games that don’t allow mirror matches.
People dislike most of the recent comeback mechanics because lately they’ve been terribly designed. Ultras in SF4 allow a player to throw out ex moves while having a super on the side and skew the risk/reward dynamic. Ultras basically let players have their cake and eat it, too. This is made even more problematic when you consider what has made many of the good characters so good: safe, reliable ways to convert into ultras. The characters who don’t have this ability are at a severe disadvantage, especially when jabs are so damn good in SF4. Worse still some characters don’t even need to FADC to combo an ultra. Ultras don’t benefit all the cast anywhere close to equally.
X-Factor is the epitome of how not to rememdy the slippery slope. It gives the player everything but the kitchen sink, practically changing a given character into another one entirely (speed, hitting power, hitstun, etc). Even then the benefits are not equal between characters. Who the fuck thought giving someone like Sentinel exclusively triple the stopping power was a good idea? He does massive damage in any situation where he hits you already. Hell, take a look at Wesker while you’re at it.
You are really upset over the fact that in SF4 you can stock an ultra while using ex moves? How does that really matter at all?
If all characters had more reliable ways to combo into ultra, you’d have much less character variety, as well as less play style variety. You can’t implement any mechanics in a fighting game without them benefiting certain characters more than others.
EX moves were a cool idea back when it meant you had to sacrifice a super to use them. Which was of more use to you, extra properties on your attacks or your big gun?
Making more characters viable = less variety ?
You still have to do that, because in general super meter is way better than ultra.
Yes, and you were addressing my use of a term which was entirely proper given that is what I use in a day to day conversation, is more commonly known between experts of the discussion of said mechanic, and is wholly more understandable to the common ear. Thanks?
This is a tricky discussion but to summarize: When you make more characters viable through homogenization, you remove variety for the sake of balance. The tougher but more ideal option is to change character power through their toolsets that vary further from the central mechanics, themes and common tools of the game. This in general makes for more variety in non-meta gameplay, but much trickier for balance of metagame (character choice).
If you give every dude the same options, you’re closer and closer to playing Karate Champ with fancier skins, if that makes any sense.
gems
FWIW I also cannot comprehend how that Magic mechanic works, and I’ve played plenty of it, that paragraph isn’t very well written. From what I can gather, that doesn’t actually qualify as a true comeback mechanic (more of a swing, or just interesting mechanic in general, but not a true comeback mechanic).
I do not think comeback mechanics are harmful by any means if used right. I actually don’t really mind Ultras that much in a vacuum, and as the game grew they became less and less of an issue for slowing down gameplay. I could go into a very long tangent as to why SF4 is a slower more turtle oriented game, and I honestly think it has little to do with Ultras at this point (early on, they did affect it though).
In sf3 a lot of characters have multi stock supers and are able to keep ex moves and super available at the same time.
This is also true in games like VS where everything costs 1 stock.
Yes, yes it does. I contend that having a bunch of lands in he late game is not anywhere near a catch up feature because when it comes to competitive play, whether or not you’ll have something for the late game is mostly dictated by the format, not because of the game. Hence why some decks don’t have anything at all, other decks can play more card drawing. Either way it is not an equal mechanic and it does not affect the game in the same way as x-factor or Ultras. It is not a comeback mechanic.
Neo G is the battle designer for a chunk of Capcom fighters.
That’s not what…god damn it, my head just exploded.
Can you guys stop bringing M:TG into this discussion. It’s obvious you don’t understand the game well enough to discuss if you think there are comeback mechanics in it.
Yeah, as someone who has top 8’d PTQs and Regionals (not exactly the most impressive feat, but shows I do actually understand Magic), lands is not a comeback mechanic, its merely a reason to play cheap cards over expensive cards. MaRo calls it a comeback feature because in the situation in which you’ve got a deck filled with cheap cards vs one with expensive cards, if the second one manages to get lots of lands in play (and is playing with good expensive cards), it’ll pretty much invalidate the cheap deck’s work. Its kinda like saying ‘Zangief has high health, so he’s a comeback mechanic’.
All usages of cheap, expensive and cost in this post refer strictly to mana cost, of course.
Well no, but also exactly yes. In the situation where both decks have a reasonable curve, either one can turn the game around at any time because of the variability in draw quality that the mana system introduces because it incentivizes playing a mix of cheap and expensive cards. It makes comebacks possible where they otherwise wouldn’t be, and as unlikely as they are, that lingering chance is enough to keep people invested in the game at hand, which is the whole purpose of the exercise.
The mana system doesn’t incentive mixes at all, it makes cheap cards better than expensive ones because you’re guaranteed to be able to play them, while a game may not go long enough to cast those expensive ones. You don’t play any expensive cards outside a control deck, where you only run your win conditions (sometimes, even then, your win conditions may be cheap cards, as was the case when Tarmagoyf was in Extended), or in a ramp deck, where the aim of the deck is to bypass the mana system by overloading on cards that get those lands into play faster than normal.
Mana is not a comeback system, it is a balancing factor for powerful and weak cards.
But even an aggro deck does the same thing, just on a much tighter scale.
It does seem more rooted in the draw system, etc., but mana is definitely a part of it.
The only comeback system in M:TG is card drawing. An aggro deck in the late game doesn’t mean much of anything unless life totals are really low; even then the amount of lands the aggro deck isn’t somehow letting it get that comeback factor. Control decks work towards that late game as is, making the amount of lands an aggro player has become an unequal statistic compared to the control deck.
For the most part you need shut the fuck already about this and forget you ever mentioned M:TG in this conversation. There’s a lot of stuff that the FGC can benefit from that is found in the M:TG community, but this discussion of comeback mechanics is not one of them.
I don’t think ultras and XF are terrible comeback mechanics but they certainly do complicate the gameplay more. It’s such a pain in the ass to have more stuff to worry about. And characters benefiting from the comeback mechanics is just another thing to add to the inevitable character tier list.
HD cancels in KOFXIII, Genei Jin for everybody! 
Luck can be a comeback mechanic, especially when combined with swingy cards that are one-ofs or two-ofs. Yes, Magic decks generally try to increase consistency through either multiples or card filtering, but in many formats, especially limited, a good top-deck can mean a lot (EDH also has a lot of swingy randomness, but it’s not really a format that lends itself to competition).
As an example, if I topdeck an Inferno Titan in limited, I pretty much just swung the game in my favor if I was losing, regardless of previous momentum. You have to have an answer, or else you have to dedicate all your resources to stop the guy. That’s what pretty much defines a comeback mechanic like X-factor (Both players have it at any time, including when they’re winning, but whenever it’s used it halts the other player’s momentum), although it’s less like an ultra (Which only provides a huge advantage when both players are critical). The large creature creep at rare/mythic in recent sets has certainly not helped, since deckbuilding at common and uncommon often seems like it means less. But that’s another issue.
In EDH, a top-draw can win you the game you were losing* instantly*. It’s one of the things many people hate about the format, although I love the randomness.
I’ve played Magic since Judgement, in both competitive and casual formats (Although standard go so bad that I left, and my Survival Legacy deck got lolbanned). While that’s hardly old, that’s still almost ten years of enjoying and learning the game. Please don’t just assume that because I disagree with you, I must be someone who doesn’t understand the game mechanics.
comeback mechanics need to go. Now. Damage scalling is fine though but F people getting moves that shut down or limit my options/ rewarded for failing (ultras)
ya T1, T2, extended have all different mechanics. Though in T1 you better not make any mistakes vs combo decks other wise your not going to make any come backs, counter spells arent going to save you vs storm decks also
All this hate on mechanic that was design on a poorly made game now brand it as an offender for ever…sigh How does such perspective come about?