Can we get a consensus on Character/Variation Lock rules?

[KRYS9984]

Full lock. Winner can't switch character or variation in that scenario.

Thanks for filling me in.

I asked because each variation is a new tool set which alters the characters abilities (reason for numerous match-ups); if the loser changed variation, it could essentially be considered a "character change" which could have allowed the winner to opt for a different variation as well.

I just wasn't sure what the consensus on this topic was.

 

[Compbros]

Thanks for filling me in.

I asked because each variation is a new tool set which alters the characters abilities (reason for numerous match-ups); if the loser changed variation, it could essentially be considered a "character change" which could have allowed the winner to opt for a different variation as well.

I just wasn't sure what the consensus on this topic was.

The thing is if we're going with the "variations are a character" logic then with full lock the loser gets to pick 2 characters (base character + variation) to counter pick with instead of 1. Again, I see this like allowing loser in Injustice to choose a different character and the stage that gets played on. It's allowing them to counterpick two things.

 

[Konqrr]

why are characters locked in the first place beside OG legacy stubbornness cause the old arcade locked the winner character when the loser continued? just man-up and random select all day, learn every character, stop ya whining.

I actually used to do this, but I'm getting old man... no time or energy for that shit now lol

 

[reptar]

I have a question to ask those in favor the variation unlock rule (might have been talked about earlier and I overlooked it):

What are the winners options if his opponent (loser) decides to stick to the same character but opts to switch variation?

I didn't really think a consensus had been reached on that subject but I haven't gone through the whole thread. If the losing player does anything other than a rematch, the winner should probably get to select another variation if the game is giving the player the chance to do so.

I'm of the opinion to let it rock unless it's proven broken. The dynamic use of variations is new and should be allowed before people decide it's wrong to even bother trying.

 

[KRYS9984]

The thing is if we're going with the "variations are a character" logic then with full lock the loser gets to pick 2 characters (base character + variation) to counter pick with instead of 1. Again, I see this like allowing loser in Injustice to choose a different character and the stage that gets played on. It's allowing them to counterpick two things.

I mentioned the "variations are new characters" because it's what people consider MKX to be, a game with LOTS of different match-ups. We haven't played it yet so it's tough to tell how much variations will affect characters / match-ups but it's something to consider (in regards to the unlock rules).

You mentioned that in a full lock (with variations considered different characters) a player could possibly be counter-picked twice much like a character / stage counter-pick in Injustice. According to the unlock rules, the winner must choose their variation first upon the loser switching character; doesn't this also (potentially) open up a double counter-pick scenario?

Loser counter-picks character----->Winner selects different variation----->Loser counter-picks variation

Unless there is a hidden select option, the loser is going to see the opponents variation and go with their best option. If there is a hidden select option, the winners chances are suddenly better (not to be discovered) but if the loser guesses right, you have a double counter-pick scenario.

I personally think that both the lock / unlock options can possibly turn out the same (degree of counter-pick being the difference) except one option is straight forward while the other has micro-rules within the rules.

 

[ShaolinGunFu]

If only a fighting game could be so balanced, that none of this mattered

 

[d3v]

Because "counter picking has just always been a part of fighting games". It's some sacred, mysterious art form that has existed for eons, and any attempt to revisit it is sacrilege, even if new games come out with systems designed specifically to counter it. It's an ancient tradition from a dark time when games only had one variation per character, and as we all know, you should never, under any circumstances, update an ancient tradition for the modern world.

Winner lock actually reduces the amount of counter picking. If not, then the winner would just be able to counter the losers counter pick.

Winner lock means that if a player loses because of a bad match up, they can get out of that bad match up.

If only a fighting game could be so balanced, that none of this mattered

Such a game exists. It's call Street Fighter 1 (because you only have 2 characters with the exact same moveset).

CVS2 is an awful example Jesus Christ, question to all of you bringing that up how much of CVS2 did y'all play? CVS2 doesn't work as a connection because it was a system choice for your characterS, emphasis on that plural there. Being able to switch mechanics on all three characters is a huge leap from changing one thing on one single character.

And in any case, Groove lock didn't matter since for the most part, each character had one best groove, which was usually A-Groove

 

[Zoidberg747]

CVS2 is an awful example Jesus Christ, question to all of you bringing that up how much of CVS2 did y'all play? CVS2 doesn't work as a connection because it was a system choice for your characterS, emphasis on that plural there. Being able to switch mechanics on all three characters is a huge leap from changing one thing on one single character.

Can you answer my question on why we should use MB and AH rules? Are they not completely different games then MKX? Yes the mechanic itself is the same but does that mean variations will affect matchups just like moon styles?

P.S. I didnt play cvsnk2. But he said all games with this type of mechanic ran one way and that wasnt true. Grooves are still the same concept, team aspect or not.

 

[Juggs]

So these other games have a tested system for THEIR game, cool? Are variations the EXACT same thing in the context of the game? If anyone says yes OR no you're completely full of shit, because no one actually knows yet, not even the testers. We don't need to just copy a system that worked for a different game. How about we think for ourselves and see how both rule sets work? Is it such a foreign concept to actually experience and test things ourselves before we make up our minds about them?

I've been just as adamant about advocating "my side" as most of you, but some of you act like you KNOW exactly how the game will be played and how much variations will impact every character. The constant esoteric attitude is really annoying and tiresome. Can we all agree to just pull a Breaking Bad and "put a pin in it" for now? We can try both rule sets at locals and majors, it doesn't have to only be one or the other. Whichever works out the best, we go with. This back and forth arguing is accomplishing nothing, might as well be yelling at a wall to stop being a wall.

 

[d3v]

Can you answer my question on why we should use MB and AH rules? Are they not completely different games then MKX? Yes the mechanic itself is the same but does that mean variations will affect matchups just like moon styles?

Because moon phase/arcana amount to the same thing as variations. They can turn a bad match up into an even or even a good one.

This actually minimizes the effect of counter picking. Why you may ask? Because first, it allows a player who was counter picked to hopefully switch to a different variation that doesn't fail as hard in that match up. Second, it actually discourages players from doing hard counter picks since there's a chance that the opposing character has a variation that counters your counter.

Of course, this will probably change depending on certain match ups, and certain characters may have true hard counters in their variations for certain match ups, while others won't. That said, this means that players will be forced to consider more things, and possibly learn more characters and variations in the long run.

As for why we don't just remove character lock at all to mitigate counter picking, it's because that doesn't really take counter picking out as both players are now free to wait for their opponent (as they are in the initial pick) to counter pick.

P.S. I didnt play cvsnk2. But he said all games with this type of mechanic ran one way and that wasnt true. Grooves are still the same concept, team aspect or not.

Because in practice, CvS2 didn't really have grooves. Most everyone picked A-Groove because the game, at high levels became about being able to roll-cancel everything (hence needing a groove with roll) and then being able to convert into custom combos (hence needing a groove with it). Sure, you could run C or N grooves, but you'd still loose out on custom combos. So at the end of the day, it was A groove or bust.

 

[Desperdicio]

I doubt you find recent things because the rules are known at that point, it'd be like seeing "double random stage select" late in Injustice's life.


http://www.dustloop.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3584-west-toast-xiv-the-revival-july-24th-ffa-mbcc105-ah3-gg-bb-and-more/




http://www.dustloop.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3944-frosty-faustings-iv-ggxx-bb-umvc3-ssfivae-mk-and-more-chicago-il-1712/




I could keep going through these posts but it's mostly this same thing over and over.


Edit: As for why, it's most likely because they found that to be best for their game. It may not have been anything egregious that forced a switch, just a general "the game seems better overall if we do this". I was not a part of the AH scene back then so I couldn't tell you outright.

Thanks a lot for the information.

The thing is if we're going with the "variations are a character" logic then with full lock the loser gets to pick 2 characters (base character + variation) to counter pick with instead of 1. Again, I see this like allowing loser in Injustice to choose a different character and the stage that gets played on. It's allowing them to counterpick two things.

Actually, it'd be more like Aldazo said: the loser only gets to pick one character from a roster of 87 characters (a little less without the DLCs and Goro). This gives him a wide range; I agree.

I'm of the opinion to let it rock unless it's proven broken. The dynamic use of variations is new and should be allowed before people decide it's wrong to even bother trying.

Variations are going to be used in either case.

I think winner switching variations would be fun.

 

[Gweedo888]

WTF are you talking about? Reread what I responded to, then my response. If you still feel the same way (first sentence), then you obviously don't understand what you read and I don't know what to tell you... maybe you don't attend tournaments.

Bro I was talking in the way u were responding to mine and another's post and u might be the one who doesn't travel if u don't know who I am bub

 

[REDARROWBUGGY7]

I mentioned the "variations are new characters" because it's what people consider MKX to be, a game with LOTS of different match-ups. We haven't played it yet so it's tough to tell how much variations will affect characters / match-ups but it's something to consider (in regards to the unlock rules).

You mentioned that in a full lock (with variations considered different characters) a player could possibly be counter-picked twice much like a character / stage counter-pick in Injustice. According to the unlock rules, the winner must choose their variation first upon the loser switching character; doesn't this also (potentially) open up a double counter-pick scenario?

Loser counter-picks character----->Winner selects different variation----->Loser counter-picks variation

Unless there is a hidden select option, the loser is going to see the opponents variation and go with their best option. If there is a hidden select option, the winners chances are suddenly better (not to be discovered) but if the loser guesses right, you have a double counter-pick scenario.

I personally think that both the lock / unlock options can possibly turn out the same (degree of counter-pick being the difference) except one option is straight forward while the other has micro-rules within the rules.

The whole point of variation unlock is to reduce the extremity of the double counter-pick scenario. Variation unlock grants the winner the opportunity to lessen the impact of a character counter-pick by adjusting the variation while the loser has the counter-pick advantage of selecting the final variation.

The rule set really isn't that complicated. It's a simple "you pick, I pick, you pick" process. The winner is not allowed to change variation unless the loser changes character and the selection process is: Loser Char, Winner Var, Loser Var. That's it, that's all.

 

[Compbros]

So these other games have a tested system for THEIR game, cool? Are variations the EXACT same thing in the context of the game? If anyone says yes OR no you're completely full of shit, because no one actually knows yet, not even the testers. We don't need to just copy a system that worked for a different game. How about we think for ourselves and see how both rule sets work? Is it such a foreign concept to actually experience and test things ourselves before we make up our minds about them?

I've been just as adamant about advocating "my side" as most of you, but some of you act like you KNOW exactly how the game will be played and how much variations will impact every character. The constant esoteric attitude is really annoying and tiresome. Can we all agree to just pull a Breaking Bad and "put a pin in it" for now? We can try both rule sets at locals and majors, it doesn't have to only be one or the other. Whichever works out the best, we go with. This back and forth arguing is accomplishing nothing, might as well be yelling at a wall to stop being a wall.

Is MKX like SF/MK9/Injustice/Tekken/any other game you have that has character lock for winner? Those games are closer to variations than almost any game in the past decade, is it an exact 1:1? No, but no fighting game is 1:1 to another one. But it's very similar. They change normals, combos, movement, specials, and supers. That's very close to what variations do so we should look at those games more than games that don't have the mechanic. Is it the absolute right answer? No one knows, but it's worth trying and trying early before we just settle into the first rule put in place.

As long as people are willing to try both early I don't mind but so many people are dismissive of this rule we're proposing or act like it's stupid and we're stupid for suggesting it. I'm very much in a "show, don't tell" mindset right now because telling people how much better this has the potential to be clearly isn't enough.

 

[Alright RyRy]

The only way I would be alright with the winner switching variations is if the winner picked BEFORE the loser chooses their character.

The winner already has the upperhand in the set and there is no need for the winner to choose the variation AFTER they pick a character because that makes the Winner making the match up easier. ( That is counterpicking the counterpick)

So either the WINNER is fully locked or only can choose before LOSER picks character, not AFTER.

 

[NurzBenny]

If only a fighting game could be so balanced, that none of this mattered

It's as if Netherrealm tried, and then we did our best to undermine it.

 

[SGX]

That still doesn't alleviate double counter picking, and I can also imagine a lot of scenarios where the loser isn't really thinking about waiting for the winner to change variation, just goes straight to his counter pick. What then, does the winner lose ability to change variation at that point?

 

[KRYS9984]

The whole point of variation unlock is to reduce the extremity of the double counter-pick scenario. Variation unlock grants the winner the opportunity to lessen the impact of a character counter-pick by adjusting the variation while the loser has the counter-pick advantage of selecting the final variation.

The rule set really isn't that complicated. It's a simple "you pick, I pick, you pick" process. The winner is not allowed to change variation unless the loser changes character and the selection process is: Loser Char, Winner Var, Loser Var. That's it, that's all.

I understand this and all the rules in the unlock option (thanks to the members who answered my previous question).

The point I was making was that even with the unlock rules, there could potentially still be a double counter-pick on the losers end. The degree of counter-pick would be the the remaining factor but a counter-pick nonetheless (winner can have betters chances with hidden select).

We haven't played the game nor do we have any idea how much variation changes could affect match-ups so it's tough to gauge what a single / double counter-pick could look like. This is why I personally think it should be locked to begin with, assessed and changed if necessary.

I'm just bringing up these points for further discussion because as mentioned, MKX is a couple weeks away and there should be a day 1 rule set to ensure everyone is on the same page and playing "the same game". This probably won't happen seeing as some locals / tournaments have already confirmed to rock the lock and others have chosen to unlock so it's more of a wait and see situation.

 

[REDARROWBUGGY7]

I understand this and all the rules in the unlock option (thanks to the members who answered my previous question).

The point I was making was that even with the unlock rules, there could potentially still be a double counter-pick on the losers end. The degree of counter-pick would be the the remaining factor but a counter-pick nonetheless (winner can have betters chances with hidden select).

We haven't played the game nor do we have any idea how much variation changes could affect match-ups so it's tough to gauge what a single / double counter-pick could look like. This is why I personally think it should be locked to begin with, assessed and changed if necessary.

I'm just bringing up these points for further discussion because as mentioned, MKX is a couple weeks away and there should be a day 1 rule set to ensure everyone is on the same page and playing "the same game". This probably won't happen seeing as some locals / tournaments have already confirmed to rock the lock and others have chosen to unlock so it's more of a wait and see situation.

If your point is that there could potentially still be a double counter-pick on the losers end with or without variation lock, then why bother having variation lock at all?

 

[Vilén]

So these other games have a tested system for THEIR game, cool? Are variations the EXACT same thing in the context of the game? If anyone says yes OR no you're completely full of shit, because no one actually knows yet, not even the testers.

MKX variations are basically cut and pasted as a concept directly from Melty Blood. Right down to how some characters aren't hugely different between each variant while others have one that makes them a rushing/pressure character, one that makes them a zoner and a third that focuses on mixups or hybridizes them etc.

If people would stop pretending that their fighting game of choice is really in any way different from other fighters, this would solve a lot of problems. NRS did not do anything new or reinvent the wheel just because we're hype for the game or you haven't seen these features implemented before.

Honestly this whole debate seems to be more about people who want the game to play out vs. The In Defense of Counterpicking thesis. THIS is the full-of-shit portion of the discussion.

People who compare this system to other games aren't full of shit, it's the opposite actually because there's precedent to be cited. The other hand is holding a group of people saying "who cares what other games with this system implemented do in tournaments? We should do the opposite from the get-go because reasons."

And really, IDGAF about this poll. MK is a fun game but there's probably a picture of an ostrich with its head in the dirt somewhere that perfectly explains the relationship 51% of the community has with the metagame.

 

[RoboCop]

The only way I would be alright with the winner switching variations is if the winner picked BEFORE the loser chooses their character.

Yes. The only thing that complicates this is that the loser would need to declare when they returned to the character select screen whether they were changing characters or variations, but that's not a huge deal.

 

[Desperdicio]

If your point is that there could potentially still be a double counter-pick on the losers end with or without variation lock, then why bother having variation lock at all?

It's less complicated. Variation lock is the easy way, the "bother" part comes with variation unlock.

 

[Zoidberg747]

People have to keep in mind that the simpler the better when it comes to rules. I remember when Injustice started we used some stage counterpick rules and a ton of people screwed them up. In the variation unlock ruleset, you have to first have the loser declare they are switching characters, have them pick the character and WAIT for the winner to pick his variation, then allow them to pick their variation. There are a lot of places people could mess it up, especially if they are just pot monstering for MKX but don't really play.

Ideally I think variation unlock would be best but I am skeptical that tourney's could be ran smoothly with it. I guess we'll see after the tourneys that have it.

 

[Juggs]

MKX variations are basically cut and pasted as a concept directly from Melty Blood. Right down to how some characters aren't hugely different between each variant while others have one that makes them a rushing/pressure character, one that makes them a zoner and a third that focuses on mixups or hybridizes them etc.

If people would stop pretending that their fighting game of choice is really in any way different from other fighters, this would solve a lot of problems. NRS did not do anything new or reinvent the wheel just because we're hype for the game or you haven't seen these features implemented before.

Honestly this whole debate seems to be more about people who want the game to play out vs. The In Defense of Counterpicking thesis. THIS is the full-of-shit portion of the discussion.

People who compare this system to other games aren't full of shit, it's the opposite actually because there's precedent to be cited. The other hand is holding a group of people saying "who cares what other games with this system implemented do in tournaments? We should do the opposite from the get-go because reasons."

And really, IDGAF about this poll. MK is a fun game but there's probably a picture of an ostrich with its head in the dirt somewhere that perfectly explains the relationship 51% of the community has with the metagame.

I don't know if you stopped reading after the part of my post you quoted, but based on your response I can only assume you did. What's "happening" here is people are arguing their point without even remotely considering the opposition.

And come on now, these straw mans need to gtfo. I didn't say people who compare the system to other games are full of shit, I said people who say they KNOW it's 'EXACTLY the same' are. You don't "know", you can only assume based on what you've seen, you haven't even played the game yet or know anything at all about how much variations will affect the characters. The fact that you are not even willing to consider trying out both options is telling. And again, straw man arguments galore. No one is basing their argument off of "who cares if it's like this in another game, we're gonna do it the opposite way just because", like seriously, just stop.

Like I said though, this discussion is actually pointless. And arguing about it with people who don't even understand your argument is even more so.

 

[Konqrr]

Bro I was talking in the way u were responding to mine and another's post and u might be the one who doesn't travel if u don't know who I am bub

I don't understand even close to where you are coming from... Maybe you quoted me thinking of someone else or that I was responding to one of your posts. I've never reponded to a post of yours until you did... so please explain.

I responded to this post by @VenomX-90, not you @Gweedo888 :

If you reset the bracket it should be fair to choose another variation...

To which I said this:
That's obvious as it is a completely different set.

To which you responded with this which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I responded to:

bro you need to chill this is a discussion not a end all be all and honestly i think it should be ran like cvs 2 in that game winner didn't get to change anything the whole point of the three variations is to basically make your pick a counter pick if one of the variations is good against there type. example would be kotal blood omen is ass against kano's commando but his other is really good at making the match up even or in his favor why should the loser have to deal with a possible oh i know this beats his but he wants to change that will only drag out the set in the long run

So, like I said before... WTF are you talking about?

I asked if you attended tournaments because my original response to Venom was about how resetting a bracket in a grand finals set is obviously a new set and both players can pick whoever they want. If you don't attend tournaments or follow them then you wouldn't know that. So for you to even respond to me in the way you did tells me you either don't know what happens at tournaments, or didn't understand what I was responding to and took offense. Either way... WTF?!