Character question

Doctor DooM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

No offence mack daddi but I literally think you don't know what a tier list is.

It's assuming that the players are high level ( higher than the best in this country).

It is literally irrelevant unless you're approaching that level.

Wow. OK, I'm going to avoid the temptation to get into this in a big "keyboard-war"way, because i haven't got the time today, but i absolutely DO know what a tier list is, and furthermore i think your interpretation of what it is is flawed.

A tier list is assuming that both players are at an EQUALLY high level, and that their execution is sufficiently accomplished so as to be able to do anything their character is capable of at will (ie, very VERY good, probably better than any players in this country, as you contended).

The reason for this is that if both players are at the highest level of execution and skill, then theoretically, neither has an advantage over the other by way of their execution, their physical dexterity, their reading of the situation, etc, etc. The only differentiator that then remains is their choice of character, and the inbuilt strengths and weaknesses of that character, which, (again in theory) should be the deciding factor of the overall winner over ten matches, for that matchup. If you equalize every other variable in the equation, then the only factor that remains is the inate strengths and weaknesses in each character's design and move set, hence you have a (admittedly flawed and theoretical) way of gauging which character is better than another.

Tier lists are just a way of removing human skill limitations from the equation and looking purely at characters based on their inate strengths and weaknesses on an otherwise completely even playing field. They are a means of ranking the various characters in the game without taking into account the limitations of players, but the resulting character rankings absolutely DO apply to ordinary and lower level play.

mackg

Doctor DooM wrote: »

No offence mack daddi but I literally think you don't know what a tier list is.



It's assuming that the players are high level ( higher than the best in this country).

It is literally irrelevant unless you're approaching that level.

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow. OK, I'm going to avoid the temptation to get into this in a big "keyboard-war"way, because i haven't got the time today, but i absolutely DO know what a tier list is, and furthermore i think your interpretation of what it is is flawed.

A tier list is assuming that both players are at an EQUALLY high level, and that their execution is sufficiently accomplished so as to be able to do anything their character is capable of at will (ie, very VERY good, probably better than any players in this country, as you contended).

The reason for this is that if both players are at the highest level of execution and skill, then theoretically, neither has an advantage over the other by way of their execution, their physical dexterity, their reading of the situation, etc, etc. The only differentiator that then remains is their choice of character, and the inbuilt strengths and weaknesses of that character, which, (again in theory) should be the deciding factor of the overall winner over ten matches, for that matchup. If you equalize every other variable in the equation, then the only factor that remains is the inate strengths and weaknesses in each character's design and move set, hence you have a (admittedly flawed and theoretical) way of gauging which character is better than another.

Tier lists are just a way of removing human skill limitations from the equation and looking purely at characters based on their inate strengths and weaknesses on an otherwise completely even playing field. They are a means of ranking the various characters in the game without taking into account the limitations of players, but the resulting character rankings absolutely DO apply to ordinary and lower level play.

BURN!!! :pac:

Orim

Deleted User wrote: »

but the resulting character rankings absolutely DO apply to ordinary and lower level play.

I'm just going to pick up on this section because it is slightly flawed. I would tend to agree with that tier lists can be used at any level but the point is that some characters do require a high level of skill to use.

The Akuma example was a good one. Akuma has pretty consistently been high tier in SF4 but requires a lot of skill to use and can be very poor in the hands of lower skilled due to his low health. So the type of character needs to be taken into account and not just pick high tier because they are high tier.

Another good example is from 3S. Chun and Yun are pretty much even on the tier lists but Yun is a lot harder to use and would be a poor choice for a lower skilled player (I'm sure Ramza will tell me I'm fool for this.)

Of course, that doesn't mean you can't put in the work to get good with anyone but sometimes you just have to accept your limitations.

bush

Tier lists are poo

Orim

Orim wrote: »

I'm just going to pick up on this section because it is slightly flawed. I would tend to agree with that tier lists can be used at any level but the point is that some characters do require a high level of skill to use.

The Akuma example was a good one....

Yeah, I'd probably agree with you there, different characters definitely do become more viable at different points along the skill curve. Akuma would likely take a higher level of skill & execution to get very good with versus Ryu for example, and between two mid-level players of equal skill, I'm sure akuma wouldn't fare as well in that matchup as all the usual tier lists would suggest.

The point at which every character becomes more viable varies i suppose. Even the best tier lists are only an approximate guide, and i would say they are probably on a sliding scale in terms of accuracy as you descend further backwards in terms of player execution and skill. I certainly don't think they're irrelevant at all but the highest level of play, but they are maybe a little less accurate and to be taken with a bigger pinch of salt...

K.O.Kiki

Going by American tournaments, clearly Rufus is S-tier.

UberPrinny_Baal

Deleted User wrote: »

but the resulting character rankings absolutely DO apply to ordinary and lower level play.

You are mostly correct in your post (dat juicebox definition :pac:), but this bit is not always true, specifically about it being true down to low levels of play.

The main exception being: When the game is incredibly balanced, tiers don't matter at our level of play. AE2012 is incredibly balanced. The most debated thing about this one specifically is who the worst characters are. Nobody can agree on the bottom tier.

I'd question your Ryu VS Deejay thing in the following ways:
How do you define a massive improvement (or any at all)? What is your testing criteria for improvement? What's your sample size?

The most likely explanation in my mind is that you DIDN'T improve, just that you find Ryu easier and he might simply suit your playstyle better.
I can believe you ARE better with Ryu, but not that you became better.

If you want an example of Tier's vibrating down to the LOWEST levels of play, I can only think of broken-ass examples, like Meta Knight in Brawl. If you've never played it, just some quick examples: Single button press move (no directional input needed) that made you functionally invincible for as long as you mashed it it, juggles enemies for 1 hit kills and reflected projectiles. 5 jumps where most characters have 2. The ability to fly. Ridiculously tiny hurtbox.

Only stuff like THAT resonates down to the low levels. And even at that you could argue that noob Metaknight and top-tier player Metaknight are good for different reasons, and their respective players would look nothing alike. (This is another flavour of Doom's Akuma example, but Akuma is no Meta Knight )

Stuff that DOES impact low level play are game alterations more in line with what Sirlin did with HDR: Mash moves easier to do, inputs for reversals more lenient, damage not random etc etc

mackg wrote: »

BURN!!! :pac:

I don't think you know what a burn is :pac:

Dreddybajs

I pretty much stick to strong/higher-tier characters when I pick a game up. Usually I have a look at who the good characters are and try out the ones I think I'd like - they don't have to be the absolute best, just solid and suit my style of play.

I play Cammy in 2012 for those reasons, and as it happens she's one of the very best in the game as well. However, I still have trouble when I run into a lot of lower tier characters that see a lot of play in Ireland - Guile, Honda, Balrog, Deejay, Bison (though I don't think Bison or Rog are that bad).

The way 2012 is balanced, most characters are solid enough to seriously consider if you particularly like them imo, and even if you pick a top character you're still gonna have a few nightmare matchups to deal with (unless you're Fei :pac:).

Doctor DooM

Deleted User wrote: »

Tier lists are just a way of removing human skill limitations from the equation and looking purely at characters based on their inate strengths and weaknesses on an otherwise completely even playing field.

But see they don't: They remove human skill level assuming both players are amazing at the game: The Akuma example again.

My issue (which you took umbrage at, but I really didn't mean it that way, sorry) is that you're giving bad advice to someone new: If they pick up akuma, or viper, or Seth, they're going to get bodied for free as you NEED to be able to understand and perform at a relatively high level in order for them to compete.

Another, simpler, example: Remy from 3S. Nearly every 3S tournament I play in, I do well, despite never playing the game.

This is not because I am good at it: it's because at a very low level, Remy is an unstoppable zoning monster, and few people in Ireland know 3S.

As soon as the other player learns to parry, the game changes completely: Remy can't do anything to force the other player to move, or take damage, and he becomes one of the worst in the game.

This is a black and white binary example of the complex issue of advising noobs: and it works all the way up in skill levels. In SF4, a I pointed out above, the top tier demand a certain level of understanding and if someone cannot use them in that way, they're not top tier anymore, and in some cases should be avoided til that level of understanding (which, btw, I don't have, having played the game for 3 years)is grasped.

Advising someone new based on a (random) tier list is definitely not the way to go.

I would advise someone new to SF4 to start with Ryu. Solid character, 3 frame reversal, good combos to learn, and loads of capacity to experiment with safe jumps, cross ups and the like when you get there.

UberPrinny_Baal

UberPrinny_Baal wrote: »

You are mostly correct in your post (dat juicebox definition :pac:), but this bit is not always true, specifically about it being true down to low levels of play...

Hmm, yes Ok, i'd accept that. I don't know if you read my last post before you posted this, but i would agree that tier list accuracy is on a sliding scale, the lower the level of play. Still though, i think once you reach a certain mid-level level of proficiency where you have your character's full range of moves at your command and understand the matchups, and have reached a point where play is largely instinctive, i do think that the tier lists start to come into play and have an effect.

UberPrinny_Baal wrote: »

I'd question your Ryu VS Deejay thing in the following ways:
How do you define a massive improvement (or any at all)? What is your testing criteria for improvement? What's your sample size?

Ha, yeah. Granted, it was a completely subjective opinion, but how i was looking at it was in terms of the common issues that seem to come up a lot in this game like wakeup mixups, vortexes, zoning, rushdowns, focus shenanigans and cancels, charging versus input based moves and how they sit into the game's key mechanics at a mid to high level, and the range of moves and options generally available to me with each character, with and without varying levels of meter.

It's not at all an impartial scientific analysis, and i accept your point on that, but ryu feels like he has a better range of tools to deal with more of the common problems in the game than deejay does. That's not just specific to my playstyle, but in general, he feels like a much more solid, better rounded, character than deejay is, better equipped to deal with what this game is likely to throw at him. Tier lists in general would seem to support that point of view.

Danonino.

Scavenger XIII wrote: »

This is going to go south in a hurry. :pac:

:rolleyes:

Fergus_

I play Rose and Sakura here

Regarding the tier list, I don't think the level in Ireland is high enough to make tier lists really matter. Unless it's Sakura's matchups ofc. :pac:

YayForYuffie

Fergus_ wrote: »

I play Rose and Sakura here

Regarding the tier list, I don't think the level in Ireland is high enough to make tier lists really matter. Unless it's Sakura's matchups ofc. :pac:

She's top 15. You hush up.

AeoNGriM

>>Be Chun-Li
>>Be crossed up deep by Ryu
>>Hit EX SBK
>>Completely whiff
>>Ryu be all like 'Naw baby'
>>Cr.FpxxMp.DPxxFADCxxU1
>>FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Doctor DooM

Real men solar plexus strike before CR HP

recnib

Funny how a thread i made about who everyone uses resulted in an argument over tier lists. In regard to the topic I think wer should all refer to my previous post.

recnib wrote: »

Here's how I look at it lads. There are characters that will suit different people, for example, I couldn't imagine playing Dhalsim, but there are people who have no problem with him. For me personally, I like using Gen, i like the feel when i move and i like the moves, it fits me.

Tier lists mean nothing, they are different people's representations of which characters they think are the best and worst. In my personal opinion, every single character in every fighting game ever is godlike, people just need to know how to play them.

Orim

recnib wrote: »

Funny how a thread i made about who everyone uses resulted in an argument over tier lists.

Welcome to the fighting games forum, we don't deal with topics. :pac:

Scavenger XIII

TIRES DON EXITS! :pac:

Doctor DooM

recnib wrote: »

Funny how a thread i made about who everyone uses resulted in an argument over tier lists. In regard to the topic I think wer should all refer to my previous post.

For a lot of people, the character they use is very closely related to their position in tiers- so I couldn't see this ending any other way, tbh!

Ramza

S tier only

Unless I'm Urien

recnib

Low tier.... OBSCURITY FTW !!!!!!

AeoNGriM

Ramza wrote: »

S tier only

Unless I'm Urien

Blast it with Urien!

Sorry, couldn't resist..................

.........................taking the piss!

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

:pac:

AeoNGriM

recnib wrote: »

Low tier.... OBSCURITY FRUSTRATION & RAAAAAGE FTW !!!!!!

Fixed!

Didn't know Chun was ranked so low....doesn't excuse me being piss poor with her though I guess.

recnib

How dare you ?!?!?!?