Random VS Free Select

[MKB]

This is a general discussion thread for picking random VS picking whoever you want. No matter who I play or talk to about MK2, this topic inevitably comes up in the discussion. For some reason, this issue is never discussed in UMK3; but that's probably because there are twice as many characters to choose from which makes mastering all characters much more difficult than MK2. Before I give my two cents on the topic, I'll talk about both options as well as weigh their pros and cons.

Random Select
The good points here are that you get equal opportunity to work with all characters. You are not limited to just 1-2 strong guys and you become equally competent with all characters. Additionally, if both players random, it prevents counterpicking and promotes a sense of fairness for those players who may not be on the same skill level as another player. The downside to random? If one player randoms and the other does not, there is a possibility of getting counterpicked. The other big thing is that it doesn't necessarily allow you to develop consistency with specific characters.

Free Select
Off the top, the most obvious positive is being able to choose whoever who want and use your favorite or best characters. You also do not run the risk of getting a bad character matchup via random. Finally, you can counterpick the opponent. The downside to free selecting is that you could possibly limit yourself to only those characters you choose to use. If you run into an opponent who knows how to use all of the characters (and you don't,) you could easily find yourself counterpicked and be facing an uphill battle all day long.

So, what is my take on all of this? It depends on who you are playing with and what is at stake. There is no absolute answer and no best way to play the game. If you choose to random select all the time, go right ahead; but be prepared to suffer the consequences if you run into another person who doesn't abide by the same unwritten, imaginary ethical code of play. If you choose to free select, more power to you. When I play casuals, 99% of the time I am going to random select unless I am working on developing a particular character to make them better. Why? Because the matches don't count for anything serious and are just for fun; hence the term - casuals. If I am playing in a tournament match, especially offline, unless designated as random only, I am going to use free select. Why? It comes down to one simple factor. You want to put yourself in the best position to win.

 

[mortal_jason]

I think it's about balance. some people abide by the imaginary ethics code you referred to above. they think you have to random all the time or you basically "lose" just by free selecting whoever you want. I must admit I feel less pressure when I random. but for a while I was randoming about 95% I played and I just wasn't developing my best characters at all. one day it took til Match #50 before I got Kitana in random! was only when I started doing sets of my Kitana vs btbb99's Jax that my Kitana really improved because he's so good he forced me to. nowdays when I play friends we usually do a 20 set of a specific matchup and then another 20 randoms. that all said, randoms have def helped me work on my weaker characters. guys like Tsung, Kang, and Jax that I once was god awful with...I now enjoy using thanks to the experience gained from randoming.

the other issue that happens with randoms is the desyncing. it seems to happen w my connection more than others. so on my screen it looks like my opponent isn't trying, and on your screen it looks like I'm not doing anything either. this has caused some drama even with friends of mine. I'll recognize a desync and quit, and my opponent will think I was rage quitting coz on their screen they won.

overall though the most fun I have is in free select. I almost always start off alternating Kitana/Mileena. if I'm playing someone new in the lobby and I'm killing them, then I will switch to Cage/Reptile, or random. I love playing InsaneBoss/Niki's Mileena. I know he's gonna pick her 99% of the time and I don't care, coz I know he won't whine about me using the girls either. the best times I've had playing MK2 have been sets of Kitana vs Jax with friends like btbb and scorpangel. I guess what it all comes down to is your opponent and especially if they're friends, deciding beforehand what you guys wanna do.

as far as counterpicking goes...I don't mind. I free select Cage a lot, and everyones a freakin counterpick to poor JC...so you get used to it. also I enjoy when someone counters my Reptile with Sub-Zero or Mileena. if you love the game...you'll just be happy you have someone to play with

 

[NinjaGrinder]

I'm not a serious mk2 player and honestly I never was (I was 13-14, so I didn't dare to get too far to play).

But I love it. There isn't a scene for the game here so I never got any good, just above average, I played the hell out of mk2 back in the day but never seriously (with really good opponents). So whenever I play is casuals and I almost always random. I can random versus anyone here ( without a scene, there isn't anyone particularly good) and still win. Some other times if anyone wants to challenge me in a ft5-ft10, then I'll free select. But as much as I love the game, I don't take any match that much serious.

Nice topic, btw

 

[NinjaGrinder]

Idk, you say people get tired or lose skills and then you say the game character can't make mistakes or get tired. But then again, that character is controlled by... a person, who gets tired and loses skills

 

[Enenra]

There are too many characters I really don't want to ever learn or use for me to take part in this.

 

[MIKECALDWELL]

Even in poker, if someone tries to stall(turtle) you can call a clock on them after which they must act. Also, like fighting games, poker has the hyper-aggressive style (rushdown), but it's balanced out by other random elements of the game.

Turtling is a huge part of poker. They're called rocks or tight players, which is an accepted style in the community. All they do is sit back and wait for the nuts or other players to make mistakes. Poker is more balanced tho because this style tends to get bluffed out of pots quite often.

 

[MIKECALDWELL]

you're correct, but one of the most efficient, intelligent poker pros, Dan Harrington, can no longer win it all (he still wins) with the tight style. thing is ,though, that poker has plenty of mathematical elements to it, which can be used by math experts like harrington to make decisions. those types of decisions would be similar to frame data in fighting games. however, mk2 and mk9 have some of the worst design (and as a result frame data) of any of the 2d fighting games. styles of play become more or less "douchey" based on how the game is actually planned, and programmed; and fighting games can't be balanced if you aren't thorough with your design.

also, waiting for good hands in poker isn't the same as waiting in fighting games since waiting for good hands in poker has zero effect on action. A tight player's money goes into the pot the same as everyone else's. Gamesmanship or milking the clock is more comparable to turtling. However, like i said, when the usa played ghana in the world cup, and non soccer fans got a good look at "gamesmanship" as the ghanaian's rolled around on the pitch, in order to milk time, most of them said "fuck this game". Americans love action and gamble.

You don't think tight players have an affect on the overall action? It's hard to get anything out of a tight player, just as it's hard to bait out mistakes from a turtler. Players that give alot of action will often even make derogatory comments towards the tight players because they feel like they're the only ones taking any risks. The tight player's argument would be that he's not there to gamble. He's there to play smart and put himself in the best position to win. Sounds alot like some of the MK2 arguments I've heard.

To address your point about Harrington, tight play is still very effective in the 1/2 and 2/5 games. Harrington was most likely referring to higher stakes tourneys and cash games, in which case I would agree.

 

[Mikemetroid]

Is Cage Select the same as Free Select?

 

[MIKECALDWELL]

i said they have zero effect on the game because 1 tight player doesn't stop the action. if you're sitting there getting blinded and anted away waiting for premium hands then eventually you will go broke. that'd be like playing random mk2 and waiting until you get mileena, jax or kang until you start competing. in the long run, you will probably lose.

Tight players slow the action down, thus affecting the way everyone at the table plays. In cash games, it takes a long time to get blinded off in a 1/2 game, so I don't think this is even an issue. A tight style is normally the proper way to play a tournament. It depends on the structure of course. If it's a deep stack tourney with 30 min-1 hour levels, then it should be played tight. I've made it to the final table of casino tourneys and only played 1 or 2 hands. In lower limit cash games, tight is the only long term profitable way to play it. People with less experience are harder to outplay believe it or not, so if you bet you better have it.

 

[MKB]

Let's try to keep this on topic fellas.

 

[NinjaGrinder]

Yeah, what's with the sports/poker comparisons anyway? if you despise free select, counterpicking, turtling, spamming and/or doing whatever it takes to win in a videogame maybe you should relax and just play

 

[MIKECALDWELL]

Yeah, what's with the sports/poker comparisons anyway? if you despise free select, counterpicking, turtling, spamming and/or doing whatever it takes to win in a videogame maybe you should relax and just play

lol. Did the poker talk really bug you that much? Talk about needing to relax.

 

[MIKECALDWELL]

Back on topic. Let me ask you guys a question. Who's the better player? Say you always win the majority against someone when you pick Mileena, but when you pick any one of the other 11 characters they always get the best of you. Would you base your decision on the fact that you win when you pick your best, or that they have a more complete understanding of the game?

 

[mortal_jason]

LOL, no one would've beaten the shit out of you at the arcade if you didn't random (ethics code).
people NEVER randommed at the arcades around here- they ran to their favorite fighters and no one ever complained.

and for the love of god, using Mileena Jax and Kang does not give you an automatic win. of course it MAY improve your odds, but the fighter is only as good as the person controlling him/her. and even if you know your opponent is going to always use top-tier, then just counter with your best top-tier.

Mike, the person who wins the majority with 11 characters vs 1 will always have the better understanding of how the game works. and I'd think that if P1 owns P2 with 11 characters...chances are pretty low P1 would in fact have much trouble with P2's Mileena anyway unless we're talking about from Niki's point of view...

 

[MIKECALDWELL]

LOL, no one would've beaten the shit out of you at the arcade if you didn't random (ethics code).
people NEVER randommed at the arcades around here- they ran to their favorite fighters and no one ever complained.

and for the love of god, using Mileena Jax and Kang does not give you an automatic win. of course it MAY improve your odds, but the fighter is only as good as the person controlling him/her. and even if you know your opponent is going to always use top-tier, then just counter with your best top-tier.

Mike, the person who wins the majority with 11 characters vs 1 will always have the better understanding of how the game works. and I'd think that if P1 owns P2 with 11 characters...chances are pretty low P1 would in fact have much trouble with P2's Mileena anyway unless we're talking about from Niki's point of view...

We just look at things differently. When I play casual sets, I don't enjoy having to deal with the overpowered characteristics of the top 3 every match. That's why alot of us like random. We get to face a wide variety of different matchups to keep things interesting. It's not even about a code of ethics. If you enjoy facing top tier all day then more power to you, but it's not something I'll ever stick around for. It's all about having fun. It is a game after all. Very few people like playing 50 mileena mirrors or mileena vs kang.

The example I mentioned actually was a Niki reference, but there are others. You didn't really answer my question tho. If you beat a guy like Niki when he picks anyone but Mileena, but as soon as he picks her he always wins the majority, who is the better player?

 

[NinjaGrinder]

lol. Did the poker talk really bug you that much? Talk about needing to relax.

I wouldn't say it bugged me, as I didn't read it throughly LOL
its just out of place, videogames have nothing to do with sports/poker

 

[mortal_jason]

We just look at things differently. When I play casual sets, I don't enjoy having to deal with the overpowered characteristics of the top 3 every match. That's why alot of us like random. We get to face a wide variety of different matchups to keep things interesting. It's not even about a code of ethics. If you enjoy facing top tier all day then more power to you, but it's not something I'll ever stick around for. It's all about having fun. It is a game after all. Very few people like playing 50 mileena mirrors or mileena vs kang.

The example I mentioned actually was a Niki reference, but there are others. You didn't really answer my question tho. If you beat a guy like Niki when he picks anyone but Mileena, but as soon as he picks her he always wins the majority, who is the better player?

nah I don't think we look at things too differently. I don't disagree with anything you've said. believe me I get sick of Niki's Mileena after 50 straight matches vs her, thus why I started using all the fighters vs him, just to get some variety. even though I know I'm going to get destroyed using low tier vs that Mileena, I'm not so afraid to lose that I need to use my best fighters all the time. I enjoy it in moderation, but...50 matches vs the same character no matter who it is, gets old.

the better player is always the person who wins the majority with the 11 characters vs just 1. I think that's pretty clear. and btw your Mileena should do very well vs Niki's IMO. he pulls off combos successfully better than anyone, but other than that, his Mileena isn't that far above yours. not to mention IF you only used her 99% like he does, yours would in time hit his level anyway.

 

[MKB]

http://shoryuken.com/2012/04/20/arturo-sanchez-seth-killian-discuss-the-correlations-between-fighting-game-and-poker-skills-with-g4/

This isn't SRK

 

[aj1701]

It wasn't imaginary in the arcade days because if you were being a dick someone might beat the shit out of you.

That doesn't make it any less imaginary. I can only imagine it came up because someone would be really good with a certain character b/c they put in a lot of time, and the other players didn't like losing. Its interesting that this concept doesn't appear in MK9 at all. Is there a random select rule in UMK3/

 

[mortal_jason]

That doesn't make it any less imaginary. I can only imagine it came up because someone would be really good with a certain character b/c they put in a lot of time, and the other players didn't like losing. Its interesting that this concept doesn't appear in MK9 at all. Is there a random select rule in UMK3/

well said. if the person using random is dominating, they could care less that their opponent is using Mileena 100%. but when the randomer can't win a match, then it's time to invoke the imaginary random rule.

anyway I'm all for using each of the 12 characters, but there is no law about having to random, and there never was.

 

[aj1701]

People want to random because it allows for a wide variety of matchups, thus keeping things interesting. I only know of 2 or 3 people that would ever want to play the same matchup over and over. It's also much easier to play well with all 12 characters in MK2 due to the simplicity of the game, which is not the case in newer more complex games with larger rosters.

I understand for a causal setting, but in a tournement, shouldn't you be playing to win?

 

[MIKECALDWELL]

I understand for a causal setting, but in a tournement, shouldn't you be playing to win?

Tournaments are different. Everyone should pick their best character and run with him or her the whole time. I'll just never understand why certain people enjoy playing the same matchup over and over in casuals.

 

[aj1701]

Tournaments are different. Everyone should pick their best character and run with him or her the whole time. I'll just never understand why certain people enjoy playing the same matchup over and over in casuals.

Ah, I see. I thought the discussion was on random select for tournaments. I can totally see causuals having such a rule.

 

[MIKECALDWELL]

Ah, I see. I thought the discussion was on random select for tournaments. I can totally see causuals having such a rule.

It may have been referring to tournaments. I would have to read the original post again. I think a mixture of random and free select tournaments is the way to go in MK2. I do believe that random select is a better way to determine who the better player is tho. Like I said before, this would not be the case in the newer more complex games.

 

[mortal_jason]

It may have been referring to tournaments. I would have to read the original post again. I think a mixture of random and free select tournaments is the way to go in MK2. I do believe that random select is a better way to determine who the better player is tho. Like I said before, this would not be the case in the newer more complex games.

this thread wasn't talking about in tournaments, as far as I can tell.