The true reason stage interaction shouldn't be allowed in tournaments

[M2Dave]

The community ought to be focused on genuine issues like safe 50/50 mix ups that loop or safe teleports or unstoppable instant aerial fireballs.

Interactable objects play a significant role only against Martian Manhunter and Zod, who are super top tier with or without them.

 

[Kevin 7]

As much as I agree with you Evil Riu48. But because no one did anything about Injustice interactables I can't imagine you will ever convince any future games to ever turn off interactables. People will always say "Well Injustice had them why can't game (whatever the NRS game is at the time)."

 

[TopTierHarley]

Interactables are a portion of the term "stage differences" Other fighters have smaller, or larger stages. Some have breakable walls, others have weird shaped stages that aren't even on both sides. Outside of Injustice and MKX/older 3D Mk games, I'm unaware of fighters that have items one can pick up from the background and use them on the opponent.

That's not the point I'm making though, there are advantages and disadvantages in a fighting game period. Might as well all play the same character in honor of "fairness" too.

 

[The Farmer]

Since Conor MacGregor has a reach advantage on Jose Aldo, they should not have their fight come July.......see how stupid that sounds. Advantages comes in all shapes and sizes be it the envirinment, circumstances, or the competitors, learn to deal for Christ sake, forgive my language it's Easter, but sheesh.

 

[TopTierHarley]

Since Conor MacGregor has a reach advantage on Jose Aldo, they should not have their fight come July.......see how stupid that sounds. Advantages comes in all shapes and sizes be it the envirinment, circumstances, or the competitors, learn to deal for Christ sake, forgive my language it's Easter, but sheesh.

Speaking of which, I'm really looking forward to that fight. That press conference was great.

 

[The Farmer]

So amped for that fight, more so than Pac vs Mayweather. Still going to buy both, but man is Conor special when it comes to promoting a fight. "The King of Dublin."

 

[Hitoshura]

That's not the point I'm making though, there are advantages and disadvantages in a fighting game period. Might as well all play the same character in honor of "fairness" too.

That's not what I was getting at, but okay. Just saying interactables are kind of gimmicky and give advantage to a player depending on what side they play on, but god forbid someone expressing their opinion on a message board which gives users their right to exercise the first amendment. There has been advantages and disadvantages in all fighters sure, but interactabes are a different story. It's one thing when one can get knocked through a stage, or if a stage is larger than others, but when one can use an item in the background as a means of zoning/control to their advantage it gives characters who are already good in that aspect another tool in their kit. Sure characters who lack that tool can use it, but then it becomes a game of chase. I respect your opinion on why you think they aren't such a big deal.

 

[Duck Nation]

Not true at all.

http://testyourmight.com/threads/interactables-need-to-be-disabled-for-tournament-play.42950/

Linking this thread is as much of a discredit to someone's argument as Godwin's Law. Stop trying to invoke it. It's not happening. It doesn't mean anything. There was never majority support behind disabling interactables and you don't get to play revisionist history with that.

 

[roosTakk]

Not true at all.

http://testyourmight.com/threads/interactables-need-to-be-disabled-for-tournament-play.42950/

Your point being?

That thread was made a year after the game came out.

 

[SnoopyClownGang]

That's not the point I'm making though, there are advantages and disadvantages in a fighting game period. Might as well all play the same character in honor of "fairness" too.

You have a choice in your character selection. You do not have control over whether you start on the better side of a stage.

If you play the exact same character as someone, and start at a disadvantage because you're on the worse side of the stage, how is that a fair match?

 

[Duck Nation]

Your point being?

That thread was made a year after the game came out.

He's trying to assert that if a rule gets established, it won't get changed. But his point falls flat on its face, because there was never actually support for changing it.

 

[THTB]

The scope of how good the interactables are does matter, a lot. If they give a very minuscule advantage, then there's not much to worry about. The reason people say they aren't like Injustice and aren't as bad is because that is actually true. You can't make a thread to the counter argument and then say you can't counter my argument because I've heard it before, that's not how it works. You can make the blanket statement that it is objectively unfair for player 1 or player 2 to have a positional advantage before the match starts based on where the interactables are, but you can't say for certain the impact it will have. And since the interactables are now blockable and do significantly less damage, the only argument for banning them is the argument you're presenting, which is based on theoreticals.

In order for something to be banned in tournaments, it has to be warranted. Unless it is clearly proven that it is unfair or unbalanced in some way, there's literally no reason to ban them other than fear itself. @Evil_Riu48

Precisely this.

We don't even know how good they'll be in the long run. What we do know is that they are far weaker than before simply by making them blockable. They also do so little damage compared to Injustice. And are governed by your stamina meter.

 

[Barrogh]

If it is ever intended for competition, a fighting game should not feature unique attacks that are only available in specific locations on the plane or in space.

I agree. We should therefore remove stages with corners and only play on infinite planes, because let's be honest, not being able to move back / backdash is at least as strong of an impact as additional attack.

 

[Shark Tank]

Tablet sucks so I'll give an opinion tomorrow but It comes down to if you think asymmetrical stuff is bad or cut. Other competitive games have this, dota 2 a big example between dire and radiant and the win percentages are fairly even but you also have to look in a more narrow scope like a single bo3 and if it can create something that has a pratical tangible affect and mitigates strategic choice in an important set like grand finals. I don't think it will but I need to think about it some more

 

[kabelfritz]

before you post about how we should wait to see how they play out or how they are not as powerful as in injustice. you should be aware that this thread was not made to disuss how broken or not interactables are and your post will be remove in order to keep this discussion on topic and free of distractions... finish reading this post so you can fully understand what the argument is about and your opinion will be more than welcome as long as it is not out of topic.

the true reason why we should talk about banning stage interaction has nothing to do with how broken or not they are. it is all about how they break the balance between player 1 and player 2 at the beginning of a fight. i think we can all agree that player 1 or player 2 having a advantage over the other one no matter how small this advantage is ...well is just not fair.
stage interactable in some stages gives a position advantage to player 1 or player 2 by placing an object more accessible or closer to player 1 or player 2...the problem is that stage interactions are not the same when you move to the left of the screen as when you move to the right of the screen in other words player 1 position in the stage at the beginning of a match doesn't mirror the position of player 2 at the beginning of the match creating a position advantage for one of the two players.

how this affect a fight? lets say you have a stage that has an object that can be grab and throw in mid air only at the right side of the screen just behind player 2 and the match is a mirror match between two heavy zoners which use projectiles to zone. this automatically places player 2 at an position advantage at the beginning of round one because he doesn't have to worry about player 1 countering his projectile with the object but player 1 has to worry about the object behind player 2 since he can use it to check his projectile attacks ... why should player 1 start the match at a disadvantage just because he is placed in the right side of the screen?

i personally think that stages should be neutral and they should not place a player in a position advantage but this is not the case when comes to interactables for our games because they do not place the players in a mirror position.

what do you guys think about this

discuss

@Pig Of The Hut @GGA 16 Bit @Tom Brady @MITDJT

interactables add more to the game than they hurt, so keep them. they add another layer pf space control, and maybe grant combo extensions, while the downsides you described are small and dont necessarily have your described effect.

i think interactables are so weak that the movement in a fight will not revolve around them and positions will change really quick. even if a zoner gets a good throw position, this is also an advantage for the oponent, cause the startup is slow and he can bait and punish it. then the whole things turns into his favor. or he could just block the thing. 1% chip is in the "deal with it" area for me.

 

[Doombawkz]

This is funny, just a little bit.

Should we ban interactables? What is it with people trying to deny all aspects of the game? Whats next, are we banning characters? Do we ban special moves?
If you want to make the game "fair and balanced" then you'd have to play barebones style, interactables off, character/variation lock, and you can only pick one character.
That would be boring and kill the game off. There isn't always going to be an equal playing field. There never is, and thats the spice of life.


What if the player 2 has an interactable behind them? They have to give up positioning and move closer to the corner just to likely get something thrown at them.
If they have one in front of them? They have to move into an unpotimized range where the opponent can better punish their attempts since they seem to have some start-up.
If its two heavy zoners? Even though we haven't seen too many of those thus far, I'm pretty sure you don't want to give your opponent free opprotunities to lock you down and pull ahead in the chip game while you inch backwards to try and reach blanche.
If its two rushdown? The only thing they would be trying to take is the one on their opponents side, because thats forward motion.
What about one ranged and a rushdown, with the ranged having the interactable? Rushdown gets to close the distance because the opponent is moving rather than controlling space.
Ranged and rushdown with the rush having the interactable? Non-factor for the most part.


The biggest counter to this entire argument is the run function. You can't run backwards, but running forwards covers insane amounts of space and can be cancelled into block if I recall.
Any advantage an interactable would give gets lost when the opponent got to move you closer to the corner and cover space while taking less chip than if you were just shooting him.

 

[Barrogh]

True solution to OP's problem: bo5, random left/right placement. If that.

 

[Eddy Wang]

the question is simple does posion matter or not?

This is no Injustice, it led me to believe that you started this thread based on that.

The game is managed by risk reward mechanics hence the stamina meter, and not around unblockable and safe 50-50 options like we had in Injustice, even Backdash is managed.

 

[dribirut]

of course, no surprise a mmh player like yourself would have such a scrubby mentality

fool

What are you talking about.. I'm saying tbey should be banned.. Smh

 

[dribirut]

Except it's not & stages having an impact on match ups is common for player side in multiple fighting games. Please earn things about the genre you're in outside of the sphere of NRS.

Lol I see.. So because it's unbalanced and unfair in other fighting games it should also be like that here.. smh do us a favor and go back to playing those other games

 

[Doombawkz]

Lol I see.. So because it's unbalanced and unfair in other fighting games it should also be like that here.. smh do us a favor and go back to playing those other games

Actually its pretty fair and balanced in all of those games. I don't think there's a game out there strictly governed by your position on the screen except maybe injustice on certain stages.

 

[dribirut]

Actually its pretty fair and balanced in all of those games. I don't think there's a game out there strictly governed by your position on the screen except maybe injustice on certain stages.

We already saw the positioning of interactables in MKX will grant positioning advantage to either player one or two in certain maps so this is not speculation..

 

[Doombawkz]

We already saw the positioning of interactables in MKX will grant positioning advantage to either player one or two in certain maps so this is not speculation..

Advantage is a strong word. There are clear trade-offs to going for them. They can be blocked, have start-up, and push you closer to the corner where a lot of characters get decently sizable benefits because of the backstepping you need to get to them.
In fact, I'd say going for interactables in the beginning would be a positional disadvantage.

 

[ShaolinGunFu]

Lets remember that most of the intractables are mobility based, and one character being close to a blockable intractable isnt necessarily advantagous because if you know hes gonna do it and block it, you can punish his attempt.

 

[BillStickers]

I haven't played the game yet so I don't know.