Back to block system for MK11

[Justfitz]

You couldn't have four bars and keep block breakers at two, they would have to be three and at that point BB's would become highly situational only to be used at the end of rounds, you would have to get rid of BB's altogether.

If you keep BB's you dont need air escapes because BB's are much better version of them. BB's cost two bars because they're easy a get out of combo card.

Imo three bars is the best for MK's mechanics and puts an importance on meter management.

In this situation block breakers would likely go away right? If you could push block for one bar, then why BB for 2?

As far as air escapes go, Im not sure they'd have a place in MK unless you have a 4 bar system. That's the only way I could imagine them working. But it's unlikely they'd go that route. But having BB cost two bars was always kind of weird to me, but then again that leads into the classic chip damage discussion and that's a big rabbit hole on its own.

The main reason I brought this up was because it seemed to me that moving to a b2b system would allow for less true high/low mixups, which seems to be something people like about INJ.

But in its current state, if you simply took the high/lows out of MKX, then it may end up becoming "Frame Data: The Fighting Game." I feel like it would become more about extended pressure strings and big chucks of chip damage, rather than actually taking risks to open your opponent up.

 

[Justfitz]

That's a lot of text and I'm not going through it point by point but I read it all and I'll answer. My anger is toward low quality post that are polluting this forum from users who very clearly are, as you called yourself, casual players. You say you do research and expand but unless you sitting on your couch playing SFV is research I hardly see it. I'm all for QUALITY discussion but what you have brought us is a monthly half-ass'd thread where no one gains anything. I'm not an apologist in fact I've been vocal on twitter, facebook, discord, and reddit about dislike of mechanics. I just see TYM as a place for high level discussion and advice for people wanting to bridge the gap between casual and amateur. Your post neither brings about productive advice or discussion. Just as you see something in the game you don't like and say something; I see something in a post and say something. But your thread has died and all my replies do is bump it.

Good night, God bless you, shalom.

I did not realize TYM was such an exclusive club. If you have sufficient grounds to get the thread closed, then by all means. I didn't realize my presence here "polluted" this forum. It may seem cheesy but, I was always taught that there's no such thing as a stupid question. Nor did I realize that this forum was a virtual gated community. I guess I'll have to warn the people I play INJ and MK with that there's a small group of people that won't take kindly to "our type" on this forum. I apologize for every moment you spent slumming it in this thread.

In the unlikely event that you do reply, I'd be interested to know what you consider a "quality" discussion, and why this thread isn't one. And "because no one gains anything," isn't a valid reason. Because I can easily find something that imo is of value in this thread.

 

[Basic Stupidity]

If you want block button because it's am mk staple that's fine but in terms of the better mechanic back to block blows it out of the water. Block button restricts movement, hurts defensive play, and hurts the neutral game

Restricting movement is a good thing. The neutral game for back to block is very one dimensional in comparison to button. You can block and space out attacks simultaneously with back to block making it very simplified and kinda brain dead. But if you want to block an attack with a block button you have to actually see it coming and be right otherwise you might put yourself at an unfavorable position, allowing for more mind games. Block button allows for more options against throws and highs and helps with making punishes much more consistent. Block button adds much more depth to the footsie and spacing game then the "oh he's moving forward I'll move back" that is back to block.

Back to block does promote defense more in comparison to block button but not in the ways that matter. Back to block hurts punishes when you block something and makes defense much simpler with very little depth. You no longer have to worry about highs, short ranged lows, short ranged strings, determining if you should let go of block to space anything out, and the entire poke game is much more simplified. Back to block just makes the neutral have less depth and does the opposite of bettering the game.

Though back to block makes defense more accessible to less talented players it still doesn't mean that it necessarily makes defense better. There are many things that are put to compensate for back to block. For instance making d2s mids, adding excessively long reaching strings/lows, insane jump ins, throws can't be ducked, pokes can launch and cause considerable amounts of damage and moves in general being a lot safer especially pokes.

Back to block is by far not the superior blocking system for these games

 

[scarsunseen]

Absolutely not.

 

[Darth Mao]

Again?

 

[jmt]

Dumbest post ever holy fuck

 

[Sulfur]

Mortal Kombat is balanced around the block button, that's why so many characters are capable of so much cheap garbage that would normally be impossible to block in literally any 2D fighter.

 

[Justfitz]

Restricting movement is a good thing. The neutral game for back to block is very one dimensional in comparison to button. You can block and space out attacks simultaneously with back to block making it very simplified and kinda brain dead. But if you want to block an attack with a block button you have to actually see it coming and be right otherwise you might put yourself at an unfavorable position, allowing for more mind games. Block button allows for more options against throws and highs and helps with making punishes much more consistent. Block button adds much more depth to the footsie and spacing game then the "oh he's moving forward I'll move back" that is back to block.

Back to block does promote defense more in comparison to block button but not in the ways that matter. Back to block hurts punishes when you block something and makes defense much simpler with very little depth. You no longer have to worry about highs, short ranged lows, short ranged strings, determining if you should let go of block to space anything out, and the entire poke game is much more simplified. Back to block just makes the neutral have less depth and does the opposite of bettering the game.

Though back to block makes defense more accessible to less talented players it still doesn't mean that it necessarily makes defense better. There are many things that are put to compensate for back to block. For instance making d2s mids, adding excessively long reaching strings/lows, insane jump ins, throws can't be ducked, pokes can launch and cause considerable amounts of damage and moves in general being a lot safer especially pokes.

Back to block is by far not the superior blocking system for these games

How do you feel about proximity block? It would certainly help prevent people from walking backwards out of poke/jump range. I'm just not sure if there would be any unforseen consquenses of putting this sytem into a game that is so string heavy.

Unfortunatly, I'm not sure what the solution would be for attacks that hit high vs ones that hit mid. Thats something that greatly differs about playing defense in each of the two games.

Although I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call b2b braindead. Guilty Gear is one of the deepest and systems heavy fighters out there and it used b2b. I'm not sure one is inherently better than the other, but it sort of feels like there are comprosies and advantages to both systems. I was just trying to guage how NRS players felt about b2b, and whether they'd like to see it across the board.

 

[Basic Stupidity]

How do you feel about proximity block? It would certainly help prevent people from walking backwards out of poke/jump range. I'm just not sure if there would be any unforseen consquenses of putting this sytem into a game that is so string heavy.

Unfortunatly, I'm not sure what the solution would be for attacks that hit high vs ones that hit mid. Thats something that greatly differs about playing defense in each of the two games.

Although I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call b2b braindead. Guilty Gear is one of the deepest and systems heavy fighters out there and it used b2b. I'm not sure one is inherently better than the other, but it sort of feels like there are comprosies and advantages to both systems. I was just trying to guage how NRS players felt about b2b, and whether they'd like to see it across the board.

I dont know. I am only speaking about the things that I do know such and the context that I have them in. If they wanted to they could try proximity block for injustice they could to try something new but I dont know how it could effect the game because I havent been able to actually play the game with proximity block.

 

[Jynks]

Block button needs to stay.... if any legacy design needs to be looked at critically imo it is the chip damage in the NRS games. I love MK but I think that some changes to how the NRS games handle chip could really make them much more appealing and fun to play for casuals and other gamer groups in the FGC. Chip, imo, is a real issue holding back wide acceptance of MK but.. it is a legacy design thing ... so it is a huge change if they choose to.

That being said it is telling that IJ has so many more cross game players in the pro scene. I think that has a lot to do with "back to block" being a universal control system to almost all FGC games.

 

[Justfitz]

Block button needs to stay.... if any legacy design needs to be looked at critically imo it is the chip damage in the NRS games. I love MK but I think that some changes to how the NRS games handle chip could really make them much more appealing and fun to play for casuals and other gamer groups in the FGC. Chip, imo, is a real issue holding back wide acceptance of MK but.. it is a legacy design thing ... so it is a huge change if they choose to.

That being said it is telling that IJ has so many more cross game players in the pro scene. I think that has a lot to do with "back to block" being a universal control system to almost all FGC games.

Lol! Yeaa.. I mentioned the chip system a few posts back but didnt want to dive too deep since that topic probably deserves its own thread. That being said, I totally agree with that opinion.

I thought about that as well, but I didnt mention it because I wasnt sure of just how many players INJ was bringing in from other fighters. Assuming you're correct on that point, then it'd be a damn shame to loose all that progress once the next MK drops.. Of course this wouldnt be a problem if NRS didnt drop support for their titles once the next one comes out. I really wish MK and INJ could coexsist, but I understand the business decision behind it. Even if they released new skins for MKX in order to help support the competitive community and keep things going, I'd be more than willing to buy them up, but the sad reality is that theres probably only a small handful of consumers that would be willing to do that. But, again.. thats probably a topic for another thread haha.

 

[Roy Arkon]

No no no no no no a thousand times no! The block is one of the more unique staple things of MK and it shouldn't be changed. You can have an MK game without a run button, but not without a block button. That will be like having an MK game without Fatalities. Also in terms of mechanics they both do the same things but each in a different way, and I've always preferred the block button as it is a lot more comfortable for me then the back-top-block format.

Don't change what's not broken, period.

 

[SaSSolino]

If you want block button because it's am mk staple that's fine but in terms of the better mechanic back to block blows it out of the water. Block button restricts movement, hurts defensive play, and hurts the neutral game

Back to block removes the possiblity to block overheads while standing still, removing options and restricting movement. Also it adds crossups as a mixup, which (as we can see with Batman's jump 2 and Green Lantern's setups) is sometimes so hard to guess that even the attacking player can't tell; and that hurts defensive play. Finally, I don't see how the neutral game can be hurt by the block button.

At the end of the day, it's a preference and nothing more. If I'd had to say though, the block button is the better mechanic.

 

[Justfitz]

No no no no no no a thousand times no! The block is one of the more unique staple things of MK and it shouldn't be changed. You can have an MK game without a run button, but not without a block button. That will be like having an MK game without Fatalities. Also in terms of mechanics they both do the same things but each in a different way, and I've always preferred the block button as it is a lot more comfortable for me then the back-top-block format.

Don't change what's not broken, period.

As much as you hate the idea of b2b in MK, posts like this are interesting to me. It's almost as if the block button has become a "tradition." And without it, MK would no longer be MK. I've played MK since I was a kid but I've never regarded the block button as a necessary franchise staple. I guess I just didn't realize how many people would feel this way, especially considering how many people are really feeling INJ right now.

 

[Red Reaper]

@Justfitz MK9 wasn't 50/50 oriented like MKX was.. I think they just gave characters so many 50/50s as their way of trying to balance the game out. It doesn't need it. MK9 worked well without it and I think MK11 kan too.

As for the original question. I see no reason to make MK back to block. It works better the way it is and there are already waaay more back to block fighters out there.

 

[SaSSolino]

As much as you hate the idea of b2b in MK, posts like this are interesting to me. It's almost as if the block button has become a "tradition." And without it, MK would no longer be MK. I've played MK since I was a kid but I've never regarded the block button as a necessary franchise staple. I guess I just didn't realize how many people would feel this way, especially considering how many people are really feeling INJ right now.

It's not just about legacy and tradition, some prefer the block button and MK is the only 2D franchise which has it.

 

[Justfitz]

Back to block removes the possiblity to block overheads while standing still, removing options and restricting movement. Also it adds crossups as a mixup, which (as we can see with Batman's jump 2 and Green Lantern's setups) is sometimes so hard to guess that even the attacking player can't tell; and that hurts defensive play. Finally, I don't see how the neutral game can be hurt by the block button.

At the end of the day, it's a preference and nothing more. If I'd had to say though, the block button is the better mechanic.

Like I said before, if they did MK with a proximity block system, then you could block overheads while standing still. Furthermore, by introducing the crossover game, you can reduce the emphasis on the high/low game to compensate.

Can't argue with you about some of those crazy GL and jump2man mixups, those can be nasty.. lol

 

[Roy Arkon]

It's not just about legacy and tradition, some prefer the block button and MK is the only franchise which has it.

Soul Calibur and Bloody Roar also have a block button. But yes it's nit just fir tge legacy of MK, I myself prefer the block button.

 

[SaSSolino]

Soul Calibur and Bloody Roar also have a block button. But yes it's nit just fir tge legacy of MK, I myself prefer the block button.

I meant 2D, even though I probably should have specified.

 

[Justfitz]

@Justfitz MK9 wasn't 50/50 oriented like MKX was.. I think they just gave characters so many 50/50s as their way of trying to balance the game out. It doesn't need it. MK9 worked well without it and I think MK11 kan too.

As for the original question. I see no reason to make MK back to block. It works better the way it is and there are already waaay more back to block fighters out there.

I see. I don't remember too much about MK9 since I didn't get into it too much. I didn't realize the game didnt have many true high/low characters.

The only thing I really remember from that game is the kabals lol.

 

[SaSSolino]

Like I said before, if they did MK with a proximity block system, then you could block overheads while standing still. Furthermore, by introducing the crossover game, you can reduce the emphasis on the high/low game to compensate.

Can't argue with you about some of those crazy GL and jump2man mixups, those can be nasty.. lol

If you add proximity block, then it removes the chance to walk back while the opponent is pressing a button, which hurts shimmies.

Also personally I'll take high/lows instead of crossups anyday, because at least with the former the attacker always knows what option he wants to go for, but I see how this is preference more than anything.

 

[Classic Malt]

I can't remember a Mortal Kombat game without the block button. This was actually one of the thigns, that distinguished MK from other fighting games like SF. The answer is simple: NO!

 

[Dankster Morgan]

lol I'm just imagining Sub's J1 as an actual crossup

 

[zabugi]

I guess I never realized how many people really like the block button. Then how about a lessened emphasis on high/low 50/50's in the next game?

You know the block button essentiallty makes it high low 50/50 dependent coz there are no cross ups.

 

[zabugi]

Hell to the NO!