Injustice Zoning

[GGA Jeremiah]

Why does everyone in GGA complain about zoning? Are you guys supposed to be high level players or a bunch of whiners?
.

Hey I love zoning! I wish every pool I was in was filled with Kenshis. I love playing against that character.

 

[salvificblood]

People are just going to have to learn to be patient rather than simply wave dashing and jumping into a full combo like they did in mk9. Play patiently, develope strategies to counter zoning ones, play dirty, use the stage, use every tool you have (and I bet most of us don't even know half our tools yet) and, again, be more patient still.

I don't mind the patience game myself, it's more fun than dealing with frametrap, frametrap, frametrap combo, reset, frametrap, freametrap anyway lol.

 

[PwnStar]

Anyone who cries "cheap" in a fighting game in my book is bad.

We can argue this back in forth, you clearly care about things others dont. I see no reason to argue the case against this "casual" audience.

I'm just gonna say this; The game is a week old, if you're unwilling to learn a new game you shouldn't pick up a new game.

Dont nerf things, adapt.

And finally if a tactic is in a game it's free game, use it and abuse it. Play to win.

That's terrible pseudo-pro logic. The idea that nerfs are always bad is an incredibly flawed argument.

Fighting games in terms of balance cannot balance every match up to a 5-5 due to too many variables at play. However the common goal is that all characters should be a mix of strengths/weakness or balanced play style. For every moment of superiority an equal moment for the other character should be present and in both cases the disadvantaged should still have a way to fight their way out of a bad situation and be able to attain their advantage. HOWEVER, when things become too skewed in risks, ways to attain advantage, ways to maintain advantage, reward, etc... you get an unfair weighting. Right now Injustice favors running away. Every GTFO tool vastly trumps get in, this means zoning is becoming a vortex. Easy to attain and maintain and too few risks.

Simply because things are beatable doesn't mean it equals good gameplay. Good gameplay revolves around gambits of options, risk/reward, and dynamic interaction. If your play has limited options, the strategy is low risk and effective most of the time, and game play devolves into the same patterns since all other options are invalid in the match up...you have bad game play. I'll use SC4 again with Hilde. Hilde required no risks be taken against her, no slow seeable hits (she could 'armor' through them), and all her hits were usually TOD...this devolved gameplay into super fast unrewarding safe pokes to fight her as she turtled for a kill. She was beatable, but due to this she killed SC4 competitively and created bad game play. Many top players argued for 'play to win' and 'adapt' in spite of this issue, and well...there's a reason SC4 didn't deserve to be in the next EVO.

NEVER support imbalance. Nerfs/buffs need to be applied responsibly. Too many FGC members have very uneducated views on 'play to win' and good game design, even top players.

 

[GLoRToR]

wtb Jade's bf3 for Raven. #trolled

 

[Briyen]

That's terrible pseudo-pro logic. The idea that nerfs are always bad is an incredibly flawed argument.

Fighting games in terms of balance cannot balance every match up to a 5-5 due to too many variables at play. However the common goal is that all characters should be a mix of strengths/weakness or balanced play style. For every moment of superiority an equal moment for the other character should be present and in both cases the disadvantaged should still have a way to fight their way out of a bad situation and be able to attain their advantage. HOWEVER, when things become too skewed in risks, ways to attain advantage, ways to maintain advantage, reward, etc... you get an unfair weighting. Right now Injustice favors running away. Every GTFO tool vastly trumps get in, this means zoning is becoming a vortex. Easy to attain and maintain and too few risks.

Simply because things are beatable doesn't mean it equals good gameplay. Good gameplay revolves around gambits of options, risk/reward, and dynamic interaction. If your play has limited options, the strategy is low risk and effective most of the time, and game play devolves into the same patterns since all other options are invalid in the match up...you have bad game play. I'll use SC4 again with Hilde. Hilde required no risks be taken against her, no slow seeable hits (she could 'armor' through them), and all her hits were usually TOD...this devolved gameplay into super fast unrewarding safe pokes to fight her as she turtled for a kill. She was beatable, but due to this she killed SC4 competitively and created bad game play.

NEVER support imbalance. Nerfs/buffs need to be applied responsibly. Too many FGC members have very uneducated views on 'play to win' and good game design, even top players.

based on your picture and argument, are you a Flash main? cause i was too , till i discovered the ultimate power of zoning! lol

 

[PwnStar]

based on your picture and argument, are you a Flash main? cause i was too , till i discovered the ultimate power of zoning! lol

Not yet but soon. I just deeply love JL8's depiction of Barry (JL8 is an amazing DC influenced web comic based on the Justice League as kids)

I play GL, a very balanced character. Strong tools, but does not dominate in zoning or rush down. I feel this game is not broken, I simply feel it needs tweeks to further better gameplay and unfortunately NRS is very sketchy with public reaction on tweeks, either being over zealous or ignorant of issues. Pros and casuals in all communities create a lot of confusion for developers who support patching, I wish to give NRS reason for patches this go around and not kill problems like zoning for easier gameplay, but for more in depth game play.

 

[THTB]

This seriously makes no sense that people are up in arms over zoning and how weak offense is. I played Blacktastic's Grundy, and when he got in, ggs if I guessed wrong. Granted he had trouble getting in, but imagine if he got much more used to getting in on me.

When you guys get used to your offensive options, and getting in more fluidly, things will change. If not, pick Doomsday lol.

 

[jaym7018]

Because we shouldnt change the game for bad players. We should not reward someone for not wanting to try.

If it's not clear, I HATE nerfs. I hate the idea of taking things away from people. What if you saw DS was goign to be in Injustice and just freaked out because he's your favorite character in comics ever? I dont even like DS, I dont even like zoning but I'd hate to see them take stuff away from a person who does.

Nerfs are the WORST way to adjust games. If anything just give buffs to his 8/2 match ups.

This logic is terrible. If you buff a character whohas a 2-8 match up then all of a zudden you have that characters 6-4 turned into a 8-2. Both buffing and nerfing will always be necessary. Just doing one or the other is never the answer.

 

[Komatose]

Lol, not another thread like this. Impossible.

 

[Datsumsharks]

Couple people responded to it, and I'll keep backing it up, I personally do not agree with nerfs. I can see buffs, but I dont think you should take a characters tools away. If someone sits for months learning a character because they have a tool that really fits their play style they shouldnt have that taken away. Buffs let a struggling character keep up in areas they're lacking. I dont know what kinda nerfs/buffs the MK community is use to but I'm talking like just adjusting frames and stuff, little things that will make big differences in certain cases.

Think about it. Pick your favorite character and take away a part of them you really really like. It's like the worst feeling ever, it could make people quit altogether.

Now imagine a character gets a better d1 or gets armor on an ex special move to help them get in. You have to respect the character more but it didnt ruin anyones fun.

NEVER support imbalance. Nerfs/buffs need to be applied responsibly. Too many FGC members have very uneducated views on 'play to win' and good game design, even top players.

I dont support imbalence at all, but I dont want things taken away from players.

 

[RYX]

Buffing a character will never help only one match-up, same with nerfing. I'm against it because NRS will kill this character and I'm positive of it.

Both buff and nerf need to be done fairly though.

 

[jaym7018]

Couple people responded to it, and I'll keep backing it up, I personally do not agree with nerfs. I can see buffs, but I dont think you should take a characters tools away. If someone sits for months learning a character because they have a tool that really fits their play style they shouldnt have that taken away. Buffs let a struggling character keep up in areas they're lacking. I dont know what kinda nerfs/buffs the MK community is use to but I'm talking like just adjusting frames and stuff, little things that will make big differences in certain cases.

Think about it. Pick your favorite character and take away a part of them you really really like. It's like the worst feeling ever, it could make people quit altogether.

Now imagine a character gets a better d1 or gets armor on an ex special move to help them get in. You have to respect the character more but it didnt ruin anyones fun.




I dont support imbalence at all, but I dont want things taken away from players.

Im sorry but this is wrong. There is a reason every genre of game ever does both nerfing and buffing and thats because only doing one or the other will just create problems. This game like any other needs to buff and nerf as necessary. I dont get how if someone has something blatantly OP or even broken,you wouldnt want it to be changed to be more balanced.

 

[haketh]

Did someone really just complain about Grundy vs DS? Between Grundy's amazing dash *It's quick as shit, recovers quick, and covers tons of ground*, MB Swamp Hands, and WCC that match is damn near free for Grundy. All I see are shitty players not willing to put in work to learn their characters and options, and if you pick a character who has bad match ups against zoners get better. If you're losing to a spam happy DS who's doesn't know anything else you're bad and need to get better, if you're getting slaughtered because you don't know how to deal with Ares axe you're bad and need to get better. Jesus Christ.

And PwnStar shut the fuck up, you are one of the whiniest scrubs I've seen on here who tries to come off as this intellectual. You're first example for anything is SCIV Hilde which is a bad example because everyone wanted that bitch nerfed, pros and casuals alike because she was actually broken and the things that made her broken could not be worked around. The things in this game can be worked around. Shit I'm usually not one to say this but niggas need to read david Sirlin Play to Win or some Seth K Domination 101 articles.

Dat: YOu can never do the only buffs approach, while buffs should be one of the first things thought of and nerfs should be really heavily thought of only buffing can completely throw games and MUs out fo whack.

 

[Datsumsharks]

Patching changes is still a sort of new thing when it comes to fighting games so I still think I'm stuck in the mindset of just figuring out what we've got. Marvel 2 is got to be one of the most insanely broken games ever made and people just said screw it, let's play what works and have fun with it, and it lasted 10 years.

I've just played a lot of other style games where patches can really screw people over. What comes to mind is League of Legends or MMOs like World of Warcraft. League is a really good example because they patch almost weekly and make decent character adjustments every time. The game has and will never be balenced, it just is an ebb and flow of who's good and who's not. When it comes to a fighting game I just dont like that enviroment. I want it so remain stable, let it sink and allow us to really learn what's going on. Who beats who, what's a good match up and a bad match up. It's never going to be perfect.

I dont get how if someone has something blatantly OP or even broken,you wouldnt want it to be changed to be more balanced.

Again, I'm against nerfs and I've explained that already and I think the right thing to do is make unviable characters more viable. If DS had a 8/2 with 50% of the cast I'd agree on a nerf but it's just not that severe.

If you disagree that's fine, like I said I'd just hate to see Deathstroke mains really lose out on their favorite character because people just didnt like playing against them.

 

[big_aug]

Fighting Deathstroke as Bane is pretty freaking tough. Walk in slow and don't miss a block or go to x3 venom to charge through, figure out how to stay in and not get caught for 9+ seconds until the debuff wears off, and then finally start doing some damage.

I'm a newb and I suck, but fighting a decent Deathstroke as Bane is hard. I'm sure as I get better, I'll be able to more effectively walk in and not get hit. Until then, I dread the match up because if he gets full screen right now, getting in is a shitty process.

I don't now anything about fighting games, nerfs, buffs, etc, but it's the only character that I dread playing against.

 

[haketh]

UMVC3 was barely an issue of overbuffing, just Capcom not actually knowing what made their characters good and not knowing how their system changes would affect the game. Alot of the lowtier characters had issues fixed and all but 2 of the Top tier got nerfed in ways to make them less retarded *Viper and Zero were the exceptions, outside of system nerfs they actually got buffed*. The problems with UMVC3 were oversights, especially TAC infinites. And Capcom knew about the lightning Loop but instead of nerfing it they made it easier for him to and be able to do it solo.

And BTW Vergil has shitty nuetral contorl outside of swords, without meter his nuetral is risk seeing how he can't whiff cancel. And comparing Iron Man to Doom is a bit of bad example, more people are going to Iron man now that they know his TAC infinite is the easiest and one of the quickest and like Doom he comes with some of the best assist. You aniled the problems with UMVC3 but not the reasons.

@big_aug Bit of advice, do not go into x3 Venom in that matchup unless it'll get you the kill, just be patient and work your way in. I know it seems lame but it's what you gotta do and Bane has problem matchups, I would reccomend picking up a sub for matches like DS, KF, Raven, and Ares.

 

[big_aug]

haketh

Yea, I know that's a bad idea. I was just saying those are the 2 options. I probably do need to pick up another character, if only for that match up. I'm new though, so I'm trying to focus on one before I move on.

It might not need nerfed or anything, but it's the absolute least fun match in the entire game I think

 

[haketh]

Yeah seems like it, have you looked into Grundy? He's similiar to Bane but actually handles the DS match up very well.

 

[PwnStar]

haketh Sry i deleted that post, it didnt quite address my argument (despite a wall of text)

Over buffing can be equally as dangerous. For example, if a TOD popped up that require no meter and was a common thing to initiate, buffing other characters wouldn't fix the issue. If you adopted it and made it universal the entire game would begin to ignore other aspects of the game because they weren't as relevant. Why would chip matter if the game is about TODs?

This is just an example of how buffing can't fix everything. Buffs and nerfs must be balanced in the spirit of the game. If a heavy mix up character is out damaged by a close range heavy, it's probably better to nerf the mix up character as you are invalidating the need for resets that play to the spirit of the character and making a character that should specialize in that reward out classed (See UMvC3 Zero...)

 

[jaym7018]

Patching changes is still a sort of new thing when it comes to fighting games so I still think I'm stuck in the mindset of just figuring out what we've got. Marvel 2 is got to be one of the most insanely broken games ever made and people just said screw it, let's play what works and have fun with it, and it lasted 10 years.

I've just played a lot of other style games where patches can really screw people over. What comes to mind is League of Legends or MMOs like World of Warcraft. League is a really good example because they patch almost weekly and make decent character adjustments every time. The game has and will never be balenced, it just is an ebb and flow of who's good and who's not. When it comes to a fighting game I just dont like that enviroment. I want it so remain stable, let it sink and allow us to really learn what's going on. Who beats who, what's a good match up and a bad match up. It's never going to be perfect.

Again, I'm against nerfs and I've explained that already and I think the right thing to do is make unviable characters more viable. If DS had a 8/2 with 50% of the cast I'd agree on a nerf but it's just not that severe.

If you disagree that's fine, like I said I'd just hate to see Deathstroke mains really lose out on their favorite character because people just didnt like playing against them.

Why do you think if deathstroke or any character was nerfed it would mean the character would no longer be viable. By that logic buffing a character would automatically make them OP. Patching fighters is not new either weve been seeing it this entire gen of gaming. UMVC3 whild not balanced by a long shot is way more balanced than mvc2. Same can be said for sf4 and 3rd strike where it seemed every top 8 had 6 of either chun or yun. The abiloty to patch has given us the most balanced fighters in the history of the genre.

 

[RYX]

Why do you think if deathstroke or any character was nerfed it would mean the character would no longer be viable. By that logic buffing a character would automatically make them OP. Patching fighters is not new either weve been seeing it this entire gen of gaming. UMVC3 whild not balanced by a long shot is way more balanced than mvc2. Same can be said for sf4 and 3rd strike where it seemed every top 8 had 6 of either chun or yun. The abiloty to patch has given us the most balanced fighters in the history of the genre.

NRS

Kano

Discussion over.

 

[jaym7018]

NRS

Kano

Discussion over.

Sorry you are terrified cause of this one example. I never played mk but my understanding is that was a knee jerk nerf at the very beginning of the game. Which is why characters should at least be given a month before we start character balance discussion. Id assume NRS wont make the same mistake twice.

 

[haketh]

Kano got extremely nerfed late into the games life. And nerfing doesn't always mean instant low tier, Dante goming from MVC3 to UMVC3 went from being Top 3 to Top 10 as a character.

Note I don't think DS needs to be nerfed at all.

 

[RYX]

Sorry you are terrified cause of this one example. I never played mk but my understanding is that was a knee jerk nerf at the very beginning of the game. Which is why characters should at least be given a month before we start character balance discussion. Id assume NRS wont make the same mistake twice.

And we're getting a knee jerk reaction, so...

Oh, just one? Jade is shit too. Ermac got nerfed, now he's mediocre. I don't think any of the characters who got legitimately nerfed are even in the top 15 now bar Raiden.

We'll have to see. I don't trust NRS to bring a big nerf that keeps a character viable.

 

[PwnStar]

NRS

Kano

Discussion over.

A worst case of over nerfing or over buffing does not justify a say all on how they impact games. You also have to blame both the whiners and the 'adapt fixes everything' crowd equally. NRS sees a valid complaint diluted with people ignoring it claiming to be 'pro-mentality' and you have casuals who are genuinely too lazy to learn. It becomes very hard for NRS (fairly new competitive gaming) to figure out who to listen to.

All sides of the community need to have proper understanding of when to buff and when to nerf and developers need to learn how to tell them apart. Right now their answer is to only ask tournament winners, which is a pretty good idea. But even many tournament players have incredibly dumb theories of design that will let other aspects about the game die in favor of how they play the game. Tom Brady's "Sub-Zero needs this inescapable reset after my 40% combo"...