The Argument Against Variation Lock

[RM xSTRANGERx]

I'd normally agree but I still think it's healthy to have a debate about this instead of waiting till the game is released and end up with a clusterfuck.

I wish we could take all the treads about this one topic and merge them into one. You know? I agree the topic needs to be duscussed. It's almost December. So we're not that far off. Lol. I was just being silly. IMO.. Variation and Character should lock. Isn't their a thread like this with a poll? Or no? If there isn't.. Which I'm pretty sure I remember one. But if not, we should add a vote to this one.

 

[aldazo]

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

This would be a dream come true .

 

[Perfect Legend]

This would be a dream come true .

I lived the dream 2011-2012

 

[RM xSTRANGERx]

I lived the dream 2011-2012

What are your thoughts, Carl? Do you think variation lock is needed? Or just character?

 

[Jim]

have you already played mkx?

I have and agree with his statement.

 

[THTB]

It shouldn't be.

They debated this years ago. They found it was fine.

The difference between variations and ultra selection is that there's literally only 1 move changing, the ultra. Variations have different specials, and even different normals. While it may alter matchups slightly with some characters, the vast majority of the SFIV cast only uses one ultra religiously anyway. Variations are practically guaranteed to massively alter matchups as if you were dealing with a different character entirely. Not to mention, the arcade version allows the winner to select a different ultra, so the rule lines up with arcade mode defaults. That's how most FGs roll, actually...operating off of arcade/arcade mode defaults. Because most MK games' arcade modes allow you to reselect characters as the winner, it's a major outlier in the winner change rules as tournaments follows the winner stays rule instead.

 

[haketh]

I personally do not care what other games have done since this could well be different. If it turns out that it's not that different, then we can change things to the way other games do it. No harm done.

If it's "No harm done" then why not follow the precedent set by multiple other games that actually change more things than what we've seen in MKX so far? We haven't seen the full set of variations yet true but we know systems aren't changing & in all those other games to do variations SYSTEMS not just moves but meter, life, Guts, movements, defensive System options & more changed.

 

[aldazo]

Match 1:
Players pick characters and double blind pick variations.

Match 2: (the loser has 2 options)
1) Loser can choose to pick another variation of their first character while winner is locked into the same character and variation.
2) If the loser decides to pick another character, then the winner is now unlocked fom their first variation but is still locked into their character until they lose. Blind pick of variation is still required.

Match 3 and on follow the same rules as above.

If blind pick does not exist, then the winner must always pick their character first. Once the loser picks their character, the winner always picks their variation first.

Stages are always random.

This is by far the best set of rules. *Thumbs up*.

 

[TopTierHarley]

This is not true. Some variants do change the normals. Look at Scorpion weopon vs demon. Range of normals is different and some are unique to the variant.

I forgot that happens for Scorpion..but whatever the ruling turns out to be I'd be fine with.

 

[WakeUp DP]

Yeah, I know. And it's ridiculous. I'm seeing rules that look like 5 pages of iTunes Terms & Conditions just for how you pick a goddamn character. Over-complications under the guise of trying to keep things simple.

Simple would be what I mentioned. I pick my character, you pick your character, start the match. You don't need an algorithm for that system.

Oh, and it's fair.

Winners gets char and variation lock too. Simple. Idk what is so complicated about that lol

 

[TopTierHarley]

That's not true. Lol.

Yea Jim corrected me already

 

[coolwhip]

If it's "No harm done" then why not follow the precedent set by multiple other games that actually change more things than what we've seen in MKX so far? We haven't seen the full set of variations yet true but we know systems aren't changing & in all those other games to do variations SYSTEMS not just moves but meter, life, Guts, movements, defensive System options & more changed.

I really don't care for precedents or other games. MKX is its own entity. It's "no harm done" because we always have the option to change the rules and allow the winner to change variations. However, if we do it the other way around, you risk 3 months (or however long it takes us to change the rules) of counter-picking nightmares at the character select screen if it turns out that the variations change match-ups considerably.

I mean you're free not to agree with my point, but how can you not get what I'm trying to say?

 

[coolwhip]

Can you please explain why you think my proposal increases the chance of counterpick-fests compare to locking variations?

As I mentioned in the OP and my reply to "tony at home," I think this actually mitigates the risk, provided the selection order is what I described in the OP.

I could be missing it so would be glad to hear your thoughts. If you give an example, please assume the first game is double blind character and variation selection (I didn't say that explicitly in the OP bc I thought that was obvious/not contentious)

If the winner is locked to his character and variation, by very definition, we're having less counter-picks since ONLY the loser can counter-pick (be it character/variation, or both). However, if you let the winner change variations too, then you have the loser possibly changing characters, variations or both, AND the winner changing variation. The amount of changes (counter-picks) is greater in the second scenario.

 

[cyke_out]

Frankly, I couldn't care less about counter-picking. I'd be fine with the winner being able to change anything he wants, even a brand new character, as long as he picks first.

 

[ChaosTheory]

Winners gets char and variation lock too. Simple. Idk what is so complicated about that lol

In itself, it's a simple enough concept. But it's completely arbitrary and obviously people don't agree with it.

We're on page 6 of the 50th thread about this same topic. I say that constitutes as making things complicated. And it's complicated because apparently there is a huge issue with letting two players pick whichever characters they want for an entire set.

You just have to give the loser a boost to help him out. Poor guy.

 

[Paul the Octopus]

If the winner is locked to his character and variation, by very definition, we're having less counter-picks since ONLY the loser can counter-pick (be it character/variation, or both). However, if you let the winner change variations too, then you have the loser possibly changing characters, variations or both, AND the winner changing variation. The amount of changes (counter-picks) is greater in the second scenario.

Sure, nominally, the amount of counterpicks is greater in the second scenario. But I'd argue that's irrelevant and the thing that matters is the *severity*of counterpicks. In my opinion, the reason counterpicks can be bad is that counter picking your opponent with a 7-3 match up creates a situation where character selection rather than player skill can potentially determine the winner. If variation switches require two decisions instead of one but result in less imbalanced matchups I'd characterize that as a good thing.

By allowing the winner to switch variations, the winner should be able to make counterpicks less severe but not reverse the matchup, unless the loser is dumb. If the the loser choses a character that can 7-3 the winners character, the winner may be able to mitigate that and make it a 6-4 or 5-5 if he has a useful variation (we don't know enough about MKX to say how often it will be but it will very likely be greater than 0% of the time). The winner should not be able to reverse the counterpick (turn it into an outright losing matchup for the loser) as long as the loser exercises a small bit of thought in his character selection. This method is better than or equal to variation lock in reducing the severity of counterpicks in nearly all scenarios. The only exception I can think of is what I mentioned earlier.

This also should not result in endless strategizing and waiting for your opponent to pick before you pick. It's a sequential process. I don't have to guess what you pick while deciding my optimal move because you have to decide first and the information is known. It's the same thing as SSBM stage selection mechanics and this is not a logical fear if you actually go through the exercise. There are no mind games or prediction involved in the selection process.

 

[Brutal Chimney]

great example of tradition triumphing over logic, if all the pics are hidden there cant be any informed counter picking

 

[SneakyTortoise]

I don't understand the people that want to stop people having this debate. We are learning quite a bit about the game from the streams and we know enough to at least start the debate and it can evolve the more we find out.

The three best options I think are

1. Winner is locked to character and variation. Simple, no fuss, no complications.
2. Winner is locked to character, not variation, but has to choose and stick to a variation before loser picks theirs. Seems sensible, but can lead to delays and is slightly more complicated.
3. Winner is locked to character, but variation is blind select and the winner is not restricted. I personally think that this is the best option of the three if NRS do decide to involve a blind variation pick mechanism where you press button 1,2 or 3 to pick your variation. This will lead to real mind games and hype straight from the character select screen. I also haven't seen a logical argument as to why this system couldn't work.

 

[Flagg]

Variation Lock?

What mug thought that was a good idea?

 

[Brutal Chimney]

I don't understand the people that want to stop people having this debate. We are learning quite a bit about the game from the streams and we know enough to at least start the debate and it can evolve the more we find out.

The three best options I think are

1. Winner is locked to character and variation. Simple, no fuss, no complications.
2. Winner is locked to character, not variation, but has to choose and stick to a variation before loser picks theirs. Seems sensible, but can lead to delays and is slightly more complicated.
3. Winner is locked to character, but variation is blind select and the winner is not restricted. I personally think that this is the best option of the three if NRS do decide to involve a blind variation pick mechanism where you press button 1,2 or 3 to pick your variation. This will lead to real mind games and hype straight from the character select screen. I also haven't seen a logical argument as to why this system couldn't work.

having the winner locked makes no sense period

 

[Clark L.]

 

[orochiDragon]

Everyone has good points about this topic. I think letting the winner change variation would work just fine in most cases. The way it stands, each variation is different, while retaining about 70% of the character's normal tools ( of course that figure is my estimation).

My reasoning for wanting the winner to be able to pick a different variation:

If I main (sorcerer) Quan chi and Scorpion's teleport makes the match up a 7-3, my choosing the warlock version doesn't mean I will change the match up to my favor. Because quan at his core will be rather zone oriented, scorpion will always do better putting pressure on quan chi. Warlock might make the match up a 6-4, but due to quan chi's skull throwing and Scorpion's side switching teleport, the match will always be in favor of scorpion. Not to mention scorpion also has the option to switch variation also.

 

[callMEcrazy]

At first I was quite skeptical about not treating variations as effectively different characters, because I think each variation will play very differently. But I do agree with the OP that current rules aren't optimal. So I like the idea of locking the character for the winner but not the variation.

This will also have an added benefit of some of the lower tier variations being played regularly (I don't know if it's a benefit from everyone's perspective. Purists might say it will lower the overall standard of play and they won't be wrong). Players who can play all the variations of a character will simply have more options and be less predictable in picks. I'd like that.

 

[orochiDragon]

At first I was quite skeptical about not treating variations as effectively different characters, because I think each variation will play very differently. But I do agree with the OP that current rules aren't optimal. So I like the idea of locking the character for the winner but not the variation.

This will also have an added benefit of some of the lower tier variations being played regularly (I don't know if it's a benefit from everyone's perspective. Purists might say it will lower the overall standard of play and they won't be wrong). Players who can play all the variations of a character will simply have more options and be less predictable in picks. I'd like that.

Am I tripping, cause I think I have read that somewhere else lol!?

 

[Zoidberg747]

My .02

Winner keeps character, blind picks variation first
Loser can switch character or stage, blind picks variation second

This is the best option, whether variations make a huge difference or not. If they change matchups completely, then neither player knows which variation the other has picked, and can only counterpick with characters. If the variations don't change the game that much then you might not even need to blindpick.

Variation lock would make the game boring and really doesnt make any sense. I dont know why this is such a huge debate.