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

[chores]

This has nothing to do with nothing.

Editt for clarification because reasons:

The analogy would be the rules. As in what the officials call. Our 'field' automatically includes these things. I get where you're going but this is off.

Then the field is asymmetrical. One side has an advantage/disadvantage.

 

[xSMoKEx]

Know what else affects the match?
Literally everything else taking place in the game at any given time.

Run button affects the match. Torr's lackey roll affects the match. Everything affects the match that isn't dialogue.
To take it through your list: When has that not been a thing? Learn how to fight two different specials. Pretty sure most stages are generally the same length. Don't think you can counterpick a stage on someone in this game on account of the stage itself having very little play into the whole thing. Interactables isn't an issue considering everything else you have to worry about.

So wait is this an argument for having them on or off? Also am I just supposed to take your word for it because of who you are, or should I be expecting a half-decent rebuttal aside from "This game takes too much thinking."?

Don't like interactables? Pick the training stage and hope the coin lands on your side.

To be fair, these are some poor examples. The point is that, outside of character specific normals/specials, BOTH players have EQUAL opportunity to utilize things such as the run button and recovery rolls, spacing between themselves in the corner, etc. If the match starts, and both characters walk back x units they will reach the end of the screen at roughly the same time (walk speed differences, which again are intricately related to character balance). If the match starts, both characters walk back x units and hit the interactable button, will they both be able to throw something of equal value? no. that is the point.

They create an uneven playing field that is completely unnecessary. There is enough diversity, in my opinion (and hopefully many others) without them.

 

[Doombawkz]

To be fair, these are some poor examples. The point is that, outside of character specific normals/specials, BOTH players have EQUAL opportunity to utilize things such as the run button and recovery rolls, spacing between themselves in the corner, etc. If the match starts, and both characters walk back x units they will reach the end of the screen at roughly the same time (walk speed differences, which again are intricately related to character balance). If the match starts, both characters walk back x units and hit the interactable button, will they both be able to throw something of equal value? no. that is the point,

Except it isn't the point. When I said roll, I mean his attack which is a roll.

If both players are walking back x spaces and throwing an interactable, you've got a faulty example because thats not likely to happen. An accurate example would be one player walks back to get the interactable, the other player rushes him down because the first player is moving himself into the corner. You're right, stages aren't symmetrical, nor should they be. The asymmetry creates a playing field that benefits the SMARTER player. The person on player 2 side won't always get his interactable, the person on player 1 side might take it from him. Sometimes player 2 won't be moving backwards. In the flow of an actual match, the equalizer is player skill, and in every case I can imagine for these scenarios, the smarter player will have the advantage regardless of what side he starts on.

As much as I'd love to coddle the babies and say "everyone has an equal shot", that isn't what the game is about. Its not what fighting games are about. Its not what any game that isn't made for pre-schoolers is about. Its about winning, being the best, and people don't do that by playing with symmetry. They do it by overcoming the opponent, and using anything, their side or not, to beat them.

You kids aren't hungry enough.

 

[Kitana Prime]

Then the field is asymmetrical. One side has an advantage/disadvantage.

My first post goes over this. I'm not typing it again, but I'll respect your opinion even though I disagree.
I think this 'advantage' is being super upplayed here and the ability to block/punish is being SEVERLY downplayed.

I'll continue reading, but I'm done here. This is a pure agree to disagree deal we've got going on here.
The game will be out soon, we shall see.

In South Florida though, interactables will be on.

 

[Brutal Chimney]

To be fair, these are some poor examples. The point is that, outside of character specific normals/specials, BOTH players have EQUAL opportunity to utilize things such as the run button and recovery rolls, spacing between themselves in the corner, etc. If the match starts, and both characters walk back x units they will reach the end of the screen at roughly the same time (walk speed differences, which again are intricately related to character balance). If the match starts, both characters walk back x units and hit the interactable button, will they both be able to throw something of equal value? no. that is the point.

They create an uneven playing field that is completely unnecessary. There is enough diversity, in my opinion (and hopefully many others) without them.

being able to escape pressure with interactables is more likely to even the playing field than give you any significant advantage

 

[xSMoKEx]

Except it isn't the point. When I said roll, I mean his attack which is a roll.

If both players are walking back x spaces and throwing an interactable, you've got a faulty example because thats not likely to happen. An accurate example would be one player walks back to get the interactable, the other player rushes him down because the first player is moving himself into the corner. You're right, stages aren't symmetrical, nor should they be. The asymmetry creates a playing field that benefits the SMARTER player. The person on player 2 side won't always get his interactable, the person on player 1 side might take it from him. Sometimes player 2 won't be moving backwards. In the flow of an actual match, the equalizer is player skill, and in every case I can imagine for these scenarios, the smarter player will have the advantage regardless of what side he starts on.

if the match starts, and player 1 can walk back 20 units and potentially grab an interactable, forcing your mindset as player 2 to change and assume he is going to throw it, that my friend, has already created an imbalance.

Say there is 20 default possibilities for each character from neutral (purely example), the fact that p1 now has 21 due to the interactable, reduces P2's % odds of making the correct decision creating an imbalance.

A characters roll is balanced purely around a character and the rest of the cast, this is how fighting games have been made for generations. Character differences exist, and they diversify the game enough to create advantageous and disadvantageous match ups to the point where we have 8-2's. There is no need to add more variables. Additionally, I would like to note that character differences are CONSTANT for that specific character, his roll is ALWAYS useable, he does not need to be within a certain range of the stage, it does not have to be -23 degrees celsuis on the night of a full moon while it is raining. There are no conditions to be met, it is a constant threat that the character has. Interactables do not work in the same sense. They are much more variable than a character's move set.

 

[haketh]

if the match starts, and player 1 can walk back 20 units and potentially grab an interactable, forcing your mindset as player 2 to change and assume he is going to throw it, that my friend, has already created an imbalance.

.....That's not an imbalance especially when we don't know the full capabilities of everything.

 

[xSMoKEx]

being able to escape pressure with interactables is more likely to even the playing field than give you any significant advantage

I can't even reply to this because it would be filled with so much assumptional and theoretical bullshit that it's not even worth typing. Without playing the game for years, knowing each situation thoroughly, or even HOW interactable evades fully work, neither of us can make a valid case as to which is arguably more or less beneficial lol.

just look at the facts, interactables complicate and already intricate genre of game. The removal of them makes the game easier to balance because it streamlines how match ups are played. Developers will never buff a certain interactable to help Kenshi vs. Jade mu because then it may break the Jax vs. Kenshi match up. Instead, they are much more likely to alter Jade as a character to help her out.

There's no real reason anyone can give as to why they are essential, and at the same time you can factually say just based off of percentages that it does in fact complicate the game. Whether or not this is good or bad is based on your own perception for sure, however I believe that if you do look at this logically and in terms of player equality it is easy to see why turning them off is a relatively easy choice to make.

 

[Doombawkz]

if the match starts, and player 1 can walk back 20 units and potentially grab an interactable, forcing your mindset as player 2 to change and assume he is going to throw it, that my friend, has already created an imbalance.

Say there is 20 default possibilities for each character from neutral (purely example), the fact that p1 now has 21 due to the interactable, reduces P2's % odds of making the correct decision creating an imbalance.

A characters roll is balanced purely around a character and the rest of the cast, this is how fighting games have been made for generations. Character differences exist, and they diversify the game enough to create advantageous and disadvantageous match ups to the point where we have 8-2's. There is no need to add more variables. Additionally, I would like to note that character differences are CONSTANT for that specific character, his roll is ALWAYS useable, he does not need to be within a certain range of the stage, it does not have to be -23 degrees celsuis on the night of a full moon while it is raining. There are no conditions to be met, it is a constant threat that the character has. Interactables do not work in the same sense. They are much more variable than a character's move set.

Except it hasn't. Player 2 should already be expecting that, its built into the game. Unless he has never touched this kind of game style, in which case, yeah but then he shouldn't be in tourney.

Say there are 20 default possibilities for each character. Player 1 has an interactable option. Player 2 has the option to pressure them off of it, or punish it because interactables cost stamina and are blockable. For every action player 1 can take, player 2 has answers that results from him being a competent player. His ability to execute those answers results from his skill.

Torr's attack roll ducks projectiles and stuff. Not many character have that kind of option going so far and being so beefy. The character differences are nice, however enabling interactables makes it so its not just a character cornering you, or just slapping combos or bullets across a screen. They have their place, and the game would be more imbalanced without them in it. Also his roll isn't constant, its only for one specific variation. Know what is constant? Interactables. They are always used in the same way, they go the same range, and they provide the same benefit with the same added benefit when meter is used. If you learn them, they just become another part of the game. Its second nature by that point. Its as easy as knowing your footsie range.

 

[xSMoKEx]

.....That's not an imbalance especially when we don't know the full capabilities of everything.

For simplicities sake lets say there is 1 correct move to make. there is 20 possibilities. 1/20 = 5% chance or success. Now p1 has this interactable, that P2 does not have access to, based on purely stage positioning. 1/21 = 4.76% chance of success. That is a percentage difference that was created due to a stage specific, assymetrical (very important) interactable.

If, from the starting range both characters could walk back 20 units, get a throwable interactable the argument would be a lot more sound. but at the moment you have 15 units for p1 and he gets a throwable, maybe 37 for p2 and he gets an evade. You never know how the hell that stuff will play out. What does it really add that is necessary to the game?

 

[SnoopyClownGang]

This is the only community that talks about banning shit that has literally not been an issue for anyone at all yet.

Nah. Other fighters have had a handicap system where you can choose to start with more health and those are banned from the start.

Jumping out of corners with interactables doesnt bother me at all. The corner pressure in this game will be ridiculous. Sorcerer Quan Chi for example can probably Armor up and jail you in the corner forever. I see it as an option that keeps this game from giving anyone an overpowering advantage.

Wouldn't it be silly to only put a corner escape in ONE corner then?
Imagine you play a tournament match and both players pick Sorcerer Quan. Random stage select puts you on a stage where there is no corner escape behind you, but there is one behind them. Just because you started on the wrong side you get jailed forever? Just because the opponent started on the right side you can't jail them forever?

 

[Doombawkz]

For simplicities sake lets say there is 1 correct move to make. there is 20 possibilities. 1/20 = 5% chance or success. Now p1 has this interactable, that P2 does not have access to, based on purely stage positioning. 1/21 = 4.76% chance of success. That is a percentage difference that was created due to a stage specific, assymetrical (very important) interactable.

If, from the starting range both characters could walk back 20 units, get a throwable interactable the argument would be a lot more sound. but at the moment you have 15 units for p1 and he gets a throwable, maybe 37 for p2 and he gets an evade. You never know how the hell that stuff will play out. What does it really add that is necessary to the game?

I like your black-or-white fallacy. I'll ask you this then.
If Player 2 has one 20 units behind him, and player 1 had one 25 units behind him, would it still be so incredibly inbalanced?

 

[xSMoKEx]

Except it hasn't. Player 2 should already be expecting that, its built into the game. Unless he has never touched this kind of game style, in which case, yeah but then he shouldn't be in tourney.

Say there are 20 default possibilities for each character. Player 1 has an interactable option. Player 2 has the option to pressure them off of it, or punish it because interactables cost stamina and are blockable. For every action player 1 can take, player 2 has answers that results from him being a competent player. His ability to execute those answers results from his skill.

Torr's attack roll ducks projectiles and stuff. Not many character have that kind of option going so far and being so beefy. The character differences are nice, however enabling interactables makes it so its not just a character cornering you, or just slapping combos or bullets across a screen. They have their place, and the game would be more imbalanced without them in it. Also his roll isn't constant, its only for one specific variation. Know what is constant? Interactables. They are always used in the same way, they go the same range, and they provide the same benefit with the same added benefit when meter is used. If you learn them, they just become another part of the game. Its second nature by that point. Its as easy as knowing your footsie range.

For the first highlighted piece of text, it may not be that simple. As we both know some set-ups are more beneficial for the person pressuring you (Good example being kenshi throwing out an Ex SC near the corner from a solid range. It will beat most characters' armor, it will hit most jumps, it will beat your normals, and it will check you up if you block. Obviously, Ex SC has a high success rate in this case). Apply a similar to thinking to potential set ups things like interactables could create, fighting games are not that linear to the point where you can say "oh just pressure him if he's near an interactable" because it is never that simple. The fact that the interactable forces you to alter your decision making process creates another variable that again is unnecessary.

Character variations are constant once selected. Once you pick it, you are locked in for the remainder of the match and have options to that characters new moveset. If i pick stage y do and get p1 side do i always have that interactable that is available stage y? It may be closer to p2. It's like picking kenshi and expecting to have access to a scorpion spear, it makes no sense. It's not equal, and you do not know how it will play out.

We don't even have stage rules for the game, if we pick stages we are definitely going to create skewed match ups, and if we let it random are you really content on leaving it up to the game to determine how hard/easy it is going to be to win a match based on the stage when you just paid a couple hundred to fly out and play in an event? Idk about you but i'd rather leave it up to individual skill. We saw it in Injustice and MK9, interactables do cause imabalances this isn't even a debate tbh, NRS themselves nerfed stages because of the opportunities it created for certain characters over others.

 

[xSMoKEx]

I like your black-or-white fallacy. I'll ask you this then.
If Player 2 has one 20 units behind him, and player 1 had one 25 units behind him, would it still be so incredibly inbalanced?

Incredibly? no. Imbalanced? definitely. Which is why, for simplicities sake they should be turned off.

 

[Dandy J]

What is this weird obsession with balance? I guess since interactables are kind of a new thing it sticks out as something unusual and thus attracts attention. The thing that makes fighting games (and a lot of other types of games) interesting is the concept of asymmetrical gameplay. It's not the difference in power between the two players (i.e. a bad match up), but the difference in play (i.e. characters that do wildly different things to win). The goal really is to have as much as the latter as possible, with minimal amounts of the former, which is incredibly difficult. In the grand scheme of things, the interactables give options, and those options are counterable in some way. How easy or effective it is to use or counter them is yet to be seen, but at the very least they add counterable options to a game, and thus makes the game more interesting.

You also have to consider the more borderline competitive casual crowd that is required to grow the competitive player base. These people playing online or with their friends are not going to be aware of some tournament standard ruleset that bans certain things and is a turn-off to potential players. It's not a good idea to further complicate getting into the game on a competitive level, artificially splitting the community and making it that much harder to get into.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter if interactables make the game better or worse, what matters is that everyone is on the same page. And there is no question that individuals wanting to ban specific things or conform to strange artificial rulesets are the minority.

 

[Doombawkz]

Incredibly? no. Imbalanced? definitely. Which is why, for simplicities sake they should be turned off.

Lets say both players can walk back exactly 23 units and have access to it.
Imbalanced? (since interactables don't only use up one unit of gamespace).

For the first highlighted piece of text, it may not be that simple. As we both know some set-ups are more beneficial for the person pressuring you (Good example being kenshi throwing out an Ex SC near the corner from a solid range. It will beat most characters' armor, it will hit most jumps, it will beat your normals, and it will check you up if you block. Obviously, Ex SC has a high success rate in this case). Apply a similar to thinking to potential set ups things like interactables could create, fighting games are not that linear to the point where you can say "oh just pressure him if he's near an interactable" because it is never that simple. The fact that the interactable forces you to alter your decision making process creates another variable that again is unnecessary.

Character variations are constant once selected. Once you pick it, you are locked in for the remainder of the match and have options to that characters new moveset. If i pick stage y do and get p1 side do i always have that interactable that is available stage y? It may be closer to p2. It's like picking kenshi and expecting to have access to a scorpion spear, it makes no sense. It's not equal, and you do not know how it will play out.

We don't even have stage rules for the game, if we pick stages we are definitely going to create skewed match ups, and if we let it random are you really content on leaving it up to the game to determine how hard/easy it is going to be to win a match based on the stage when you just paid a couple hundred to fly out and play in an event? Idk about you but i'd rather leave it up to individual skill. We saw it in Injustice and MK9, interactables do cause imabalances this isn't even a debate tbh, NRS themselves nerfed stages because of the opportunities it created for certain characters over others.

I'll tackle this strawman later.

 

[Shady]

I fucking love you shady I can't wait to go to toryuken man i miss the Canada crew

Canada Crew is coming back. And @w1nter warz is still as salty as he's ever been. He might throw a keyboard, I'm just saying.

 

[Evil_Riu48]

LOL. I love how all of your examples are potential zoning characters taking advantage of interactable objects.

From what I have seen and heard, Mortal Kombat X has very good movement, but I guess a player like you will not be content until your character has Raiden's pre-patch teleport, Black Adam's pre-patch dive kick, and Zod's back dash. Then and only then will your character not have "shit movement".

I understand you play a game in which characters close the gap for free, but lots of players in this community would like zoning to be an option in the game, even if it is not the best.

interactable can be use to close distance in mkx. you can use a interactable to jump over a projectile and get close to your oponent at full screen

 

[xSMoKEx]

Lets say both players can walk back exactly 23 units and have access to it.
Imbalanced? (since interactables don't only use up one unit of gamespace).


I'll tackle this strawman later.

If both interactables are 100% identical in the way they function, in terms of size, speed, damage dealt, properties, etc and both characters have access to it from starting point at exactly the same amount of in-game units then it is definitely much more balanced. If it were done in such a manner, then I would not have an issue with it because then it would be essentially the same mechanic as something like a stage corner, which is a set, equal amount of space from each character's starting point. If i were to argue that your example was imbalanced then I would effectively be asking for the removal of stage corners.

Only possible way that example could be imbalanced is if the characters themselves were not properly fine-tuned around these things, in the sense that say Kano has good rushdown and doesn't normally have access to a projectile, and on stage xyz the interactable is a projectile which sets him over the top.

Still, your example is acceptable in my opinion based on the fact that everything is symmetrical and even.

 

[Brutal Chimney]

Nah. Other fighters have had a handicap system where you can choose to start with more health and those are banned from the start.



Wouldn't it be silly to only put a corner escape in ONE corner then?
Imagine you play a tournament match and both players pick Sorcerer Quan. Random stage select puts you on a stage where there is no corner escape behind you, but there is one behind them. Just because you started on the wrong side you get jailed forever? Just because the opponent started on the right side you can't jail them forever?

then you switch sides, its called strategy. one player will look to gain the advantage while the other fights to keep it. you call it unnecessary but that's the meta game 3D fighters have been playing for years and to be perfectly honest its fun as hell.

 

[Dandy J]

what if disabling interactables made the game more unbalanced?

 

[Scoot Magee]

Fuck it... turn them off. It's the least risky way to go about this. We don't need another random factor. The less random factors the better imo. Should have said this from the beginning.

 

[Perdition]

I can see both sides of the argument here. The one side I don't see is people who argue that interactables will not cause imbalance right away. Plain and simple, the location of the interactable object, if active, can give P1 or P2 advantage depending on proximity/nature of said object. It does affect the flow of the match and strategy. The example that's been used a lot is corner trapping. Having corner interactable objects will significantly impact your game if you want to trap your opponent. How you work around it, will become a strategy of it's own.

I for one say let it roll out first, let's see how it works and how much of a factor this is. HOWEVER, knowing that interactables cause an impact, if we agree to keep them on then we must agree that P2 gets to select stage and no double-random select will happen. Because you can't argue that "INTERACTABLES DON'T CHANGE THE WAY YOU PLAY" and "WE SHOULD HAVE RANDOM SELECT ON STAGES BECAUSE OF INTERACTABLES". Those two arguments are entirely mutually exclusive.

I can get on board with this. Good post, man.

 

[Doombawkz]

If both interactables are 100% identical in the way they function, in terms of size, speed, damage dealt, properties, etc and both characters have access to it from starting point at exactly the same amount of in-game units then it is definitely much more balanced. If it were done in such a manner, then I would not have an issue with it because then it would be essentially the same mechanic as something like a stage corner, which is a set, equal amount of space from each character's starting point. If i were to argue that your example was imbalanced then I would effectively be asking for the removal of stage corners.

Only possible way that example could be imbalanced is if the characters themselves were not properly fine-tuned around these things, in the sense that say Kano has good rushdown and doesn't normally have access to a projectile, and on stage xyz the interactable is a projectile which sets him over the top.

Still, your example is acceptable in my opinion based on the fact that everything is symmetrical and even.

Well, mostly even. The idea of there being a 5-unit window actually does prove my point (since 23 is the even-ground between 20 and 25).

So I appreciate your argument, but even moreso I appreciate your choice to concede. Its always good to see someone who knows how to bow out.

 

[SLy]

Nah. Other fighters have had a handicap system where you can choose to start with more health and those are banned from the start.



Wouldn't it be silly to only put a corner escape in ONE corner then?
Imagine you play a tournament match and both players pick Sorcerer Quan. Random stage select puts you on a stage where there is no corner escape behind you, but there is one behind them. Just because you started on the wrong side you get jailed forever? Just because the opponent started on the right side you can't jail them forever?

right. I forgot it is not the same on both sides.