Whats the point of the 3 variations ?
This is actually a pretty neat solution to the balancing problem and to the potential restriction of moves.
Say you have quite a few cool moves for Subs, but having them all at once would reach gamebreaker levels. So, instead of cutting content and leaving it hollow, you can redistribute them into variations which fundamentally have the same basic operating principles, only have different strongpoints. So Scorpion is not going to lose his spear, but can summon demons and have swords etc...
This is the same restriction that applies for example in Warhammer 40.000. You can have six troop units (infantry), and three heavy support units (big guns)
So, let us say, we are playing a 2000 point game. I could buy as many Land Raider tanks from my points as I want, but I cannot, as more than three would wipe the opposition out in the first or at worst, second turn if I have the initiative.
I COULD have those six tanks, but I can only field three, because otherwise it is not a game.
Say you have quite a few cool moves for Subs, but having them all at once would reach gamebreaker levels. So, instead of cutting content and leaving it hollow, you can redistribute them into variations which fundamentally have the same basic operating principles, only have different strongpoints. So Scorpion is not going to lose his spear, but can summon demons and have swords etc...
This is the same restriction that applies for example in Warhammer 40.000. You can have six troop units (infantry), and three heavy support units (big guns)
So, let us say, we are playing a 2000 point game. I could buy as many Land Raider tanks from my points as I want, but I cannot, as more than three would wipe the opposition out in the first or at worst, second turn if I have the initiative.
I COULD have those six tanks, but I can only field three, because otherwise it is not a game.
thisiscourage •10/16/2014 08:11 PM (UTC) •
About Me
0
Chrome Wrote:
This is actually a pretty neat solution to the balancing problem and to the potential restriction of moves.
Say you have quite a few cool moves for Subs, but having them all at once would reach gamebreaker levels. So, instead of cutting content and leaving it hollow, you can redistribute them into variations which fundamentally have the same basic operating principles, only have different strongpoints. So Scorpion is not going to lose his spear, but can summon demons and have swords etc...
This is the same restriction that applies for example in Warhammer 40.000. You can have six troop units (infantry), and three heavy support units (big guns)
So, let us say, we are playing a 2000 point game. I could buy as many Land Raider tanks from my points as I want, but I cannot, as more than three would wipe the opposition out in the first or at worst, second turn if I have the initiative.
I COULD have those six tanks, but I can only field three, because otherwise it is not a game.
This is actually a pretty neat solution to the balancing problem and to the potential restriction of moves.
Say you have quite a few cool moves for Subs, but having them all at once would reach gamebreaker levels. So, instead of cutting content and leaving it hollow, you can redistribute them into variations which fundamentally have the same basic operating principles, only have different strongpoints. So Scorpion is not going to lose his spear, but can summon demons and have swords etc...
This is the same restriction that applies for example in Warhammer 40.000. You can have six troop units (infantry), and three heavy support units (big guns)
So, let us say, we are playing a 2000 point game. I could buy as many Land Raider tanks from my points as I want, but I cannot, as more than three would wipe the opposition out in the first or at worst, second turn if I have the initiative.
I COULD have those six tanks, but I can only field three, because otherwise it is not a game.
Exactly this. It is genius.. and it is a solid marketing focal point.
It allows for extra depth without the wasted man hour's balancing what would be (in most cases) an impossible-to-balance scenario.
Asesino Wrote:
This shit is just attempt to be original, but it's not. Just give the 3 styles to the fighter like in MK:DA. This is restriction. booN said that they don't want to restrict players with the fatalities when using different variations, but they restrict the fighting. If all the 3 styles are used at the same time it will be more challenging for the players to oppose each other.
This shit is just attempt to be original, but it's not. Just give the 3 styles to the fighter like in MK:DA. This is restriction. booN said that they don't want to restrict players with the fatalities when using different variations, but they restrict the fighting. If all the 3 styles are used at the same time it will be more challenging for the players to oppose each other.
Somehow, I agree with him...
predac0n •10/21/2014 09:34 AM (UTC) •
0
It's a double-edged sword at the end of the day it is like everything else some will agree with it and some will disagree. Will it be a deal breaker for some? Absolutely! Is it a selling point for others? You damn well know it! Don't let one aspect of a game completely ruin everything for you MKX has a lot to offer give it some time get the game in your hands put it through it's paces and then decide if you like it or despise it don't be so quick to get your pitchfork and torches man.
© 1998-2024 Shadow Knight Media, LLC. All rights reserved. Mortal Kombat, the dragon logo and all character names are trademarks and copyright of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.