[Discussion] Injustice Tournament Rules?

[Dizzy]

Juggs

I made it clear interactables should not and will not be banned at the start of the game, for the reasons you listed. I just interjected what I thought might occur in the future.

Tom Brady

I agree mostly. I think it's a pipe dream to think that when interactables are on there won't end up being stages that are banned though. It will be important in the coming weeks that the community be ready to think critically and logically when it comes to interactables, including specific stages.

EDIT: Also, the updated stage rule does make sense. Giving the loser a chance to get screwed on counterpicking stage is something I do like and could be a good Injustice flavor to the traditional random stage rules with games that have very unique stages.

 

[Death]

Re-asses I agree with but I don't agree with an outright ban. I honestly don't believe they will impact matches as significantly as people believe but we'll see.

Are you crazy. Interactables will break the balance at a high level. You'll see with time

 

[Euphoric]

It's going to be funny during button checks, some people are going to have to turn off/on alternate control/release check, Lol.

 

[ETC AdmiralAugustus]

What will the default system be for this game?

 

[Tim Static]

9.95 Tom Brady
But wouldn't it make more sense in its infancy to try it out at 3/5 when it doesn't matter as much instead of waiting down the road when the game is more established? If 3/5 is too long it can be lessened, just like if 2/3 can be lengthened. Just my 2 cents

 

[CY MasterHavik]

As of right now here is what that standard should be...

1. 2/3 matches
2. Interactables and Transitions ON
3. Random stage for the first game. If the loser wants a new stage, they have the option for another random stage, or to 50/50 the stage select. Random stage means the stage AND stage level that is pre-selected by the game at the character select screen.

i love it. Can I get a hug?

 

[Juggs]

Are you crazy. Interactables will break the balance at a high level. You'll see with time

How can you even begin to contemplate how anything will work at "a high level"?

 

[9.95]

9.95 Tom Brady
But wouldn't it make more sense in its infancy to try it out at 3/5 when it doesn't matter as much instead of waiting down the road when the game is more established? If 3/5 is too long it can be lessened, just like if 2/3 can be lengthened. Just my 2 cents

If we start with 3/5, then if the game takes too long it will be extremely difficult to justify to players that we're taking gameplay away from them by going to 2/3...whereas the opposite is a much more positive thing... starting 2/3 and if we see it can be adjusted, then players will be very happy to get more for their tournament money and much easier to justify giving them more instead of taking away.

 

[Deftonesrc]

How can you even begin to contemplate how anything will work at "a high level"?

He can't. It's just his bias speaking for him. To each their own, but I'm not interested in matches that don't have them. Makes for good entertainment and hype. But not everyone has situational awareness

 

[CrimsonShadow]

A few things:

MK9 had a few banned stages -- so if this is also the case in Injustice, I hope there will be a mechanic to avoid selecting a banned stage with the random select.

Some of the interactibles really favor one type of character over the other on certain stages. This can place you at an advantage or disadvantage based on the stage and the side of it you're on. It's not enormous, but it is palpable and it's a reason to consider allowing people to choose stages.

Alternatively, you could introduce leeway in the ruleset for people to turn the interactibles on or off in tourney -- but that might further complicate things. Either way, it's probably too early to tell what the full gameplay implications will be.

 

[Vilén]

How can you even begin to contemplate how anything will work at "a high level"?

@Someguywithanopinion knows all.

 

[Deleted member 5032]

Yes, if loser wants a new stage, you have the option to go with the re-random stage or try to 50/50 the stage select which could actually hurt you.

I really don't see that as a good thing. It seems to me that most fighting game players despise random elements affecting the outcome of the match, which is exactly what this is. It's almost like saying the loser can flip a coin; heads means he gets a 25% handicap, tales means his opponent gets a 25% handicap.

I see a lot of good alternatives being offered. I think we should look at all the possibilities before we just go with the first (now second) idea that comes up. Our community seems to be pretty split on the issue, and I think it would be a good idea to get as much feedback as possible.

 

[Relaxedstate]

I like the 50/50 loser stage select.... brings that gambling mentality that already seems to be a theme with this game. Plus watching someone get screwed can be hype! lol

 

[Name v.5.0]

While playing the game I saw intractables as resources in a war. You dont always have to just use them. You can destroy them as well so the opponent cant use them.

Build them into your strategies. Like someone said before...not hard.

 

[Smarrgasm]

Quick question, Turning off interactibles and stage transitions are different options right? If so, Im all for the stage transitions and i dont see how they could really be broken at this point. The interactibles i will give a chance but im a little skeptic on how they will flow in the game especially seeing how there are so many different ones each with its own properties.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Quick question, Turning off interactibles and stage transitions are different options right? If so, Im all for the stage transitions and i dont see how they could really be broken at this point. The interactibles i will give a chance but im a little skeptic on how they will flow in the game especially seeing how there are so many different ones each with its own properties.

Yup, two separate options.

 

[Cat]

Rule should be random stage, loser can re-random or rematch. Their choice. Standard FGC rules for games that the stage affects matches greatly. (Soul Calibur, Tekken, etc)

I agree with this! Because the winner still has upper hand if he wins the match. Because he gets to 50/50 and choose a stage that he likes.

The loser gets no benefit. Only a attempt to get a stage he wants that may not be chosen.

Going back to the player select screen and having it rerandom is the best option.

Also I would rather have 3/5. MlG ran mk9 like this and everyone love it. Tournaments ran smoothly as we'll. so much hype matches can happen (blake vs tyrant if it was 2/3 it would of been blake 2-0 but the extra match let tyrant adjust and come back)

 

[Dizzy]

I think transitions add depth. It gives you an option for unclashable damage (b3 cannot be clashed) at the expense of no longer having your opponent cornered. If you don't want them to get knocked out of the corner you can modify your combo to not use B3 (use F3 instead or what not). It just adds an option for the person who worked their opponent into the corner.

I haven't heard anyone say anything bad about them except that some are too long/boring. Haven't heard of anything bad gameplay related directly related to the transition.

 

[Tim Static]

If we start with 3/5, then if the game takes too long it will be extremely difficult to justify to players that we're taking gameplay away from them by going to 2/3...whereas the opposite is a much more positive thing... starting 2/3 and if we see it can be adjusted, then players will be very happy to get more for their tournament money and much easier to justify giving them more instead of taking away.

Thats cool. Im just looking at it from starting at that point and going from there. I really wish MK9 would have been 3/5 from the start because it became too hard to fit it in later on. I just think setting it at 3/5 sets the tone for everything to come, even if it gets decreased, and doing it now would be best, is where im coming from.

 

[MisterSpyker]

first game WILL stay random and not 50/50. you can have a 3/5, have it go all 5 games, and lose EVERY stage 50/50. With the first stage being random, at least ONE game will be spent on a stage randomly chosen.

Exactly, loser choosing the stage unanimously is just stupid as f*** imo. No reason whatsoever.
Should be random all the way imo, but I'm fine with this as well.

All good choices imo.

 

[Datsumsharks]

So here's a little bit of a different way to look at interactibles.

They're basically moves each memember of the cast has that can only be used on a specific stage in a certain spot. From what I can tell so far is there's 3 types of interactions, powerful characters (usually chunky heavy stuff), acrobatic characters (jumping off of things) and then just universal ones ( like the helicopter in gotham roof top). What I'm getting at is they are part of a characters play style. Let's say a character had a special moves with the exact properties of the dumpster in gotham city. Would you ban that character?

I think it's sorta dumb to jump to the conclusion that they're going to be broken or will wreck the game. First off damage balence and properties in the demo could change, and that's all we really can basis opinions off. For all we know they're going to be awful in the full game, we have no real idea. Also as long as there's not an interactible that you just use and it causes full screen unblockable damage and is plus frames on use then we'll be able to adapt to them.

Basically I dont think we should say yes or no, we should wait a month and see, and considering how well the games put together so far I'm thinking netherrealm knew what they were doing when they put interactibles in.

 

[FrothyOmen]

Also I would rather have 3/5. MlG ran mk9 like this and everyone love it. Tournaments ran smoothly as we'll. so much hype matches can happen (blake vs tyrant if it was 2/3 it would of been blake 2-0 but the extra match let tyrant adjust and come back)

You're EXTREMELY lucky to have more than 8 setups at a mortal kombat major. MLG had, what, 32? You can't compare a tournament run by 3 guys with 8 setups to a tournament run by 12+ people with 30+ setups lol. Of course MLG was able to run 3/5 and be on time/early, they had the staff and space to do so easily. That's not the case at 99% of majors...

 

[fr stack]

from playin lex i want my dumpsters , nice way of dodging projectiles .. also once we have practice mode we can practice backdashing them all day .. the back dash invulnerability is sick

 

[9.95]

Thats cool. Im just looking at it from starting at that point and going from there. I really wish MK9 would have been 3/5 from the start because it became too hard to fit it in later on. I just think setting it at 3/5 sets the tone for everything to come, even if it gets decreased, and doing it now would be best, is where im coming from.

You're thinking about this from a player's point of view... not a bad thing, mind you... but remember the position you're in is more of a provider as opposed to player.

As at TO, I kind of have to view it in a manner that's more Seller/Consumer. The TO's and people running the event are the business and are providing a service(that is in fact paid) to the players who are the consumers.

As a consumer how do you feel when the seller makes the product you're buying SMALLER than what you're used to but makes you pay the same price?

Similarly, as a consumer, how good does it feel when the seller tells you that business is good enough that you can now have more for the same price?

This is the basic principle here, but instead we're dealing with the time constraints of the game...of which we don't know enough about yet to make a fair determination...and if we choose incorrectly, we risk the chance of not finishing a tournament in a timely manner...wasting players' time and money.

 

[Euphoric]

Are we assuming that the only TOs going to run Injustice are MK TOs? Shouldn't other communities help, since this game is looking to be big...