|
|
On April 22 2013 14:59 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 12:57 WindWolf wrote:
Personally, I don't like the idea of tier-lists that ranks how good characters are. The reason for that is because I think that a "bad character" in hand of the right player can be deadly.
Dota2 example, most people wouldn't consider Meepo a top-tier hero, but a N0tail Meepo is one of the deadliest characters in the game. The most recent tier lists for SF4 are actually done in a relatively intelligent way. There is a common understanding that SF4 is a matchup-based game where all characters have the ability to deal a lot of damage but may be disadvantaged against characters with defenses capable of neutralizing their playstyle. For example, Bison/Guile is 3-7 because Guile's projectile recovery is so fast and his antiairs are so good, whereas Bison's jump is very floaty. By compiling matchup-specific data, the tiers represent not who is the "best" character in the game, but who has the fewest disadvantageous matchups. It's not perfect of course because the sources, while generally trusted players, are still biased and may not be as accurate for unpopular characters (for example, Ultradavid is the only source for Hakan rather than someone who actually mains him and plays regularly). It's a lot better than the much-argued "S-rank, A+, A, etc." lists that used to pop up all the time and which appear for other games.
The bolded part is also a reason to why I don't like subjective tier-lists. Bias will have an impact on them, and while lists based purely on numbers aren't perfect either, they are still better then subjective lists.
And how do they work when there are a few persons who strongly disagrees with the majority? For example, based on what I've seen (which isn't very much, I'm going to admit that), I would say that Sagat/E.Honda is close match-up.
|
On April 22 2013 16:03 WindWolf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 14:59 Excalibur_Z wrote:On April 22 2013 12:57 WindWolf wrote:
Personally, I don't like the idea of tier-lists that ranks how good characters are. The reason for that is because I think that a "bad character" in hand of the right player can be deadly.
Dota2 example, most people wouldn't consider Meepo a top-tier hero, but a N0tail Meepo is one of the deadliest characters in the game. The most recent tier lists for SF4 are actually done in a relatively intelligent way. There is a common understanding that SF4 is a matchup-based game where all characters have the ability to deal a lot of damage but may be disadvantaged against characters with defenses capable of neutralizing their playstyle. For example, Bison/Guile is 3-7 because Guile's projectile recovery is so fast and his antiairs are so good, whereas Bison's jump is very floaty. By compiling matchup-specific data, the tiers represent not who is the "best" character in the game, but who has the fewest disadvantageous matchups. It's not perfect of course because the sources, while generally trusted players, are still biased and may not be as accurate for unpopular characters (for example, Ultradavid is the only source for Hakan rather than someone who actually mains him and plays regularly). It's a lot better than the much-argued "S-rank, A+, A, etc." lists that used to pop up all the time and which appear for other games. The bolded part is also a reason to why I don't like subjective tier-lists. Bias will have an impact on them, and while lists based purely on numbers aren't perfect either, they are still better then subjective lists. And how do they work when there are a few persons who strongly disagrees with the majority? For example, based on what I've seen (which isn't very much, I'm going to admit that), I would say that Sagat/E.Honda is close match-up.
The tier lists aren't set in stone. There will always be disagreement on tiers and matchups for a game that's actively being played. Generally, we go on tournament results and input from the strongest players. Most people didn't know Hakan beat Dhalsim, but Infiltration notably claimed it was 9-1 in Hakan's favor and backed it up by mauling FChamp in tournament with him.
Matchup charts are also generally subjectively weighted afterwards to account for what matters in tournament, meaning having good matchups vs the top ~5 characters matters significantly more than how favored you are vs the bottom ~15 characters. In SF4 terms, this weighting tends to put characters such as Balrog and Bison higher, and move characters such as Abel lower.
As far as Sagat vs Honda, people consider the past tournament results where sagat has a strong history of winning that matchup and the opinions of strong players such as Ryan Hart and that norcal honda who's name I can't remember (lol)
|
On April 22 2013 16:03 WindWolf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 14:59 Excalibur_Z wrote:On April 22 2013 12:57 WindWolf wrote:
Personally, I don't like the idea of tier-lists that ranks how good characters are. The reason for that is because I think that a "bad character" in hand of the right player can be deadly.
Dota2 example, most people wouldn't consider Meepo a top-tier hero, but a N0tail Meepo is one of the deadliest characters in the game. The most recent tier lists for SF4 are actually done in a relatively intelligent way. There is a common understanding that SF4 is a matchup-based game where all characters have the ability to deal a lot of damage but may be disadvantaged against characters with defenses capable of neutralizing their playstyle. For example, Bison/Guile is 3-7 because Guile's projectile recovery is so fast and his antiairs are so good, whereas Bison's jump is very floaty. By compiling matchup-specific data, the tiers represent not who is the "best" character in the game, but who has the fewest disadvantageous matchups. It's not perfect of course because the sources, while generally trusted players, are still biased and may not be as accurate for unpopular characters (for example, Ultradavid is the only source for Hakan rather than someone who actually mains him and plays regularly). It's a lot better than the much-argued "S-rank, A+, A, etc." lists that used to pop up all the time and which appear for other games. The bolded part is also a reason to why I don't like subjective tier-lists. Bias will have an impact on them, and while lists based purely on numbers aren't perfect either, they are still better then subjective lists. And how do they work when there are a few persons who strongly disagrees with the majority? For example, based on what I've seen (which isn't very much, I'm going to admit that), I would say that Sagat/E.Honda is close match-up.
The problem is, if you just take overall tournament match win % and use that as an indication, your results won't mean anything because you're getting a thousand casual Ryu players mixed in with Daigo and Valle. Viper and Rufus would easily be the "highest tier" characters based on data like that. It's useless. So, subjectivity and theoryfighting are required when compiling tier lists.
And sure, I guess you could restrict the data to "top players only", but honestly you wouldn't get nearly a large enough sample size that way. It would just end up being a chart of what characters have been winning tournaments lately, also not useful.
|
A tier table is obviously the best approximation of getting an idea of balance between all matchups and therefore characters' relative strengths. Pure data mining will always edge towards players with insane talent (where do you draw the 'relevant' skill level for top-tier players?), but against more popular characters as they're averaged out.
And that a bad character is still good in the hands of a great player is a given, it has nothing to do with tiers. Right now you only need to be about 25% better than your friend if you're starting a tournament with Dan and he's a Cammy to stand the same chance of winning it (as it's 211/170). That in my eyes, isn't bad, but could be improved on (it's only slightly better in BW).
|
On April 22 2013 16:58 Trumpet wrote:
The tier lists aren't set in stone. There will always be disagreement on tiers and matchups for a game that's actively being played. Generally, we go on tournament results and input from the strongest players.
Why are people so obsessed with them in the first place?
Matchup charts are also generally subjectively weighted afterwards to account for what matters in tournament,
What matters will differ depending on who you ask
On April 22 2013 20:46 Cel.erity wrote:
The problem is, if you just take overall tournament match win % and use that as an indication, your results won't mean anything
How is subjectivity any better?
Concrete example of subjectivity:
Swedish pro Yagami* says Juri is a mid-tier fighter (talked to him earlier this month)
Swedish journalist and Street Fighter devotee Alfred Holmgren says Juri is low-tier fighter (talked to him last weekend)
Personally: I don't care at all.
*It MIGHT be his friend who said this, but I'm leaning towards that it was Yagami
|
On April 23 2013 13:18 WindWolf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 20:46 Cel.erity wrote:
The problem is, if you just take overall tournament match win % and use that as an indication, your results won't mean anything How is subjectivity any better? Concrete example of subjectivity: Swedish pro Yagami* says Juri is a mid-tier fighter (talked to him earlier this month) Swedish journalist and Street Fighter devotee Alfred Holmgren says Juri is low-tier fighter (talked to him last weekend) Personally: I don't care at all. *It MIGHT be his friend who said this, but I'm leaning towards that it was Yagami
Well, I mean, I don't know how to express it any clearer. Tournament win % is literally useless data, whereas at least subjective accounts mean something. This isn't Starcraft where there are only 3 races and hundreds of people play each of them at a high level thousands of times per month, you can't gather stats like that in fighting games. The closest thing to accurate data would be from machines at top Japanese arcades like Club Sega, but IMO the opinions of people who play there mean more than the data.
|
United States4126 Posts
Just a general question - why do I see pros start some combos off with cr.lp? I main Sakura and I see players like Uryo and Chris G start off some of their shouken combos with cr.lp. In the eyes of a total noob (me), I don't see how using cr.lp is more advantageous than using cr.lk since it doesn't hit low and its range is shorter.
I guess what I'm asking is when should I be using cr.lp instead of cr.lk to start off combos?
|
United States12247 Posts
On April 30 2013 04:08 Kinky wrote:
Just a general question - why do I see pros start some combos off with cr.lp? I main Sakura and I see players like Uryo and Chris G start off some of their shouken combos with cr.lp. In the eyes of a total noob (me), I don't see how using cr.lp is more advantageous than using cr.lk since it doesn't hit low and its range is shorter.
I guess what I'm asking is when should I be using cr.lp instead of cr.lk to start off combos?
C.lp is +6 on hit whereas c.lk is +3 on hit, meaning c.lp will combo into c.mk xx shou while c.lk can't. c.lp is also +3 on block compared to c.lk's 0 on block, meaning you can use it for frame traps. If you need something to hit low then definitely use c.lk (for example, after an empty jump or combo reset, or if you need to crouch tech).
|
On April 30 2013 04:08 Kinky wrote:
Just a general question - why do I see pros start some combos off with cr.lp? I main Sakura and I see players like Uryo and Chris G start off some of their shouken combos with cr.lp. In the eyes of a total noob (me), I don't see how using cr.lp is more advantageous than using cr.lk since it doesn't hit low and its range is shorter.
I guess what I'm asking is when should I be using cr.lp instead of cr.lk to start off combos?
Because if the cr.lp is blocked it is much more advantageous than a blocked cr.lk, meaning you can keep you offense going if it does not hit. Chances are your not going to catch another pro player just not blocking low, instead your hit is going to be a counter hit of sorts in a top level match.
|
On April 30 2013 04:18 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 04:08 Kinky wrote:
Just a general question - why do I see pros start some combos off with cr.lp? I main Sakura and I see players like Uryo and Chris G start off some of their shouken combos with cr.lp. In the eyes of a total noob (me), I don't see how using cr.lp is more advantageous than using cr.lk since it doesn't hit low and its range is shorter.
I guess what I'm asking is when should I be using cr.lp instead of cr.lk to start off combos? C.lp is +6 on hit whereas c.lk is +3 on hit, meaning c.lp will combo into c.mk xx shou while c.lk can't. c.lp is also +3 on block compared to c.lk's 0 on block, meaning you can use it for frame traps. If you need something to hit low then definitely use c.lk (for example, after an empty jump or combo reset, or if you need to crouch tech).
Her cr.lp is +6 on hit ?
Damn that's good.
edit : checked a few character jab and short frame data, and that's more common than I thought. And less good than I was thinking actually D:
|
On April 30 2013 07:27 Noocta wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 04:18 Excalibur_Z wrote:On April 30 2013 04:08 Kinky wrote:
Just a general question - why do I see pros start some combos off with cr.lp? I main Sakura and I see players like Uryo and Chris G start off some of their shouken combos with cr.lp. In the eyes of a total noob (me), I don't see how using cr.lp is more advantageous than using cr.lk since it doesn't hit low and its range is shorter.
I guess what I'm asking is when should I be using cr.lp instead of cr.lk to start off combos? C.lp is +6 on hit whereas c.lk is +3 on hit, meaning c.lp will combo into c.mk xx shou while c.lk can't. c.lp is also +3 on block compared to c.lk's 0 on block, meaning you can use it for frame traps. If you need something to hit low then definitely use c.lk (for example, after an empty jump or combo reset, or if you need to crouch tech). Her cr.lp is +6 on hit ? Damn that's good. edit : checked a few character jab and short frame data, and that's more common than I thought. And less good than I was thinking actually D:
probably just you playing viper, being used to -3 on block shorts D:
|
On May 01 2013 08:05 diehilde wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 07:27 Noocta wrote:On April 30 2013 04:18 Excalibur_Z wrote:On April 30 2013 04:08 Kinky wrote:
Just a general question - why do I see pros start some combos off with cr.lp? I main Sakura and I see players like Uryo and Chris G start off some of their shouken combos with cr.lp. In the eyes of a total noob (me), I don't see how using cr.lp is more advantageous than using cr.lk since it doesn't hit low and its range is shorter.
I guess what I'm asking is when should I be using cr.lp instead of cr.lk to start off combos? C.lp is +6 on hit whereas c.lk is +3 on hit, meaning c.lp will combo into c.mk xx shou while c.lk can't. c.lp is also +3 on block compared to c.lk's 0 on block, meaning you can use it for frame traps. If you need something to hit low then definitely use c.lk (for example, after an empty jump or combo reset, or if you need to crouch tech). Her cr.lp is +6 on hit ? Damn that's good. edit : checked a few character jab and short frame data, and that's more common than I thought. And less good than I was thinking actually D: probably just you playing viper, being used to -3 on block shorts D:
Haha
probably yeah. I'm not a stranger to good normals, ( I mainly play Makoto and st.MP is quite the stuff ) but +6 on hit is like music to my ears because that's the magic number for U1 with her xD
|
|
|
He's pulling it out of his ass obviously.
|
I'm sure the list represents his true feelings, and you can't say his opinion isn't valid.
|
On May 01 2013 22:05 Cel.erity wrote:
..., but Juri being so high definitely surprised me. What do you guys think?
As I said earlier, I talked to/played against the Swedish pro Yagami (one of the best players in Sweden) about a month ago, and when I choose to play Juri, he said that Juri was a mid-tier character.
|
Justin's obviously pro and really good at these things, and generally, he has a good knowledge on tier lists, but occasionally he will say something like "adon is really bad" and get blown up by gamerbee because no one really knew how to use him, or even "Mag/Storm/Commando" is the best MvC2 team.
As for this tier list, makes good sense somewhat, I'm surprised Abel is A and he ranks sim really high.
|
I'm not surprised to see Juri so highly ranked, I think that is a character with tons of potential. I do find it strange to see Abel and Sim so high though...
|
On May 01 2013 23:12 WindWolf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 22:05 Cel.erity wrote:
..., but Juri being so high definitely surprised me. What do you guys think? As I said earlier, I talked to/played against the Swedish pro Yagami (one of the best players in Sweden) about a month ago, and when I choose to play Juri, he said that Juri was a mid-tier character.
Yeah I agree, seems odd she's ranked higher than Dhalsim and Ken. But I don't think he's that far off, he's giving relatively high marks for all the characters (btw, can't we just change to a 0-100 scale, this S-+ stuff is silly), and Juri has some unfulfilled potential (not getting picked up by a true top player, like Gen by Xian for example). I also think Abel is a bit highly-rated (Juicebox fighting!).
|
On May 01 2013 22:54 Cel.erity wrote:
I'm sure the list represents his true feelings, and you can't say his opinion isn't valid.
His opinion isn't valid. That tier list is full of shit.
S tier stands for huge advantages that are very hard to overcome. 2012 Akuma would fit this description, as would vanilla Sagat or AE Yun. Those characters had something that made them broken. The others in Wong's list dont qualify for this description. They're just good rushdown characters.
A tier stands for top tier. Gouken, Dhalsim, Juri, Oni, Abel, Gen, Makoto and Dictator are not even close to A-tier.
Gouken, Dhalsim and Oni are low tier. The others belong in B tier.
B tier stands for good basics but some crucial shortcomings that prevent competing against top tier. Dudley in B tier is ludicrous. He's one of the worst characters in the game.
The only characters he got right imo are Ken and Dan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
