The true reason stage interaction shouldn't be allowed in tournaments

[Evil_Riu48]

before you post about how we should wait to see how they play out or how they are not as powerful as in injustice. you should be aware that this thread was not made to disuss how broken or not interactables are and your post will be remove in order to keep this discussion on topic and free of distractions... finish reading this post so you can fully understand what the argument is about and your opinion will be more than welcome as long as it is not out of topic.

the true reason why we should talk about banning stage interaction has nothing to do with how broken or not they are. it is all about how they break the balance between player 1 and player 2 at the beginning of a fight. i think we can all agree that player 1 or player 2 having a advantage over the other one no matter how small this advantage is ...well is just not fair.
stage interactable in some stages gives a position advantage to player 1 or player 2 by placing an object more accessible or closer to player 1 or player 2...the problem is that stage interactions are not the same when you move to the left of the screen as when you move to the right of the screen in other words player 1 position in the stage at the beginning of a match doesn't mirror the position of player 2 at the beginning of the match creating a position advantage for one of the two players.

how this affect a fight? lets say you have a stage that has an object that can be grab and throw in mid air only at the right side of the screen just behind player 2 and the match is a mirror match between two heavy zoners which use projectiles to zone. this automatically places player 2 at an position advantage at the beginning of round one because he doesn't have to worry about player 1 countering his projectile with the object but player 1 has to worry about the object behind player 2 since he can use it to check his projectile attacks ... why should player 1 start the match at a disadvantage just because he is placed in the right side of the screen?

i personally think that stages should be neutral and they should not place a player in a position advantage but this is not the case when comes to interactables for our games because they do not place the players in a mirror position.

what do you guys think about this

discuss

@Pig Of The Hut @GGA 16 Bit @Tom Brady @MITDJT

 

[shaowebb]

You mean if Blanche is closer to player 2 than player 1 at match start its a positional advantage and thats why it shouldn't be allowed? I can see where you're coming from given how things on the Watchtower stage favored the person on the right by feeding them robots to chuck. I think the interactibles have been toned down a good bit though in MKX. We'll wait and see how they roll. In general, I expect it will be like before...folks will be mindful where they play their match and choose carefully.

 

[Bildslash]

This problem was present in Injustice and was much worse because there was inequality in the type of interactions available to each type of character. Yet, the game used Interactables without a problem in tournament.

If Injustice had them, more the reason for MKX to do so as well seeing how they are toned down in comparison.

 

[TopTierHarley]

It's still fine.

 

[Jeddite]

I think I'm tired of having this argument. I have yet to see any evidence that neutral position advantage has any actual advantage in gameplay (meaning you actually want to work to position yourself to exploit the environment).

My vote, along with the consensus opinion a week ago, is they should be left on until there is actually (not theoretically) a reason not to.

 

[RYX]

yeah but can't you exploit that position knowing they might go for that interact or just work to get control of it yourself

 

[themagiccan2]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Injustice the only interactables that were available immediately to one player and not the other from the start of a game were dynamic ones (flying drones/detonation bot). I'm 99% sure that NRS, with the community in mind, has thought about this and avoided the dilemma.

Also not all competitive maps in Starcraft 2 have symmetrical balance so there are clear instances where one starting position slightly favors the other depending on the match-up.

 

[Deleted member 35141]

People seem to forget injustice and stage transfers on one side of the map and if caught automatic 30 off health and it also had unblockable interactibles, if injustice can do fine in tournaments so can mkx.
This is actually one of the reasons I didn't like injustice as much as mk9 it was more watching animations than actually fighting. MKX seems to had learned a lot from the negatives of injustice.

 

[Knoterror]

You know, that's actually a valid point. However, the advantage may prove to be negligible. After all, they're blockable and honestly, most are just vaulting off of something or a moderate damage straight projectile.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Since you guys blew this guy up for saying the exact same thing: http://testyourmight.com/threads/mkx-interactables-should-be-turned-off-for-competitive-play.49414

It's only fair to blow Riu up too

 

[BRUTALITY]

this game doesnt seem to be BALANCED AROUND the interactables. theres my argument. these characters appear to have the ability to hold their own in fights without the interactables. IGAU was balanced around interactables. some
characters were just rubbish without them. this doesnt appear to be the case with MKX from my limited experience

 

[roosTakk]

They will be enabled/disabled as the community sees fit once we actually play the game

/thread

 

[Chaosphere]

@Evil_Riu48

I don't see how your argument is any different from 'variation x for one character is better than variation y for the other character. That's not fair'. Might as well not allow advantageous character picks either.

 

[Slips]

Sounds like the long version of saying some stages will favor one player/character over the other, which isn't new to fighting games. Even competitive sports have home field advantage.

 

[K7L33THA]

I have never liked interactables and would prefer them off. However thankfully they don't look ridiculously op in this game like Injustice. People seem to like "default" mode for tourneys. So I doubt they will turn them off.

 

[SidTheHaze]

so even if someone has an interactable next to them just......you know........use the block button for once.

 

[Kitana Prime]

I disagree.

There is no 'advantage'. Interactables can be baited (like in Injustice!) and corner escapes cost Stamina + METER FOR INVINCIBILITY, which is 1/3rd of a bar that has SO many uses, you better manage it right. No one will be 'abusing' corner interactable with all these possible options: (EX moves, MB moves, EX Throws, Interactable armor, Wakeup Invincibility, Combo Breakers, Block Breakers, XRays) Oh, and guess what! After all of that, that corner escape can be baited and punished. Also, how long does the invincibility last? I'm willing to bet its all on startup.

And if there's a shred of reasonable doubt:
If player 2 starts with an interactable on their side, back away. No interactable has been proven to go full screen.
Or backdash them like Injustice.
Or pick a teleporter, or anti-zoner, or anyone with an air projectile, etc
Or block them, The only thing that matters. I think blocking interactables is being HEAVILY downplayed for whatever reason.

And if someone wants to bring up the situation of free chip:
As for interactables in chip situations, it's a moot point, you've had the entire match so worry about movement around the stage. If you get locked in a corner, it'l be because of great pressure/traps, not because an interactable won't let you escape, so there's that.

I dont know. I think it's clear interactables aren't a 'problem'. Even on hit, theyre doing 12-15% or so at most.

 

[n9195v]

It's going to be agree on a stage or select a random one. Random is fair. Coin tosses are fair.

 

[Evil_Riu48]

the question is simple does posion matter or not?

 

[FinalBoss_FGC]

I think interactables are so weak other than the movement based ones, I don't believe it will change the game too much one way or another. At least there are no Asylum Pigs or other damaging interactables that stay such as Metropolis roof drones...

 

[Cossner]

Part of the game and not broken.

/thread

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

Two heavy zoners in Mortal Kombat X? Like who? The ones that only exist in a rush down player's imagination?

There is a run button, several anti-zoning variations, about half a million teleports, and armor, and fools are still concerned about zoning with interactable objects.

Judge not l'est ye be judged, but I'm with this man on this side of the argument. Riu, you do definitely make a valid point and concern, but the big difference between interactables this time is the ability to block, so you won't end up with Watchtower or HoJ situations anymore for the most part. But I love zoning just as much as Dave does, and I think the case could be made that the projectile-based game has been seriously taken out of the loop thus far given all the ways that have been shown to get around it. I'm really hoping to be proven wrong and fraudulent though, I'm just more concerned that I'll be able to find my rhythm with Kenshi against all the anti-zoning tactics installed thus far than I am with an IGAU interactable clusterfuck repeat.

Then again, I played Deathstroke...they never really bothered me all that much.

 

[REYTHEGREAT]

But they are blockable

 

[Compbros]

There's not more advantage than, say, Shinnok having better start-of-the-match options than Jacquie since interactibles are blockable, as are those start-of-the-match options. Also, depending on recovery, startup, or situation it could be a hindrance more than an advantage.

 

[jackempty0]

the question is simple does posion matter or not?

no