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.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.
But those games didn't have gear, what went wrong?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.
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?
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.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!
Oh, how little you know.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.
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.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.
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.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.
It does, but what they are talking about is a mode that disables the effects but not the looks.Gear isn't aesthetic, pretty sure the quote from Ed Boon confirms gear affects gameplay.
Can you tell me which games are zero sum? I don't think I have ever seen one.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.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.
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.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.
Yeah, but that will almost certainly be limited to a specific mode for casual play.Gear isn't aesthetic, pretty sure the quote from Ed Boon confirms gear affects gameplay.
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.Can you tell me which games are zero sum? I don't think I have ever seen one.
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.Yeah, but that will almost certainly be limited to a specific mode for casual play.
You can't even watch people play guitar hero and call it zero sum, man. It is a logical fallacy.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.
Fox only, no items, Final Destination@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.
Actually yes, what you say is true. Despite equal equipment, the players themselves create the inequality.You can't even watch people play guitar hero and call it zero sum, man. It is a logical fallacy.
Especially with NRS titles. First hit bonuses were a thing.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.