The Argument Against Variation Lock

[Paul the Octopus]

There's been quite a bit of discussion on the right ruleset for MKX. On the variation lock question - I strongly believe it is better to allow the winner to change character variation. I would propose a counter pick procedure that involves:
1. Winner stays with current character
2. Loser picks character
3. Winner picks variation
4. Loser picks variation

Here's the rationale:

Overarching principles:
1. The goal of any competitive rule set is to promote an environment where the best player wins.
2. As long as there are matchups that are not 5-5, there can be games when character selection rather than player skill determines the winner.

Explicit goal in determining the variation lock rule
Get as close as possible to a tournament where all games feature 5-5 matchups. This promotes the principles above and also increases hype (I think we can all agree that some of the least interesting matches to watch are 7-3 counter pick matches like when Forever King counter picks 16 Bit's Catwoman with Aquaman).

Why allowing variation switches promotes this goal
Simply put, it's harder to counterpick your opponent with a 7-3 matchup when you don't know who they are picking. In some situations, variations will make no difference, but in others the winner can reduce the severity of the counterpick and play a 4-6 rather than a 3-7. Loser maintains control because of the order of the selections but his advantage is lessened, making for more competitive games and promoting the principles above.

Having the loser pick variation after the winner ensures that the loser doesn't end up getting counter-counterpicked. Winner should never be able to reverse the situation and make the loser play an even worse matchup than the first game, provided the loser has a little bit of foresight and considers the winners variation choices before he selects character. Loser has the final move and still has an advantage.

This is similar to what was done in similar games

I did some research and it seemed like in Arcana Heart, the most similar thing we've seen in regards to variations in MKX, and it was ok for the winner to change their Arcana (Variation).

I thought something like this might be too complicated for this community, but if we are to establish these rules and people are able to understand them, I do think it would be most interesting, fun, and beneficial to allow the winner to change their variation. Especially if loser changes character.

I believe the basic counter picking procedure (used in MK9/IGAU) is flawed
Some may argue that different variations might as well be entirely different characters in some cases, so we should use standard counterpicking rules (winner changes nothing) as a result. However, that assumes that standard rules are optimal, which they aren't. They still result in terribly boring lopsided matchups like the one I mentioned above.

The traditional procedure is good in situations like this: Lex player goes to a tournament and meets a Sinestro round 1. Without counter picking, he's all but lost at the character select screen. By counter picking he increases the chance that player skill determines the winner rather than character choice. I'd argue counter picking is a bad thing in a situation likes this: Catwoman player plays a Harley player round one and wins the first game because the Catwoman player is better. Harley player counterpicks Aquaman and takes the rest of the set, despite being a worse player. In this case, player skill is not determining the winner - character choice is.

If we can preserve the first thing and reduce the second one, I think that's a good outcome. The standard procedure (winner locks everything) is all we can do in MK9 and Injustice because there are no variations, but here we have another choice and we should take advantage of it, increase the number of 5-5 matchups, and make it so the better player wins more consistently.

Let's discuss
If folks disagree, let me know why. Preferably, address which of the principles you think is wrong. Or tell me why this rule doesn't promote those principles. If you can't do either, you probably don't have a legitimate objection.

 

[GGA Max]

I might be starting to like this. I'm glad someone really spelled it out for people like me who didn't understand this POV.

4 steps may be too complicated for some people though.

It could delay tournaments if the loser expects the winner to chose character and variation first. And the winner would have to call the TO over to verify the rules.

 

[Chuckychuck]

Let's face it if the winner cannot do a blind variation re-pick when the looser goes back to the character select screen after a loss then MKX will turn into a character and variation focus counter-pick fest.

 

[imblackjames]

Character/variation lock for winner....that's what i say

 

[Paul the Octopus]

I might be starting to like this. I'm glad someone really spelled it out for people like me who didn't understand this POV.

4 steps may be too complicated for some people though.

It could delay tournaments if the loser expects the winner to chose character and variation first. And the winner would have to call the TO over to verify the rules.

I hear you, but I think that the community will get it quite a bit quicker than you think. I used to play SSBM competitively, and it has a far more complicated counterpicking procedure (below). Yet, tournaments run smoothly and it's not an issue.

For MKX, I'm sure there will be hiccups in the first month if this proposal is used. But ultimately 1 month of hiccups is a small price to pay for a better ruleset for the lifespan of the game.

1. Players select their characters. Either player may elect to Double Blind
2. Use Stage Striking to determine the first stage
3. The players play the first match of the set
   Prior to starting this match, either player may elect to Contest Port Priority or Neutral Start. Note: Only one of these two may be used, as both have a built in Port Selection mechanism using RPS. If there is a situation where a player would like to change which option they elected after playing the game of RPS, it is the opponent’s choice to allow it. The results from the previously played game of RPS will carry over.
4. Winning player of the preceding match bans a stage/stages (if applicable).
   For Best of 3 sets, each player gets 1 stage ban.
   For Best of 5 sets, there are no stage bans.
5. The losing player of the preceding match picks a stage for the next match.
6. The winning player of the preceding match may choose to change characters.
7. The losing player of the preceding match may choose to change characters.
8. The losing player of the preceding match gets first pick of port. Either player may elect for a neutral Start, but RPS will not be played to determine first pick.
9. The next match is played.

 

[Chuckychuck]

I hear you, but I think that the community will get it quite a bit quicker than you think. I used to play SSBM competitively, and it has a far more complicated counterpicking procedure (below). Yet, tournaments run smoothly and it's not an issue.

For MKX, I'm sure there will be hiccups in the first month if this proposal is used. But ultimately 1 month of hiccups is a small price to pay for a better ruleset for the lifespan of the game.

1. Players select their characters. Either player may elect to Double Blind
2. Use Stage Striking to determine the first stage
3. The players play the first match of the set
   Prior to starting this match, either player may elect to Contest Port Priority or Neutral Start. Note: Only one of these two may be used, as both have a built in Port Selection mechanism using RPS. If there is a situation where a player would like to change which option they elected after playing the game of RPS, it is the opponent’s choice to allow it. The results from the previously played game of RPS will carry over.
4. Winning player of the preceding match bans a stage/stages (if applicable).
   For Best of 3 sets, each player gets 1 stage ban.
   For Best of 5 sets, there are no stage bans.
5. The losing player of the preceding match picks a stage for the next match.
6. The winning player of the preceding match may choose to change characters.
7. The losing player of the preceding match may choose to change characters.
8. The losing player of the preceding match gets first pick of port. Either player may elect for a neutral Start, but RPS will not be played to determine first pick.
9. The next match is played.

Too complicated.

Simpler method is something like this:

1. Looser may select stage and character re-select.
2. Winner must choose same character but may re-select variation (blind).
2. Looser may re-select character and variation (blind).

The reasoning behind my suggested method is because it will promote character specialty and especially balanced characters while still allowing players to counter-pick by character except it won't be a hard counter. So in this kind of system characters will be more balanced characters and less susceptible to specific hard counter-picks (character and variation combo counter-pick). If the winner cannot re-select a variation (blind pick) then we will end up with hard counter-picks where character A variation B is the most obvious strongest counter-pick to a rushdown character and character C variation C is the most obvious strongest counter-pick to a zoner and the like.

 

[Paul the Octopus]

Character/variation lock for winner....that's what i say

That's nice, but unless you have a rationale there's no reason to follow that.

Which of my principles do you disagree with? Or do you disagree that my rule promotes those principles? If you don't disagree with either then sorry but I dont think your suggestion holds much weight.

 

[RelentlessOhio]

God the game is still 5 months away. Stop with the speculation. We don't know what the fuck Ed Boon and his crazy minions at NRS are up to. Leave it at that.

Talking about tournaments. Give us a chance to get the game and practice.

Not to mention the endless patches over the couple months.

 

[trufenix]

@Paul the Octopus
Should Ryu mains be allowed to switch to Evil Ryu after winning? Why/Why Not? Please show your work.

 

[WakeUp DP]

Good players will adapt and find ways around bad match ups.

You said skills is what matters then skillful players will adapt. So I dissagre, the winner might not change variation or char.

Thats how it works on umvc3, the winner can not change the order or chars or assist.

Counter picking is part of fighting games, I think that makes it more hype when the underdog wins!

 

[WakeUp DP]

@Paul the Octopus
Should Ryu mains be allowed to switch to Evil Ryu after winning? Why/Why Not? Please show your work.

Exactly this! Each variation is a dif char.

 

[RelentlessOhio]

Good players will adapt and find ways around bad match ups.

You said skills is what matters then skillful players will adapt. So I dissagre, the winner might not change variation or char.

Thats how it works on umvc3, the winner can not change the order or chars or assist.

Counter picking is part of fighting games, I think that makes it more hype when the underdog wins!

Okay but UMvC3 isn't Mortal Kombat - 3v3 edition.

I get what you're saying, but that game is crack-mode. And I hate it. But again, my opinion.

 

[Jim]

The point of character lock is the winner must stick with their set of tools. What difference does it make if those tools change based on the character or the variant selected? Your rules won't promote 5-5s they promote sitting and constantly guessing what variant the loser is going to go with based on what variant you go with. You don't want boring tournaments like Aquaman vs Catwoman? Well you probably don't want boring tournaments of select screen vs stream time. This will not make matches more exciting, it will cluster fuck tournaments.

The only reason you are saying this should be allowed is because of the way it is selected. If the game play were identical but Sub-Zero had three faces at the character select we'd all call it character lock to Sub-Zero - Unbreakable and leave it at that. So how does the loser picking a new character or variant to deal with that particular Sub-Zero differ in anyway than picking a new character to deal with a character like we did in MK9 and IGAU?

You also didn't address another element this brings in. Does simply switching the stage by the loser allow the winner to change variants or not? Not huge but another factor.

If you honestly think people will know and understand these rules for tournaments you are very badly mistaken. I had to explain the stage select rules for IGAU to opponent this weekend when he selected his own stage.

Also to the guy saying wait until it comes out. Hell no. We are going to be doing release day tournaments for this. Lets have the rules in place from the get go. There will not be a magic new ruling from Paulo that will make us go 'Oh ok now we have our rules'.

 

[cyke_out]

@Paul the Octopus
Should Ryu mains be allowed to switch to Evil Ryu after winning? Why/Why Not? Please show your work.

If ryu has an evil variation, that can be selected after picking ryu, then go for it.

It's the same for any other game with variations.

I really don't see why you want to limit player choices.

 

[Konqrr]

The winner shouldn't be able to change anything unless the opponent changes, then it should only be a variation change.

 

[TopTierHarley]

Too complicated.

Simpler method is something like this:

1. Looser may select stage and character re-select.
2. Winner must choose same character but may re-select variation (blind).
2. Looser may re-select character and variation (blind).

The reasoning behind my suggested method is because it will promote character specialty and especially balanced characters while still allowing players to counter-pick by character except it won't be a hard counter. So in this kind of system characters will be more balanced characters and less susceptible to specific hard counter-picks (character and variation combo counter-pick). If the winner cannot re-select a variation (blind pick) then we will end up with hard counter-picks where character A variation B is the most obvious strongest counter-pick to a rushdown character and character C variation C is the most obvious strongest counter-pick to a zoner and the like.

He was stating Smash rules

 

[GamerBlake90]

@Jim @RelentlessOhio

At ease, gentlemen.

 

[EMPEROR PRYCE]

Winner should have to keep variation in character, thats kinda why the loser gets to pick a character, to counter pick.

Lets take 2 other popular fighting games with mechanics deeper than a simple "character select"

UMVC3 and Usf4

In marvel, lets assume you play a phoenix team, Magneto/Doom/Phoenix. It's a traditional zoning team with strong mobility and incoming mix up pressure. Normally, you'll want to play Doom Plasma beam assist to keep horizontal ground movement on lock. To keep this simple, you'll want a lockdown/mixup team to counter pick (Zero May Cry for example). Now lets assume you win as phoenix and your opponent counter picks with a zoning team. You have to keep your assist, no picking Doom missiles to counter zone. you must keep your assists/tools, you won so there is no reason to justify switching until you lose and prove u need the counter pick.

In USF4 u must keep your Ultra selection unless you lose. In that game, the ultra choice can literally change the matchup. I'd go into depth, but I know marvel a lot better lmao

 

[LEGEND]

No locks, just pick your shit n play. Elect for blind picks in case of select screen counterpicking. Done

Why does it have to be more complicated than that? Why should the winner even have to be locked to their character/variation. . .never understood the logic behind that. Just promotes counterpicking

 

[RM xSTRANGERx]

I've seen 90,000 threads with this same topic. But.. It's really not rocket science. You guys act like you're trying to crack the Da vinci Code or some shit. You win with Sorcerer Quan Chi, you stick with Sorcerer Quan Chi. You lose with Sorcerer Quan Chi? You either keep him, change your character, or change the variation.

And just like that... BAM!


Hopefully I just saved another 90,000 threads with the same topic from opening in the mean time of now and April. Heh.

 

[Paul the Octopus]

Too complicated.

Simpler method is something like this:

1. Looser may select stage and character re-select.
2. Winner must choose same character but may re-select variation (blind).
2. Looser may re-select character and variation (blind).

The reasoning behind my suggested method is because it will promote character specialty and especially balanced characters while still allowing players to counter-pick by character except it won't be a hard counter. So in this kind of system characters will be more balanced characters and less susceptible to specific hard counter-picks (character and variation combo counter-pick). If the winner cannot re-select a variation (blind pick) then we will end up with hard counter-picks where character A variation B is the most obvious strongest counter-pick to a rushdown character and character C variation C is the most obvious strongest counter-pick to a zoner and the like.

Thanks for the well reasoned response. I think your way works too.

 

[Slips]

My initial instincts was that the winner can change their variation after the loser picks their character and be forced to pick their variation first. But it makes sense the variation should be locked if that's what they won with.

It depends on how drastic the variations are.

If a character has a great zoning/runaway variation and in contrast also has a superb rushdown variation, then the variations should be locked.

If a character has a great/zoning runaway variation and their rushdown variation is just makes their rushdown slightly more adequate, then it should be ok to change the variation.

Ultimately we won't know until we get our hands on the game. But I think the safest bet to start with would be variation lock until we start understanding the game more.

 

[cyke_out]

Winner should have to keep variation in character, thats kinda why the loser gets to pick a character, to counter pick.

Lets take 2 other popular fighting games with mechanics deeper than a simple "character select"

UMVC3 and Usf4

In marvel, lets assume you play a phoenix team, Magneto/Doom/Phoenix. It's a traditional zoning team with strong mobility and incoming mix up pressure. Normally, you'll want to play Doom Plasma beam assist to keep horizontal ground movement on lock. To keep this simple, you'll want a lockdown/mixup team to counter pick (Zero May Cry for example). Now lets assume you win as phoenix and your opponent counter picks with a zoning team. You have to keep your assist, no picking Doom missiles to counter zone. you must keep your assists/tools, you won so there is no reason to justify switching until you lose and prove u need the counter pick.

In USF4 u must keep your Ultra selection unless you lose. In that game, the ultra choice can literally change the matchup. I'd go into depth, but I know marvel a lot better lmao

Yes it's true you do know marvel better, cuz the rules for sf4 allow you to change ultra if loser changes character.

 

[imblackjames]

That's nice, but unless you have a rationale there's no reason to follow that.

Which of my principles do you disagree with? Or do you disagree that my rule promotes those principles? If you don't disagree with either then sorry but I dont think your suggestion holds much weight.

Its that variations should be treated as its own character. So why should the winner get to pick (basically) a new character to give them a better chance of winning more instead of just letting the loser pick so they have a better chance of winning

 

[Pterodactyl]

@Paul the Octopus
Should Ryu mains be allowed to switch to Evil Ryu after winning? Why/Why Not? Please show your work.

That's an unfair comparison seeing as how Ryu is one out of the only two characters with "variations" in that game, and even then the differences between those characters are much broader and drastic than most of the variation we've seen so far, as they change more than just special moves and a few string behaviors.

Here it'd be more like Raiden switching to displacer after winning, while the Kotal switches to sun god after losing. This eliminates a straight counter pick, but still gives the loser the ability to pick someone they think would be better suited to face the winner's character in general.

Fully blind on the winner's side, partially blind on the loser's.

Picking a variation and picking an entirely different character are not the same at all, as variations are tied to an unchanging base and only augment certain things. Raiden may be able to do different types of teleports in Displacer and not in Master of Storms, but both share the same normals, jump, walk and dash speed, x-ray, strings(though some variations add to these), and even a few special moves.