Because in real life there has to be a physical location where Arena's/stadiums are built and the humans who live around these arenas or fields will root for their home teams. Sports do not allow home teams to make physical alterations that change the competition's balance.Even competitive sports have home field advantage.
That's enough not to get change? "Let's try this", "nah". That is an awful mentality and pretty much says that unless an overwhelming majority wants a change then we shouldn't even have a discussion of why one thing might be better than the other. How do we get things to change?Alright, this is the only point that really needs to be addressed here. Answer? As it turns out, anyone. The conversation, "hey guys, how about we try this?" "Well, we'd rather not," is enough. It's not something you need to experiment with or fiddle over. That is a conclusion in itself, and again, it's a valid one.
No.Because in real life there has to be a physical location where Arena's/stadiums are built and the humans who live around these arenas or fields will root for their home teams. Sports do not allow home teams to make physical alterations that change the competition's balance.
Interactables in relation to Sports let's say football would be the equivalent of allowing teams to use Cheerleaders as extra blockers to gain physical advantages, Baseball pitchers get to throws 3 balls at you simultaneously, Soccer players climbing on the goal posts and drop kicking Goalies in the back of the neck when they are attempting to block a PK etc etc
You get things to change by not trying to argue opinions based on things no one knows about yet. Any amount of discussion on any topic regarding tournament standards - and this applies to your other thread too - is all conjecture anyways, and without having the game in our hands it's arguments about nothing. Wait until you have real things to talk about, then use those facts to drive a discussion.That's enough not to get change? "Let's try this", "nah". That is an awful mentality and pretty much says that unless an overwhelming majority wants a change then we shouldn't even have a discussion of why one thing might be better than the other. How do we get things to change?
Kenshi, Kabal, or any of the rest of the top tier in MK9 excelled simply at taking already known fundamental weaknesses and rubbing salt in the wounds. And then taking the last slice of pizza. And then circling Waldo with a bright purple pen. That's not quite the same as say, in Tekken 4 where every single character in the game were just plain automatically doomed against Jin's JFLS. The latter of which could come into to play for this thread's argument if interactables recurrs to favor one player more than the other.Kenshi and Kabal were allowed to live, but interactables should be banned? Those characters shut down 70% of the roster. I don't get it.
U forget 100% combos Cyrax!Kenshi and Kabal were allowed to live, but interactables should be banned? Those characters shut down 70% of the roster. I don't get it.
Smash doesn't play with items on because they're random. in MKX you know exactly where the interactables are.Maybe smash tournaments should be played with items on.
Sorry is this a joke? Spatial confinement is a part of every symmetric game or sport, and it has nothing to do with non-symmetrically placed interactable objectsI agree. We should therefore remove stages with corners and only play on infinite planes, because let's be honest, not being able to move back / backdash is at least as strong of an impact as additional attack.
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
I believe the problem is with people that have only played MK9. Older MK games had interactables as well placed in different locations on the stage. Personally, I'm use to stage interaction because I love SC, but I'll admit it feels odd bringing back interactables in MK. Got use to MK9 I guess lol.It really feels like people on this site have only ever played MK. Plenty of fighting games have stage differences, where a person can get an "advantage" DOA, Tekken, SC, and VF. Some of you really need to diversify your portfolios.
That's the thing, it seems some people can't let of a game that was 4 years ago. "Nostalgia " glasses are very rampant. Gotta learn to except new mechanics and stop being dinosaurs lol.I believe the problem is with people that have only played MK9. Older MK games had interactables as well placed in different locations on the stage. Personally, I'm use to stage interaction because I love SC, but I'll admit it feels odd bringing back interactables in MK. Got use to MK9 I guess lol.
Your statement I was responding to, however, only mentioned "attacks only available at specific spots", and corners are perfectly fine example of spots that provide additional options - as well as remove others on top of that - they just do that by interfering with some move properties rather than blatantly add something that has different animation and properties altogether, but impact is similar if not more considerable. Corner combos and things like crossup or input/wakeup reversal setups would be good example of how they can practically alter move properties - just for being in a special spot, effectively. (May or may not be applicable, depending on particular game in question.)Sorry is this a joke? Spatial confinement is a part of every symmetric game or sport, and it has nothing to do with non-symmetrically placed interactable objects
Since interactive arenas of 3D era weren't widely considered as an improvement on their own (as far as I know), it's at least fair to say that people are entitled to their suspicion towards something new.That's the thing, it seems some people can't let of a game that was 4 years ago. "Nostalgia " glasses are very rampant. Gotta learn to except new mechanics and stop being dinosaurs lol.
Good post. I want SYMMETRY, which I should have explained better from the start. It then follows that I want interactables turned off, because the only symmetric alternative is symmetric interactables and that doesn't excite me either. CheersCorners are indeed placed symmetrically. However, FGs as a whole aren't really symmetrical unless we are talking about mirror matches. Since nothing says at this point that they are supposed to be, can as well roll with what's being offered in term of stages.
I mean, clear bias towards p1 or p2 isn't something to be proud of, but there's difference between symmetry and balance.