Hate Speech Theory Fighter University: Tiers

  • Moderator
Tier /ti(ə)r/ (noun):
  1. A row or level of a structure, typically one of a series of rows placed one above the other and successively receding or diminishing in size.
  2. One of a number of successively overlapping ruffles or flounces on a garment.
  3. A level or grade within the hierarchy of an organization or system.
One doesn’t need to be a grizzled fighting game veteran to be familiar with the concept of tiers. Hell, a cursory glance through pretty much any thread in the forums reveals that our little community is positively suffused with tier-speak. For those of you unfamiliar with the term as it’s used in reference to fighting games, however, we are primarily concerned with definition three above (and, to a more idiosyncratic extent, definition two, but that may be another column entirely). At their best, tiers provide a useful shorthand for understanding match-ups and the relative strength or weakness of a character as compared to the rest of the cast. As is the case with any word thrown about so casually, there’s plenty of misinformation floating around, so this week I’ll be tackling some major myths about what tiers mean, how they’re formed, and how we can utilize tier lists and matchup knowledge to gain a competitive edge.

huMcE.jpg
Be warned: Tier Debating can lead to feeling like this guy looks. Or British. Same difference.

But before I can do that, it’s important that I submit to you my own working definition of character tiers. Here at Hate Speech Theoryfighter University (HSTFU for short), a character’s overall tier rank reflects its total potential, based on individual match-ups, when played at the highest possible level. In other words, when player skill is normalized and therefore factored out of the equation, which characters are simply most effective? Note that for our purposes ease-of-use has no place in tier discussion. This is because the easiest characters to play and are not always necessarily the most dangerous in high-level play, for one. Secondly, ease-of-use is subjective. What’s difficult for one player might be trivial to another. There is simply no reasonable way to account for these discrepancies.

Tier Myth One: Tiers Don’t Exist

Some version of this venerable myth gets trotted out every time an excellent player does well with a character not thought to be “top.” It’s patently ridiculous. Consider that tiers, for our purposes, reflect a character’s potential, not a player’s. The sheer diversity found in the casts of any fighting game made after Karate Champ dictates that some characters will have more favorable match-ups than others, and that is the very essence of what tiers should indicate.

Claiming that tiers don’t exist because Rock has a chance of winning against Amy, no matter how small, is akin to arguing that because I could theoretically walk from my apartment in the San Francisco bay area all the way to NEC instead of taking a plane, there’s no such thing as speed. I’d end up at the same destination, so what’s the difference, right?

Jl99U.png
Everyone knows Red was broken in Karate champ anyways.

Tier Myth Two: Tiers Are Destiny

One-hundred eighty degrees away from our first tier myth we find this one: “OMG TOP TIER = AUTO-WIN.” It’s an assertion that is entirely too broad. First, upsets will always be part of life in the tournament scene. Second, and more importantly, just because a character is good does not mean that it will do all of the heavy lifting. Top-tier characters tend to reward good decision-making on the part of the player far more generously than do low-tiers, but nevertheless that human element will always be a factor in how matches play out. Tiers are guidelines; they will help us make informed choices about the characters into which we invest our time, but there are never any guarantees.

Tier Myth Three: Tournament Results = Tiers

As stated earlier, a proper tier list should eliminate the human element as much as possible in order to provide any semblance of consistency. Given that reality, lending too much credence to tournament results when considering tier lists is incredibly counterproductive. Yes, there will be strong correlation between top characters and average tournament placing, but there will always be players who make certain characters seem far better—or, in some instances, far worse—than in fact they are. When in doubt, think logically and do the math, putting aside anecdotal evidence.

imP9P.jpg
...and then sometimes tournament results and tiers do align

Tier Myth Four: Top Tiers Require No Skill/Low Tier Takes Balls

This one causes me physical pain. First, nowhere will you find a white-bearded man holding aloft a stone tablet with an inscription proclaiming all good characters to be brainless. Yes, some of them are. Many are, in certain games. Still, the relationship isn’t causal. Some high tier characters require a lot of thinking and engagement; they’re just high-tier because of how generously they reward such actions. Conversely, there is nothing particularly brave about playing a terrible character. If you only enjoy playing a bad character (or have serious character loyalty from game to game), that’s absolutely fine, but it is no badge of honor. In fact, in many cases the whole low-tier hero thing is a form of insipid, backhanded cowardice.

Picking a terrible character, giving oneself no shot at victory, and subsequently proclaiming some sort of moral victory is the behavior of a person who ultimately knows that he can’t hang with the big boys. Don’t be that person. Play the characters you love, but leave circuitous notions of honor out of it.

So, What’s the Point?

I’ve posed a fairly strict theory on the way to think about tiers, alongside which I’ve talked a lot about what tiers are not and should not do. What remains is a theoretical model fairly limited in scope, but not at all useless. Proper tier lists, once they’re a bit settled, actually provide us with valuable information about how and where to invest our practice resources.

First, tiers give a general idea of return on investment at the level of character selection. Let’s say, hypothetically, the time and effort necessary to become the best Rock player in the world is identical to the time and effort necessary to become the tenth-best Amy player. Oh, and it just so happens that you have exactly that amount of time and effort at your disposal. A review of the tiers and the match-ups tells us that your time is probably far better spent in becoming the tenth-best Amy, all other things being equal.

Even once you’ve chosen a character, reviewing a tier list for insight into which match-ups are most difficult for that character, regardless of its tier, can help you decide which match-ups to study most in-depth when budgeting your limited practice time.

4b257.jpg
Besides, we all know this is the only tier list that matters anyways.

Homework:

You know the drill. Before you rip me too viciously, however, note that Theoryfighter University will be back very soon with explication and defense of some of the more assailable points from above, particularly with regard to the meat and potatoes of how to sort out a tier list. Consider the gauntlet thrown.
 
Ah yes, the breast size chart. -points to either end of the chart for emphasis-

Now it is obvious that either Talim, or Ivy are the best depending on which way you swing.

Hah, that said I wonder how much size contributes to the fighters tier? :P
 
Dammit Jaxel! I was gonna be the 1st one to ask "what is JFLS?"! Now I would really look like an idiot. I can't click on that link out of principle though so I ask, What is JFLS?
 
Dammit Jaxel! I was gonna be the 1st one to ask "what is JFLS?"! Now I would really look like an idiot. I can't click on that link out of principle though so I ask, What is JFLS?
Jew Fros Look Sweet

In all seriousness its funny because if you re-arrange the list slightly;

Throw hilde in the front, Setsuka in front of Ivy, Amy behind Ivy, and Taki in front of Tira, and X behind Cassy.

Its an accurate tierlist for the SC4 wimminz.
 
Last time I recall, it used to be Ivy, Taki, then Setsuka, then at the back..... well I dont have to say her name because we all know who has the smallest.
 
...its funny because if you re-arrange the list slightly; Throw hilde in the front, Setsuka in front of Ivy, Amy behind Ivy, and Taki in front of Tira, and X behind Cassy. Its an accurate tierlist for the SC4 wimminz.
So if you just change the positions of 45% of the list, you... wait, that’s actually a significant percentage. :-P

Good article Hates. The only thing I’d add, to avoid confusion, is a more rigorous definition of how tier lists are traditionally constructed; viz., a “qualified” (definition up for debate) person or group of people subjectively grades the rates at which each character, when played to its maximum human potential, wins against each other character (e.g. they score each matchup on a scale of wins out of 10 rounds); those scores are subsequently summed up for each character to yield a single ranked list.

This doesn’t define tiers at all, but it is a useful method which attempts to reduce the amount of hand-waving involved.
 
Jew Fros Look Sweet.

No, they don't. I know from experience.

If I lose while using Siegfried, I've lost and my opponent has won. My character didn't lose, their character didn't win, the match-up didn't beat me - I lost, they won. Nothing more, nothing less.

As to why I'm still playing Siegfried, though...I guess you could call it dumb character loyalty, or that I'm just stupidly stubborn. The romantic reason is that I've been playing Siegfried since I was 7, all the way back in Soul Blade, so there's a sense of history and nostalgia to go along with him. So it's more of a emotional reason than a logical reason for why I'm still playing him, but I'll continue to play him even if he ends up bottom tier in SCV (he won't.)

One good thing I can say on playing lower tiers - GENERALLY SPEAKING, you have to think outside the box a little bit more than with higher tiers. As Hates said, this doesn't apply to all high tiers at all, just some. However, when you get a high tier character who IS easy to use, you don't really have to think or do much outside of your EasyPunish®, EasyCombo, and EasyRingout©. Generally speaking, the opposite is also true - some mid tiers don't have EasyPunish®, and they have to think outside the box a bit more.

For example, Siegfried doesn't have any "good" lows, so I was forced to abuse the shit out of his grabs and mix them up with similar speed mids. Since this is Soulcalibur, and all throws (non-command) are the same speed, this is something that could theoretically carry over to any character (who doesn't have tiny ass T-rex arms - Sophitia and Voldo!) regardless of tier placing. So I could take this strategy I developed with Siegfried and use it with Mitsurgui, or Cervantes, or Ivy or Astaroth - the latter two obviously gaining the most benefit from this style, but the point being is that I can use it with just about anyone who has a normal or longer grab range.

Another Siegfried player post, another wall of text...
 
This is why matchup charts should always be released alongside a tier list, so people understand why and how these things work.

Also, in regards to myth number 4, Hates' is being generous by not calling out these "low-tier heroes" for what they are: scrubs. As the accepted definition of the term states, these players hide behind their own arbitrary rules of what's "honorable" and what's "cheap" despite the fact that the game knows nothing of these concepts - all it knows is wining or losing.
 
The thing that no one points is that ONLY TOP TIER PLAYERS REVEALS TOP TIER CHARACTERS...

There's a lot of characters that never shine till SOMEONE with a MIX of Curiosity and Patience makes the discovery about the GOOD side of certain Character; others WATCH the incredible performance of this player and DECIDE that the character is TOP TIER(not the PLAYER).

Nobody FEAR Hilde till Ceirnian and RTD showed HOW to WIN using her; Nobody FEAR Zasalamel till Omega showed HOW to WIN using him; Kura from KOREA showed the REAL POWER of Talim... I can continue but I don't like LONG posts.
 

Spoiler tag for those who don't want to read my full explanation.

I pick low tiers intentionally sometimes, but its not for "honor" or anything like that. I don't like easy characters. I don't like common characters. And most top tier characters designs don't appeal to me. I pick my characters by design first. (Gen:sf4) If I like the way a character looks, I pick 'em. I hate losing to brain dead characters, but I don't "blame" them. It just makes it THAT much more gratifying when I make them eat shit with a character with shit damage, shit health and frankly looks cooler. In short, I just feel better when I win with worse/more difficult characters.

But I also pick stronger characters too, provided they aren't braindead. I use Carl and Tao in BlazBlue. They are both good characters, they just happen to be kind of difficult to use. I'm not necessarily a tier martyr, because I pick characters that are HARD, not characters that are bad. I admit though, I've blaimed "L's" I've taken on my characters difficulty and spiting those who use "mashy" characters, or flow chart-easy mode characters.

Too summarize, So you don't HAVE to read all that, I like being unique, and I like the challenge; whether the challenge be a difficult character, or a weak one.
 
This is why matchup charts should always be released alongside a tier list, so people understand why and how these things work.

Also, in regards to myth number 4, Hates' is being generous by not calling out these "low-tier heroes" for what they are: scrubs. As the accepted definition of the term states, these players hide behind their own arbitrary rules of what's "honorable" and what's "cheap" despite the fact that the game knows nothing of these concepts - all it knows is wining or losing.

they’re just high-tier because of how generously they reward such actions. Conversely, there is nothing particularly brave about playing a terrible character. If you only enjoy playing a bad character (or have serious character loyalty from game to game), that’s absolutely fine, but it is no badge of honor. In fact, in many cases the whole low-tier hero thing is a form of insipid, backhanded cowardice.

Picking a terrible character, giving oneself no shot at victory, and subsequently proclaiming some sort of moral victory is the behavior of a person who ultimately knows that he can’t hang with the big boys. Don’t be that person. Play the characters you love, but leave circuitous notions of honor out of it.

Pretty long rant. Read at your own risk. :P

I dunno man, I kinda take offense to that. :P I argued with Keits about nearly the same thing on WUSRK comments a few months back.

I have to say that the specific type of 'low-tier hero' d3v and Hates mentions really do exist, and you guys are more or less right about them. But their are other players (such as myself) who do the same thing but for different reasons.

Now on this game, obviously I don't play low tier *note the Xianghua avatar :)* unless its my secondary or tertiary, but on other games, like VF, SF, or Marvel, I do. It's not because to make myself feel better when I lose (though I used to do that awhile back), but it's as a personal challenge. Other players *play to win*, but I'd argue that just because you 'win' doesn't necessarily mean you are better than the one you beat. The 'winner' doesn't always necessarily know more about the mechanics of the game, or the matchup, or even about their own character. They might be completely ignorant to all of that and still get the win off of overly generous moves/combos/mechanics. We've ALL felt at times that we lost to someone that we just knew we should have beaten, as well as the frustration and insult behind it.

One thing low tiers have in common in all games is that they almost always have no other choice but to learn and use all available game- and character-centric tools to their advantage. The best example would be 3rd strike Sean. Noone in their right mind would expect a Sean player to win a tournament, because he's so bad (unless you're Kuroda), but concerning only individual matches, even against top-tiers like Chun-li, there is a possibility that you can still win (except on the highest level of play). But you MUST play efficiently; you must parry telegraphed moves, you must know and use your punishers, you must maximize your damage by using the best combos and normals available when the opportunity arises, you must know the max range and priority of your moves, etc etc etc. In this situation, in order to have any chance of winning, you willingly put yourself in a position to force yourself to play smart, and in some cases perfectly efficient/without room for mistakes or mental laxing.

In short, when employed properly 'low-tiering it' is probably the best way to force yourself to become a better player overall. In an almost Zen-like move, you willingly abstain from relying on overpowered/overly generous moves to focus purely on using your own intellegence, creativity, and ingenuity to win. Its analagous to throwing yourself in the hyperbolic time chamber, Goku and the gang/Naruto's Rock Lee wearing the weighted clothing to gain muscle and strength, or Vegeta training rigorously (to the point of nearly killing himself) on that asteroid to reach that next super saijin level of play.

But at the same time, there is a point where you draw a line. With no other better example in mind, in Marvel, playing a Hsien-ko-based team vs. a Phoenix team with all top tier characters can be safely considered impossible in any notable play level.

While this low-tier point is magnified exponentially in Capcom fighters, due to their notoriously bad (and, strangely, gleefully accepted) balance, its not much different in other games. As a Sarah player in VF5, I don't have good guard breaks, a decent 2P, overly generous on-block frame advantages, auto-guard stances, half-life two hit combos, or other cheap gimmicks to rely on -- I have to use my fundamental knowledge and creativity to the fullest extent to be better than you. The same could be said with Mina and Talim players here in SC4. In what sense is simply playing better than your opponent in every possible way to win 'scrub/coward' mentality? How is that NOT, by definition, being 'better' than your opponent? You may 'play-to-win', but I play to be better than you at this game. If you're not trying to be better than your opponent, why are you even playing a competitive game at all? (unless you're already making thousands from tournament winnings)

tl;dr?
Calling 'low-tier heroes' 'scrubs' or a form of 'cowardice' is misleading and frankly, WRONG.
 
Other players *play to win*, but I'd argue that just because you 'win' doesn't necessarily mean you are better than the one you beat. The 'winner' doesn't always necessarily know more about the mechanics of the game, or the matchup, or even about their own character. They might be completely ignorant to all of that and still get the win off of overly generous moves/combos/mechanics.

One thing low tiers have in common in all games is that they almost always have no other choice but to learn and use all available game- and character-centric tools to their advantage.

In short, when employed properly 'low-tiering it' is probably the best way to force yourself to become a better player overall. In an almost Zen-like move, you willingly abstain from relying on overpowered/overly generous moves to focus purely on using your own intellegence, creativity, and ingenuity to win. Its analagous to throwing yourself in the hyperbolic time chamber, Goku and the gang/Naruto's Rock Lee wearing the weighted clothing to gain muscle and strength, or Vegeta training rigorously (to the point of nearly killing himself) on that asteroid to reach that next super saijin level of play.

You may 'play-to-win', but I play to be better than you at this game.

THIS THIS THIS!!! lol I couldn't (and didn't actually lol) have explained it better!
 
Pretty long rant. Read at your own risk. :P

I dunno man, I kinda take offense to that. :P I argued with Keits about nearly the same thing on WUSRK comments a few months back.

I have to say that the specific type of 'low-tier hero' d3v and Hates mentions really do exist, and you guys are more or less right about them. But their are other players (such as myself) who do the same thing but for different reasons.

Now on this game, obviously I don't play low tier *note the Xianghua avatar :)* unless its my secondary or tertiary, but on other games, like VF, SF, or Marvel, I do. It's not because to make myself feel better when I lose (though I used to do that awhile back), but it's as a personal challenge. Other players *play to win*, but I'd argue that just because you 'win' doesn't necessarily mean you are better than the one you beat. The 'winner' doesn't always necessarily know more about the mechanics of the game, or the matchup, or even about their own character. They might be completely ignorant to all of that and still get the win off of overly generous moves/combos/mechanics. We've ALL felt at times that we lost to someone that we just knew we should have beaten, as well as the frustration and insult behind it.

One thing low tiers have in common in all games is that they almost always have no other choice but to learn and use all available game- and character-centric tools to their advantage. The best example would be 3rd strike Sean. Noone in their right mind would expect a Sean player to win a tournament, because he's so bad (unless you're Kuroda), but concerning only individual matches, even against top-tiers like Chun-li, there is a possibility that you can still win (except on the highest level of play). But you MUST play efficiently; you must parry telegraphed moves, you must know and use your punishers, you must maximize your damage by using the best combos and normals available when the opportunity arises, you must know the max range and priority of your moves, etc etc etc. In this situation, in order to have any chance of winning, you willingly put yourself in a position to force yourself to play smart, and in some cases perfectly efficient/without room for mistakes or mental laxing.

In short, when employed properly 'low-tiering it' is probably the best way to force yourself to become a better player overall. In an almost Zen-like move, you willingly abstain from relying on overpowered/overly generous moves to focus purely on using your own intellegence, creativity, and ingenuity to win. Its analagous to throwing yourself in the hyperbolic time chamber, Goku and the gang/Naruto's Rock Lee wearing the weighted clothing to gain muscle and strength, or Vegeta training rigorously (to the point of nearly killing himself) on that asteroid to reach that next super saijin level of play.

But at the same time, there is a point where you draw a line. With no other better example in mind, in Marvel, playing a Hsien-ko-based team vs. a Phoenix team with all top tier characters can be safely considered impossible in any notable play level.

While this low-tier point is magnified exponentially in Capcom fighters, due to their notoriously bad (and, strangely, gleefully accepted) balance, its not much different in other games. As a Sarah player in VF5, I don't have good guard breaks, a decent 2P, overly generous on-block frame advantages, auto-guard stances, half-life two hit combos, or other cheap gimmicks to rely on -- I have to use my fundamental knowledge and creativity to the fullest extent to be better than you. The same could be said with Mina and Talim players here in SC4. In what sense is simply playing better than your opponent in every possible way to win 'scrub/coward' mentality? How is that NOT, by definition, being 'better' than your opponent? You may 'play-to-win', but I play to be better than you at this game. If you're not trying to be better than your opponent, why are you even playing a competitive game at all? (unless you're already making thousands from tournament winnings)

tl;dr?
Calling 'low-tier heroes' 'scrubs' or a form of 'cowardice' is misleading and frankly, WRONG.
In fairness, we were calling out a pretty specific subset of player who hides behind the low-tier ranking as a reason for their loss. I mean, even I use low-tiers every now and then (the fact that I use them as counter-picks notwithstanding).

But still, you have to ask yourself if picking low-tier is doing you any favors, especially when some top ties require just as much effort to play well, but give out so much higher reward (e.g. MvC2 Sent and Mags, who if you don't have the execution and knowledge of the games system to play them at their peak, are pretty much mid-tier).

Also, speaking of making money, there is money involved so it does make sense to stack the deck in your favor by picking top-tier. At least with the SF/Marvel community, money matches and side bets have always been part of the competitive experience - so far, the highest amount ever on record was $50,000 of one MvC2 money match between fanatiq and Toan.
 
Back