I guess it's this time of year again.
This completely ruins any non-Ranked online game modes for those of us who want to play with baseline characters.
So competitive mode. I agree that it's an issue because of how ranked pretty much stays the only online option if you want to play competitive (others turning on competitive can be unreliable).
You have to turn on a mode that has the effect of turning off gear. It's purposefully ambiguous.
I think you're stretching here. Competitive mode has been talked about for a pretty long time by NRS and turning something on to turn something off isn't as ambiguous as you're making it.
They want you to spend 2,000 Source Crystals to transform a single piece of gear. They want those of us who paid $100 to still have to spend money on premium skins.
Dependig on how much you play, you can get enough crystals to buy around 2-3 of the premium skins. These skins are all voiced so we're already getting more value than we would in Injustice 1 and MKX, but the fact that there is an option to get these skins for free is already good. In previous games we would have needed to buy a skin pack to get these skins at all, now we have source crystals which can get you a quality skin or two for free.
And no being able to buy source crystals does not discredit the fact that in Injustice 2 we can get skins for free whereas in previous games we could not.
Not only is gear a cash grab, but moves that could have been included in characters' base sets were set aside as gear-only.
Gear is not a cash grab because gear cannot be bought.
Abilities are meant for casual play and should not be considered moves that should have existed with characters in the first place, especially because a lot of them are straight upgrades. Should Flash have had his meterless tornado launcher or his projectile in the first place? Should Darkseid have had a backwards teleport in the first place? There are abilities that do and don't strengthen your argument, but to me it was clear from the beginning that they were meant for casual play and should not be taken into account when it comes to competitive balancing.
Fuck you Ed Boon. Fuck your eyebrows too.
You can't talk about having a civil discussion if you're not having a civil discussion, hyperbole included.
Do I even need to mention the input bug?
Universally agreed upon. This needs fixing ASAP and it's slightly worrisome that as far as I know we haven't had a developer talk about this issue (if they have talked about it please send me a link).
However, at least in that game, the big-body characters had some tools in some matchups. In this game we have characters like Captain Cold, who has a 3-hit all-high string. What? We have Brainiac, with a trait that goes away on hit or on block.
You're using two very specific examples here. Maybe if Captain Cold has a string with 3 highs, you shouldn't use it haphazardly in the neutral? Of course if it's his best string outside of the fact that it's 3 highs then we have a problem.
Batman shouldn't have the best zoning and the best rushdown.
Batman has good zoning but not the best zoning. To be frank it's hard to talk anout this when in the past you made a thread where you called Batman-Cheetah a 10-0 matchup while discrediting people who provided counterexamples for most of that thread's life cycle.
Any tournament players you see doing well with Cheetah, Robin, Joker, or anyone else are simply amazing players; it's the players doing well despite their characters' flaws.
This is a case of you being too convinced that the characters suck that they could not possibly have something to do with a player's success.
- The game is a month old, matchup unfamiliarity is a big factor still.
- Characters always have something to abuse, a character making top 8 at least says that a character doesn't need this specific player to be viable.
