Is Kotal Kahn the "perfect" character of MKX right now?

[SaltShaker]

Send me a pm and explain how this works. I'm intrigued.

No doubt, I'll hit you up tonight and break it down from my exp. You know the guys I play so definitely getting a ton of strong exp against Quan.

HT Jacqui is one of the characters that gives him problems I think, she's just by far the least used in the entire game lol. I'd almost be bold enough to call it 6-4 HT Jacqui. Now that I've upped my QC MU Knowledge I can do decent against a couple of high level Quan Chi users up here with Jacqui than some characters I'm better with overall. I can lose and say "I should counter pick with Jacqui".

One can almost begin to say maybe Quan Chi is slightly overrated on this site, but that's for another day.

 

[DelSchokoladenSaft]

No doubt, I'll hit you up tonight and break it down from my exp. You know the guys I play so definitely getting a ton of strong exp against Quan.

HT Jacqui is one of the characters that gives him problems I think, she's just by far the least used in the entire game lol. I'd almost be bold enough to call it 6-4 HT Jacqui. Now that I've upped my QC MU Knowledge I can do decent against a couple of high level Quan Chi users up here with Jacqui than some characters I'm better with overall. I can lose and say "I should counter pick with Jacqui".

One can almost begin to say maybe Quan Chi is slightly overrated on this site, but that's for another day.

You've opened Pandora's Box.

 

[Juggs]

@STORMS
@CrimsonShadow @Tim Static @YOMI RM JagoBlake

This thread has obviously turned into bickering between a lot of people and no longer has absolutely anything to do with this thread, please do us all a favor and close this shit.

What? All I see is a bunch of people getting upset at @Belial because they aren't providing evidence for their claims, and he's calling y'all out for it. He's not being necessarily "nice" about it but it's not in the rules that you have to be nice.

I haven't read the entire thread front to back though, so I could be wrong.

 

[Rude]

No doubt, I'll hit you up tonight and break it down from my exp. You know the guys I play so definitely getting a ton of strong exp against Quan.

HT Jacqui is one of the characters that gives him problems I think, she's just by far the least used in the entire game lol. I'd almost be bold enough to call it 6-4 HT Jacqui. Now that I've upped my QC MU Knowledge I can do decent against a couple of high level Quan Chi users up here with Jacqui than some characters I'm better with overall. I can lose and say "I should counter pick with Jacqui".

One can almost begin to say maybe Quan Chi is slightly overrated on this site, but that's for another day.

Uh oh. The usual Quan Nerf Demanders are going to come for you, now.

 

[xZoro]

I'm just gonna leave before I catch the stupid.

 

[DelSchokoladenSaft]

To the topic at hand.
No. I believe that Kotal is in a strata of characters that are well designed, with a few being better than that. I main Sun God. I switch to Blood God for shits and giggles; while I use War God to....use Macuahuitl spacing where need be. A good way to test this experiment (tournaments are also good experiments) is to use the base variation for actual play.

 

[Under_The_Mayo]

Ok and how many other tournament players play sorcerer Quan?

Mexican tournaments are jokes...but hey, me!

 

[Zoidberg747]

Ferra Torr could compete with Kotal for the title based on results. Biohazard has used all 3 variations to make top 8 at two of the most recent major tournaments(Canada Cup and Defend the North). Asodimazze also used Ruthless at the Italian major as well. Blood god hasnt done that well at majors since Madzin won that EU major(and that was mainly with Sub Zero if I recall correctly). F/T fits what the OP is trying to say most likely.

Kano, Sonya, Jax, Mileena, Reptile, Quan Chi, Erron Black, and Cassie all have 3 variations that are represented in high level play, but have mainly found success at regionals and not majors.

 

[trufenix]

man, it must be a rough thread of the mods are siding with Belial. I'll pass.

 

[ETC AdmiralAugustus]

some shit about flying humans and drawing weak-ass analogies to fighting games

My nigga, you can guarantee I'd learn to fly if I could get the execution just right.

Also, read:

Bad Analogy:
claiming that two situations are highly similar, when they aren't. For example, "The solar system reminds me of an atom, with planets orbiting the sun like electrons orbiting the nucleus. We know that electrons can jump from orbit to orbit; so we must look to ancient records for sightings of planets jumping from orbit to orbit also."

Or, "Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is."

Or, "We have pure food and drug laws; why can't we have laws to keep movie-makers from giving us filth ?"

 

[CrimsonShadow]

man, it must be a rough thread of the mods are siding with Belial. I'll pass.

I'm siding with people ignoring simple provocation and sticking with the topic at hand. Which we seem to back to

 

[Pan1cMode]

Her cancels take stamina? If so then shouldn't she be done after 2-3 run cancel loops? That would be quans chance to escape if so.

She has +frames off things that aren't cancels or require stamina.

 

[lil freshie11]

It is irrelevant bc I provided you a proof that outlaw erron black was one of the best characters in early meta (please don't ask why not the best I don't want to explain correlation between quality and quantity to you) there is a process of how things work on this planet which you've shown astonishing ignorance of. Tournament results might not be everything bUT it's everything we have as a reliable source of data.

You come into my thread. Troll. Derail. And now ask it closed? Wow just wow

Tournament results are indeed the only objective way of measurement, however that doesn't negate every subjective argument that is made, they can still hold merit. The fact of the matter is that tournament results have too small a scope to determine the entirety of a characters viability, making them actually pretty unreliable, and a lot of times top players could place with half the cast... because they're top players. I also feel the need to end this post with a fat YOU SUCK

 

[STRYKIE]

@STRYKIE @PND_Ketchup

For some reason I didn't get an alert for the tag last night, but my opinion on Quan's variation utility is this:

Warlock can be used as a "utility variation" by Summoner/Sorcerer mains, but I do strongly believe it's still a very powerful variation that can make ends meet by itself. The problem is that whenever people pick up Quan, Warlock is almost nobody's first choice and by the time they have a look into it, they're spoiled by the utility of Summoner/Sorcerer.

It's not nearly as meter dependent as apologists make it out to be, nor does it "sacrifice" anything. At worst, there's simply some things it's not as good at as the other two, but is still good at them nonetheless.

If Warlock's fundamental toolset belonged to a different character, I reckon it would have seen a lot more play time by now. Whether I'm the right guy to prove that it's tournament viable or whatever, I can't say for sure yet.

 

[Sage Leviathan]

GGs to everyone still replying to this thread.

 

[Belial]

Tournament results are indeed the only objective way of measurement, however that doesn't negate every subjective argument that is made, they can still hold merit. The fact of the matter is that tournament results have too small a scope to determine the entirety of a characters viability, making them actually pretty unreliable, and a lot of times top players could place with half the cast... because they're top players. I also feel the need to end this post with a fat YOU SUCK

It really depends on what you are trying to achieve. For my purpose we can reliably assume about widely played characters like quan and kl etc. Least played characters have to be picked individually but really bad characters will place low regardless of variation so no real way neither point to discuss them. You are completely wrong about top players winning with any (half the cast) characters. They are top bc they know how to stack odds in their favor and Character choice is one example. Anyway its really more a matter of starting parameters (what do we consider tournament success, how large is meta etc) so you can't seriously make these statements.

As for individual points they have to be backed and precise. Saying "teh potential" doesn't involve any thought or critical thinking to post. It's just a worthless opinion saying "I disagree but don't have any facts"

 

[lil freshie11]

It really depends on what you are trying to achieve. For my purpose we can reliably assume about widely played characters like quan and kl etc. Least played characters have to be picked individually but really bad characters will place low regardless of variation so no real way neither point to discuss them. You are completely wrong about top players winning with any (half the cast) characters. They are top bc they know how to stack odds in their favor and Character choice is one example. Anyway its really more a matter of starting parameters (what do we consider tournament success, how large is meta etc) so you can't seriously make these statements.

As for individual points they have to be backed and precise. Saying "teh potential" doesn't involve any thought or critical thinking to post. It's just a worthless opinion saying "I disagree but don't have any facts"

You choose to completely ignore my point about subjective theory, so ill assume that you agree. As for top players, its retarded to think a someone like fox places top consistently simply because the odds are stacked in his favor. It is certainly a factor in their success but its majorly due to such an elite level of skill. If I can't "seriously" make these statements, which are really just pointing out flaws in your argument, because I didn't specify parameters then the same applies to you and this dumbass thread. As for your last statement I just have no idea what your talking about with individual points and I never even said the word "potential" so ya I guess I must be lacking your superior critical thought. This argument is really just becoming centered on the logical fallacies in your stubborn argument rather than the thread, which most people already disagree with as the poll shows.

 

[Belial]

This argument is really just becoming centered on the logical fallacies in your stubborn argument rather than the thread, which most people already disagree with as the poll shows.

And just for a second I thought you were an intelligent person. My bad.

You choose to completely ignore my point about subjective theory, so ill assume that you agree

Whatever this "theory" is you didnt explain it as you should have, stating only that "every subjective argument holds merit". I replied to that in last paragraph of my previous post. I brought up "potential" because it was majority of those "subjective arguments" you were suggesting I should consider.

As for top players, its retarded to think a someone like fox places top consistently simply because the odds are stacked in his favor. It is certainly a factor in their success but its majorly due to such an elite level of skill

*sigh* Let me simply point out, that since mechanisms of determining skill (or capacity of being top player) is not only the very same, but also simultaneous to process of defining character strength (You've guessed it - tournament results). So we can pretty much safely rule it out when discussing tiers/character viability. Of course like any research there is deviation, but I am not about to explain such basics to you, let your teachers handle it.

f I can't "seriously" make these statements, which are really just pointing out flaws in your argument, because I didn't specify parameters then the same applies to you and this dumbass thread.

Well, wrong again. I was following general approach to the subject while you were making statements that closely echoe "tournament results dont matter" just made a little more intricately.
So to quote your opinion

The fact of the matter is that tournament results have too small a scope to determine the entirety of a characters viability, making them actually pretty unreliable

I didnt blow you up b/c I didnt want any conflict/derailing, but since you insist:
Most majors have more people than minimum requirement for your average opinion poll. Even more so, majors gather WAY bigger audience % (total players overall comapred to players entering tournaments) than amounts most sociology research are based on (in % value). So we can actually assume tournament results are INCREDIBLY informative. Even if there were 100 000 people tournament I can assure you there will still be a lot of Tempest KL at the upper side of bracket. Actually at a bigger scale of things there will be much less "random" chrarcters up there, which we have to consider on smaller scale.

After all this please withhold from any more atacks on credibility of tournament results, unless you have a better method (hint: you dont)

 

[Rude]

Anything can happen in a ft2 environment. I never thought tournament results hold that much stock.

Human error, even at high level, comes into play in such a short set, to say nothing of laggy monitors, bracketology, etc.

 

[Belial]

Anything can happen in a ft2 environment. I never thought tournament results hold that much stock.

Human error, even at high level, comes into play in such a short set, to say nothing of laggy monitors, bracketology, etc.

Current set length is considered optimal for tournament play by various reasons(which of course mostly have to do with spectator appeal). But you can see it vary from game to game (usually ft3 for fast paced games) of course you can propose your own optimal set length but you will find that it is never enough. Also top players do not really complain about it. Finally its not really necessary to figure out "the unquestionably best player" otherwise we'd have to run Round Robin, just figuring out who is really-really good is enough.
As for laggy monitors issue is solved at most majors. Brackets feature "seeding" as well as double elimination system to reduce negative bracket effects to minimum. Human error on the other hand is a part of player skill, which is what tournaments are supposed to show us : best players and best characters.

 

[Rude]

Current set length is considered optimal for tournament play by various reasons(which of course mostly have to do with spectator appeal). But you can see it vary from game to game (usually ft3 for fast paced games) of course you can propose your own optimal set length but you will find that it is never enough. Also top players do not really complain about it. Finally its not really necessary to figure out "the unquestionably best player" otherwise we'd have to run Round Robin, just figuring out who is really-really good is enough.
As for laggy monitors issue is solved at most majors. Brackets feature "seeding" as well as double elimination system to reduce negative bracket effects to minimum. Human error on the other hand is a part of player skill, which is what tournaments are supposed to show us : best players and best characters.

This is all great in theory. However, you oftentimes find that nothing is guaranteed at a tournament.

For every Combo Breaker or KiT, you also have events like Devastation, MLG during the Injustice era, Final Round during the Injustice era, and of course, VxG.

So with the quality of events not being guaranteed, as well as equipment not always being ideal(Ben Q monitors at MLG, for example), tournament results simply shouldn't weigh as much as people want them to. And again, anything can happen in a ft2, so much so that I do not see it as indicative of a player's true skill and shouldn't be a factor when discussing balance, tier lists, etc.

 

[Rude]

Another example would be ESL. Everything from bad connections to miscommunication between staff and players affect the results.

 

[Xentex]

And just for a second I thought you were an intelligent person. My bad.
...
After all this please withhold from any more atacks on credibility of tournament results, unless you have a better method (hint: you dont)

You asked a fairly open question, then through 7 pages of posts clarified exactly what you meant by that question.

What you meant was, "Has any character had more balanced tournament results across all three variation than Kotal Kahn?"

The answer is "no", you are correct, you win the prize.

Considering that English is a second language for you, I think you've done well requiring only 7 pages to clarify a simple question.

(If it's not, then consider applying your pedantic assessment of other people's logic to your own writing. Unless your point is to bait people into semantic debates where you've convinced yourself your semantics are the right semantics and there's no room for reasonable minds to differ.)

 

[Belial]

.

You make great points, but these factors do not affect outcome as much as you imply. It's not perfect yes, I agree. Nothing is though.

The biggest problem here is that if tournament results are not good enough than what is? Common opinion? A vote?

 

[Belial]

You asked a fairly open question, then through 7 pages of posts clarified exactly what you meant by that question.

What you meant was, "Has any character had more balanced tournament results across all three variation than Kotal Kahn?"

The answer is "no", you are correct, you win the prize.

Considering that English is a second language for you, I think you've done well requiring only 7 pages to clarify a simple question.

(If it's not, then consider applying your pedantic assessment of other people's logic to your own writing. Unless your point is to bait people into semantic debates where you've convinced yourself your semantics are the right semantics and there's no room for reasonable minds to differ.)

I believe the word "tournament" is all over my first post. Now is English your second language as well?