Can we get a consensus on Character/Variation Lock rules?

[Compbros]

Reminder to the people saying "this is the most logical choice:" there is a lot of subjectivity to this debate. Someone can say "well this is how I would prefer the game to be played," and I'm sorry, but that's a valid response to this discussion. So you can argue until you're blue in the face, but we've established it's unlikely to change any minds. This thread is long on discussion and short on solutions.

That said, @Compbros, is Detroit looking to run full lock at the moment?

I'm hesitant to start just randomly tagging other people to see what their regions are up to, but it's probably a good idea. Ugh.

We're discussing it now, right now we have a Ranbat 4 days after the game is out that's probably gonna run full lock but I'll be getting variation unlock going for the local weekly.

 

[Prinz]

So is Chicago running full locked?

I'd like to know too, because the only real way to know which of the options works best is for different regions to play different rules for test.

 

[Alright RyRy]

Tampa will be running Character / Variation Lock.

 

[Compbros]

The winner should not be able to counter-pick the loser. That is the stupidest thing I have heard of.

List of things that should be locked:

Characters
Variations
This thread

Why should this thread get closed? Isn't the point of the forum to discuss things pertaining to the game and this will largely affect the tournament scene as a whole. This isn't a dictatorship of "it's been like this forever, what you're suggesting is dumb, lock the thread", it's to get new ideas out for how to handle a system that very few games have.

 

[Shark Tank]

I hope this thread gets closed.

The winner should not be able to counter-pick the loser. That is the stupidest thing I have heard of.

3 options vs 80. I cannot see a situation where the loser doesn't get a bigger advantage over the winner+ winner having to pick first. The loser can also pick 2 other characters and have the winner still locked. I see it as the winner mitigating hard counter picks. Because if you are afraid of that, lock his variation, he just cps you 3rd game and it's gg anyway.

 

[Compbros]

The winner should not be able to counter-pick the loser. That is the stupidest thing I have heard of.

Just imagine being in the seat when your deciding to "counterpick" your opponent.

He plays with Fisticuffs Johnny C You Picked Hellfire Scorpion

You go back the to the character selection screen, thinking "Ok I am going to switch characters but I also know that he has the option to counter-pick my counter-pick."

That is stupid. I never want to think about that in a tournament.

@Compbros you also have to think about people who are going to main say Mileena for example where if they win the first match her other 2 Variations are TOTALLY different and give the winner a more even chance? Isn't that the point of counter-picking to GAIN the advantage?

Now to actually address this post.


It's not stupid, it's different.

Okay.

Yep.

Yep.

How? How is that stupid? "I know he can change variation now so I need to pick a character that can hold their own against all three".

They still gain the advantage because they still get the final pick in the counter picking. They still have final say. It's still up to them to pick a character that won't get bodied by any variation of the winner's character and then pick a variation that does well against the variation the winner picked. This is not stupid.

 

[Dizzy]

So is Chicago running full locked?

I think they are waiting til the game comes out to decide 100%, but I think going with status quo for rules would probably be the best.

Injustice started with insane counterpick rules on the outset for no reason. If anything should be learned from Injustice, is that the FG norm should be expected to be used until the game has time to develop, then we can see if whack selection rules need to be put in place.

 

[haketh]

I think they are waiting til the game comes out to decide 100%, but I think going with status quo for rules would probably be the best.

Injustice started with insane counterpick rules on the outset for no reason. If anything should be learned from Injustice, is that the FG norm should be expected to be used until the game has time to develop, then we can see if whack selection rules need to be put in place.

If you wanna use the FG norm than variation unlock is the norm for games like this Christ.

 

[Compbros]

I think they are waiting til the game comes out to decide 100%, but I think going with status quo for rules would probably be the best.

Injustice started with insane counterpick rules on the outset for no reason. If anything should be learned from Injustice, is that the FG norm should be expected to be used until the game has time to develop, then we can see if whack selection rules need to be put in place.

Injustice was also abnormal though as stages changed things drastically based on the type of character you had so there was no real status quo for such a thing.

 

[Prinz]

I think they are waiting til the game comes out to decide 100%, but I think going with status quo for rules would probably be the best.

Injustice started with insane counterpick rules on the outset for no reason. If anything should be learned from Injustice, is that the FG norm should be expected to be used until the game has time to develop, then we can see if whack selection rules need to be put in place.

There's no fail in all lock in my opinion. The variations are clearly different characters. But where's the fun of variations in this case though?

 

[Mind Flex]

Loser should get a free variation change. If they want a full character change then the winner gets a variation change.
This method rewards character loyalists and makes counter picking a less powerful option.

Variation lock rewards counter pickers.
The results would be (as a stated earlier) learning a main's best variation and a secondary's best variation to deal with counter pickers.

It seems like NRS added variations as a way to reward character loyalists. This system would be a way to carry that over to the competitive world.

In the end it will come down to a couple things.
1. Do you want to reward character loyalists or counter pickers?
2. Does your character only have one or two variations that you like? Meaning you don't want to be forced to learn all three.
3. Does the arguments of those people FOR variation change get heard by the right people before the status quo takes over due to lack of action.

We all know everyone on this site is going to play this game no matter what the rules. It just doesn't make sense that we can't change the rules to cater to way the the develops envisioned it.

 

[Compbros]

To me this is like allowing the loser of Injustice to pick a new character and pick the stage they want. It's just double counter picking the winner.

 

[Juggs]

It doesn't matter what the variations were intended to be for, NRS isn't making the game 100% only for tournament players. If they came up with Variations to combat counter picking in tournaments, that's cool, but we're not forced to oblige them.

We've seen little of the game, but of what we have seen there's already enough evidence to see that each variations are significantly different from one another. Originally I was for being able to switch variations if loser changes characters, but since then I've seen how much different each variation is, they are too close to entirely new characters themselves.

The problem is this is pre-release banter. Since we don't know how much variations truly differ yet, the safest option is character and variation lock. Multiple top players, you know, who have actually been to tournaments, have voted for character and variation lock. A lot of you are getting hung up on the fact that variations are new and need to be explored. Locking them for the winner doesn't mean variations will be pointless or under utilized. We're not trying to kill the fun or variation hype, we're trying to make the most fair tournament rules as possible. And as of right now, that is winner is character and variation locked, period.

 

[Alright RyRy]

You guys are pulling the whole 3 - 87 variations card.

There is a handful of people that play every character in MK9. I think the amount will be drastically less in MKX.

So please do not use that card.

Just 1 or 2 maybe 3 Characters to cover match ups if and when you do lose.

I should never have to think about getting counter-picked if I lost a match.

 

[Alright RyRy]

It doesn't matter what the variations were intended to be for, NRS isn't making the game 100% only for tournament players. If they came up with Variations to combat counter picking in tournaments, that's cool, but we're not forced to oblige them.

We've seen little of the game, but of what we have seen there's already enough evidence to see that each variations are significantly different from one another. Originally I was for being able to switch variations if loser changes characters, but since then I've seen how much different each variation is, they are too close to entirely new characters themselves.

The problem is this is pre-release banter. Since we don't know how much variations truly differ yet, the safest option is character and variation lock. Multiple top players, you know, who have actually been to tournaments, have voted for character and variation lock. A lot of you are getting hung up on the fact that variations are new and need to be explored. Locking them for the winner doesn't mean variations will be pointless or under utilized. We're not trying to kill the fun or variation hype, we're trying to make the most fair tournament rules as possible. And as of right now, that is winner is character and variation locked, period.

Hall of Fame Posting.

 

[Duck Nation]

@GGA Dizzy Thanks.

From what I can get combing back through this thread, it's looking like for now more places than not are planning to run full lock as it stands. Putting aside the arguments one way or another, people should probably expect that to be the early tournament standard.

 

[Shark Tank]

I just want some scientific investigations is all. We can play it safe until Evo, I just don't want a plausible, potentially more fun/optimal ruleset to be dismissed because no TO wants to make a drastic change later in the games life. If people try and and thinks it's garbo then it's garbo.

 

[SneakyTortoise]

"Nothing is changed with or without locks" is a very much disingenuous statement. "Well they're just going to win two matches anyways" is a pretty glib way of looking at it; in that scenario you're giving people a way to almost always stay on top of their advantage.

That said, I think there's equally as poor ones coming from both sides of the argument. The only thing I see in this argument the more I think about is insufficient information to make an educated decision. We have examples of games that have gone both ways in similar situations - when Haketh brought up Arcana Heart for example, it was to discuss that they started one way and changed it later. Bringing up those scenarios was one minute way to highlight how additional information is going to make a huge difference in this decision; note that the scenarios I presented are not even mutually exclusive.

To be honest, it seems the closest thing to a good piece of information in the whole thread was this, which got glossed over (possibly because the man himself did not independently verify it):


And I should say, the only reason I feel it's even worth considering is because it implies that NRS is trying to make every variation stand on its own two feet and be complete enough to win any match in the game. Without any underpinning reason given, that inference is the best insight we have, and let me be clear: having to go off guessing what someone else might be thinking based on one tiny piece of information is as deficient as it gets.

@GGA 16 Bit, since I haven't seen you ring in at all here yourself, can you confirm or deny what Tortoise said? Are you allowed to give us any rationale either direction about what's being considered in-house?

Just wanted to prove I wasn't chatting shit, in case that's what anyone inferred from 16 Bit's response

 

[Compbros]

It doesn't matter what the variations were intended to be for, NRS isn't making the game 100% only for tournament players. If they came up with Variations to combat counter picking in tournaments, that's cool, but we're not forced to oblige them.

We've seen little of the game, but of what we have seen there's already enough evidence to see that each variations are significantly different from one another. Originally I was for being able to switch variations if loser changes characters, but since then I've seen how much different each variation is, they are too close to entirely new characters themselves.

The problem is this is pre-release banter. Since we don't know how much variations truly differ yet, the safest option is character and variation lock. Multiple top players, you know, who have actually been to tournaments, have voted for character and variation lock. A lot of you are getting hung up on the fact that variations are new and need to be explored. Locking them for the winner doesn't mean variations will be pointless or under utilized. We're not trying to kill the fun or variation hype, we're trying to make the most fair tournament rules as possible. And as of right now, that is winner is character and variation locked, period.

No, but we shouldn't just "go with the flow" of how it's always been either. This is something that we've rarely seen in 20+ years of fighting games, it's worth discussing if we should take a look at changing how character selection goes.


Significantly? I can't agree with that. Cassie gets Missles and a taunt in one variation and an air grab/air guns in another, that's not significant. Meanwhile others get new strings and vastly different play styles/specials. They're not different characters, I simply can't agree to that. I see it as Cassie and then A, B, or C. Again, we've seen a system like this that has allowed for variation switch. Why are we following the ways of old with full lock because MK9/IGAU/SF/whatever had it that way but not looking at games where they have a similar system considering MKX's variations already make it not like MK9/IGAU/SF/whatever.


"I'm planning on running Winner locked but can switch if loser switches character at Combo Breaker. For the early life of the game that makes the most sense to me." That's a T.O. talking. Multiple top players wanted interactibles on and others wanted it off but we just "let it rock" and I think the game is worse off for it. Top players don't always know best.

 

[Prinz]

I'll most likely be a viewer of the game, and from that perspective - variations unlock are more fun to watch. Just because they're there.

 

[Compbros]

From the T.O. of Combo Breaker.


The winner should have to pick a variation prior to the loser selecting a variation if the loser picks a new character. This is a rule similar to other games with Ultra/Groove/Shenanigans systems. This still lets the loser select a variation that may or may not be a "counter pick" to the winner's selection. I don't like how it reads on paper but in practicality its probably best for the first few months of the game. Encourages people to learn variations if nothing else.


So we have Toryuken running full lock and Combo Breaker most likely running unlock. Nothing has been decided, stop acting like it has.

 

[Alright RyRy]

From the T.O. of Combo Breaker.


The winner should have to pick a variation prior to the loser selecting a variation if the loser picks a new character. This is a rule similar to other games with Ultra/Groove/Shenanigans systems. This still lets the loser select a variation that may or may not be a "counter pick" to the winner's selection. I don't like how it reads on paper but in practicality its probably best for the first few months of the game. Encourages people to learn variations if nothing else.


So we have Toryuken running full lock and Combo Breaker most likely running unlock. Nothing has been decided, stop acting like it has.

Nothing against this T.O but how much of MKX in depth does he/she follow in compared to what we know? There is a difference between making a rule just because you hear a game having a different system we do not see alot.

Its another thing to actually know and understand the game and make rules based off of that.

 

[Compbros]

Nothing against this T.O but how much of MKX in depth does he/she follow in compared to what we know? There is a difference between making a rule just because you hear a game having a different system we do not see alot.

Its another thing to actually know and understand the game and make rules based off of that.

He has as much information as anyone else already making rules.

 

[Juggs]

No, but we shouldn't just "go with the flow" of how it's always been either. This is something that we've rarely seen in 20+ years of fighting games, it's worth discussing if we should take a look at changing how character selection goes.


Significantly? I can't agree with that. Cassie gets Missles and a taunt in one variation and an air grab/air guns in another, that's not significant. Meanwhile others get new strings and vastly different play styles/specials. They're not different characters, I simply can't agree to that. I see it as Cassie and then A, B, or C. Again, we've seen a system like this that has allowed for variation switch. Why are we following the ways of old with full lock because MK9/IGAU/SF/whatever had it that way but not looking at games where they have a similar system considering MKX's variations already make it not like MK9/IGAU/SF/whatever.

If only ONE character in the entire game has variations that are significantly different from one another, that's all you need to say "hey, we need to run character and variation lock". But there isn't only one, we've already seen that with multiple characters. Giving a character a teleport when that character doesn't have one in other variations MASSIVELY changes how that character is played.

You guys are looking at like this: Takeda = Variation 1, Variation 2, Variation 3.
When you need to look at it like this: Takeda V1, Takeda V2, Takeda V3.

You will never be able to convince me that giving a teleport to a character doesn't make them an entirely different character. It's one move, sure, but so what? What defines an "entirely different character" isn't dependent upon HOW MANY differentiating factors there are, but the QUALITY of those factors. If this is true for even one character, the locked rule is warranted and needs to be enforced.

 

[Compbros]

First post is being updated with Upcoming tournaments and which tournaments are running which rules. If you know the rules being run at a tournament please let me know.