Mortal Kombat (2011) Matchup Chart

[THTB]

I think it actually takes away from the variety in some ways. There are more than a few match-ups in SF in which the match has to be played a very specific way. There's no variety, if you want to have a good chance at winning, you have to follow strict rules of the match-up. I don't want that.

Honestly, MK9 is guaranteed to play like that. It has those specific factors that allow for this.

I think it's fun, because you're not just using a general gameplan for your character...you're also using a gameplan for the other character in relation to your own tools. No two matchups can be played the same. That's where the variety comes in, IMO.

 

[entrerix]

mk has always had some variation in matchup styles, now with sub zero doing ice clones, cage with his counter-xray, scorp with telepors, you're watching for different things coming from each enemy.

what remains to be seen is if it will have SF level of matchup styles, is there a zangief of mk? We can see from videos that some characters in mk9 will be more zoning vs rushdown, but will we see characters built around pokes? grabs? mixups?

one worry i have is that mk9 is going to minimize the value of good pokes. I can play guile using just his c.mk, c.fp, and his standing fierce and get pretty far, from playing the mk demo i worry about the value of the normals and wonder if the footsies will be limited to primarily combo setups. of course, maybe some characters will be more built around a poking style and we just haven't seen that yet. (my fingers crossed for this, guile and chun are my favorite sf characters because of how awesome their normals are)

I'm not a high level player though, so maybe an mk pro can explain their view on the mk9 demo and how they see footsies in mk.

 

[DrDogg]

I view MK more like Tekken than SF, where footsies become pokes to start frame traps.

You throw out normals in SF to look for counterhits, score some damage and maybe get a 2-in-1. In Tekken, you throw out jabs and the like to either knock an opponent out of the air if they attempt a jumping attack, or to gain frame advantage for another setup. I think MK follows the Tekken formula more than the SF formula in this case.

 

[MKF30]

MK has always been about match ups for the most part, a lot of fighters are except some. MK is older then Tekken but not older then SF, yet different then both. If anything I'd say Tekken is like MK in that respect, otherwise totally different to me anyway.

MK9 is looking to be one of the most balanced MK's yet but I'm sure it'll have tons of good match ups/bad match ups.

 

[MKK hanzo]

Every fighting game is matchup based. Anything other than a matchup based game would be MK4 without special moves which doesn't exist.

Exactly. Agree 100000000000000%

 

[THTB]

I have no idea how you can view MK like Tekken, when Tekken doesn't have projectiles, teleports, and anti-projectile moves that have actual impact to the game itself...but that's just me. I think you're 100% excluding that particular factor.

 

[DrDogg]

I have no idea how you can view MK like Tekken, when Tekken doesn't have projectiles, teleports, and anti-projectile moves that have actual impact to the game itself...but that's just me. I think you're 100% excluding that particular factor.

In terms of basic gameplay mechanics, Tekken is nothing like MK aside from the way the juggle and combo system work (the combo system to a lesser extent). In my last reply, I was specifically referring to how footsies work. In SF you can win a match based on footsies alone. It's your ability to out-poke your opponent and that can lead to big damage over time. I don't believe this is the case with MK.

In Tekken, footsies basically translate to pokes. Pokes in Tekken are primarily used to knock an opponent out of the air, or grant frame adv so you can setup another attack. This is how I view MK footsies/pokes at the moment.

 

[Luxus Nights]

Holy crap, Sonya looks pretty beast in that vid. Her dive kick move has a nice arc to it, very cool.

Reptile is looking pretty good too but he looks very defensive, more so than in older MK games.

I agree, but I think Reptile does have huge potential in a rush down style/zoning play-style.

all in all Rep looks solid.

 

[BATFIM]

First of all I'm a Tekken player and I have no past experiences of MK, but I'll tell you this: the more tools (moves) each character has and the more similarities there are between different character's moves, the less matchup based a game is. This can be clearly seen in games such as Tekken and Virtua Fighter, where each character has more than 100 moves in their list. Many 2D fighters including SF have less moves per character and therefore is more of a matchup-based game. It should be noted that the dimensions of the game itself doesn't play a part in this, it just happens to be a trend that 2D fighter have less moves than in 3D games.

Now some people in this thread are saying that all games are match-up based because you need to learn defending against all character. That is true, but it isn't what is meant here as being match-up based. What is meant here, is defined as your chances succeeding with a certain character against another certain character, specifically when player skill isn't taken into account. The more these chances differ based on the match-up, the more math-up based the game is. Sure in Tekken some characters will have a harder time dealing with certain characters, but usually it is due to overall tier-differences and not match-up.

Now I can already 100% guarantee that MK9 is and will be a match-up based game. There are huge differences in characters having projectiles, teleport and useful XRAY moves; approx half of the cast seems to have a regular mid XRAY, but if you look at Sindel with low XRAY and some characters with unblockable throw XRAY, that definitely is going to be an advantage to them. Also take into account which XRAYs can be comboed into.

Atm, Johnny Cage seems to be quite bad since he doesn't have teleport, direct projectile nor a offensive XRAY so I would expect him to do badly against all characters who have the tools he is missing.

Ps. I still don't have a copy of the full game.

 

[Bushido]

Can somebody give me a quick run down on how to understand this? I'm pretty new to fighting games but i really want to learn from you guys.

 

[WhiteN0ise]

Can somebody give me a quick run down on how to understand this? I'm pretty new to fighting games but i really want to learn from you guys.

Ok, I'll make this realllllllyyyyyyy simple

EDIT: Welllll, I tried lol

Matchup-based games (Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat, apparently) are like Rock-Paper Scissors. In matchup-based games, one character has a distinct advantage over another character, like rock has over scissors, or sometimes, not so much of an advantage, like rock and rock. A rock-scissors matchup is very hard to win, like the Sagat-Zangief matchup in vanilla SF4. That match is 9-1 in Sagat's favor, meaning, if two players of equal skill play each other using those characters, Sagat will win 9 times out of 10. Now, it's not as cut and dry as rock-scissors, but it's close, especially in that case, probably one of the most slanted matchups in the history of fighting games, honestly. Zangief can still win, but he has to play PERFECTLY, and Sagat has to screw up a LOT, and Zangief has to know how to take advantage of those mistakes. Other matchups aren't as severe, like say, Guile and Bison in Super (Guile is 7-3 over Bison). The same idea is there, that the worse part of the matchup needs to play exceptionally well and the better part needs to make some mistakes that need to be capitalized upon, but it's possible for Bison to pull out a win with enough effort. Then there are 5-5 matchups (like rock-rock, if ties went to a coin flip or something), like Honda and Balrog in Super, where both players have an equal chance of winning, and it comes down to player ability and character knowledge.

However, system-based games (Tekken, Soul Calibur, Virtua Fighter) are like chess. The system, meaning move properties, character movement, combos, etc., make up the board and pieces, and the players do all the heavy lifting using knowledge of both that system, and the characters they are both using and playing against, much like a chess player uses his pieces and how they move, as well as the tendencies of his opponent in order to devise a strategy to win. In system-based games, there are bad matchups (like Steve-Jack 6 in Tekken 6), but the disadvantages one character has can be overcome using different elements of the system, like sidestepping Steve's moves at the right time, and using Jack-6's superior range to his advantage, and a "bad matchup" would be the equivalent of maybe a 6-4 in a matchup-based game. In Tekken specifically (I use Tekken because that's the only one I know well enough to use, really), Nobody really blames a loss on a bad matchup. You messed up your combos, you didn't punish properly, you didn't move right, YOU basically didn't do something in order to win. In vanilla SF4, it's fairly acceptable for a Zangief player to blame losing to a Sagat player on the fact that he's really not even supposed to have much of a chance in the first place.

Tier Lists are also derrived from different criteria as well. In matchup based games, there's a much more scientific method for derriving tiers. Usually, matchups are all given a total value of 10, and you get one point for each match out of 10 you're supposed to win (Sagat would get 9 for the Zangief matchup, for example), and then you add up all your points from all your matchups, and that's your score. Based on how many matchups there are, tiers will be separated by a given score range, so tiers are a lot more set in stone, and change as new strategies are developed with characters to change matchups. In system-based games, it's much less concrete. Tiers are more based on how well characters utilize their tools in the system provided by the game to beat other characters. Steve is a counter hit machine, and he's extremely fast, and not very punishable. As such, he utilizes the system very well, so he's considered top tier. Kuma, on the other hand, is big, slow, and has slow moves, so he's considered low tier because he can't utilize the system very well. That being said, there are still plenty of Kuma players who do well at tournaments (ATL Clint, iEatBamboo), and there are a lot of Steve players who don't do well at all, like my friend, who shall remain nameless, while it's very rare that you hear about a Dan or Makoto player win a Super tournament, unless it's someone like Justin Wong playing a bunch of people way below his skill level.

In short. Matchup-based fighters=Rock, Paper, Scissors, and system-based fighters=Chess. I hope this helps clear up any confusion you may have had

 

[Bushido]

Thank you SO much!, that really helped me mate.

 

[DrDogg]

Atm, Johnny Cage seems to be quite bad since he doesn't have teleport, direct projectile nor a offensive XRAY so I would expect him to do badly against all characters who have the tools he is missing.

Ps. I still don't have a copy of the full game.

When Cage has x-ray, it completely changes the way the opponent has to play. He also has a better pressure game than half the cast, and multiple safe launchers. I think he's got all of the tools he needs.

 

[BATFIM]

When Cage has x-ray, it completely changes the way the opponent has to play. He also has a better pressure game than half the cast, and multiple safe launchers. I think he's got all of the tools he needs.

Well tbh how will Johnny's XRAY make the opponent play any different than most other characters with full bar? Similarly with another character the opponent is going to avoid being possibly interrupted by the XRAY (especially since they have armor qualities). So in that aspect it is generally quite on par with most other regular mid XRAYs but the disadvantage with it is that you can't combo into it, practically making it impossible to use in a guaranteed situation.

As for the other stuff you said about JC's tools, I must take your word for it since I really haven't played with him at all.

 

[DanCock]

Johnny cage is extremely sold. high tier for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tprestage]

Yea, cage is amazing. It's obvious you don't have the game.

 

[THTB]

Well tbh how will Johnny's XRAY make the opponent play any different than most other characters with full bar? Similarly with another character the opponent is going to avoid being possibly interrupted by the XRAY (especially since they have armor qualities). So in that aspect it is generally quite on par with most other regular mid XRAYs but the disadvantage with it is that you can't combo into it, practically making it impossible to use in a guaranteed situation.

As for the other stuff you said about JC's tools, I must take your word for it since I really haven't played with him at all.

There are VERY few moves in the entire game that actually beat out Cage's X-Ray. It's not just the factor of being unable to pressure him, but also the fact that you have to be careful in how you try to stop his pressure since you could eat an X-Ray in the process, which leads to some significant damage.

 

[BATFIM]

There are VERY few moves in the entire game that actually beat out Cage's X-Ray. It's not just the factor of being unable to pressure him, but also the fact that you have to be careful in how you try to stop his pressure since you could eat an X-Ray in the process, which leads to some significant damage.

I'm still definitely not convinced about his XRAY being superioir in any way, what you're saying is pretty much what I thought initially when I was playing the demo but later realized it really isn't that effective. How doesn't this apply most of the other XRAYs in the game? For a regular XRAY with armor qualities: you're going to try to land it 1. in a combo 2. when the opponent is moving without blocking 3. or when you interrupt an opponents attack midway the impact animation. For JC's only #3 is going to work and the window for it to work in practice is really short, not longer than most regular mid XRAY window since the animation on whiff is easily to be recognised and obviously a player who knows what he's doing isn't going to fall for it on that situation anymore.

 

[rikana]

I've actually been thinking about this for a while. I know this an be applied in many games but I just wonder how people deal with it or if a solution can be brought up about match ups and counterpicks.

I'll try to explain - I'm pretty sure Sub Zero is a pretty hard match up for Cage so I'll be referring to them. Say A mains JC (Cage) and B mains RE (Reptile). In a tournament, some people would purposely wait for you to pick a character just so they can pick the counterpick. So the character select begins. Player A just went straight ahead and picked JC. Although Player B mains RE, B knows that his SZ is decent enough (knows the BnBs and such) which influences his decision on choosing SZ instead. And because the match up is insanely hard for A (lets just say 9-1 for example) that even a brain dead player that plays a mediocre SZ can defeat Player A.

I know you have to take into consideration of experience and such but lets remove that factor and just talk about this situation.

How would we prevent people from just picking a character that may have such a bad match up that even casuals can defeat them? I was thinking, maybe a rock-paper-scissor match before selecting a character. Winner picks a character after loser.

Thoughts?

I'm still definitely not convinced about his XRAY being superioir in any way, what you're saying is pretty much what I thought initially when I was playing the demo but later realized it really isn't that effective. How doesn't this apply most of the other XRAYs in the game? For a regular XRAY with armor qualities: you're going to try to land it 1. in a combo 2. when the opponent is moving without blocking 3. or when you interrupt an opponents attack midway the impact animation. For JC's only #3 is going to work and the window for it to work in practice is really short, not longer than most regular mid XRAY window since the animation on whiff is easily to be recognised and obviously a player who knows what he's doing isn't going to fall for it on that situation anymore.

I don't see JC's Xray as superior but it definitely is a game changer (mentality wise). With a full meter, you can either pressure your opponent and make sure he makes the right decisions or use it for a breaker. Its sort of a win-win in JC's case. The pressure is applied quite heavily. ANY sort of physical contact is going to lead to JC's Xray. All the opponent can rely on is projectiles from a distance or disjointed hitboxes. (NS [Noob Saitbot] seems extremely useful in this case with his mounts of mixups and ranged attacks).

JC up in your face is already going to be a lot of pressure especially if he has a full meter. And if what I read was true (something about his launchers being safe), that would be an extremely scary mix up.

 

[~NAKM~]

Good shit with this deep shit! Keep it up! opcorn:

 

[NuSix3]

Matchup-based games (Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat, apparently) are like Rock-Paper Scissors. In matchup-based games, one character has a distinct advantage over another character, like rock has over scissors, or sometimes, not so much of an advantage, like rock and rock. A rock-scissors matchup is very hard to win, like the Sagat-Zangief matchup in vanilla SF4. That match is 9-1 in Sagat's favor, meaning, if two players of equal skill play each other using those characters, Sagat will win 9 times out of 10. Now, it's not as cut and dry as rock-scissors, but it's close, especially in that case, probably one of the most slanted matchups in the history of fighting games, honestly. Zangief can still win, but he has to play PERFECTLY, and Sagat has to screw up a LOT, and Zangief has to know how to take advantage of those mistakes. Other matchups aren't as severe, like say, Guile and Bison in Super (Guile is 7-3 over Bison). The same idea is there, that the worse part of the matchup needs to play exceptionally well and the better part needs to make some mistakes that need to be capitalized upon, but it's possible for Bison to pull out a win with enough effort. Then there are 5-5 matchups (like rock-rock, if ties went to a coin flip or something), like Honda and Balrog in Super, where both players have an equal chance of winning, and it comes down to player ability and character knowledge.

I understand how Tekken works and all, but I'm a complete SF nub. This is a great explanation but can someone give an example as to what gives Sagat such a heavy advantage over Zangief? One would assume all fighting games have a basic strategy that defies all matchups. Sorry to bring SF back up but I just want to have a better idea of how people are comparing it to MK.

 

[Yuna]

I understand how Tekken works and all, but I'm a complete SF nub. This is a great explanation but can someone give an example as to what gives Sagat such a heavy advantage over Zangief? One would assume all fighting games have a basic strategy that defies all matchups. Sorry to bring SF back up but I just want to have a better idea of how people are comparing it to MK.

Zangief has no way to approach Sagat. Between Sagat's lightning-fast fireball and his long-range, high-priority normals, he can keep Zangief away from him all day.

 

[cyke_out]

How would we prevent people from just picking a character that may have such a bad match up that even casuals can defeat them? I was thinking, maybe a rock-paper-scissor match before selecting a character. Winner picks a character after loser.

Thoughts?

Most tournaments have a blind character selction rule in place. You tell the judge who you are picking secretively and your opponent does the same. so then you both have to select the character you picked without knowing who the opponent is playing beforehand.

Of course after the first game, the loser has the option of re-picking while the winner must stay with his current character. And the loser is free to counter-pick all he wants.

 

[cyke_out]

I understand how Tekken works and all, but I'm a complete SF nub. This is a great explanation but can someone give an example as to what gives Sagat such a heavy advantage over Zangief? One would assume all fighting games have a basic strategy that defies all matchups. Sorry to bring SF back up but I just want to have a better idea of how people are comparing it to MK.

Zangief has no real threats at long range, no projectiles, no advancing moves, nothing. He does insane damage from close being a grappler and having unblockable command throws. But sagat can easily keep Zangief at long range with fast fireballs to nulify Zangief's entire gameplan.

 

[Eazail]

Don't. Forget you can do hidden select now on MK so your opponent can't counter pick