Crimson Panther
Noob
Can we play the game first please?
Ok. So what is the argument for "full lock"??? Over 300 pages in and there have been excellent arguments as well as examples for variation unlock. Yet literally the only argument for full variation lock has been, "oh the winner shouldn't be able to counter the loser", which has been proven false.
No. No we can't play the game first. That is the purpose of this thread and the discussion itself. Here's what playing the game first leads to.
Yeah, that's been my one big question. When this thread was created, I came into it firmly on the side of variation locks; after all, each variation is basically its own character, so of course variations should be locked. However, after reading through the first page of arguments, I was converted to the side of unlocked variations. There are just too many good reasons why they should be unlocked. The only reasons I keep seeing for pro-lock are that it's just always been that way (which is never a good reason for anything) and that the winner can somehow counterpick the loser, which just simply isn't the case. I'm still waiting to hear a single viable reason why variations should be locked.
Example: King of Fighters has EX characters. Same sprites, often many of the same moves, but nobody ever even asked if they're swappable in a team in any game that has them. They share as many similarities (or dissimilarities?) as MKX characters and variations do, but it's a pretty clear given that each character is intended to stand on its own merits because they have a complete enough toolset to do so. We don't know what's going to provide a better experience here because we only know the broadest strokes about the characters and we have a combined near-zero level of time spent with this game. Variation switching makes a lot more sense if many characters have obvious holes in their game against certain strategies or archetypes; if they're all relatively complete and competitive then what's the point?
This is the only other argument I see for locked variations, and it's just as effective as "because it's always been that way". Just because another game has a similar system doesn't necessarily mean its rules should be transferred. What does matter is why it has those rules. I'm not a King of Fighters player, but I was unable to find any information on EX characters via a google search. Can you post a link to info on EX characters?
I'm sorry, but this statement infuriates me. There are dozens of solid arguments on the side of unlocked variations. Just because those arguments are being ignored does not mean they don't exist. I can read through this thread and tell you exactly why pro-unlock players believe MKX should use unlocked variations. I cannot tell you why a single pro-lock player believes MKX should lock variations, other than the 3 same arguments that have already been debunked (always been that way, other games do it that way, the winner can somehow counterpick the loser). If there are reasons I'm missing, please enlighten me. I beg you to, actually, because I am utterly dumbfounded how this is even still an argument. At this point, I think the only actual argument is whether or not you are pro-counterpicking. If you are pro-counterpicking then you are for variation lock. If you are anti-counterpicking, you are against variation lock. That's all there is to it, and that's a different argument entirely.
Ok, prove is a bad word. So should I use "much better argument"? I don't know if you read through the whole thread, but some amazing points were made on why there should be unlocked variations, and still, even after I asked you yourself, not one real point has been made on why character/variation lock is a BETTER option. Those of us on this side of the fence are still waiting 15 pages later.
Here's why they never let you switch & why that's a bad example, not all characters had EX Versions so if you let picking EX characters rock it only benefits some characters & not the whole,.
as i said before, if the rules are made according to the devs intentions, it should be character lock, loser picks Variation. but i can see that not being fun for some people.
Deficient example, fair enough. That said, specifically focusing on why I picked a bad example evades the underlying point: there are lots of games where you're locked into your choices regardless. Without even moving away from that series, I can provide a better example off all the UMFE I've been playing lately - if you pick a certain gauge type/movement options, you're expected to stick with it, too. Remember that I'm not even trying to argue one way or another - I just want everyone to remember that there are precedents swinging both ways and I'm not even going to guess what would be superior until I've played it.
r, I just think that locking the winner to character and variation is the simplest and most fair way to go about it in tournament.
Here is my opinion on the "counter picking rule"
My disclaimer is that I don't pretend to know how the meta of MKX will work with variations or how much of a difference variations will make in MUs. No one does yet. I also don't think that I am right and others are wrong. I'm simply going to state my opinion and hopefully give a well explained reason as to why my opinion is what it is.
I am pro character and variation lock for winner, here's why.
The first thing I think we need to take out of the equation is MU numbers. Whether a character beats another 6-4 or 8-2, or whatever the case may be, should not have an effect on the rules of variation lock. MU numbers are opinions. Whether we have a consensus on what a MU is, and honestly history has shown us that we don't, they are still opinions made by us on how a character's tools Counter act our opponent's character's tools. The only thing that should matter is the decision of whether or not we are going to allow the winner (or loser) of a match change the tools and abilities of their character following the completion of the previous match. If the losing player decides to pick a character or variation that the community has deemed as a worse MU then the one they played in the previous match, does it still count as a counter pick? The answer to that changes based on people's perceptions of what the MU in question is. The only tangible information we can all agree on is that if we change a character or a variation, that character's tools change, and that is the only thing that we should discuss.
Here is where I see the downfall of not locking character and variation for the winner.
We have player A and player B both with variations 1,2,3 respectively.
Player A wins. Now player B decides to change character or variation (in my opinion whether the losing player changes character or variation it makes no difference, that player is changing the tools in which he/she can use in the next match). Player A (assuming that player A is character but not variation locked) picks his character and waits. Who picks first? Player b picks first, then player A? What if player B picks, sees what player A changed his variation too and then decides he wants to pick something else? Well that's not fair to player A. But player A gets to wait and see what player B picked before he changes Variation? Wait a second how does that make any sense? Oh well then they can just hide cursor and blind pick variation or character. Then what's the point? If you are of the opinion that the winner should be able to change variation if the loser makes a change then you also need to provide an order in which characters or variations are picked. I think this is why, in previous titles like MK9, the winning player was locked onto the character they won with. If not, then How do you decide who gets the final say or decision on the MU? Who gets to pick last? Let's say player B changes to a different character, then chooses variation 2. Player A changes from variation 1 to variation 2, player B subsequently decides he now wants to play another character and goes back to the player select screen and picks a new character . Player A then decides he's going to pick variation 3. It seems really complicated and confusing, and every way I look at it (whether we decide that once you make it to the variation screen you can't go back to character select other rules like that that could deal with those kinds of situations) it comes down too much picking/counter picking and changing the dynamics of the game.
I'm not saying that because we did it in the past it makes it right, but if we now consider winner being character and variation locked, it seems like the simplest and most fair way to proceed in tournament.
Player A wins and has to keep character and variation. Player B makes a change.
Player B wins and is now character and variation locked. Player A can now make a change.
Let's say that due to counter picking that matches were won because of character changes. (Flip flopping from A to B). Locked character and variation for winner means that both players were afforded equal opportunity to "counter pick", and the determining factor in a best of 3 or best of 5 comes down to the first win of the set. The initial pick of characters which you can't counter pick (because of our ability to blind pick at the start).
I re read everything an I think it makes sense. It's very TL
wut
Ok fair enough,
You're the first person in over 300 comments to make a decent counter point. Congrats. Now to address a few things you mentioned.Here is my opinion on the "counter picking rule"
My disclaimer is that I don't pretend to know how the meta of MKX will work with variations or how much of a difference variations will make in MUs. No one does yet. I also don't think that I am right and others are wrong. I'm simply going to state my opinion and hopefully give a well explained reason as to why my opinion is what it is.
I am pro character and variation lock for winner, here's why.
The first thing I think we need to take out of the equation is MU numbers. Whether a character beats another 6-4 or 8-2, or whatever the case may be, should not have an effect on the rules of variation lock. MU numbers are opinions. Whether we have a consensus on what a MU is, and honestly history has shown us that we don't, they are still opinions made by us on how a character's tools Counter act our opponent's character's tools. The only thing that should matter is the decision of whether or not we are going to allow the winner (or loser) of a match change the tools and abilities of their character following the completion of the previous match. If the losing player decides to pick a character or variation that the community has deemed as a worse MU then the one they played in the previous match, does it still count as a counter pick? The answer to that changes based on people's perceptions of what the MU in question is. The only tangible information we can all agree on is that if we change a character or a variation, that character's tools change, and that is the only thing that we should discuss.
Here is where I see the downfall of not locking character and variation for the winner.
We have player A and player B both with variations 1,2,3 respectively.
Player A wins. Now player B decides to change character or variation (in my opinion whether the losing player changes character or variation it makes no difference, that player is changing the tools in which he/she can use in the next match). Player A (assuming that player A is character but not variation locked) picks his character and waits. Who picks first? Player b picks first, then player A? What if player B picks, sees what player A changed his variation too and then decides he wants to pick something else? Well that's not fair to player A. But player A gets to wait and see what player B picked before he changes Variation? Wait a second how does that make any sense? Oh well then they can just hide cursor and blind pick variation or character. Then what's the point? If you are of the opinion that the winner should be able to change variation if the loser makes a change then you also need to provide an order in which characters or variations are picked. I think this is why, in previous titles like MK9, the winning player was locked onto the character they won with. If not, then How do you decide who gets the final say or decision on the MU? Who gets to pick last? Let's say player B changes to a different character, then chooses variation 2. Player A changes from variation 1 to variation 2, player B subsequently decides he now wants to play another character and goes back to the player select screen and picks a new character . Player A then decides he's going to pick variation 3. It seems really complicated and confusing, and every way I look at it (whether we decide that once you make it to the variation screen you can't go back to character select other rules like that that could deal with those kinds of situations) it comes down too much picking/counter picking and changing the dynamics of the game.
I'm not saying that because we did it in the past it makes it right, but if we now consider winner being character and variation locked, it seems like the simplest and most fair way to proceed in tournament.
Player A wins and has to keep character and variation. Player B makes a change.
Player B wins and is now character and variation locked. Player A can now make a change.
Let's say that due to counter picking that matches were won because of character changes. (Flip flopping from A to B). Locked character and variation for winner means that both players were afforded equal opportunity to "counter pick", and the determining factor in a best of 3 or best of 5 comes down to the first win of the set. The initial pick of characters which you can't counter pick (because of our ability to blind pick at the start).
I re read everything an I think it makes sense. It's very TL
