What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

CD jr

Noob
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 support this 100% didnt bother to read the comments because well drama but yes you got my support on this 100%.
 

coolwhip

Noob
I just need to point out what a flawed line of thinking this "even though interactables are reportedly not that powerful, that's not the point." Actually, that IS the point. If the claim is that they provide a significant advantage for a certain player based on positioning at the beginning of the round, then the fact that they're blockable, don't do too much damage, etc... puts a dent in that logic.
 

CD jr

Noob
read some of the comments and well i guess we are playing with interactables again. In the history of fighting games i dont remember a 2d fighter having stages that can change the pace of the match or favor a player because of they position they are on the stage. But hey lets be different from all traditional 2D fighters and let interactables rock. Before ya eat me alive answer yourself this question. If we have the OPTION to play a 2D fighter how they have been play since fighting games were made why do we have to change that? dont ya understand that no matter how little they affect a match they still affect the match? the others looking in dont like these type of things in 2d fighters? if it was a 3d fighter cool but its not lol we cant side step here to avoid shit movement is limited to back forward crouch and jump and obviously there will be ways to avoid the interactables but again thats not the point. Look im not argue like in the inj days ill just play with w.e the community decides but pls think about how this can affect the game long term. stage mechanics that can change MUS in 2d fighters havent existed for a reason just my 2 cents
 

SneakyTortoise

Official Master of Salt
read some of the comments and well i guess we are playing with interactables again. In the history of fighting games i dont remember a 2d fighter having stages that can change the pace of the match or favor a player because of they position they are on the stage. But hey lets be different from all traditional 2D fighters and let interactables rock. Before ya eat me alive answer yourself this question. If we have the OPTION to play a 2D fighter how they have been play since fighting games were made why do we have to change that? dont ya understand that no matter how little they affect a match they still affect the match? the others looking in dont like these type of things in 2d fighters? if it was a 3d fighter cool but its not lol we cant side step here to avoid shit movement is limited to back forward crouch and jump and obviously there will be ways to avoid the interactables but again thats not the point. Look im not argue like in the inj days ill just play with w.e the community decides but pls think about how this can affect the game long term. stage mechanics that can change MUS in 2d fighters havent existed for a reason just my 2 cents
My main argument would be that because this is how the designers have developed it/want it to be played and have probably balanced the game around it as a fundamental part of the game.

We could make it so like it's just like other 2d fighters, but that's not being innovative. That is a big deal. If NRS want to provide innovative ideas and mechanisms we shouldn't throw them out before even trying them first.
 

CD jr

Noob
My main argument would be that because this is how the designers have developed it/want it to be played and have probably balanced the game around it as a fundamental part of the game.

We could make it so like it's just like other 2d fighters, but that's not being innovative. That is a big deal. If NRS want to provide innovative ideas and mechanisms we shouldn't throw them out before even trying them first.
Dont fix whats not broken. You said this is how developers want us to play the game right? do smash players play the game how the developers meant the game the t be played? no and smash is top 3 most played fighter right now. we get a product, we are the consumer and we can do w.e we want with the product cause we payed money for it correct? Again this is simple to get no matter how little interactables change the match it still does plain and simple the ACTION of having interactables ON causes an EFFECT on the MATCH no matter how small it can make x player win when x player was supposed to lose. Small example: lets say jaqcui is hard to control and you work your ass off to take her to the corner and there is a good chance if the interactable were off you would keep her there but if they are on she can burn one meter and flip to the other side. look you guys do w.e you want ill conform to your rules, play as best as i can, and try to put on a show im done with this not so hard to get topic.
 

GuerillaTactix

#bufftakeda
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.
I agree that people are down playing the ability to block interactables plus these aren't even that powerful! I bet eventually people will leave them alone since they'll get more damage if they just finish their combos.

I see them being used as a way to get out of crazy situations. The corner escape interactables just seem necessary... The same people complaining about them will complain in tournament when they have no options when they get pushed to the corner against the "Doomsday" of this game.
 

CD jr

Noob
I agree that people are down playing the ability to block interactables plus these aren't even that powerful! I bet eventually people will leave them alone since they'll get more damage if they just finish their combos.

I see them being used as a way to get out of crazy situations. The corner escape interactables just seem necessary... The same people complaining about them will complain in tournament when they have no options when they get pushed to the corner against the "Doomsday" of this game.
just like the "doomsday" players of this game will complain when they take someone to the corner and the opponent armor flips out. wanna avoid this? you know what to do.
 

SneakyTortoise

Official Master of Salt
Dont fix whats not broken. You said this is how developers want us to play the game right? do smash players play the game how the developers meant the game the t be played? no and smash is top 3 most played fighter right now. we get a product, we are the consumer and we can do w.e we want with the product cause we payed money for it correct? Again this is simple to get no matter how little interactables change the match it still does plain and simple the ACTION of having interactables ON causes an EFFECT on the MATCH no matter how small it can make x player win when x player was supposed to lose. Small example: lets say jaqcui is hard to control and you work your ass off to take her to the corner and there is a good chance if the interactable were off you would keep her there but if they are on she can burn one meter and flip to the other side. look you guys do w.e you want ill conform to your rules, play as best as i can, and try to put on a show im done with this not so hard to get topic.
Yeah I completely understand. I would argue that smash was designed primarily as a party game though that happened to become competitive, whereas NRS seem to be focusing a lot more on the competitive side now (even though yes I know the casual player is the main demographic).

And I agree, having them on will cause an effect and that it is up to us to play the game how we want, but I personally think the way the players interact with the environment and bait/use the interactables will turn out to be an interesting layer of the meta.

Let's just see how it turns out. I'll be competing and playing whether interactables are on or off, I don't really care. I just think that there's no real argument for turning them off yet, and that the argument "don't fix what isn't broken" is particularly weak as if everyone followed that rule we'd never get innovative and exciting mechanisms brought into the game and would rarely get improvements.
 

Cash

Noob
Dont fix whats not broken. You said this is how developers want us to play the game right? do smash players play the game how the developers meant the game the t be played? no and smash is top 3 most played fighter right now. we get a product, we are the consumer and we can do w.e we want with the product cause we payed money for it correct? Again this is simple to get no matter how little interactables change the match it still does plain and simple the ACTION of having interactables ON causes an EFFECT on the MATCH no matter how small it can make x player win when x player was supposed to lose. Small example: lets say jaqcui is hard to control and you work your ass off to take her to the corner and there is a good chance if the interactable were off you would keep her there but if they are on she can burn one meter and flip to the other side. look you guys do w.e you want ill conform to your rules, play as best as i can, and try to put on a show im done with this not so hard to get topic.
100% smash goes as far as to ban stages, you think the developers wanted that. For those saying oh well it was fine in injustice think about was it really? Some characters might as well not even play on certain stages cause they were done for if that happened. Think of how the game would be if there was no fear of unscaled interactable combos. Would some of the character changes that were made be necessary if there were no interactables. I feel like like playing the game and hoping that interactables don't change anything is dumb when you know what playing with them off gives you. Most everyone has won a game of injustice because of a lucky interactble. And before you say well you can block them on MK or whatever down the road there will be people who win a game because of an interactble and that will be a shame.
 

CD jr

Noob
100% smash goes as far as to ban stages, you think the developers wanted that. For those saying oh well it was fine in injustice think about was it really? Some characters might as well not even play on certain stages cause they were done for if that happened. Think of how the game would be if there was no fear of unscaled interactable combos. Would some of the character changes that were made be necessary if there were no interactables. I feel like like playing the game and hoping that interactables don't change anything is dumb when you know what playing with them off gives you. Most everyone has won a game of injustice because of a lucky interactble. And before you say well you can block them on MK or whatever down the road there will be people who win a game because of an interactble and that will be a shame.
its not so hard to get right? we need more people like you in this forum i like you.
 

Scoot Magee

But I didn't want to dash
I'm all about traditional fighters but would people be against interact ables if it actually made the game better? I honestly wouldn't be upset if they were off but what if the depth added isn't dumb like injustice?
 
Honestly, I don't see why people can't understand the point of discussion here. It makes perfect sense to me. Let's just use MK9 Sub-Zero as an example.

He wants to corner trap you, right? That's the entirety of his game plan. That's not hyperbole either. That's ALL he's trying to do. To push you in that corner, set up a clone and lock down your options. Well, what if we end up with a stage where there's a corner escape interactible on the right side but not the left and Sub starts out on the left side? Right from the start of Round 1, I now have to focus my strategy on switching sides just to be able to have the CHANCE to corner trap you, which is needless to say much more risky than if I didn't have to worry about it.

I understand it improves the meta, and to be frank, I actually like it. I'm not even in favor of disabling interactibles. But to say that interactibles won't have some advantages to player side is being ignorant.
 

Wemfs

The only morality in a cruel world is chance.
I'm really not a fan of the get out of corner interactables. I could do without those, tbh.
 

TopTierHarley

Kytinn King
100% smash goes as far as to ban stages, you think the developers wanted that. For those saying oh well it was fine in injustice think about was it really? Some characters might as well not even play on certain stages cause they were done for if that happened. Think of how the game would be if there was no fear of unscaled interactable combos. Would some of the character changes that were made be necessary if there were no interactables. I feel like like playing the game and hoping that interactables don't change anything is dumb when you know what playing with them off gives you. Most everyone has won a game of injustice because of a lucky interactble. And before you say well you can block them on MK or whatever down the road there will be people who win a game because of an interactble and that will be a shame.
Oh well.
 

CD jr

Noob
Honestly, I don't see why people can't understand the point of discussion here. It makes perfect sense to me. Let's just use MK9 Sub-Zero as an example.

He wants to corner trap you, right? That's the entirety of his game plan. That's not hyperbole either. That's ALL he's trying to do. To push you in that corner, set up a clone and lock down your options. Well, what if we end up with a stage where there's a corner escape interactible on the right side but not the left and Sub starts out on the left side? Right from the start of Round 1, I now have to focus my strategy on switching sides just to be able to have the CHANCE to corner trap you, which is needless to say much more risky than if I didn't have to worry about it.

I understand it improves the meta, and to be frank, I actually like it. I'm not even in favor of disabling interactibles. But to say that interactibles won't have some advantages to player side is being ignorant.
YES YES see you stated YOUR opinion and said you PERSONALLY like it i respect that 100% what i dont respect is those selling dreams here saying yhat interactables will have no effect in the matches. i like you too ill buy you bubble gum if i see you at a tourney
 

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
Honestly, I don't see why people can't understand the point of discussion here. It makes perfect sense to me. Let's just use MK9 Sub-Zero as an example.

He wants to corner trap you, right? That's the entirety of his game plan. That's not hyperbole either. That's ALL he's trying to do. To push you in that corner, set up a clone and lock down your options. Well, what if we end up with a stage where there's a corner escape interactible on the right side but not the left and Sub starts out on the left side? Right from the start of Round 1, I now have to focus my strategy on switching sides just to be able to have the CHANCE to corner trap you, which is needless to say much more risky than if I didn't have to worry about it.

I understand it improves the meta, and to be frank, I actually like it. I'm not even in favor of disabling interactibles. But to say that interactibles won't have some advantages to player side is being ignorant.
I still feel like people are 'jumping' the gun, though. What if the recovery on you jumping out of the corner leads to me getting a 41% punish?

Some of these things will have to be determined after people spend some time with the game and see what the advantages and disadvantages really are.

Like, the Smash bans were determined through experience, not just via guessing.
 

M2Dave

Zoning Master
CD jr said:
Small example: lets say jaqcui is hard to control and you work your ass off to take her to the corner and there is a good chance if the interactable were off you would keep her there but if they are on she can burn one meter and flip to the other side.
LOL. I love how all of your examples are potential zoning characters taking advantage of interactable objects.

From what I have seen and heard, Mortal Kombat X has very good movement, but I guess a player like you will not be content until your character has Raiden's pre-patch teleport, Black Adam's pre-patch dive kick, and Zod's back dash. Then and only then will your character not have "shit movement".

I understand you play a game in which characters close the gap for free, but lots of players in this community would like zoning to be an option in the game, even if it is not the best.
 

Shady

Noob
I can see both sides of the argument here. The one side I don't see is people who argue that interactables will not cause imbalance right away. Plain and simple, the location of the interactable object, if active, can give P1 or P2 advantage depending on proximity/nature of said object. It does affect the flow of the match and strategy. The example that's been used a lot is corner trapping. Having corner interactable objects will significantly impact your game if you want to trap your opponent. How you work around it, will become a strategy of it's own.

I for one say let it roll out first, let's see how it works and how much of a factor this is. HOWEVER, knowing that interactables cause an impact, if we agree to keep them on then we must agree that P2 gets to select stage and no double-random select will happen. Because you can't argue that "INTERACTABLES DON'T CHANGE THE WAY YOU PLAY" and "WE SHOULD HAVE RANDOM SELECT ON STAGES BECAUSE OF INTERACTABLES". Those two arguments are entirely mutually exclusive.
 
I mean if you want to play 2d fighters how they used to be, why not actually play them... It's not like someone burned all copies of street fighter 2 and umk3

Plus let the game come out before you claim interactables will change matchups.
 

CD jr

Noob
[QUOTE="CD jr, post: 1639756, member: 3318"Small example: lets say jaqcui is hard to control and you work your ass off to take her to the corner and there is a good chance if the interactable were off you would keep her there but if they are on she can burn one meter and flip to the other side.
LOL. I love how all of your examples are potential zoning characters taking advantage of interactable objects.

From what I have seen and heard, Mortal Kombat X has very good movement, but I guess a player like you will not be content until your character has Raiden's pre-patch teleport, Black Adam's pre-patch dive kick, and Zod's back dash. Then and only then will your character not have "shit movement".

I understand you play a game in which characters close the gap for free, but lots of players in this community would like zoning to be an option in the game, even if it is not the best.[/QUOTE]

w.e mr dave. You and others are some of the people i wont have constructive arguments regarding MKX cause ya bring the worst out of me and i want to stay sane for MKX and just focus on making the better and helping the scene. we can however talk in private because i actually like as a person but you and others i am going to avoid publicly during MKX. im not giving you guys tje opportunity to make me look like shit every time i passively give my opinion on something when im just trying to help good day to you sir and may god help your soul if you even face me in tourney in MKX. From this point on you are muted hit me on facebook though pumpkin we can talk there all day
 

DavS13

Noob
Unless interactables OTG, I see no problems with them on. A good player will be aware of his opponents position, and will be ready to react. Maybe you can bait them to do an interactable and armour through, jump over it for a free jump punch, use it to push them closer to the corner, etc. Or you can simply block it and take 1-2% chip, and I believe once their used they cannot be used again (not 100% sure about this). Really not something to argue this much over.
 

CD jr

Noob
I can see both sides of the argument here. The one side I don't see is people who argue that interactables will not cause imbalance right away. Plain and simple, the location of the interactable object, if active, can give P1 or P2 advantage depending on proximity/nature of said object. It does affect the flow of the match and strategy. The example that's been used a lot is corner trapping. Having corner interactable objects will significantly impact your game if you want to trap your opponent. How you work around it, will become a strategy of it's own.

I for one say let it roll out first, let's see how it works and how much of a factor this is. HOWEVER, knowing that interactables cause an impact, if we agree to keep them on then we must agree that P2 gets to select stage and no double-random select will happen. Because you can't argue that "INTERACTABLES DON'T CHANGE THE WAY YOU PLAY" and "WE SHOULD HAVE RANDOM SELECT ON STAGES BECAUSE OF INTERACTABLES". Those two arguments are entirely mutually exclusive.
how many packs of bubble gum you want? i like you too
 
Status
Not open for further replies.