The Argument Against Variation Lock

[BRUTALITY]

Look guys, this is the equivalent of switching Ultras in SFIV in a tournament setting. You can only change your ultra after you win if your opponent changes characters or their ultra. It's the only thing that makes sense in a serious tournament setting.

Changing your variation when you win whether or not your opponent changes anything is the equivalent to you changing your character after you win.

Every other serious fighting game community would read this thread and scoff at us.

none of this is an actual reason though. youre saying "Oh its tradition all games are like this we must be like this." smh

 

[TopTierHarley]

I see a lot of arguing saying variations are a "different" character, when all they do is add a special here or there. The normals are still the same.

 

[JDM]

Variation and Character needs to be locked.

 

[Eric The Scruffy]

@Paul the Octopus
Should Ryu mains be allowed to switch to Evil Ryu after winning? Why/Why Not? Please show your work.

Should characters in Injustice be allowed to switch their supers after winning? Why/Why not?

The answer is they should not, and more importantly they cannot, because it isn't in the game and therefore its a silly argument to have. There isn't an ultra select system in injustice and there isn't a variation system in SF4. There might be Ryu and Evil ryu but there also isn't a Guile and Evil Guile either so its a completely nonsensical point.

Haha, yes it does.

http://shoryuken.com/evo-player-guide/evo-additional-rules/

Ultra Street Fighter IV

• Game version: US Xbox 360
• Game Settings: Versus Mode, 99 Seconds, 2/3 Rounds, 2/3 Games, No Handicap
• The top 8 competitors will play 3/5 Matches.
• If the players do not agree on a stage within 15 seconds, the match will be random stage select.
• Winner may change ultra (only if opponent changes characters), but has to pick ultra first after loser picks character.

To be fair, I talked with Filipinoman about this and it seems like the ultra select rule is actually kind of arbitrary to the SF scene. Basically, the only reason they allow it is because in the old arcade cabinets the winner could still select their super variation even though they had character lock. I don't accept any argument that begins with the premise that "ultra doesn't matter" or "it doesn't change the matchup"...but it does seem like there wasn't really a huge amount of thought behind doing it this way. It largely stems from tradition.

 

[Braindead]

What about stop counter pick, and learn better your match ups ?

@Cossner

 

[coolwhip]

Ultimately we won't know until we get our hands on the game. But I think the safest bet to start with would be variation lock until we start understanding the game more.

This 100%. I'm actually surprised more people aren't stating the above.

What Slips said is exactly what I've been saying, and it is absolutely the safest bet. Keep in mind, EVO will take place some three months after the game is released. To avoid recreating what happened with Injustice, we need to play it safe at first. Then, as we understand the game further, we can weigh in the pros and cons and perhaps change the rules accordingly. But at first, I think character and variation lock for the winner makes the most sense.

 

[coolwhip]

Look guys, this is the equivalent of switching Ultras in SFIV in a tournament setting. You can only change your ultra after you win if your opponent changes characters or their ultra. It's the only thing that makes sense in a serious tournament setting.

No it isn't because we haven't played the game yet and don't understand how different the variations are. How can anyone claim this is the equivalent of anything when we don't know how this works quite yet? It might turn out to be, but we don't know that for sure.

Every other serious fighting game community would read this thread and scoff at us.

Nobody cares man. We need to stop with our inferiority complex. It's good that we're discussing this. This isn't nearly as straightforward as many are making it out to be. If other communities think we're idiots for doing so, then frankly, I don't give a fuck.

 

[DreadKnight1]

I might be starting to like this. I'm glad someone really spelled it out for people like me who didn't understand this POV.

4 steps may be too complicated for some people though.

It could delay tournaments if the loser expects the winner to chose character and variation first. And the winner would have to call the TO over to verify the rules.

rules are usually stated before the tournament starts or online beforehand from my previous experiences. i'm starting to like the idea too but it really depends on how balanced the variations are in general.

 

[Fractured_Shadow]

The winner shouldn't be able to change anything unless the opponent changes, then it should only be a variation change.

This is the most logical course of action. It discourages rampent counter-picking but keeps the loser in control (for the most part) of the next match.

The only thing that MUST happen is that IF the loser decides to change characters then the winn MUST blind pick his variation first.

 

[Fractured_Shadow]

Nobody cares man. We need to stop with our inferiority complex. It's good that we're discussing this. This isn't nearly as straightforward as many are making it out to be. If other communities think we're idiots for doing so, then frankly, I don't give a fuck.

I was just about to say this. The Variation Lock discussion needs to happen.

 

[Cossner]

@Cossner

????

 

[Paul the Octopus]

My initial instincts was that the winner can change their variation after the loser picks their character and be forced to pick their variation first. But it makes sense the variation should be locked if that's what they won with...Ultimately we won't know until we get our hands on the game. But I think the safest bet to start with would be variation lock until we start understanding the game more.

(...) What Slips said is exactly what I've been saying, and it is absolutely the safest bet. (...)

I agree this would probably be the safest choice. However, I don't think it's the best choice. Or at least I've yet to hear an argument for it that doesn't come back to "this is closest to what we've always done."

As mentioned earlier, the traditional counter picking procedure isn't perfect and we should improve it if we can. The traditional procedure is good in situations like this: Lex player goes to a tournament and meets a Sinestro round 1. Without counter picking, he's all but lost at the character select screen. By counter picking he increases the chance that player skill determines the winner rather than character choice. I'd argue counter picking is a bad thing in a situation likes this: Catwoman player plays a batgirl player round one and wins because the catwoman player is better. Batgirl player counterpicks aquaman and takes the rest of the set, despite being a worse player. In this case, player skill is not determining the winner - character choice is.

If we can promote the first thing and reduce the second one, I think that's a good outcome. Goes back to one of the principles I mentioned in my OP - ruleset should encourage player skill determining the winner, rather than character choice. I'd argue that even if two variations play quite differently, this is still the better procedure, as unintuitive as that may feel. Happy to hear other thoughts / be convinced.

The main situation I can think of where my proposal is inferior is if there is a character with two (or more) overpowering variations. If each variation's matchup chart is mostly 7-3s and only a couple 5-5s, then it'd be better to lock them in that variation than allow them to cover their 5-5s by switching variations and effectively creating an all 7-3 matchup chart. This may be what Slips is getting at. However, in a reasonably / somewhat balanced game I think allowing variation switching is better.

Separately, I think it's fine if rematches must be done exactly as is if the loser hits rematch because in that case no counter picking at all is done anyway.

 

[Scoot Magee]

It's always been standard for the winning player to stick with the character and whatever variation in every other game I know of. In 3s, sf4 and CVS2 the winning player could not change there character, character order, groove, super art and etc. I don't think it should be any different in MK9.

 

[coolwhip]

I agree this would probably be the safest choice. However, I don't think it's the best choice. Or at least I've yet to hear an argument for it that doesn't come back to "this is closest to what we've always done."

As mentioned earlier, the traditional counter picking procedure isn't perfect and we should improve it if we can. The traditional procedure is good in situations like this: Lex player goes to a tournament and meets a Sinestro round 1. Without counter picking, he's all but lost at the character select screen. By counter picking he increases the chance that player skill determines the winner rather than character choice. I'd argue counter picking is a bad thing in a situation likes this: Catwoman player plays a batgirl player round one and wins because the catwoman player is better. Batgirl player counterpicks aquaman and takes the rest of the set, despite being a worse player. In this case, player skill is not determining the winner - character choice is.

If we can promote the first thing and reduce the second one, I think that's a good outcome. Goes back to one of the principles I mentioned in my OP - ruleset should encourage player skill determining the winner, rather than character choice.

I'd argue that even if two variations play quite differently, this is still the better procedure. Feels unintuitive but it seems right to me. Happy to hear other thoughts / be convinced.

The main situation I can think of where my proposal is inferior is if there is a character with two (or more) overpowering variations. If each variations matchup chart is mostly 7-3s and only a couple 5-5s, then it'd be better to lock them in that variation than cover their 5-5s by switching variations and effectively creating an all 7-3 matchup chart. This may be what Slips is getting at. However, in a reasonably / somewhat balanced game I think allowing variation switching is better.

Separately, I think it's fine if rematches must be done exactly as is if the loser hits rematch because in that case no counter picking at all is done anyway.

The argument is simple: We don't know how the game plays yet and how the variations affect match-ups. When we do, we can definitely entertain rule changes. It's not that your points aren't valid but they're purely hypothetical for now.

 

[cyke_out]

Wonder why on UMVC3 you cant switch assists and chars orders?

For fucks sake dude, please knowwhat you are talking about before spouting misinformation, or at least read the link I posted from the Evo 2014 rule list.

Winner can switch character order in UMvC3. You can switch ultra in USF4. In any other game, where characters have different options, winner is allowed to change those options.

Why is this a thing? MKX's variations is not some new mechanic, why are some people treating this like it is.

 

[Perfect Legend]

In Street Fighter they only do character lock. You can change your Ultra whether you won or lost.

In my opinion Ultra's are the same as Variations as far as character individuality.

 

[coolwhip]

Why is this a thing? MKX's variations is not some new mechanic, why are some people treating this like it is.

Have you played the game? Do you know how big (or small) an impact will variations have? We don't know, so making an analogy to other games might not be entirely accurate. For example, Sub-Zero being able to put a clone on a screen may well change match-ups considerably. Likewise, Raiden being able to teleport, might change match-ups considerably. I'd argue this is more significant than changing ultra, but then again, I haven't played the game nor do I know how it works, which is why I'm arguing for character and variation lock and we'll revisit the debate a few months into the game once we start forming a clearer idea about how variations work.

People acting like this is some straightforward issue amuse me. IF it's a straightforward issue, then I'd argue it's only because we should start with a variation lock for the winner.

 

[Tony at Home]

The idea that this game will turn into a counter pick fest because of variations doesn't hold any water. We have zero evidence that variations are of a "rock paper scissors" nature, where one variation will 7-3 this while another will get 3-7'd, based strictly on the zoner, rushdown, counterzoner archetypes, where zoner > rushdown, counterzoner > zoner, rushdown > counterzoner, etc, etc. It's not going to be like that. It's evident the base character determines alot, and while variations may alleviate problems, they may be more adjusting the sails on the ship rather than turning the tides of the ocean.

As for "this will reduce counterpicking"

This anticipation doesn't work. Assuming variations DO work as easy counterpicks for any situation- thus enabling even the fiercest character specialists to counter pick with a new variation- this will not allow someone who is losing to counter their way to victory. It doesn't work mathematically

My game theory formulation
Each players has 3 variations, one that goes 5-5 with everything, and two others, that go either 7-3 or 3-7 with the two other variations of the other player. Basically, each player can voluntarily make it 5-5, or they can counter, though counter leaves them open to be countered back the next round.

1) First round, both are blind pick, so both players will go for their most balanced variation, guaranteeing a 5-5 as to not risk a bad matchup. So long as at least one palyer doesn't defect, it is 5-5/
2) Player A defeats player B in the first round of a 5-5 matchup, therefore the most skilled player won.
3) Player B defects and counter picks because they lost, and chooses a proper counter
4) Player A is locked in place, unable to do anything about the counter
5) Player B defeats player A.
6) Player A is now able to counter-counter-pick while player B is locked in
7) Player A wins.

Even with variation locked on both sides, counter picking doesn't have any effectiveness so long as the ability to counter is equal on all sides. the player who is able to win 5-5 matchups will still overcome the player who can only win when the matchup is in their favor.

And all this is still ASSUMING the "rock paper scissors" counter picking scenario that everyone else is assuming from variations for some reason. I don't think it will even come to this. Injustice with its very diverse roster still has many characters that have a large abundance of 5-5 matchups. It's possible for characters to be very different without changing the odds of the match.

 

[WakeUp DP]

It's always been standard for the winning player to stick with the character and whatever variation in every other game I know of. In 3s, sf4 and CVS2 the winning player could not change there character, character order, groove, super art and etc. I don't think it should be any different in MK9.

This......

 

[cyke_out]

It's always been standard for the winning player to stick with the character and whatever variation in every other game I know of. In 3s, sf4 and CVS2 the winning player could not change there character, character order, groove, super art and etc. I don't think it should be any different in MK9.

Another wrong post with wrong info. You can change super in 3S. You can change ultra in SF4. You can change order in marvel. You can change moon in melts blood. You can change shit (to an extent) in any other game where shit can be changed.

 

[Tony at Home]

SF4 comparison is unfair.

Which Ultra is ideal for your character to use will change depending on which character your opponent uses, but it doesn't change depending on which Ultra they use.

Variations, just by their very nature, will change both based on the character of the opponent and their opponent's variation. There's no scenarios I'm aware of where an Ultra is chosen to counter another Ultra.

Variations are in every way different characters. Sub Zero Grandmaster vs Sub Zero Cyromancer is likely as different as Ken and Ryu. Probably even moreso different. The characters are really only the same "cosmetically" but we shouldn't assume they're the same character just because they're wearing the same duds.

 

[cyke_out]

Have you played the game? Do you know how big (or small) an impact will variations have? We don't know, so making an analogy to other games might not be entirely accurate. For example, Sub-Zero being able to put a clone on a screen may well change match-ups considerably. Likewise, Raiden being able to teleport, might change match-ups considerably. I'd argue this is more significant than changing ultra, but then again, I haven't played the game nor do I know how it works, which is why I'm arguing for character and variation lock and we'll revisit the debate a few months into the game once we start forming a clearer idea about how variations work.

People acting like this is some straightforward issue amuse me. IF it's a straightforward issue, then I'd argue it's only because we should start with a variation lock for the winner.

And this is a better answer than spouting wrong information about other games.

No I haven't played MKX, I don't know how extreme the variations are. But I have played other games with similar mechanics. Changing an ultra or an assist order or a groove/ moon phase can greatly affect the match up. Sure an ultra is one move, but it's a powerful move that changes things dramatically.

If we agree on the wait and see approach, then I believe we should stick to tradition and what has worked in the past for over a decade of competitive play. If for some reason, mkx is a completely new beast, then we can start discussing a move to variation lock.

 

[Killusion]

SF4 comparison is unfair.

Which Ultra is ideal for your character to use will change depending on which character your opponent uses, but it doesn't change depending on which Ultra they use.

Variations, just by their very nature, will change both based on the character of the opponent and their opponent's variation. There's no scenarios I'm aware of where an Ultra is chosen to counter another Ultra.

This is the important part in this conversation that some people are missing. Winner should not be able to change variation IMO.

 

[coolwhip]

And this is a better answer than spouting wrong information about other games.

No I haven't played MKX, I don't know how extreme the variations are. But I have played other games with similar mechanics. Changing an ultra or an assist order or a groove/ moon phase can greatly affect the match up. Sure an ultra is one move, but it's a powerful move that changes things dramatically.

If we agree on the wait and see approach, then I believe we should stick to tradition and what has worked in the past for over a decade of competitive play. If for some reason, mkx is a completely new beast, then we can start discussing a move to variation lock.

The problem with that is the following:

If you want a wait and see approach, you start with the safer option. I don't care about tradition since the MKX variation system might be a new beast. There is no real risk with variation lock. That's not to say that it will be the ideal solution (hence "wait and see") but you don't run the risk of a clusterfuck. However, if the variations turn out to make extreme changes to match-ups, then you absolutely risk a clusterfuck with counter-picking and mind games at the character select screen, and subsequently, the game will be off on the wrong foot and next thing you know, EVO will be a joke the way it was in Injustice with the 50/50 stage select rules.

That's why IMO, if we're going to wait and see, it only makes sense to take the less risky approach until we gather info about the game.

 

[Badboy Takuma]

char lock for whole tournament but freedom to choose variations anytime.
i love how players like daigo wins evo just using one main char the whole tournament.

stick with your main char and have the balls to face bad mu,s
believe in your mainchar and don't counter-pick like a bitch!
:--P