[Discussion] "This character is super easy to use"

[PLAYING TO WIN]

While I don't doubt that NRS wants to make many characters easier to use, I think you can expect to hear "this character is easy to use" on every single kombat kast, because tournament players really aren't the target audience. The majority of the tens of thousands of people watching want to hear that they can pick up and play easily. Saying a character is difficult to use during the cast is gonna be a huge turnoff for the majority of watchers. I don't think we'll know how easy or difficult any character is to use until we get our hands on the game.

well said

 

[SaltShaker]

Funny, I was going to make this thread today but @PLAYING TO WIN beat me to it. I actually am starting to think the same thing the more I hear about the game. For example, every single character has been stated as either "easy to use" or "easier than they used to be". Not even one character has been mentioned to require a learning curve beyond a vague Geras statement on the release event.

It does worry me because if the majority of the characters are easy to pick up, then we'll start the game off the way MKX did. With an army of Kung Jin main's until he was nerfed, army of Shinnok's, etc, because they were easily top 3 but could be learned in a couple of days. I don't think that's healthy for any fighting game. This is why I believe you saw so little D'Vorah players even though she was one of the best for so long. Why play her when you can join everyone else using Shinnok?

Someone used the Kazuya in Tekken example and I think it's perfect. Casuals can play with him like "yea he's badass" and have fun. Semi-decent players can play him and still function well. Top players can use him and make him look amazing. Nina is built like this as well. I'm all for making it easily accessible for casuals, with tighter windows for competitive players. This will make the whole "pull out my pocket top tier" a lot less common.

I'm hoping that they are speaking in general statements, but it does feel like they are making the game easy to pick up any character which I'm not a fan of.

 

[PLAYING TO WIN]

Every fighting game has characters that are easy to use (Ryu) and characters that are not (SF4 Viper). Just because a character is easy to understand and execute with (Ryu) does not mean that it is easy to *win* with that character. As a Street Fighter player you should know this.

Just like every other fighting game, MK11 will have characters with lower barriers to execution, and ones with more complex mechanics and gameplan considerations. It’s a spectrum.

However, what you’re speaking to is a game balance issue, and is totally separate from what the devs were describing in that stream.

If you give a character, any character, a single that can dominate most of the cast, it has detrimental effects on the meta. That isn’t about execution barrier, it’s just bad balance.

I am speaking more to the point of a counter pick meta. Did you think it was ok that whiteboi beat bdon's fate with a few day old deadshot very very deep into a major or like examples? I just don't see other respected fighting games with their top players maining 3-5 characters like we did in i2.

I want characters to require a large amount of investment is my subjective thought. Its not really what i think though. I put it up for discussion.

 

[Circus]

“Easy to use” doesn’t necessarily mean “easy to master”. Just because a character is easy to pick up and do well with without high execution doesn’t mean they won’t be even more effective in the hands of a more skilled player.

Exactly this.

I feel like in Injustice2 there was just way too many characters that were amazing and were also easy to master. Day 2 Deadshots would destroy.

The true juicy depth just wasn't there.

In SF5, the characters are all reletively easy to use too, really, exact a small few. There is SO much depth though. There is no telling if MK11 has the depth like this.

Without any setups being labbed for oki and without any REAL gameplans being utilized except whiff punishing and punishing bad movement, there is no way for us to know yet. I honestly am feeling optimistic though.

 

[PLAYING TO WIN]

Johnny Cage definitely looks like he's easy to use on the surface, sure.

But Johnny doesn't have any real overheads at all.
He relies on perfect spacing of his opponent's moves, perfect spacing on his own moves, brave walkup grabs, and pressure with his stunt doubles/hook-punches/staggers.

Not only that, but there is also the fact he gets cancels at 30% health.

While he might be easy on the surface, to open up his opponent at the highest level is going to take a certain level of mastery that someone isn't just going to casually pick up like they would Deadshot from Injustice2.

---------------------------------------

I just used Johnny as an example there, but my point is that imo there is nothing inherently so broken-looking at the moment that will skew matchups so obviously like some characters in INJ2 did.

The tools people had in INJ2 made it so that game was incredibly matchup dependent(more matchup dependent than any NRS game to date). For example, Captain Cold just ABSOLUTELY F**KED some characters who relied on close combat.

----------------------------------------

As time goes on, I really don't think we'll have base variations. I think we're going full kustomizable tbh.

Hopefully that'll really make it so character specialization stays a thing, but honestly, there is no way to 100% gauge this kind of shit until we all see how some of these matchups are in real time.

TBH, I'm not concerned. I was for INJ2 almost immediately because some characters just clearly countered others even on paper before getting the game in your hands, but I just don't see that in MK11 on the surface.

The full customization is an entirely other discussion but relevant here. In mkx you could find players for each variation and prepare. If we go full customization in mk11 it will indeed add depth to the game but it will make it nearly impossible to prepare or find players that main each and every combination. I have mixed feelings about it. Thanks for responding.

 

[PLAYING TO WIN]

Funny, I was going to make this thread today but @PLAYING TO WIN beat me to it. I actually am starting to think the same thing the more I hear about the game. For example, every single character has been stated as either "easy to use" or "easier than they used to be". Not even one character has been mentioned to require a learning curve beyond a vague Geras statement on the release event.

It does worry me because if the majority of the characters are easy to pick up, then we'll start the game off the way MKX did. With an army of Kung Jin main's until he was nerfed, army of Shinnok's, etc, because they were easily top 3 but could be learned in a couple of days. I don't think that's healthy for any fighting game. This is why I believe you saw so little D'Vorah players even though she was one of the best for so long. Why play her when you can join everyone else using Shinnok?

Someone used the Kazuya in Tekken example and I think it's perfect. Casuals can play with him like "yea he's badass" and have fun. Semi-decent players can play him and still function well. Top players can use him and make him look amazing. Nina is built like this as well. I'm all for making it easily accessible for casuals, with tighter windows for competitive players. This will make the whole "pull out my pocket top tier" a lot less common.

I'm hoping that they are speaking in general statements, but it does feel like they are making the game easy to pick up any character which I'm not a fan of.

well said.

 

[Marlow]

I will keep returning to the I2 deadshot example. There were a lot of top players that had a 3 day old very little time invested character that were beating other top players mains in top 8s of majors.

Wasn't that basically just 1 tournament, early in the games life? I combination of Deadshot being nerfed and players adapting seemed to solve that.

I don't think it was exclusive to Injustice 2 either. Games like Tekken, SFV, MKX, and SFIV have all had tournaments soon after launch which featured a top 8 consisting heavily of one character. Or had a new character come out and be really strong and have tournaments where the new character shows up a disproportionate amount.

I think a lot of the easier execution, or easier gameplan characters typically shine pretty early in a games life because they're easier to pick up day 1 and do well with, and that matters when you're trying to win tournaments. This effect starts to wane the older the game grows though.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

I am speaking more to the point of a counter pick meta. Did you think it was ok that whiteboi beat bdon's fate with a few day old deadshot very very deep into a major or like examples? I just don't see other respected fighting games with their top players maining 3-5 characters like we did in i2.

I want characters to require a large amount of investment is my subjective thought. Its not really what i think though. I put it up for discussion.

I hear what you’re saying — but to me this is indicative of a balance issue. Vanilla deadshot was too low risk high reward. His mechanics being simple is ok; but his guns offered so much payoff, that to then be able to mix you up and stagger you ad infinitum as soon as you’d made it into footsie range was too much.

Simple-to-play characters work well when they require the strongest fundamentals to win. But that’s why it’s important to balance them correctly.

Or put another way, simple to pick up/play and simple-to-win should not be the same thing. And balance is what makes that distinction, not just the mechanics.

 

[NothingPersonal]

Ptw and m2d in the op = thread is about zoning

 

[Circus]

@PLAYING TO WIN

The more I read, the more I realize that things will be fine in regards to this subject.

How easy something is to do EXECUTION-WISE is kind of irrelevant in the counter-pick INJ2 argument where every top player had a few pocket characters they could whip out on the fly with no practice.

The point is that some of the shit in that game was so oppressive to deal with for some characters that it was easily abusable, which is the true villain here.

Repetitive actions that have minimal risk involved the majority of the time end up being easy to pick up and abuse if they completely shut down other specific characters for a good portion of the match.

^^^^This is basically referring to braindead safe pressure, safe 50/50s, and zoning which is too strong.

From what we've seen and heard:

Braindead safe pressure: Gone
Safe 50/50s: Gone
Zoning which is too strong: ???

What we DO know though is that NRS has nerfed Baraka's mid fireball to a high and reduced the amount of pushback on Skarlet's safe Blood Tentacle. These were two things that people had concern for as far as "strong zoning" in the demo-build.

I think NRS has a definite plan in mind.

They don't want anything just handed to players like it was in INJ2 sometimes and they don't want things to be so easily strong that it's abusable by someone who is just picking up the character.

 

[Johnny Based Cage]

I think the success of DBFZ showed developers that the line between accessibility and depth isn’t that difficult to walk after all. Sure the core mechanics of that game are different but it still showcased a world in which knowledge and skill become much faster pathways to mastery without unnecessary execution barriers in the way. It’s still the Sonic Foxes and Kazunokos of the world dominating at the highest level too, so the idea that anyone could pick up any character in a day and win is total horseshit and has more to do with gameplay balance than ease of execution in the first place anyway.

 

[lionheart21]

While it has seemed thus far that there do seem to be more "Easy-to-play" characters, we seem to be forgetting that we've only seen a handful of the cast. We also don't have a hands-on opinion on how the Flawless Block system will work.

It does seem off to have a character as execution-heavy as Kabal was in MK9 to be referred to as a character that you can pick up and play easily, but we've also seen that there will be characters like Geras, which seems to be the most complex character thus far.

 

[HeroesNZ]

I had exactly the same concerns, tbh every time they say "this character is super easy to use compared to previous games" on Kombat Kasts... Which just so happens to be every time, I used to die a little on the inside.

But now I've come to accept the non-existent execution barrier and I'm fine with it, there are many other ways to add depth to a game. On top of learning each individual matchup there's also the flawless block mechanic which is something I'm really looking forward to labbing.

Honestly though it seems like NRS' balancing tactic in MK11 is "let's just go barebones and then make everyone super neutral-heavy". Like after they talk about how much easier a character is, their next talking point is about how the character excels in the midrange.

I think it's gonna be incredibly easy to main the cast in MK11, especially after dumbing down the amplifying system even further. But that could turn out to be a good thing, matchups are less polarising so there's less need to counterpick - just play your favourite character.

 

[Eldagrin]

Having top characters be easy to pick up can be fine imo, I would rather they be more like Nina from Tekken or Setsuka from soul calibur so they actually take dedication, but I’m fine with them being easy too.

Deadshot’s problem, since he’s the example here, was not only was he easy, it was also because he was top tier because he had pretty much everything you could want in a character outside of good midscreen damage. He had an invincible, safe with bar, armor breaking with bar, wake up that you couldn’t just jump and punish on a read. He had insane meterbuild and the best zoning tool in the game, and to top it all off he had staggerable 50/50s, a fast mid, and a low d1. That was a case of him having way too much at launch which was honestly more of a problem than him being easy to use. If he was hard to use he very likely would have become a problem eventually anyways.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

I wonder if “this character will be easy to use” will end up like “this projectile has great recovery” and end up looking like a meme like in I2

 

[VSC_Supreme]

I don't think there's any issue with having easy to pick up characters, but I'm wondering if its a marketing thing as some of the other people here have described.

Someone could hear a character is easier to play and assume it means 'this character is easy to get wins with.' Casual players don't want to lab, they want to win.

 

[STB Sgt Reed]

i respect your opinion. so what do you think of most fightings games that had higher skills gaps with execution like kof?

I take back my blah blah portion of my statement. I didn't expect this as a response and I was tired of reading all the posts in the "but why you change the amplify moves?" thread.

Well, personally, execution being difficult completely turns me off of them. I've only made short forays out of NRS games due to this sort of thing, but as an example I'll use my characters choices. I'll never play the kabals and skarlets of MK9 or JCs (cancels) of MKX due to not having the reflexes nor the time to get them down. I just don't feel that difficult inputs should be a way to weed out players. Anyone should be able to pick up a fighter and be able to perform the moves simply.

It should be all about how and when you use those moves. To me that's what determines the skilled players from the unskilled ones. If you use them at the wrong time, you get blown up. Doesn't matter if you had to input df1 or dbfu3 to do the move imo.

 

[John Grizzly]

I wonder if “this character will be easy to use” will end up like “this projectile has great recovery” and end up looking like a meme like in I2

This could also be replaced with "I see (insert name) as a mid range character".

I think that has been the description for every character shown on the Kasts so far.

 

[Saltea Moonspell]

I don't mind easy for retards, but what Boon did with Jason, is not funny at all. There are few others, but this one is good/bad example of how things can go wrong, when you don't think enough.

 

[RNLDRGN]

The goal of this thread is to discuss an ongoing debate about execution barriers and what it will mean to a game. Considering depth, counter pick meta, ease of use, execution level of characters and game play mechanics can have a tremendous effect on an individual's investment in a title or the longevity of said game. In recent kombat kasts and character reveals, 16 bit explicitly stated "This character is excellent for beginners and easy to use. We want it to be more about the decision making instead of execution" This mentality surely makes the game more approachable to new/casual players but it has a detrimental effect on the games longevity.

In recent discussions with @THTB and @General M2Dave this topic came up again. A few major points:

• Making characters easy to use caters to a counter pick meta. You can possible have a Deadshot situation where a top 3 character can be learned in 3 days at the highest level.

• If an "easy to use" character is top 5 there is a good chance you will see a top player beat another top player's main in top 8 with a pocket super easy to use top tier. I2 examples are prepatch deadshot and starfire. A notible example is whiteboi's week old deadshot beating bdon's dr fate.

• Creating "easy to use" characters will likely result in characters who lack depth. A huge talking point in i2's competitive circle was that people were extremely bored with the game. I would hear and agree with comments like "In mkx or i1 I would be able to lab for hours and hours two years into the game and I was still finding stuff with my main" There was very little player personality that could come out through the majority of the cast in i2. By personality I mean destroyer's predator or sako's menat or reo's kabal or deoxy beetle et cetera.

• Execution is vital in keeping rampant counter picking in check. Imagine if MK9 kabal nomad cancels were super easy, zod i2 ia balls, mkx predator, d'vorah or cage cancels et ceteral. It required much more of an investment from players leading to increased game satisfaction when they starting winning. Thinking about notable and respected games, very few of them lacked what injustice 2 did. Many injustice 2 pro's had 3-5 top 8 viable characters or a character that specifically matched up well vs another player's main. Do you see this happening in SF4/5? Guilty Gear? Smash? KOF? UMVC3? Tekkan? Aside from very few examples such as infiltration, no, it was not the case.

• If we want a game that will last more than two years it will have to have much more depth than i2 and things that require more player investment.

• can you have depth and execution and still appeal to a casual base? sf5 does. Activate Urien's aegis and you have 100's of options. Menat... insane depth and variability. UMVC3 did. Smash ultimate does. Tekkan now does. So I think the answer is yes, what do you think?

Anyways I thought it was a good discussion and it also highlights some of my conditioned fear going from I2 to mk11 after hearing 16 bit say every character is super easy to use in every reveal. Also, I thought MB moves in MK11 being different inputs was a good thing bc it would have added to the games execution barrier and may have had a minor effect on players ability to counter pick. It was a step in the right direction anyways.

I think you make a few very good points here--especially regarding counterpicks. I2 had more counterpicking than I've ever seen in a fighting game. Hell, I was a mediocre tournament level player and I had 3-4 competent characters after a few months. I played significantly more IGAU and it took me years to be decent with 3 characters.

The key to this discussion is separating DEPTH from EXECUTION. Having a few high execution and a few low execution characters is ideal for most fighting games and shouldn't be some barrier that prevents you from enjoying the game, but DEPTH is where a game's longevity comes from. SFV is stupid simple from an execution standpoint at times, but about half the cast is incredibly deep (Urien, Menat, G, Dhalsim, Ibuki, Chun, etc). You can play most of those characters at a somewhat decent level with low execution, but you could spend months in the lab coming up with new stuff and crazier combos/confirms/setups/etc and still not even be at the highest level.

I want to see some really unique and complex characters/mechanics from MK11, otherwise it will be another game played seriously for 18 months wherein all top 8 placers play 3-4 characters. I thought the "amplify" mechanic where you had to look at each move specifically was a cool idea and definitely a step in the right direction, but I also understand why they changed it.

From a casual standpoint, being able to pick up a handful of characters in a few weeks is really cool, but for tournaments I think the points you're making begin to become more apparent.

Noob better be deep as hell.

 

[Marlow]

One question I have, is counter-picking more driven by the game itself, or is it more driven by the community/culture surrounding the game? In general it seems like there's more counterpicking in NRS games, and I don't know if that's simply because that's how the scene has always done things, or if it's something specific about the NRS game mechanics.

 

[Pterodactyl]

Depends on what you understand by "easy to use/easy to learn" (which people usually associate with easy execution).

A character can have easy execution in terms of inputs or combos, but at the same time could require a lot of situational awareness from the player, to be on point with strict punishes, to have in mind many potential bad risk/reward situations, etc. I wouldn't describe that character as easy to use. Easy execution does not necessarily mean it's easy to jump to the battleground and be successful with a character, there are much more factors.

I think the problem nrs games have had multiple times is that they have offered many examples of characters that NOT ONLY are easy to learn in terms of combos, but ALSO their strategy is simple, VERY effective and also much harder for the defender to counter than it is for the offender to set it up.

This is the crux of the issue that I feel like people aren’t getting across well.

A character being easy to use is one thing, but being easy to fully learn is different. If a character is so devoid of nuance and complexity that you can figure them out completely in a day, that’s a poorly designed character. If that character is both AND top tier, it’s toxic to the competitive scene for both players and viewers, as we’ve seen.

Ryu is an easy character to use but learning to play him effieciently isn’t entirely superficial, in almost all of his appearances he has things that are beyond beginner level awaiting below his simple surface and he has room for player personality to show.

You can see ten different Ryu players and they’d all have differences in play, but literally every single Deadshot is the same thing.

That’s boring to watch and to fight against, it isn’t fun design.



All that said, they haven’t shown a character yet that didn’t seem to have some underlying potential complexity to them so I’m not too worried.

 

[Marinjuana]

I think the success of DBFZ showed developers that the line between accessibility and depth isn’t that difficult to walk after all. Sure the core mechanics of that game are different but it still showcased a world in which knowledge and skill become much faster pathways to mastery without unnecessary execution barriers in the way. It’s still the Sonic Foxes and Kazunokos of the world dominating at the highest level too, so the idea that anyone could pick up any character in a day and win is total horseshit and has more to do with gameplay balance than ease of execution in the first place anyway.

TBH I think this point is nonsense because DBFZ has wayyyyyyyyy harder execution at a high level than NRS typically has. Yeah, the game isn't hard to play or pick up, but at a high level, you're talking some crazy execution and character/team knowledge. Casuals aren't doing the same shit pros are and it's not even close

 

[Dankster Morgan]

I wouldn’t put too much though into it until we get to play the game.

16 Bit also said Darkseid’s Omega Beams had great recovery and that Fate’s B2 was a great anti air. It was buffed into being an incredible anti air but it certainly wasn’t at launch

 

[Circus]

One question I have, is counter-picking more driven by the game itself, or is it more driven by the community/culture surrounding the game? In general it seems like there's more counterpicking in NRS games, and I don't know if that's simply because that's how the scene has always done things, or if it's something specific about the NRS game mechanics.

It's definitely a game thing.

If something is easily abusable then it's going to be easily abused. Period.

There have been PLENTY of things in NRS games in the past that have been so abusable that it becomes an alternative to your main character even if you know your main character more.

With less reliance on crazy abusable things in MK11, I honestly from my heart think that things won't be this way as much. Also with the kustomization system things could truly be perfect. We'll just have to wait, but yeah.