Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Injustice 2' started by Roy Arkon, May 14, 2018.
do you mean aggressive nrs-zoning or normal nrs-zoning?
nrs-buttons > capcom-buttons btw
I've seen what taking chip kills out of fighting games does and it really takes all the hype out of a come back. I never want to see that in an NRS game. Just because you got out played the whole game, shouldn't mean you suddenly stop taking chip damage. It's a crap idea that makes newer players feel better, but ultimately makes the game worse. Especially in nrs games where chip is very important.
To me it seems like a big part of the game is understanding character matchups. Knowing how to use your character (or a pocket character) to nullify the opponent character's gameplan.
I think it's been awhile since zoning has actually been a credible strategy in a fighting game, so people overreacted because it wasn't something they were used to dealing with.
Ok I get you, but what I meant to say is that the backdashes as a system in MKX was just as good as IJ2, but in each game it was good in it's own way. I wasn't talking about individual backdashes.
Also yes the invincible wakeups are indeed more on the defensive department while armored wakeups like there are in MKX are more on the offensive one.
Exactly. I will add that chip damage adds a danger factor to the game, so if you tone it down you hurt the depth of the game because people then will be too comfortable to block, and then there could be too much blocking in the game.
I can see your point but I think it is only half true. Yes most well known and popular games were more Rushdown based (MK, MVC, DBFZ etc) or 3D games which didn't had that much of Zoning if at all because of the 3D field, so even though Zoning could've a strong tool in them (unless if it's a 3D game of course, and even then it is only true to most of them as the 3D MK games had some Zoning, but still not as much as the 2D and 2.5D for obvious reasons) people didn't really put that into consideration as much, but now since IJ2 is indeed a more defensive game then most, especially that almost all other games currently are more offensive based even now, once people see too many projectiles in that game, along with really long stages, they come into this conclusion even though it is indeed, like so many people said here, about the neutral.
Also understanding character MU's is true for pretty much any fighting game, I don't get you point there.
I believe that a lot of terms boil down to "space controlling", but people distinguish zoning, footsies and spacing.
The way I see it, when people say "zoning" (unless in the context of ranting about "projectile spamming"), they usually mean putting a slight pressure on the opponent (through life lead or chip damage) while staying outside of his tool's reach, forcing him to approach and looking to punish those attempts. Which yeah, often involves placing your attacks with good reach in areas your opponent moves to during moments he cannot defend against them. That's a lot about space control, yeah.
I guess the main difference with footsies is that in latter case you aren't staying obviously outside of opponent's reach, forcing him to enter defenseless state due to whiffs instead of through approach attempts you read.
Oh, and to answer OP's question: to me I2 is about following Biohazard's matches in particular, watching low-to-mid tier (mostly) characters duking it out in FT10 or so in general. That way the game looks like a seasoned, matured fighting game.
Yeah people for years have confused mindless spamming with "zoning" especially casuals and some people who are more pro rushdown but I doubt this will change. I like how Injustice is different than MK, some people I work with who played the game once or not at all assume it's MK with DC characters which isn't the case at all.
Really? Some people still IJ is MK re-skinned with DC chars? That could've not be any further from the truth.
And yes the confusion between Zoning and spamming among casuals and Rushdown fans adds to the problem for sure, but like I said to Marlow earlier, I think it is mainly because that most well known and popular favored Rushdown more even though Zoning could've still be a strong gameplan in most of them, so when you see a game that is more defensive then most and see how easy it is to go for Zoning because of the long stages in it among other things, they think that Zoning is the main focus of the game, even though in reality it is false.
What I was trying to say was that I feel that Inj 2 is about a combination of playstyles, mostly dependent on the individual character matchup, than a single defined playstyle like rushdown, projectile zoning, or neutral.
Wait so what are you saying is that character MU is a playstyle? Because that is not true at all, char MU is not a playstyle like Zoning or Rushdown. Yes there are some characters in fighting games that require you to understand either their MU's or the whole game's system to it's fullest in order to get that particular to it's full potential, but that is more about the level of execution required for such char, not it's specific playstyle.
As for IJ2, yes there are chars from various playstyles in the game, but I think it's safe to say that it is at the end mainly about the neutral, yet every character in the game is good thanks to the excellent balancing job that NRS has done for the game.
I'm not saying Character MU is a playstyle. I'm saying that because of the various playstyles of the individual characters that the game is more about a combination of zoning, rushdown, and neutral.
Yeah lol I work with people who are more casual gamers that think that and people who aren't familiar with the mechanics of fighting games namely the differences between MK and Injustice. I agree, plus the block button compared to back to block changes the entire game alone. Yeah I just have issues with people who lowball zoning as a legit strategy when it's perfectly fine just because they have trouble against it. I agree, while Injustice may be more zone heavy compared to MK X especially there are characters who are more than capable of rushing down in the game. The game gives you options.
People overreact to zoning in this game because they’re used to MKX imo
Ok I get you now, thanks for the explanation.
No that's not the case at all, it is because IJ1 was indeed a zoning heavy game, as just like @Protagonist_1 said, it was due to the the walk speed of the chars in IJ1 which made them more vulnerable to Zoning in that game, and NRS addressed that in IJ2 by making the walk speed of the chars in IJ2 faster, along with adding the MB Roll mechanic, thus making the Zoning in IJ2 easier to deal with, but because of the long stages and the easy-to -use Zoning chars at the beginning of the game such as pre-patched Deadshot, people overreacted to the Zoning still, and if you're not playing the game enough, you're obviously not gonna get it. It has nothing to do with MKX. In fact, it has a higher chance that people got overreacted to the Rushdown in MKX because the Zoning in IJ1, if anything, and even then it is far fetched.
Very true, that blocking system alone already changes the game. And yes, both games give you options, each in their own way.
No, it’s definitely the case that playing MKX for two years has gotten the majority of players, casuals especially from having to deal with zoning.
For one like half the cast had a teleport. Scorpion and Ermac had teleports that would launch for like 40% just off reading a projectile making it risky to throw one out against them, Reptile and Sub-Zero with full screen slides, the run button obviously, and of course once you’re in, mostly every character has some form of smothering offense so the reward for getting in is much higher.
People are used to having trouble coping with zoning being an actual strategy rather than a situational nuisance.
This isn’t meant to shit on MKX, I like that game, but that’s how I felt coming into this game, I had to learn how to deal with zoners the right way
That's what you in particular felt, but it's still just you. and your post does look like it meant to bash MKX, at that's what it looks like. Yes people played MKX for four years (not two, because MKX was the first game to break that 2 year cycle and turn into 4, trust me on that one), but they also played IJ1 for two years, as well as coming back to the game to try it out during the last few months before IJ2 came out, and when people were afraid of the Zoning that might come into IJ2, they didn't think about MKX, they thought about IJ1, because that's what IJ1 was about, and that's what people thought about IJ2 at first. In IJ1, not only that there were strong Zoning chars with projectiles and with very long stages, but the walkspeed of the chars in the game was too slow for the most part in order to deal with Zoning, that's what happened.
And yes casuals have a hard time to deal with Zoning, but not only they can have issues with Rushdown (even though it is indeed easier to deal with), but MKX wasn't a part of this at all. I guarantee you that even if MKX wasn't that offense based, people would still say that about IJ2. Just like that MK9 was a more offense based like all MK games are but indeed not as much as MKX, yet people complained about the Zoning in IJ1, especially that in IJ1 it was truly the case.
People were overreacting to zoning long before NRS re-started their FG line(s).
It's about waiting for mk11.
Okay yeah I know, I’m talking about the NRS demographic who play Mortal Kombat because it has Scorpion in it and don’t like “spamming”
That's still doesn't change anything. Yes a lot of people did join the scene thanks to MKX, but a lot of people also played MK9 and IJ1 and they remembered what IJ1 was about, in addition to probably playing other fighting games, and it's not like the ones who came thought MKX never heard of IJ1 or perhaps even tried it.
injustice 2 is about being a counter picking bitch.
I would say Injustice 2 is about exaggerating hard 5-5's and 4-6 like they're the end of the world.
Probably goes to show how balanced the game is.
One thing I will say is the age of character loyalty that we saw in the past is definitely dwindling (and I feel that this goes for all games, not just NRS games). Statistically speaking, it makes sense to have an arsenal of characters so you don't have to deal with a slew of 7-3 matchups as opposed to just sticking to one character. Game is relatively balanced, but the FGC is just evolving as a whole.
I personally believe that as long as your character has only 4-6 MU's at worst and that char fits well enough to your playstyle, especially if it fits really well or even perfectly, not only it's ok to stick to one char, but that's what you should do, because by sticking to one char you don't have to deal with muscle memory issues. Having too many characters is not always a good thing. Not to mention that Deoxys just took Texas Showdown with Blue Bettle alone, and as far as I now he never used any other char in any tourney he was in.