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

[Duck Nation]

Misreading Doombawkz reminded me of something that needs to be said here:

The biggest counter to this entire argument is the fun function. The last thread we had - and got locked, because it was stupid - made it very clear that the vast majority of the community, regular tournament attendees very much included, would prefer to have interactables on. We already know that 85% of this community is in favor of keeping them at default settings and nothing about that is going to change, because their rationale for it is not one you can argue away. The only, only reason this thread still exists?

Because a mod made it.

 

[dribirut]

Advantage is a strong word. There are clear trade-offs to going for them. They can be blocked, have start-up, and push you closer to the corner where a lot of characters get decently sizable benefits because of the backstepping you need to get to them.
In fact, I'd say going for interactables in the beginning would be a positional disadvantage.

Lol smh really??.. A positional disadvantage.. Cmon

 

[Doombawkz]

Lol smh really??.. A positional disadvantage.. Cmon

Your lack of a counter-argument kinda proves that I'm right. Unless there is an interactable that spawns directly on P1/P2's position, gives full invulnerability, and has no start-up, there is nothing that will give positional advantage without taking into account the opponent's ability to counteract it.

Given that there ARE options available, and its all dependent on player skill, there isn't any reason, justifiable or otherwise, to even think of banning interactables. Not a single one.

 

[THTB]

Lol smh really??.. A positional disadvantage.. Cmon

Here's what we know about interactables besides this:

-MUCH lower damage compared to Injustice (Blanche's damage was shown to be 9%)
-Blockable (chip damage seemed no higher than 2%)
-Requires stamina (On a punish of an interactable, this means breaker is not immediately available)
-Mobility interactables allow you to act out of them

From what we've seen, none of the interactables that favor a side are actually immediately available, as well. Also, because the interactable class system is gone, everyone uses interactables in the same manner. Judging from this, so far, there isn't much reason for actually even fearing interactables other than the positional advantage, and even then, it's not like unavoidable setups are worthwhile, given that this is not Injustice and they are blockable this time around, along with the fact that the round system is traditional, which boosted the issue of unblockable 20% interactables that OTG'd by tacking on a ton of extra damage to further pad a life lead.

You're going to have to provide something more sound than positional advantage.

 

[Prinz]

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.

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

Leave them on - blockable/Not OP/part of the game


Please refrain from making threads about banning a mechanic you haven't yet played yourself or seen play itself out

 

[MadPropz101]

They are an integral part of the game and they will not be banned, no point in these threads whatsoever.

 

[Shaazzyam]

What are you talking about.. I'm saying tbey should be banned.. Smh

breh im saying i'll baby your discount reptile free af in mkx with random select

 

[PND OmegaK]

Just an observation, but it seems a lot of the people that want them banned didn't even play Injustice competitively for a long period of time or at all.

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

Just an observation, but it seems a lot of the people that want them banned didn't even play Injustice competitively for a long period of time or at all.

Or ever a tourney

 

[Brutal Chimney]

The biggest part they're going to play is for the attacker to remmember which side has the corner escapes. Which if you need them isn't exactly blatantly pushing the match in your favor.

I'm still almost certain nearly 100% of position changes will be made to get an opponent on the right side rather than for "Blanche control"

 

[Big Pampering]

there is a slight advantage, but if youre going to go tht far you might as well only play mirror matches because that is what is most fair. In reality even 5-5 matchups arent even because one character will have a slight advantage no matter how little and trivial the advantage is. You can't take every little detail in account. It is never completrely fair.

 

[Rude]

That's not what I was getting at, but okay. Just saying interactables are kind of gimmicky and give advantage to a player depending on what side they play on, but god forbid someone expressing their opinion on a message board which gives users their right to exercise the first amendment. There has been advantages and disadvantages in all fighters sure, but interactabes are a different story. It's one thing when one can get knocked through a stage, or if a stage is larger than others, but when one can use an item in the background as a means of zoning/control to their advantage it gives characters who are already good in that aspect another tool in their kit. Sure characters who lack that tool can use it, but then it becomes a game of chase. I respect your opinion on why you think they aren't such a big deal.

If you exorcise your right to "free speech" in an open forum and choose to an express an opinion, you need to be prepared for others to disagree with you. Likewise, you need to be able to defend your position. That is a fundamental of discourse. Hiding behind "the first amendment" as a justification to say anything you want without criticism or counter logic is ridiculous. Debate has never worked that way. The moment you offer an opinion, you leave your arguments open to be dissected by others.

 

[Rude]

Since i'm in this thread anyway, i will offer my thoughts:

Do we know the block advantage of interactables?

Do we know the start up frames?

Do we know how accurate the tracking is or if they OTG?

What if, say, Mileena can telekick someone grabbing one on reaction?

Or what if Goro can punchwalk punish a blocked object?

Do we know? No.

If i block an interactable and you are left hella - after, is the advantage really in the hands of the guy who threw it?

We dont even know every single interactable in the game or their properties.

AND you can choose any interactables from any stage and practice your options vs. Them.

Why are we panicking again?

I'll say what I've said to every other TYM MK X scare: Calm. Down. And. Play. The. Game. First.

 

[Compbros]

Your point being?

That thread was made a year after the game came out.

What Duck said later.

Linking this thread is as much of a discredit to someone's argument as Godwin's Law. Stop trying to invoke it. It's not happening. It doesn't mean anything. There was never majority support behind disabling interactables and you don't get to play revisionist history with that.

There was a lot of support before the game came out and in that thread to have interactables off. Within that thread there's about 5 people on the first page alone saying to take them off or it's the reason they dropped the game, the same amount of people defending interactables or saying to leave them on. I'm sure if you go through the thread you'll see a lot for both sides, at least enough to CONSIDER a change but they just kept interactables on forever. There were very, very few locals that ran interactables off in the first year to show how the game would be played without them but the community just let them go.

 

[Duck Nation]

I'm not quibbling with you about exact numbers. You use it to say the community cannot or will not change a rule later if it's decided to be in the game's best interests. The problem is, there wasn't even close to agreement that it would be. What you assert happened in that thread and the decision did not happen, so stop saying it did. This thing you've been parading around the board with and hollering about is at best an honest but atrocious misreading of the facts, and at worst an outright grievously biased fabrication. The way you use that and the assertions you base on it are not at all rooted in reality.

 

[Compbros]

I'm not quibbling with you about exact numbers. You use it to say the community cannot or will not change a rule later if it's decided to be in the game's best interests. The problem is, there wasn't even close to agreement that it would be. What you assert happened in that thread and the decision did not happen, so stop saying it did. This thing you've been parading around the board with and hollering about is at best an honest but atrocious misreading of the facts, and at worst an outright grievously biased fabrication. The way you use that and the assertions you base on it are not at all rooted in reality.

I never said that, sorry if that was the implication. The community changed 2/3 to 3/5 but there was no real opposition to it. My point with that thread is that if there is opposition to get something changed then the community will just stick with what's been working so far. There was no true attempt to get interactables off at tournaments to test out how it'd work, they just stuck with it on. When the community is divided on a point instead of trying out both points and seeing which works better it just goes "well, we've run it this way so far so just keep it going".


Edit: As such, the "community will decide what is best for the game" is something I don't believe as, just like that thread, there are a bunch of people on both sides of the fence so whatever is used initially will most likely just be ridden out without properly seeing both.

 

[Phosferrax]

Then we should just ban all stages and pick one stage for every tournament fight ever to happen on, with that logic.

 

[Charybdis]

Misreading Doombawkz reminded me of something that needs to be said here:

The biggest counter to this entire argument is the fun function. The last thread we had - and got locked, because it was stupid - made it very clear that the vast majority of the community, regular tournament attendees very much included, would prefer to have interactables on. We already know that 85% of this community is in favor of keeping them at default settings and nothing about that is going to change, because their rationale for it is not one you can argue away. The only, only reason this thread still exists?

Because a mod made it.

Precisely. This issue is totally sorted, it's clear that the majority of the community and 100% of competitive players want them left on. We've had two crystal clear polls now and if anybody bar a mod started this thread it would have been locked or absorbed into the other one. This topic needs to die: the community is actually decided for once and if you don't like it, don't play MKX.

I really don't understand the argument that it creates an unfair advantage for one player. If I play REO, he has an unfair advantage over me in that he's fucking REO and will body me with his eyes shut. So should he stand there and let me get some hits in?

If I play Grundy and my opponent picks Superman or Bane, well that match up is massively in their favour. So should they not abuse the tools at their disposal to make it fair?

Let's all play Ninjitsu Scorpion on the Training Room with no interactables and just trade D1s every match. As fair as can be.

 

[coolwhip]

But because they're not that powerful, they're blockable, and don't do that much damage, the balance between player 1 and player 2 is not significantly changed. It's not like Injustice where one player has a huge 20% unblockable with a gigantic hitbox at the beginning of the round. Best thing is to wait for the game, see the stages, and see how it'll work.

 

[Duck Nation]

I never said that, sorry if that was the implication. The community changed 2/3 to 3/5 but there was no real opposition to it. My point with that thread is that if there is opposition to get something changed then the community will just stick with what's been working so far. There was no true attempt to get interactables off at tournaments to test out how it'd work, they just stuck with it on. When the community is divided on a point instead of trying out both points and seeing which works better it just goes "well, we've run it this way so far so just keep it going".

Did you pause to think how self-defeating that logic truly is? This thread is full of "divided opinion," but it has no real basis on the sensible way forward on the issue. I made note to say I wasn't going to quibble over the numbers, specifically because that proportion is not a relevant detail. 20-80, 30-70, 40-60; all of these are still something favoring one side. It's unfortunate that we don't have clear numerical representation of it, but majority opinion still favored keeping the rules as they were. Why would you try changing the rules if it wasn't a supported position?

I admit, it might well be possible that you're using a different metric to say "what is best for the game." But the one by which most people go is whether the community is engaged and playing that game. Tournament attendance/local popularity, online presence, and even forum or social media discussion are the measure there, and if you make a decision that turns away the larger group of people, then you have not done "what is best for the game." If what you want to assert, instead, is that "what is best for the game" is what makes it more balanced, to help more characters be tournament viable, that's not a discussion I'm really interested in being engaged in.

Finally traces back to the previous post I made in this thread: what is best for the game is what's fun. If the majority of the community feels more engaged, and is having a better time playing it, even in the face of poorer balance (and mind you at this point, without the game being in our hands, that is a spurious assumption), then that is the right decision.

 

[Compbros]

Did you pause to think how self-defeating that logic truly is? This thread is full of "divided opinion," but it has no real basis on the sensible way forward on the issue. I made note to say I wasn't going to quibble over the numbers, specifically because that proportion is not a relevant detail. 20-80, 30-70, 40-60; all of these are still something favoring one side. It's unfortunate that we don't have clear numerical representation of it, but majority opinion still favored keeping the rules as they were. Why would you try changing the rules if it wasn't a supported position?

I admit, it might well be possible that you're using a different metric to say "what is best for the game." But the one by which most people go is whether the community is engaged and playing that game. Tournament attendance/local popularity, online presence, and even forum or social media discussion are the measure there, and if you make a decision that turns away the larger group of people, then you have not done "what is best for the game." If what you want to assert, instead, is that "what is best for the game" is what makes it more balanced, to help more characters be tournament viable, that's not a discussion I'm really interested in being engaged in.

Finally traces back to the previous post I made in this thread: what is best for the game is what's fun. If the majority of the community feels more engaged, and is having a better time playing it, even in the face of poorer balance (and mind you at this point, without the game being in our hands, that is a spurious assumption), then that is the right decision.

It's not self defeating, it's what has happened. Some wanted interactibles on, some wanted it off, some said it was too late to bring it up and the rule stuck to the end. I honestly don't know if that's the case as, just like you said, we don't have numbers. The only clear indication is that there wasn't an overwhelming majority for change, like with 2/3 to 3/5. There very well could've been a majority situation for change or a majority situation for it to stay the same. My problem is that we never got a chance to see interactibles off to truly decide, we just stuck with what had been in this debate that the community was divided on. But it was supported and by many people, majority or otherwise.

Interactibles turned people away, go to that thread and there's at least two that dropped/didn't play because of interactibles in the first page. Would interactibles off have turned people away? Who knows, but there are definitely people that didn't play because of them.

I agree, make no mistake, I am on the side of leaving interactibles on. My entire argument is on the post that said the community will decide what's best. Who's to say interactibles off wouldn't be more fun? We never got a chance to really test it for IGAU in tournament to make an informed decision, we kept what was.

 

[legion666]

Are you serious, affecting balance???? stages??????than ban some characters because some of them will have like 7:3 match ups in their favour against others, that is unfair, let us cry about it!

 

[Duck Nation]

Who's to say interactibles off wouldn't be more fun?

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.

 

[WakeUp DP]

Agreed. We could use training stage with 0 interactables for tournaments!