Define Complete Character

[Second Saint]

This is a constant talking point about how variations are bad and we want single complete characters, but when I ask about details, I get blown off. What is a complete character to you? Are there any variations in MK11 that you would consider complete characters? Ones that are drastically incomplete?

Is it the number of specials and strings? Viability within the meta? Fulfillment of an archetype? Do you just want no variations so those resources can go to a larger roster? Tools to deal with every situation to some degree?

This term is so vague and can mean so many things to different people. Can we all get on the same page here? Could someone tell me how Superman was a complete character but idk Eternal Geras isn't?

 

[Arqwart]

It's a lovely combination of nostalgia glasses and a natural result of the variation system. A "complete character" appears to be a classic character with all their key moves at all times.

For example: Noob could be considered incomplete cause he doesnt naturally have his slide clone. Sub-Zero is "missing" his ice clone outside of Avalanche. Shang has ground skulls in only one variation. Etc. etc.

Basically, the argument always seems to stem from the idea that the beloved classics should always have every single one of their classic (aka MK9) moves as their base kit. Variations are considered icky cause they sometimes make that not the case.

 

[Tertian]

Short answer:
Entitlement.

Long answer:
MK9 is what people always reference when arguing that somehow without variations we'd have "complete characters".

• Lets take Subzero for example:
  • MK9; 4 specials and approx 11 strings
  • MKX: 4-5 specials (depending on variation) 14-16 strings (depending on variation)
  • MK11: 2-6 specials (based on Tourney variations) 11 strings (depending on variation)

It seems to be a case of people seeing a ton of custom moves and believing that without customs or variations in general they would get all those moves in a single non variation character. Which they simply wouldn't.

If i'm wrong, i'm more than happy to hear about it.

 

[chud_munson]

I think it's a red herring word. I don't feel that completeness is the right thing to knock, especially if the argument is about variations. If anything, it's that characters are too complete to the point that characters that don't check every single box feel incomplete.

I don't know what people mean when they say this, but I suspect what they want is closer to "focused". That's at least my criticism. I don't want a zoning character that also has 50/50s and can also grapple and also has ridiculous combo options.

 

[DixieFlatline78]

They want a character with a defined playstyle and a kit that compliments itself.

 

[Anarchist_Gib]

A "complete" character for me is one whose design exhibits a competent level cohesion between all or most aspects of their kit. The issue with the modern approach is apparent for those of us who play characters with only one relevant variation, we are constantly aware of the fact that we are delegated to a minority of options in relation to our preferred characters.

For example, why would you sacrifice Shao's best ender, only reliable buff, and a situationally useful projectile in Risen Emperor for:

An interuptable low that has the ability to leave you negative on hit, a useless buff that requires the incompetence of you opponent to get out, a projectile whose utility is outshined by Shao's universal projectile
OR
A worse version of shoulder charge, a decent AA option(that is already decent by default), or the worst projectile available in his kit?

I know Shao is low hanging fruit in a discussion such as this, but it is illustrative of the idea that when variations work, they REALLY work. But when they fail, they adversely effect a character far more then if it were a situation like in MK9 where low tier was simply low tier. Even other lower tier characters in this game can benefit from a variation change in certain match-ups, but I will only ever be able to use other variations of my character for lols.

 

[JJParker]

My definition of a complete character in MK11 is a character with 3 useable variations. Sub Zero, Geras, Kabal for instance are complete. Raiden, Kollector, Shao Kahn and a few others are far from complete. The variation system if done right is a great way to add depth and character to each character on the roster. If done wrong however it can leave certain characters feeling very shallow and unfinished.

 

[Morgan the pilgrim]

Problem is , People want too much . All of em are talking how mk9 was the best one , but it was a shit fest (cyrax 70-80% combo ? smoke infinite ? toasty ?kabal dash cancles for free ? BALANCED ???) . As for specials , im not aggainst sub having his ice clone , but them he would have to suffer on some other things , just to make so other player can actualy play the game .

 

[Dogeofthesea]

80% of strings have actual purposes
100% of special moves have actual purposes
No inconsistent, character-specific whiff bs
No minus/punishable on hit bs
d1, d3, d4 have different functions, different ranges, different frame data but they should compliment each other, not one poke does everything
Have at least one long range HIGH attack 12-14 frames for conversions in weird hit reaction.

 

[Arqwart]

A "complete" character for me is one whose design exhibits a competent level cohesion between all or most aspects of their kit. The issue with the modern approach is apparent for those of us who play characters with only one relevant variation, we are constantly aware of the fact that we are delegated to a minority of options in relation to our preferred characters.

For example, why would you sacrifice Shao's best ender, only reliable buff, and a situationally useful projectile in Risen Emperor for:

An interuptable low that has the ability to leave you negative on hit, a useless buff that requires the incompetence of you opponent to get out, a projectile whose utility is outshined by Shao's universal projectile
OR
A worse version of shoulder charge, a decent AA option(that is already decent by default), or the worst projectile available in his kit?

I know Shao is low hanging fruit in a discussion such as this, but it is illustrative of the idea that when variations work, they REALLY work. But when they fail, they adversely effect a character far more then if it were a situation like in MK9 where low tier was simply low tier. Even other lower tier characters in this game can benefit from a variation change in certain match-ups, but I will only ever be able to use other variations of my character for lols.

So a character like MK9 Sheeva who had a specific large hurtbox that made her susceptible to insane pressure and unique combos as well as shit hitbox mids and an overhead that whiffed a lot on certain crouching opponents, resulting in her being the #1 worst character in the game with only one even matchup (the mirror) while all others were 4-6 losses or worse, is a more "complete" character than Shao Kahn in MK11?

 

[Anarchist_Gib]

So a character like MK9 Sheeva who had a specific large hurtbox that made her susceptible to insane pressure and unique combos as well as shit hitbox mids and an overhead that whiffed a lot on certain crouching opponents, resulting in her being the #1 worst character in the game with only one even matchup (the mirror) while all others were 4-6 losses or worse, is a more "complete" character than Shao Kahn in MK11?

As far as your response is concerned, your argument about what constitutes a complete character would be summarily defined by hitbox regions alone. A characters hitboxes, whilst certainly not irrelevant, are merely one aspect to the fundamental design of a character. It's also not like Shao doesn't also have a plethora of absurd hitbox issues (I think it was NothingPersonal who made a thread about the many he's come across). Besides those hitboxes, Sheeva had an inarguably better level of cohesion between her kit options. You obviously watched Reo's newest video regaridng Sheeva, watch the previous one and ask yourself if ANYTHING in Shao's kit follows anywhere near that level of cohesion.

And again, in a game where only SOME can benefit from multiple variations to cover many different MUs, it's no wonder that many echo the sentiment that many characters feel less complete when they are delegated to a minority of their options.

 

[Arqwart]

As far as your response is concerned, your argument about what constitutes a complete character would be summarily defined by hitbox regions alone. A characters hitboxes, whilst certainly not irrelevant, are merely one aspect to the fundamental design of a character. It's also not like Shao doesn't also have a plethora of absurd hitbox issues (I think it was NothingPersonal who made a thread about the many he's come across). Besides those hitboxes, Sheeva had an inarguably better level of cohesion between her kit options. You obviously watched Reo's newest video regaridng Sheeva, watch the previous one and ask yourself if ANYTHING in Shao's kit follows anywhere near that level of cohesion.

And again, in a game where only SOME can benefit from multiple variations to cover many different MUs, it's no wonder that many echo the sentiment that many characters feel less complete when they are delegated to a minority of their options.

My idea was more focused on balance than just hit/hurtboxes. Those just so happen to be the core reasoning behind Sheeva being so trash. Your argument sounds to me to be just the same: balance. If a character is relegated to just one variation because NRS has failed the other two variations, the character is "incomplete." Is that a good summation of your argument?

My issue with that idea is that you're effectively saying the character with one viable variation is generally playable with said variation. They lack the option to change styles in matchups, but they're still generally worth playing due to their single useful variation. In contrast, how was an always-losing character like MK9 Sheeva worth playing (from a viability standpoint, not character loyalty standpoint)? Her being "cohesive" didnt make her 2-8 matchups any less 2-8.

Dont get me wrong, I do believe the variation system requires way more balancing efforts than NRS seems willing to put out this time around. Basically every character having once again one or more mediocre if not worthless variations defeats the point of the system, but I dont agree that that makes a character incomplete at their core. Example: Seeing Double Noob is really the only variation worth picking, but it sure as hell feels like a complete character to me. Same goes for Shao's worthwhile variation. Watching people like Dragon play Cetrion doesnt look like she's incomplete even with only one good variant. Pre-buff Jade having only Emerald Defender was a complete zoner.

 

[Gooberking]

I think 90% of the time it's said, It's a parroted phrase. It sounds deep, and it's hard to argue against without knowing what is really being meant, if anything.

In the end it largely serves as the anti variation boogeyman. Then like all good, catchy phrases it starts to mean a lot of different things to different people who all think they are all saying the same thing until forced to explain.

If someone can't explain then it's probably a lot like when someone says spam. There is something they don't like and the only way they know to deal with it is to toss negatively charged catch phrases at it and hope it goes away.

 

[Anarchist_Gib]

My idea was more focused on balance than just hit/hurtboxes. Those just so happen to be the core reasoning behind Sheeva being so trash. Your argument sounds to me to be just the same: balance. If a character is relegated to just one variation because NRS has failed the other two variations, the character is "incomplete." Is that a good summation of your argument?

The reason behind the failure would certainly be the crux of my argument. Generally, the variations that fail do so because the tools they enable lack cohesion with the character's kit at large or fails to provide adequate utility in place of what's already there. This amounts to me being able to utilize only a third of my possible array of moves, which can certainly go towards a feeling of incompleteness.

My issue with that idea is that you're effectively saying the character with one viable variation is generally playable with said variation. They lack the option to change styles in matchups, but they're still generally worth playing due to their single useful variation. In contrast, how was an always-losing character like MK9 Sheeva worth playing (from a viability standpoint, not character loyalty standpoint)? Her being "cohesive" didnt make her 2-8 matchups any less 2-8.

But the fact of not being able to modify the character per specific MUs is all the distinction in a game built around that mechanic. Sheeva was bad, but how bad would she have been without the hitbox issues? Meanwhile, you'd have to actually rework many character's variations to bring them up to relevance, on top of hitbox issues.

Basically every character having once again one or more mediocre if not worthless variations defeats the point of the system, but I dont agree that that makes a character incomplete at their core.

Your point is well taken.

 

[theotherguy]

Her being "cohesive" didnt make her 2-8 matchups any less 2-8.

I just thought i'd quote that line because it's just too good to not read again.

 

[theotherguy]

This amounts to me being able to utilize only a third of my possible array of moves, which can certainly go towards a feeling of incompleteness.

Except that would never happen. No MK game has ever had one character having ~12 specials. Ever. (soul stealers obviously not included)

This is what people are doing wrong. They're thinking of one character being split up and each version is missing things. Instead they need to think they're getting 2 or 3 different versions of a character.

The thought should never be if i had this i could do this, it should be what can i do with what i have? The same way a "complete" character is played. If V1 is shit, then the same way no one played mk9 Sheeva, then V1 will be ignored. V1 being shit shouldn't detract from V2 being great, so long as there is some semblance of balancing that something isn't nerfed hard in one variation to the detriment of another.

If someone wants to see what could happen if they had X or Y or Z, then that's what casual modes are for.

 

[Arqwart]

The reason behind the failure would certainly be the crux of my argument. Generally, the variations that fail do so because the tools they enable lack cohesion with the character's kit at large or fails to provide adequate utility in place of what's already there. This amounts to me being able to utilize only a third of my possible array of moves, which can certainly go towards a feeling of incompleteness.

But the fact of not being able to modify the character per specific MUs is all the distinction in a game built around that mechanic. Sheeva was bad, but how bad would she have been without the hitbox issues? Meanwhile, you'd have to actually rework many character's variations to bring them up to relevance, on top of hitbox issues.

I totally see where you're coming from as having fewer options with your character always feels like shit. The variation system was meant to combat this issue, but doesn't do that consistently across the cast. I think we're just two sides of the same coin arguing semantics honestly. I think it's just poor balance as opposed to them being incomplete. You think the poor balance makes them incomplete due to not having as many options.

 

[DixieFlatline78]

A good example of how a character is complete or incomplete is a normal like Raiden's F4. It's a slow, long range, non-confirmable mid. Give him a launcher and a teleport and it becomes a situational whiff punisher and desperate Hail Mary. Give him a safe push back special and it becomes an engagement tool for battering the opponent around the stage and pushing them to the corner. Give him this weird lightning rod and a shitty launcher and the move is basically not worth canceling into.

Raijin gets a clear archetype of a defensive wall with strong, unique punishment, where Thunder Wave becomes a volatile counter pick outclassed by other anti zoners. Truth and Light is like wtf.

Look at Nightwolf. He has every mid you could want, a super strong auto shimmy, and great pokes for jailing. Looks like he should have a launcher huh? Problem is theres a variation specifically dedicated to having this launcher. There is one variation to make the character's moveset come together. Give him a command grab instead and it's just like "what are we doing here?"

The concept is pretty half baked and I'd prefer more focused characters personally

 

[LMNYHappyDaze]

I don’t really know what complete and incomplete characters are, but I know that a lot of variations don’t have any type of clear vision or game plan. Noob V3 for example just feels like random moves were given to him. And Raiden as a whole does feel like he is missing something. His only combo launch also gets his full combo punished on block, whiff and hit if they break away. Some ppl feel like these issues wouldn’t exist if we got “completed” characters instead of variations. I personally like variations but I feel like they were done better in MKX imo

 

[Anarchist_Gib]

Except that would never happen. No MK game has ever had one character having ~12 specials. Ever. (soul stealers obviously not included)

This is what people are doing wrong. They're thinking of one character being split up and each version is missing things. Instead they need to think they're getting 2 or 3 different versions of a character.

But it isn't necessarily 2-3 different "versions" in my instance, it's two objectively inferior options that take no advantage of the characters universal kit or add redundancy between universal moves. In a game built from the ground up around the variation system. Your point isn't lost on me that all twelve moves would never be combined, but then again that isn't at all my advocacy.

The thought should never be if i had this i could do this, it should be what can i do with what i have? The same way a "complete" character is played.

Ok? I don't see where I assert that one shouldn't do their best with the tools made available, only explained why many feel that their preferred character feels less complete than if they were able to benefit from one of the distinguishing elements of the game.

If someone wants to see what could happen if they had X or Y or Z, then that's what casual modes are for.

A mute point for those of us who predominantly play ranked.

 

[Marinjuana]

I don't know about this prompt but a good example to me of variation system hurting the game is string follow ups that are arbitrarily unique to a variation. Do the designs of Jade, Kano or D'vorah really benefit from not having those strings in all variations? It just feels limiting.

And then some variations have gimmicks that only work in 40% of their matchups and everyone just says to pick the other variation for those bad matches, rather then that character having a "complete" kit built around their gimmick or whatnot.

 

[Gooberking]

I don't know about this prompt but a good example to me of variation system hurting the game is string follow ups that are arbitrarily unique to a variation. Do the designs of Jade, Kano or D'vorah really benefit from not having those strings in all variations? It just feels limiting.

And then some variations have gimmicks that only work in 40% of their matchups and everyone just says to pick the other variation for those bad matches, rather then that character having a "complete" kit built around their gimmick or whatnot.

How is saying "pick the other variation for those bad matches" any different than "pick another character for those bad match ups" as gets said in any non-variation game?

 

[M2Dave]

A good example of how a character is complete or incomplete is a normal like Raiden's F4. It's a slow, long range, non-confirmable mid. Give him a launcher and a teleport and it becomes a situational whiff punisher and desperate Hail Mary. Give him a safe push back special and it becomes an engagement tool for battering the opponent around the stage and pushing them to the corner. Give him this weird lightning rod and a shitty launcher and the move is basically not worth canceling into.

Raijin gets a clear archetype of a defensive wall with strong, unique punishment, where Thunder Wave becomes a volatile counter pick outclassed by other anti zoners. Truth and Light is like wtf.

Look at Nightwolf. He has every mid you could want, a super strong auto shimmy, and great pokes for jailing. Looks like he should have a launcher huh? Problem is theres a variation specifically dedicated to having this launcher. There is one variation to make the character's moveset come together. Give him a command grab instead and it's just like "what are we doing here?"

The concept is pretty half baked and I'd prefer more focused characters personally

Very good post.

To reiterate your example, Nightwolf's rising tomahawk complements the manner in which the character is designed to play. In other words, the launcher completes the character's gameplay style because Nightwolf gains the ability to launch after any string, which is particularly important for the auto-shimmy jab string. Albeit the other two variations, Ancestral Gift and Shaman, are good variations, you will sacrifice lots of damage by choosing them. The special moves in the aforementioned variations are good too, yet they do not contribute to Nightwolf's completeness as well as the rising tomahawk does. For visual evidence, watch King Gambler, who has been performing very well in online tournaments lately.

Most variations in the game face identical problems. Very rarely do all three variations perform their function well.

 

[scarsunseen]

Frost v1 isn't a complete character. No amplified launchers. Barely-accessible BF4 KB. =\

 

[PetulantWaste]

Complete means that they have a kit that feels coherent and cohesive. No moves feels underpowered and every move has a utility.

Baraka is compete in gutted because he's simple and effective.

Baraka is incomplete in the flag bearer variation because the flag is absolutely useless. It hurts because the idea of Baraka planting a flag as a stance move is awesome but it is useless.

Now here's an even BIGGER problem.

If you added the flag stance to Baraka's gutted variation he would STILL feel incomplete. He would feel more incomplete than if he didn't have it. Any time you add something without giving your players a good reason to use it you are creating a more incomplete character. It shows you didn't really think it through so the character feels sloppily put together.