MKX "3-styles" - good or bad?

[d3v]

No, actually you DO have to pick different character. B/c its done at character select screen. This is not "style" this is a clone character with different special moves and different gameplay. Somehow most people fail to realize that.

As stated, this is no different from Moon Phases in Melty Blood, Slash/Bust in SamSho or Arcanas in Arcana Heart. This isn't something new and has been done before, though it doesn't surprise me that most people here fail to realize that.

 

[cyke_out]

Ok, so if you want to argue symantics, we will go ahead and call them new characters, just like ism's and grooves made new characters. So fine they are new character... But so fucking what?

How is that a bad thing? Because of each new character has a defined role instead of an all around jack of all trades? That is a good thing. Because of the potential for counter picking? Not a big deal, all part of the game.

I fail to see why it matters if subzero has three variation or there are three differently named characters occupying the different select screen spots.

 

[ColdBoreMK23]

Simple solution to the variation picking. There are only three options. Make each variation attached to a button. For example:

Variation 1 would be the square button
Variation 2 would be the triangle button
Variation 3 would be the circle button

And don't have any indication on what variation it is until the match starts.

 

[Hini]

Well b/c this is done at CHARACTER SELECT SCREEN.
This is changing character, thats it, no arguing about it. WTF, how can you deny the obvious.
Even if character shares 99% of moves with the other it is still different character as long as they're no identical in everything. If they all were named differently and looked differently there would be a shitstorm "WTF NRS trying to sell us army of clones" but "styles" are perfectly accepted and loved. Unbelievable.

How dare people have different opinions than you have!

 

[Circus]

Ok, read the whole thread.

Most of you SERIOUSLY need to really play other fighting games besides NRS games at a competitive level. In the end the reason why SF4 and Tekken have less counter picking is that the FIGHTING ENGINE AND MECHANICS of the game itself make it so it becomes a battle of who plays these FIGHTING ENGINES AND MECHANICS better. A Zangief player who is known to have 1,000 bad matchups just got 4th at EVO because his fundamentals in Street Fighter are strong, not because his character has broken tools like NRS games.

NRS games are just a battle of tools that each character has. Injustice has overall stiff movement and character specific crazy interactables so its JUST a battle of tools. Tekken and SF4 are a battle of who plays the core mechanics moreso than tools.

@Belial you seriously must not play SF4 or Tekken if you think those games don't have matchup specific counter picking. Most characters have bad matchups. Its just that it doesn't matter as much.

This argument is entirely way too early not because we don't know who's broken yet, but because we don't know the size of the role of engine and game mechanics.

Most of you need to stop hoping for just perfect character balance which will NEVER happen. Instead hope for a solid game engine that will make the game balanced just because it will be a battle of who plays the core game better.

@Belial @Rathalos @Jaku2011 @CamChattic @Fractured_Shadow @THTB @EGGXI @Flagg @HeroesNZ @Eddy Wang @RoGE @legion666 @MK Trickylizard @AK Stormthegates @STRYKIE @shaowebb @xWildx @Pyronn @SaltShaker @CCVengeance @cyke_out @d3v @Sami @RM_NINfan101

Some of you have it right but are just not explaining it well enough. But I hope most of you try to understand what I'm getting at here.

 

[Belial]

Ok, read the whole thread.

Most of you SERIOUSLY need to really play other fighting games besides NRS games at a competitive level. In the end the reason why SF4 and Tekken have less counter picking is that the FIGHTING ENGINE AND MECHANICS of the game itself make it so it becomes a battle of who plays these FIGHTING ENGINES AND MECHANICS better. A Zangief player who is known to have 1,000 bad matchups just got 4th at EVO because his fundamentals in Street Fighter are strong, not because his character has broken tools like NRS games.

NRS games are just a battle of tools that each character has. Tekken and SF4 are a battle of who plays the core mechanics moreso than tools.

@Belial you seriously must not play SF4 or Tekken if you think those games don't have matchup specific counter picking. Most characters have bad matchups. Its just that it doesn't matter as much.

This argument is entirely way too early not because we don't know who's broken yet, but because we don't know the size of the role of engine and game mechanics.

Most of you need to stop hoping for just perfect character balance which will NEVER happen. Instead hope for a solid game engine that will make the game balanced just because it will be a battle of who plays the core game better.

Some of you have it right but are just not explaining it well enough. But I hope most of you try to understand what I'm getting at here.

I've played Tekken professionally and with good results, I made top 16 in WGC in France 2008. I quit after T5 DR.
I am also accomplished player in Soul Caibur, taking Top9 EVO and Top8 MLG
I am well familiar with SF I played it casually, but I have friends who are top SF players (just dont want to name them so you dont mix em up in here) and they talk a lot about it.
I also played MK and INGAU alot and placed 2nd in both at Russian nationals.
So yeah I sort of know what I am talking about.

SF and MK are not so different, clearly one inspired another. You dont make any sense, character tools are a part of "fighting engine and mechanics" unless you mean something different, only known to you.

 

[d3v]

Reading the original post, I realize that the real problem here is with the OPS fundamental point of view.

...the less matchup factor

This is the problem right here. The OP for some reason, has gotten it into their scrubby head that character specific matchups are bad.

This is sad because asymmetry and as a result, character specific match up are what help make fighting games interesting. The interplay between different styles and movesets that may not always be equal is what helps give fighting games their depth and longevity.

To quote from Seth Killian's old Domination 101 article.

If he wises up here, he should realize that he shouldnt be wishing for "balance" (in any simple sense of the word) at all. What he should wish is for truly varied characters, none of whom is so weak so as to necessarily lose in boring ways. You dont need to focus on avoiding powerful characters- you just want to keep everyone interesting. I call this "meta-balance".

SSF2T provides an excellent example of this type of meta-balance. In a "normally balanced" game, the possible opposing sides are identical, or at least functionally very similar, and of course, everyone has a roughly similar chance to win. Does everyone have a roughly equal chance to win in ST? No way. Are there stronger and weaker characters? You bet. Theres quite a bit of distance between first and last place on the rankings chart. However, look at what you get in the trade: the characters in ST are genuinely different- very few play in ways that are at all similar. Each has distinct strengths. This is cool on its own (real variety is more fun), but adds even more in another way- the relative importance of each of their individual strengths varies from matchup to matchup. This is how genuinely different characters really repay the effort that their design requires- with real depth. Being good at a meta-balanced game doesn't entail just mastering some characters gimmick, then repeating it all day, come what may. Instead, you have to understand their strengths *in relation* to those of the other, different characters. Youll often need entirely different tactics against different opponents, even though youre playing the same character throughout. Chun Li, under some circumstances is best played as a keep-away turtle, in others wants to rush you down, doing anything she can to avoid being pushed back, and in still others, somewhere between these two extremes. This is how you get a game that stays interesting and becomes deeper with time, instead of a quickly-won race to discover who's stupid version of the same generic attack cant be retaliated against, and is therefore the champion.

Moving back to the original post.

Sub Zero picks Grandmaster style and decimated Cassie in Brawler style
Cassie then switch to Spec Ops style and Airstrike SZ into oblivion
SZ then grabs Cryomancer style and turns the game around yet again.

The problem here is that this is too simplified and does not reflect the number of tactical decisions here alone, especially when you factor in that you are not limited to sticking to a single character (shocking, I know). Do you just switch variation and risk being hard countered? Does your opponent have a variation option that can counter your counter (if variation isn't locked for the winner, which IMO should be the tournament standard)? Do you go to a different character/variation choice that may not be as hard a counter, but will leave you less open to being counter picked?

 

[SirRaven]

Ok, read the whole thread.
Most of you need to stop hoping for just perfect character balance which will NEVER happen. Instead hope for a solid game engine that will make the game balanced just because it will be a battle of who plays the core game better.

Well, everyone could be just Ryu vs Ryu and that's perfect balance but very boring...I'm someone who likes to main lower tier characters (foolishly...but I like the challenge).

You mention Tekken and SF4 as being more about the game mechanics and less about matchups. The fact is, regardless of MU, fundamentals in ANY FG will take you a long way in tournaments. If NRS were as broken as you make it sound, MK9's tournament placings would have been all Kabals.

 

[Sami]

Well, everyone could be just Ryu vs Ryu and that's perfect balance but very boring...I'm someone who likes to main lower tier characters (foolishly...but I like the challenge).

You mention Tekken and SF4 as being more about the game mechanics and less about matchups. The fact is, regardless of MU, fundamentals in ANY FG will take you a long way in tournaments. If NRS were as broken as you make it sound, MK9's tournament placings would have been all Kabals.

Ah the Kabal fallacy. The problem is that you needed exceptionally good skills to do well with Kabal and a lot of practice. A Kabal with just "good" or even "very good" execution was still quite beatable which made him a fairly poor choice as a pocket character. People tried, but they usually failed. The reward was that if you were good enough to master Kabal then generally you could dominate other players using lesser characters, even if your opponent's personal skill was equal to yours.

An average Kabal is garbage tier. An average Sonya can still scrub you some wins.

 

[Belial]

Reading the original post, I realize that the real problem here is with the OPS fundamental point of view.

This is the problem right here. The OP for some reason, has gotten it into their scrubby head that character specific matchups are bad.

This is sad because asymmetry and as a result, character specific match up are what help make fighting games interesting. The interplay between different styles and movesets that may not always be equal is what helps give fighting games their depth and longevity.

To quote from Seth Killian's old Domination 101 article.


Moving back to the original post.

The problem here is that this is too simplified and does not reflect the number of tactical decisions here alone, especially when you factor in that you are not limited to sticking to a single character (shocking, I know). Do you just switch variation and risk being hard countered? Does your opponent have a variation option that can counter your counter (if variation isn't locked for the winner, which IMO should be the tournament standard)? Do you go to a different character/variation choice that may not be as hard a counter, but will leave you less open to being counter picked?

My scrubby head oh well. Sorry but disbalance doesnt make fighting games any better. This point is commonly shared so if you somehow were led to believe that 7-3 MU's are inevitable and acceptible I suggest you reconsider.
Before making such statements why dont you even try to play at some competetive level of any kind, getting your ass blown by counterpicks and start travelling to tournaments, getting your ass kicked again by the same shit. Then I'd love to hear your opinion on how having terrible MU's is a great and "interesting"(which is long solved in most FG's) and how counterpicking is awesome and how games shouldnt have variety but instead split their tools into multitude of clones so when they cant overcome bad MU they cant B/c they dont have the tools.

 

[Hini]

What are the benefits of having 3 styles opposed to having 3-in-1?
There are none except artificial restrictions that would only make balance worse.

Lets dial back on the tunnelvision and confirmation bias.

For starters characters with options for everything make everything feel flat and bland, sure it will be a more balanced game but at what cost. Good game design comes from characters with clearly defined strengths and weaknesses, problems arise when characters like Kabal or Martian Manhunter have answers for everything (and the rest of the cast doesnt).

The most interresting characters are in fighting games (for me at least) are the ones who are really good at one or two things but then have a super obvious weakness. Thats why I really love grapplers and zoners, the grappler that has a hard time getting in, but when he does blows you the fuck up, and the zoner who will keep you away but will get his faced pushed in if you get too close to him, the real excitment then comes from which player really can overcome their weakness the best through fundamentals or good understand of their characters limits.

Characters who allow you to properly express your fighting style and lets you go head to head with someone who is completely different is what I love about fighting games.

In the end it matters what you want from a fighting game. Do you want unique characters with a harder to balance game, or do you want characters with a lack of distinction from each other but a more balanced game. Like most things the answer is probably somewhere in between.

/end rant.

 

[kabelfritz]

Sub Zero picks Grandmaster style and decimated Cassie in Brawler style
Cassie then switch to Spec Ops style and Airstrike SZ into oblivion
SZ then grabs Cryomancer style and turns the game around yet again.

i think this will play out like following: there will be a "best" variation for character x versus any variation of character y and vice versa.

like this:

x1 vs y1 6-4
x1 vs y2 5-5
x1 vs y3 3-7

x2 vs y1 4-6
x2 vs y2 7-3
x2 vs y3 5-5

x3 vs y1 6-4
x3 vs y2 6-4
x3 vs y3 3-7

so Overall

x1 vs all y 14-16
x2 vs all y 16-14
x3 vs all y 15-15

and

y1 vs all x 14-16
y2 vs all x 12-18
y3 vs all x 19-11

so x2 is the best Variation against character y overall and y3 is the best variation against character x overall so a game should normally be started with x2 vs y3 before any counterpicking begins, and maybe even played out.

 

[Circus]

I've played Tekken professionally and with good results, I made top 16 in WGC in France 2008. I quit after T5 DR.
I am also accomplished player in Soul Caibur, taking Top9 EVO and Top8 MLG
I am well familiar with SF I played it casually, but I have friends who are top SF players (just dont want to name them so you dont mix em up in here) and they talk a lot about it.
I also played MK and INGAU alot and placed 2nd in both at Russian nationals.
So yeah I sort of know what I am talking about.

SF and MK are not so different, clearly one inspired another. You dont make any sense, character tools are a part of "fighting engine and mechanics" unless you mean something different, only known to you.

Dont get defensive, please. I didn't mean any offense by what I said and apoligize if you did get offended. Lets just talk. Some people are attacking you on here, I'm not one of them.

In Injustice the movement makes it so whiff punishing isnt a reliable strategy for most of the cast. It makes it so a character with long ranged normals and an anti air could control the pace of the match. Injustice then becomes a counter measure game because the safest thing to do is to find a character who has tools to control the space outside of upclose or just get a character that just ignores traditional upclose game like Doomsday.

In SF4, because how the game itself is set up, whiff pubishing is very reliable and basic strategy for all characters. The footsies in that game are a core that everyone shares. If you're good enough ay this core spacing game then any character is viable.

Yes, there is still tiers, bad matchups, and everyone could hypothetically take their time and learn Yun, Cammy, or Fei if they wanted to. But because this core system makes it so you could still control the pace of a match even if your opponent had better tools, it makes it do you don't necessarily have to consider counterpicking.

We don't know how MKX's new run system, faster movement speed, and new mechanics like the movement intetactables will impact this game yet. Its makes it so too soon to tell if this variation system will bomb.

 

[NRF CharlieMurphy]

I will say

I think we will have to change how we think about character lock when the game drops

 

[aldazo]

...It's a very interesting mechanic, which admittedly has a lot of potential to go wrong. But we shouldn't fret about that before the game is even out. Wait until it's released, play it for a couple of months to work out any kinks, and then make judgments on how broken or not broken it is.

I think he doesn't mean it will be broken or not, he thinks it doesn't solve the unbalance problem, what it does is reinforce the counterpick tool as a way to handle the unbalance thing, so now everyone can counterpick a match, just that this time you don't need to go for another char, just pick the same char but select a different variation. I will post my thoughts later.

 

[aldazo]

...variation lock defeats the purpose of the whole mechanic IMO

Exactly, and I guess NRS will try to push for variation unlocked as a tourney standard.

 

[d3v]

My scrubby head oh well. Sorry but disbalance doesnt make fighting games any better. This point is commonly shared so if you somehow were led to believe that 7-3 MU's are inevitable and acceptible I suggest you reconsider.
Before making such statements why dont you even try to play at some competetive level of any kind, getting your ass blown by counterpicks and start travelling to tournaments, getting your ass kicked again by the same shit. Then I'd love to hear your opinion on how having terrible MU's is a great and "interesting"(which is long solved in most FG's) and how counterpicking is awesome and how games shouldnt have variety but instead split their tools into multitude of clones so when they cant overcome bad MU they cant B/c they dont have the tools.

LOL @ telling the guy who works for SRK to "play at some competetive(sic) level".

And by the way, I've taken Blanka to top 8 before so I know a thing or two about bad matchups.

The problem is that you don't realize that, to remove unique matchups is to create what is basically a flat game. What happens is that you just approach almost every matchup in the exact same way instead of having to adjust and figure out how to deal with it. This is because, the only true way to remove matchups is to have a fighting game with ONLY ONE CHARACTER. Even if you give that character all the options in the world, people will eventually end up finding playing almost the exact, same optimized way.

I will say

I think we will have to change how we think about character lock when the game drops

Or we can simply have variations unlocked, just like it is in any other fighting game with variations.

Stop thinking that this is some brand new thing that NRS has cooked up. It's not.

 

[kabelfritz]

I will say

I think we will have to change how we think about character lock when the game drops

yeah maybe a set should just be character locked

 

[Belial]

Lets dial back on the tunnelvision and confirmation bias.

For starters characters with options for everything make everything feel flat and bland, sure it will be a more balanced game but at what cost. Good game design comes from characters with clearly defined strengths and weaknesses, problems arise when characters like Kabal or Martian Manhunter have answers for everything (and the rest of the cast doesnt).

The most interresting characters are in fighting games (for me at least) are the ones who are really good at one or two things but then have a super obvious weakness. Thats why I really love grapplers and zoners, the grappler that has a hard time getting in, but when he does blows you the fuck up, and the zoner who will keep you away but will get his faced pushed in if you get too close to him, the real excitment then comes from which player really can overcome their weakness the best through fundamentals or good understand of their characters limits.

Characters who allow you to properly express your fighting style and lets you go head to head with someone who is completely different is what I love about fighting games.

In the end it matters what you want from a fighting game. Do you want unique characters with a harder to balance game, or do you want characters with a lack of distinction from each other but a more balanced game. Like most things the answer is probably somewhere in between.

/end rant.

Although I do not agree with your points it is so refreshing to see a solid and backed opinion in this thread that I just wont object.

 

[Jeffreys]

Ok let's get away from attacking the OP because I guarantee that he had better credentials and better results in other fighting games than 99.9% of the people that posted in this thread. So show some respect.

Next for the OP, you need to realize that having all the tools available would be damn near impossible to balance. Each style has its own inherent strengths and weaknesses. The goal is not to have a jack of all trades character, but for each character variations to have their distinct flavor, matchup advantages and disadvantages. NRS sometimes fucks up and we get shit characters at the bottom of the barrel but recently as shown by injustice the balance is getting far better than MK9 was. If this trend continues then future NRS games will be far more enjoyable to play and watch. They still need to patch after 6 months but that's a different topic.

In reality the variations give more depth to gameplay because you are forced to maximize the potential of the variation you have chosen for good and bad matchups instead of just changing variations on the fly and making things easier. Plus each variation for the characters seem to be very unique and not brain-dead.

 

[WakeUp DP]

People gotta stop seeing counter picking as a bad thing... Sigh its in any fighters nature to have good and bad MUs.

SF4 is a bad example since its very casual and scrub friendly lol.

 

[KHAOTIC_BLAZE]

People gotta stop seeing counter picking as a bad thing... Sigh its in any fighters nature to have good and bad MUs.

SF4 is a bad example since its very casual and scrub friendly lol.

Wait SF and scrub friendly in the same sentence? DA FK?

 

[BrosephPR]

You guys and your counterpicks and MU charts....Just because its a "bad" MU doesnt mean its unwinnable. This is not rock-paper-scissors.

 

[WakeUp DP]

Wait SF and scrub friendly in the same sentence? DA FK?

Revenge meter, you basically get rewarded with a comeback mechanic for playing shitty and getting hit more than you have to.
Mash happy dps and reversal attacks, you can pretty much mash dp in between block strings etc etc. SF4 can be played very tactical but still very scrub friendly in most peoples opinions tbh.

 

[d3v]

You guys and your counterpicks and MU charts....Just because its a "bad" MU doesnt mean its unwinnable. This is not rock-paper-scissors.

The problem is that scrubs being to panic the moment they see a matchup with a number that's 6 or higher. What they don't realize that the only way to get a true 5:5 is to have a mirror match.