The Argument Against Variation Lock

[AK L0rdoftheFLY]

Here's my answer from earlier in the thread. The closest to it having to do with counter picks is the worry that the counter picks from allowing variant unlock will delay tournaments. I don't have a problem with the counter itself, just the delay.

The delay seems like a non-issue. It may take a minute for people to understand the rules, but I can't imagine it taking any longer than it has been. Once people know what their counters are based on the characters they play, it will be fairly quick if they go back to the select screen at all.

The difference between taking a variation picking your character same drastically different to me but what do I know? I have not played the game.

I agree completely with Jim.

I suppose as of now, you would be the authority on this. If you were to say the way you feel it is intended to be, then I'm sure the community would agree on a method.put the ball away kids, Steve has spoken

 

[16 Bit]

I am not a designer. It's not my place to say how the game is intended to be. Just my opinion as a player.

 

[Eddy Wang]

that is not what I am suggesting at all.

Know that what he is saying and what i am saying is different.

The winner may only change variation if the opponent changes character. I kind of agree with the no blind select peace now. This way loser always gets final counter pick.

To state one last time:

Winner is always character locked...
Winner is also variation locked unless the loser changes character.
If this happens, the winner must still select his variation first allowing the loser a chance to counter.
First match is only match that can be hidden select, random stage always.

This is what i've been saying since page 2, this is what we all have to agree, somehow someone who came out of no where stated that winner should change variations whenever he feels like, i was like" dafuq is wrong with this thread"

 

[AK L0rdoftheFLY]

I still think my way is better

 

[Vandy]

Nice thread I am glad to see this being discussed. From my point of view possible tournament delay time is not much of a factor. It is whether you as the winner should be locked into everything about the last match or not, but there is precedent for both ways in different games (SF Ultra change, Marvel assist change + team order). I can see it going either way - and there needs to be a consensus established for the first few tournaments.

But now that I'm here let's talk about 2/3 vs 3/5.

P.S. 3/5

 

[Jim]

The delay seems like a non-issue. It may take a minute for people to understand the rules, but I can't imagine it taking any longer than it has been. Once people know what their counters are based on the characters they play, it will be fairly quick if they go back to the select screen at all.

The difference between taking a variation picking your character same drastically different to me but what do I know? I have not played the game.


I suppose as of now, you would be the authority on this. If you were to say the way you feel it is intended to be, then I'm sure the community would agree on a method.put the ball away kids, Steve has spoken

I'm not saying the delay would be the worst thing. That was only in relation to counter picking. My main point is the tools are different enough that switching variants makes it different enough that you are basically letting the winner pick between two other characters. If we let that then why character lock at all?

 

[Paul the Octopus]

It isn't that we don't see your side, it's that we don't agree with it. My reasons for wanting variant lock have nothing to do with counter picking. There isn't something you haven't explained enough, we get it but don't agree. There are many good reasons to have variant lock that both myself and others have pointed out several times in this thread.

We can have a normal discussion without you talking down to people who don't agree with you.

If we shouldn't have variant lock, then why should we have character lock? If you think variant lock would only be continuing meaningless tradition then why should we continue that tradition?

That's fair. I agree the delay issue is ambiguous and there's no clear answer. Obviously you are very welcome to disagree and its a valid concern. I have the opposing view but clearly either of us could end up being right.

Sorry if I came off as condescending. Didn't intend to be. But if you read the thread I think you will find that there are plenty of people that don't understand the counter picking point (mostly people who seem to not be reading the thread, yet have strong opinions). That's where my frustration was coming from.

 

[AK L0rdoftheFLY]

I'm not saying the delay would be the worst thing. That was only in relation to counter picking. My main point is the tools are different enough that switching variants makes it different enough that you are basically letting the winner pick between two other characters. If we let that then why character lock at all?

I got you. I guess I'm just hoping that the variations are slight modifications. I guess we'll just have to wait and see

 

[HeroesNZ]

I still feel that Character Lock is the way forward. I feel like we should be embracing the new Variation mechanic as opposed to shunning it with a Variation Lock.

My main point is the tools are different enough that switching variants makes it different enough that you are basically letting the winner pick between two other characters. If we let that then why character lock at all?

Except the winner will only get to pick between two variants, if the loser changes character - and even then, the loser gets the final choice and thus holds the advantage. It's actually not hugely different to what we do already.

With Variation Lock, the Loser would get to pick a character and a variation while the winner is stuck. How is this any different to the loser getting to pick a character and a stage in Injustice/MK9?

 

[Swindle]

Well actually he explained himself and it jn fact was different from this.

Reading is as simple as it comes simpleton.

I was stating my opinion. We're all different, and that's okay. No need to judge me by my inner city education, or the color of my skeen. We're all sisters under the Lord

 

[Under_The_Mayo]

Agreed, winner can change variation only after loser selects new character but before loser selects that characters variation.

Simple, easy to understand, and the way it's done in other games.

i like the simplicity of this.

Loser picks character - Winner picks variation - Loser picks variation

 

[coolwhip]

Here is my thing:

If I'm playing against someone and they beat me in the first game, the idea is to see if I can come back and adjust, be it through sticking to my character, or changing characters. Regardless of my choice, I am supposed to adapt to the player/character, their tools, their decision making, etc... off of the game they just beat me. If that player is allowed to change variations, I am no longer adapting to what just beat me. I have to take in mind a whole new set of tools and playing style, since my opponent will be playing somewhat differently given that he has new tools at his disposal. So I just lost to something in match 1, and instead of adapting to whatever that was, I have to deal with something else in match 2. I think that kind of defeats the purpose.

I'm sure some variations will have less of an impact than others, but even without playing the game, I don't think it's far-fetched to assume that a Sub-Zero who can place an ice clone on screen is significantly different to a Sub-Zero that doesn't. So if I lose to Sub Zero's variation that gives him a sword (whatever it's called), and I go pick a rushdown character, I am quite screwed if the Sub player picks the grandmaster variation (the one with ice clone). Again, this is just an example. I don't know how the game works or anything, but I'm just trying to portray a general idea.

 

[Paul the Octopus]

It isn't that we don't see your side, it's that we don't agree with it. My reasons for wanting variant lock have nothing to do with counter picking. There isn't something you haven't explained enough, we get it but don't agree. There are many good reasons to have variant lock that both myself and others have pointed out several times in this thread.

We can have a normal discussion without you talking down to people who don't agree with you.

If we shouldn't have variant lock, then why should we have character lock? If you think variant lock would only be continuing meaningless tradition then why should we continue that tradition?

Wanted to respond to your other point - why stop at variation lock. I think this is a really good point too.

To be honest, I would have no problem eliminating character lock too. I would have mentioned this as an alternative, but I thought this would be too radical a suggestion, everyone would have a knee-jerk reaction, say no, and stop listening. In theory, double blind (character, variation, and stage) pick every round is the best ruleset for determining the best player. @ChaosTheory brought this up a few pages ago, and I think he's right. Having any other counterpick procedure (including mine) gives an advantage to the loser. This promotes closer sets but doesn't increase the chance of the better player winning. I think this point is actually not debatable, but I could be missing something.

The ambiguity comes in because having the better player win is not the only objective (although I'd argue it should be the most important one). As you say, delays/practical considerations definitely matter. Tradition/fun matters too, although I don't think it should drive the decision for a tournament rule. My suggestion is the mix of these objectives that I think is best but obviously it's an opinion and not fact.

Happy to have a good discussion and talk about valid points. Unfortunately 80%+ of the posts in this thread are not remotely well reasoned (am I being an asshole again? I think this is a fair statement but maybe not).

 

[Paul the Octopus]

Here is my thing:

If I'm playing against someone and they beat me in the first game, the idea is to see if I can come back and adjust, be it through sticking to my character, or changing characters. Regardless of my choice, I am supposed to adapt to the player/character, their tools, their decision making, etc... off of the game they just beat me. If that player is allowed to change variations, I am no longer adapting to what just beat me. I have to take in mind a whole new set of tools and playing style, since my opponent will be playing somewhat differently given that he has new tools at his disposal. So I A) just lost to something in match 1, and instead of adapting to that something, I have to deal with something else in match 2. I think that kind of defeats the purpose.

I'm sure some variations will have less of an impact than others, but even without playing the game, I don't think it's far-fetched to assume that a Sub-Zero who can place an ice clone on screen is significantly different to a Sub-Zero that doesn't. So if I lose to Sub Zero's variation that gives him a sword (whatever it's called), and I go pick a rushdown character, I am quite screwed if the Sub player picks the grandmaster variation (the one with ice clone). Again, this is just an example. I don't know how the game works or anything, but I'm just trying to portray a general idea.

It's not as if playing multiple characters (/variations) at a high level is easy though. If your opponent can play a wide variety of characters and stay one step ahead of you throughout a set, isn't he a better player and deserving of the win?

I think your example presumes that the opponent should be standing still (figuratively) while you adapt to him/her, but why must that be so? Isn't it at least equally valid that your opponent should be allowed to adapt alongside of you, and try to stay one step ahead?

 

[haketh]

Question, have any of you that are for variation lock played any games that have had variations before *SamSho, Melty, Arcana, Dark Awake ETC*

 

[coolwhip]

It's not as if playing multiple characters (/variations) at a high level is easy though. If your opponent can play a wide variety of characters and stay one step ahead of you throughout a set, isn't he a better player and deserving of the win?

I think your example presumes that the opponent should be standing still (figurativly) while you adapt to him/her, but why must that be so? Isn't it at least equally valid that your opponent should be allowed to adapt alongside of you, and try to stay one step ahead?

Now you're kinda reaching. There's a reason character lock exists.

My opponent doesn't stand still while I adapt to him. IF I adapt to him (and it's not like I have 35 tries), he can switch characters. Basically, if the situation you're describing exists (my opponent plays multiple characters at a high level and should beat me), then him winning the first match guarantees just that. If I beat him the second match, he can switch characters and there you have it. He wins 2-1 (or 3-1/3-2 if it's a ft3).

Moreover, the idea is, the winner sticks with what works. So he should have no reason to change characters.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

I'm sure some variations will have less of an impact than others, but even without playing the game, I don't think it's far-fetched to assume that a Sub-Zero who can place an ice clone on screen is significantly different to a Sub-Zero that doesn't. So if I lose to Sub Zero's variation that gives him a sword (whatever it's called), and I go pick a rushdown character, I am quite screwed if the Sub player picks the grandmaster variation (the one with ice clone). Again, this is just an example. I don't know how the game works or anything, but I'm just trying to portray a general idea.

Assuming you win that match, he'll pick the clone anyway. Then you'll lose and be down 2-1 and be stuck in the same situation.. With your best option (by your strategy) being to hard-counterpick the clone variation again. What a mess. You didn't avoid the problem; you just allowed the same tactic to be used against you when you're already behind.

Which might mean that if you can't play a completely new character, with an entirely new moveset/mobility pattern/meta, well enough to beat someone who has 90% of the same normals and specials, and has changed just a couple of them.. Maybe you shouldn't have attempted to counterpick in the first place

But to be honest, this is still Mortal Kombat -- it's not like Sub destroyed every single rushdown character in MK9.

 

[coolwhip]

Assuming you win that match, he'll pick the clone anyway. Then you'll lose and be down 2-1 and be stuck in the same situation.. With your best option (by your strategy) being to hard-counterpick the clone variation again. What a mess. You didn't avoid the problem; you just allowed the same tactic to be used against you when you're already down.

Good on him. That's the advantage he's earned by actually winning the first match. He earned it. What you're essentially saying is "you're going to lose the set anyway if he goes to the clone" so he should be allowed to do it and beat you 2-0 instead. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Otherwise and judging by the second paragraph you wrote, let's get rid of character lock to begin with.

The problem is you guys are going on some anti-counterpicking agenda. That's not what this should be based on.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Good on him. That's the advantage he's earned by actually winning the first match. He earned it. What you're essentially saying is "you're going to lose the set anyway if he goes to the clone" so he should be allowed to do it and beat you 2-0 instead. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Otherwise and judging by the second paragraph you wrote, let's get rid of character lock to begin with.

The problem is you guys are going on some anti-counterpicking agenda. That's not what this should be based on.

If I am changing my entire moveset, it's still a counterpick. Presumably I have more completely new options than you do.

And depending on how the picks happen (say they're blind) where's the guarantee that your opponent will go up 2-0 if allowed to change variation? You should still have the counterpick advantage as you're allowed to make a much more drastic change.

 

[Paul the Octopus]

Good on him. That's the advantage he's earned by actually winning the first match. He earned it. What you're essentially saying is "you're going to lose the set anyway if he goes to the clone" so he should be allowed to do it and beat you 2-0 instead. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Otherwise and judging by the second paragraph you wrote, let's get rid of character lock to begin with.

The problem is you guys are going on some anti-counterpicking agenda. That's not what this should be based on.

Can you please explain why you believe counterpicking is a good thing? What tangible benefits are you trying to achieve with a counterpick rule?

I am actually not against counterpicking, as I said before (and put in the OP for convenience). I think there are advantages and disadvantages. For me the advantage is that if you are a good player who got unlucky in the double blind pick in the first game, and lost as a result, you have the opportunity to switch characters and still win (if you are indeed the better player).

The other argument for counterpicking, as @cyke_out nicely explained is that it makes sets closer. I think a little bit of this is ok but too much of it is bad. To me, making 3/5 sets devolve into a set where the first game matters and the rest go back and forth (purely determined by counterpick/character selection) is not a good thing. The set may be nominally closer but it's not interesting and boils down to a best of 1 (which can be flukey).

I am not aware of another argument for it, but it could definitely exist.

 

[coolwhip]

Can you please explain why you believe counterpicking is a good thing? What tangible benefits are you trying to achieve with a counterpick rule?

I am actually not against counterpicking, as I said before (and put in the OP for convenience). I think there are advantages and disadvantages. For me the advantage is that if you are a good player who got unlucky in the double blind pick in the first game, and lost as a result, you have the opportunity to switch characters and still win (if you are indeed the better player).

The other argument for counterpicking, as @cyke_out nicely explained is that it makes sets closer. I think a little bit of this is ok but too much of it is bad. To me, making 3/5 sets devolve into a set where the first game matters and the rest are determined by counterpick/character selection is not a good thing. The set may be nominally closer but it's not interesting and boils down to a best of 1 (which can be flukey).

I am not aware of another argument for it, but it could definitely exist.

Now we're going way off topic. I'm not dodging your question but this is going to turn into a philosophical debate about counter-picking. In short, I don't mind counter-picking because I don't have any strong feelings against it. It's simple. To me, I don't see counter-picking as this impure art that ruins fighting games, and thus, I don't have much against it. In other words, my not seeing any substantial disadvantages to counter-picking (I'm sure there are some, but nothing that ruins tournaments, on the whole) is why I'm not against it.

 

[HeroesNZ]

Here is my thing:

If I'm playing against someone and they beat me in the first game, the idea is to see if I can come back and adjust, be it through sticking to my character, or changing characters. Regardless of my choice, I am supposed to adapt to the player/character, their tools, their decision making, etc... off of the game they just beat me. If that player is allowed to change variations, I am no longer adapting to what just beat me. I have to take in mind a whole new set of tools and playing style, since my opponent will be playing somewhat differently given that he has new tools at his disposal. So I A) just lost to something in match 1, and instead of adapting to that something, I have to deal with something else in match 2. I think that kind of defeats the purpose.

I'm sure some variations will have less of an impact than others, but even without playing the game, I don't think it's far-fetched to assume that a Sub-Zero who can place an ice clone on screen is significantly different to a Sub-Zero that doesn't. So if I lose to Sub Zero's variation that gives him a sword (whatever it's called), and I go pick a rushdown character, I am quite screwed if the Sub player picks the grandmaster variation (the one with ice clone). Again, this is just an example. I don't know how the game works or anything, but I'm just trying to portray a general idea.

For the umpteenth time, the Winner would only be allowed to change Variations if the Loser changes character. If your main gripe with Character Lock is the adapting aspect, then simply don't switch characters. Also, there's no rule stating that the Winner must switch Variations. It's just as likely that they'll keep the winning formula and stick it out.

Not to mention there are 2 distinct rounds so it's not like you can't just adapt within the game (i.e. Round 1 is for testing stuff and seeing how they react, Round 2 is applying what you've learnt).

 

[Paul the Octopus]

Now we're going way off topic. I'm not dodging your question but this is going to turn into a philosophical debate about counter-picking. In short, I don't mind counter-picking because I don't have any strong feelings against it. It's simple. To me, I don't see any counter-picking as this impure art that ruins fighting games, and thus, I don't have much against it. In other words, my not seeing any substantial disadvantages to counter-picking (I'm sure there are some, but nothing that ruins tournaments, on the whole) is why I'm not against it.

Okay no problem. Let's stay on topic. Happy to hear your (and anyone else's) opinion on it in a separate thread, if there is interest. I think game design philosophy is interesting and that's why I made this thread to begin with.

 

[Brutal Chimney]

Now we're going way off topic. I'm not dodging your question but this is going to turn into a philosophical debate about counter-picking. In short, I don't mind counter-picking because I don't have any strong feelings against it. It's simple. To me, I don't see any counter-picking as this impure art that ruins fighting games, and thus, I don't have much against it. In other words, my not seeing any substantial disadvantages to counter-picking (I'm sure there are some, but nothing that ruins tournaments, on the whole) is why I'm not against it.

counter picking is legitmate strategy however forcing someone to be counter picked is honestly BS, your chance to adapt is during that round just like your opponents was

 

[coolwhip]

For the umpteenth time, the Winner would only be allowed to change Variations if the Loser changes character. If your main gripe with Character Lock is the adapting aspect, then simply don't switch characters. Also, there's no rule stating that the Winner must switch Variations. It's just as likely that they'll keep the winning formula and stick it out.

Not to mention there are 2 distinct rounds so you can adapt within the game.

For the umpteenth time, I know, I just don't agree. What part of my post implied that I don't understand this?

If I switch characters because I think it would give me a better chance of adapting, and my opponent switches variations, then I'm not longer adapting to what just beat me. In fact, I'm not doing much adaptation since I have to deal with something new now.

If you're going to be condescending and imply that someone misunderstood your point, make sure to spot the irony first.