select rule is also kind of arbitrary and mostly has its roots in the fact that the arcade cabinet in the old days allowed you to do it......so I don't know. Maybe its overthinking it and needlessly convoluted. Just food for thought.
I'm 100% in the variant lock camp. I don't get the argument that this will lead to more counter picking. If you allow the winner to change variants that is a counter pick. So you are guaranteeing an increase in counter picks. That said even if locking the variants does lead to more counter picks so what? Why is that a bad thing we should look to avoid?
I mentioned this point in the thread that started the discussion on the podcast too but enforcing that and the timing (loser picks character > winner picks variant > loser picks variant) or whatever would be done would be a fucking nightmare. Keep it simple. We don't know exactly how the variants will change matchups but we do know they are pretty different. Not just specials but normals too. I view the lock as simply a set of tools. You won with a specific set of tools so you must use those same tools again. In MK9 and IGAU that meant character. In MKX that means character and variant.
I feel pretty strongly that this the only way we will smoothly and fairly run tournaments. And they were right. It needs to be decided soon. Settle it before the game comes out and we'll start off much better for tournaments.
Counterpicking will never be eliminated from tournament...and thats not my goal. Counterpicking will still happen under the system I've proposed...I just believe it may help fight HARD counterpicking because it will force players to think about an entire characters toolset with regard to the counterpick.
Just a personal philosophy....but IMO I feel like counterpicking should be about exploiting a weakness in the player, not the character. To put it another way: if you counterpick my green arrow with doomsday to exploit a weakness in my matchup experience or playstyle that's all well and good. If you counterpick my Arrow with Aquaman.....well...I can't exactly fault you for it...but you gotta admit its kinda lame.
This whole debate may be rooted in the distinction between being a spectator and being a competitor to be honest.
From a competitive standpoint maybe nobody has a problem with the nightmare scenario I'm imagining.....but in my mind the idea of the musical chairs high level endgame sounds hella boring to me.
The problem is the other options can be just as big a nightmare. Counter-picking the counter-pick is arguably worse. For example, say a year into the game, Forever King is playing PL:
Forever King wins the first match with Cassie Cage against PL's Raiden (whatever variation). Now, King knows that PL's secondary is Scorpion, PL goes back to the character screen and King knows he's going to pick Scoprion, so he changes Cassie's variation to the one that counter-picks Scorpion the best.
Now you could argue that maybe PL goes to the character screen and simply changes Raiden's variation, or that he still has the option to counter-pick King's variation switch by choosing Scorpion's variation that best fights Cassie, but how would that not be a counterpicking clusterfuck? Essentially, you'd have people forced to make reads at the character select screen, lol.
To be clear, I think that if you're going to not have variation lock you *HAVE* to do something like the ultra select rule to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening....because this will just get dumb.
If the ultraselect rule is too arbitrarily complex then fine....stick with variation lock. I'd rather have variation lock then this sort of nonsense.
If anything, still allowing the winner to pick variant strongly deemphasizes counterpicking. Because you know that, regardless if you switch character, the other player still has a chance to adjust to keep things level.
