Customize folks with gear and lootcrates? NRS has a base tourney mode for us confirmed.

[portent]

Ok, ok, ok, I take it all back. Let me try it a different way.

THE GEAR MECHANIC IS AWESOME BECAUSE NRS FINALLY GAVE UP TRYING TO BALANCE GAMES AND THIS IS THEIR WAY OF LETTING THE COMMUNITY BALANCE THE GAME!

 

[RoboCop]

Soul Caliber and Tekken have had similar systems for years, it's really no biggie as long as they don't handle this system like they handled the PC release of MKX (i.e. poorly...). Your character still wears the custom gear, but the bonus stats only apply in specific casual gaming modes. I don't have as much faith in NRS as I did pre-PC MKX, but I'd still be very surprised if they fucked this up.

 

[shaowebb]

Negative generalizations are pretty well just paranoia taking over reason. We dont have anything to base these doomsday end is nigh sort of scenarios off of.

I said it before Portent...relax and chill a bit.

Just because they are doing this doesn't make it "a mistake" because the way others did it was handled poorly in the past. We have NO word on how NRS is handling this to base a claim like "its a mistake" off of. Many games handle this sort of feature and do it very well and its not unheard of to design a way for it to work for fighting games.

Calm down, wait to find out what modes use it or dont, wait to find out what gear actually DOES, and stop getting yourself so upset. You don't have enough info yet to know if they'll handle things in the worst possible case scenarios you fear.

Just calm down, and wait to hear how the game is set up with this to work first. Waggling fingers and telling everyone its a mistake and NRS is bad and has screwed up the game before you have more than a few general statements and a CG cutscene to go on is not really logical.

Soul Caliber and Tekken have had similar systems for years, it's really no biggie as long as they don't handle this system like they handled the PC release of MKX (i.e. poorly...). Your character still wears the custom gear, but the bonus stats only apply in specific casual gaming modes. I don't have as much faith in NRS as I did pre-PC MKX, but I'd still be very surprised if they fucked this up.

High Voltage handled the PC port, not NRS. High Voltage has a huge history of fucking over ports too. The fact that they didn't announce a PC version actually makes me happy because if it means outsourcing again it'd likely end poorly again. I'd rather a game not have a port because it couldn't be handled in house than let a games reputation get shat on due to the incompetence of a 3rd party doing a sloppy port again like with MKX.

 

[Rip Torn]

My guess is that they will have a number of options for versus mode and we as a community will have to decide on a set of rules. I'm sure they will keep the competitive scene in mind. We'll just have to wait and see what they say about it at E3 or later.

 

[trufenix]

It's the reason Scorpion sucks in Injustice and why poor Triborg got beaten into the ground. It was all good to leave Kabal though.

But those games didn't have gear, what went wrong?

 

[portent]

When we start the match, I have an attack that can hit you and you don't. Even ground?

We both have a character, but they are different characters. That alone makes it uneven ground.

Unless every MU is a 5-5 down the middle and everyone has exactly the same tools and options and the stage has nothing to interact with, then the game is inherently not designed with an even ground in mind.

But to make my point more clear, you bring a knife and I bring a gun. We both have "weapons", even if I start far out of stabbing range but not out of shooting range. My weapon is a one-shot kill, yours isn't.

But since we both have weapons, are humans, and are in generally the same area, then one would look at it and say that's even, right?

Character choice plays a role for sure. I did say this was NRS, right? I'm pretty sure I mentioned that along with how awesome they are at balancing games. Of course I'm being facetious when I say that. Character choice plays a role, but correct balance is supposed to make fighters zero sum. Of course that will never truly exist, however, a company doesn't need to actively work towards making the game even less balanced and even harder to balance.

 

[Doombawkz]

Ok, ok, ok, I take it all back. Let me try it a different way.

THE GEAR MECHANIC IS AWESOME BECAUSE NRS FINALLY GAVE UP TRYING TO BALANCE GAMES AND THIS IS THEIR WAY OF LETTING THE COMMUNITY BALANCE THE GAME!

Your points just get weaker and weaker with every one. You have much more lurking to do. It's a hundred years too early for you to take yourself so seriously.

Next time, listen and learn. He who assumes he knows best, knows least.

 

[portent]

Your points just get weaker and weaker with every one. You have much more lurking to do. It's a hundred years too early for you to take yourself so seriously.

Next time, listen and learn. He who assumes he knows best, knows least.

Oh, how little you know.

 

[Doombawkz]

Character choice plays a role for sure. I did say this was NRS, right? I'm pretty sure I mentioned that along with how awesome they are at balancing games. Of course I'm being facetious when I say that. Character choice plays a role, but correct balance is supposed to make fighters zero sum. Of course that will never truly exist, however, a company doesn't need to actively work towards making the game even less balanced and even harder to balance.

if course it won't exist, you need more than one skill set in the game and even then, even if everyone had the same tools, one player might know more or just be better than his opponent. Even then it's uneven ground.

Not only is your idea idiotic when it comes to fighting games, it's completely faulty when referring to anything that involves more than one person. Your logic doesn't even work in a vacuum.

So much so, I openly challenge you to find anything ever done between two people where such a balance could ever function. Or has ever functioned.

 

[Youphemism]

Gear isn't aesthetic, pretty sure the quote from Ed Boon confirms gear affects gameplay.

 

[Marinjuana]

It very much depends on how the system is implemented. Smash 4 has custom moves sets that are simply ignored in competitive settings.

 

[portent]

if course it won't exist, you need more than one skill set in the game and even then, even if everyone had the same tools, one player might know more or just be better than his opponent. Even then it's uneven ground.

Not only is your idea idiotic when it comes to fighting games, it's completely faulty when referring to anything that involves more than one person. Your logic doesn't even work in a vacuum.

So much so, I openly challenge you to find anything ever done between two people where such a balance could ever function. Or has ever functioned.

You obviously don't understand zero sum then. I don't need to accept your challenge because as soon as you look up and understand zero sum, then I'll gladly accept your apology.

 

[Doombawkz]

Gear isn't aesthetic, pretty sure the quote from Ed Boon confirms gear affects gameplay.

It does, but what they are talking about is a mode that disables the effects but not the looks.

Like a bane with pink venom, but that's all it is. Where normally it would give him a 10% bonus to being fabulous, instead it just looks good and gives no bonus

 

[trufenix]

You obviously don't understand zero sum then. I don't need to accept your challenge because as soon as you look up and understand zero sum, then I'll gladly accept your apology.

Can you tell me which games are zero sum? I don't think I have ever seen one.

 

[Doombawkz]

You obviously don't understand zero sum then. I don't need to accept your challenge because as soon as you look up and understand zero sum, then I'll gladly accept your apology.

I'm aware of what zero sum is.

What gets me is you're trying to apply it to something that, by nature, doesn't allow it and never has. Not only are none of the tools equal and none of the actions having equal value to the player, but a win and a loss do not carry equal weight.

So again, please do accept.

 

[shaowebb]

True, and I honestly hope it is just cosmetic. I am, however, long time Midway/NRS fan, and you are too, so please don't tell me you've forgotten NRS' history. We all know what's going to happen. Speculating that they're going to get it right is a dream. One we all want, one we all wish for, but a dream nonetheless. It's the reason Scorpion sucks in Injustice and why poor Triborg got beaten into the ground. It was all good to leave Kabal though.

No ...we DONT KNOW whats going to happen. I keep pointing this out and you keep ignoring it and working yourself up. We dont have anything but a generalized statement from Rollingstone in an article and a CG cutscene so please avoid all this Hyperbole. There is no factual basis for any of this being either good or bad at the moment. State what you dont want them to do with it and state how you feel it might work or stop stating things as fact with no actual Injustice 2 data to prove it please. Its just not very conductive to pass judgment with no actual case built up yet on this mechanic as it applies to this game. We all know nothing here. Its a speculation thread. Not a judgment black and white good or bad thread.

Lets start over @portent. What would be the things to avoid doing with this mechanic that IS in the game and what would be some good ways to handle it because it IS going to be in it. Not just "dont include it" because thats not an option. Its in. So lets discuss this rationally.

 

[RoboCop]

Gear isn't aesthetic, pretty sure the quote from Ed Boon confirms gear affects gameplay.

Yeah, but that will almost certainly be limited to a specific mode for casual play.

 

[Doombawkz]

Can you tell me which games are zero sum? I don't think I have ever seen one.

Most games in a casual setting are zero-sum, where the win and loss equal out. It's a conservation deal where my win is equal to your loss. Imagine chess with nothing on the line. If I gain a piece by taking it, you lose a piece. If I win, then your loss is of equal value.

However, it doesn't apply in situations where a win either doesn't outright end a match, or in situations where a win provides more value than a loss, such as in a tournament setting where a win provides more marginal value that the loser can't gain, and thus his loss and by proxy the win have differing values.

Likewise in cases where players have access and choice in differing move pools, the removal of options from an opponent doesn't equal out to a gain in options or a verifiable gain of advantage. Player knowledge and experience also plays a role, since they represent unquantifiable amounts of gain and loss.

Tl;dr : if there are people playing the game, then zero-sum fails to function. It's only existent in the case of determining raw values with no regard for external forces.

+1 means -1 for someone else.

In any case where the "board" is not inherently equal, then zero sum can't be applied as an ideal because such things are impossible to equalize.
Even chess is not a truly zero-sum game because of the white player going first. It's only zero-sum in the way that a piece is a loss for one and an equal gain for another.

So that again applies to my example, only in the most general of cases can one assume an equality, and even then the underlying features (gun as a weapon over a knife, range, and so on) rebuke such an ideal.

 

[shaowebb]

Yeah, but that will almost certainly be limited to a specific mode for casual play.

This is how I see it. I see at best a few gear loadouts like character variants to choose from in a standard play mode and its corresponding online modes. Then the RPG mode and its own corresponding arcade and online modes utilizing the gear stuff.

 

[RoboCop]

@portent What you're describing as "zero sum" is called a symmetric game, like Chess or Checkers, where each player starts off with the same resources and options. A fighting game is called an "asymmetric" game because the players don't have the same resources and options (unless they choose the exact same character on a stage that's completely even for both sides). A fighting game literally cannot be considered symmetric, or "zero sum", unless there is only a single character played by both players on an empty or neutral stage.

 

[trufenix]

Most games in a casual setting are zero-sum, where the win and loss equal out. It's a conservation deal where my win is equal to your loss.

However, it doesn't apply in situations where a win either doesn't outright end a match, or in situations where a win provides more value than a loss, such as in a tournament setting where a win provides more marginal value that the loser can't gain, and thus his loss and by proxy the win have differing values.

You can't even watch people play guitar hero and call it zero sum, man. It is a logical fallacy.

 

[shaowebb]

@portent What you're describing as "zero sum" is called a symmetric game, like Chess or Checkers, where each player starts off with the same resources and options. A fighting game is called an "asymmetric" game because the players don't have the same resources and options (unless they choose the exact same character on a stage that's completely even for both sides). A fighting game literally cannot be considered symmetric, or "zero sum", unless there is only a single character played by both players on an empty or neutral stage.

Fox only, no items, Final Destination

 

[Doombawkz]

You can't even watch people play guitar hero and call it zero sum, man. It is a logical fallacy.

Actually yes, what you say is true. Despite equal equipment, the players themselves create the inequality.

A game can only be zero-sum in a theory sense that no one is actually interacting with it. The moment people do, the game ceases to be truly equal. Even in the case of symmetrical games, taking a queen causes more than just "the gain of a queen, the loss of a queen" because of the change in play and options each player can consider, and the opportunity cost of making such a move.

Non-zero-sum is the name of the game.
No game is truly "symmetrical". In the end, someone has to go first, and that alone makes the game uneven.

 

[shaowebb]

Actually yes, what you say is true. Despite equal equipment, the players themselves create the inequality.

A game can only be zero-sum in a theory sense that no one is actually interacting with it. The moment people do, the game ceases to be truly equal. Even in the case of symmetrical games, taking a queen causes more than just "the gain of a queen, the loss of a queen" because of the change in play and options each player can consider, and the opportunity cost of making such a move.

Non-zero-sum is the name of the game.
No game is truly "symmetrical". In the end, someone has to go first, and that alone makes the game uneven.

Especially with NRS titles. First hit bonuses were a thing.

 

[Eric The Scruffy]

I honestly think NRS will probably include a "tournament mode" or give some way for tournament players to have a vanilla version of the character. That's not really what concerns me.

I think what concerns me more is that this new rpg/gear mechanic is going to wind up being a larger focus for their game designers/balance then the core fighting game itself.

*IE* NRS patches become more focused on buffing/nerfing/tweaking broken loot combinations rather than focusing on the (for lack of a better word) "REAL" meta game.