Hate Speech Theory Fighter University: Tiers

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.

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?

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.

...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.

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.

 

In my opinion it doesnt matter about tier just how well you can play.


UNLESS of course you play Amy that stupid lil' whore, honestly who can easily beat the shit out of there step father? Nobody but Amy, I tell you AMY!

 

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.

That's all perfectly legitimate, actually. There are times in which uniqueness offers a strategic advantage, too, but really choosing the character you find to be most fun/engaging/whatever is probably going to be what gets the most out of you, anyway.

tl;dr?
Calling 'low-tier heroes' 'scrubs' or a form of 'cowardice' is misleading and frankly, WRONG.

It's not wrong at all. First, examine the specifics of what I'm arguing--namely, that some people intentionally gravitate toward low tier in order to hide behind an inability to win, and they try to shame people who choose other characters while focusing on "moral victories." It's a counterproductive strategy, and it deserves to be called out, so within that specific context those people are indeed cowardly. Choosing a character you like that just happens to be low tier is an entirely different phenomenon. As I mentioned to the guy above, you should go for it!

I'd further like to engage with the notion that low-tier players are "better" than the people who beat them because they know the system better. This is very, very difficult to prove, firstly. More importantly, I see it as a potentially problematic way of thinking. The ultimate objective metric for any fighting game player is wins and losses. Matches are played out on the screen, not in the form of a multiple choice quiz on who knows mechanics the best. Do certain top tiers allow for significantly less skilled players to win? Absolutely. It's incredibly difficult to parse the difference, though, without further encouraging people who want to hide behind bad characters instead of finding a character they might actually enjoy more, not to mention possibly winning in the process.

 

I'd further like to engage with the notion that low-tier players are "better" than the people who beat them because they know the system better. This is very, very difficult to prove, firstly. More importantly, I see it as a potentially problematic way of thinking. The ultimate objective metric for any fighting game player is wins and losses. Matches are played out on the screen, not in the form of a multiple choice quiz on who knows mechanics the best. Do certain top tiers allow for significantly less skilled players to win? Absolutely. It's incredibly difficult to parse the difference, though, without further encouraging people who want to hide behind bad characters instead of finding a character they might actually enjoy more, not to mention possibly winning in the process.

Food for thought: there have been recorded instances of top players who use top tiers switching to low tiers and still winning. Case in point, in MvC2 Justin Wong has been known to go to random mid/low-tiers for exhibitions and still win. Same with kuroda at 3rd Strike, where he is known for picking low tiers in exhibition matches, but goes back to Ken come SBO.

 

It's not wrong at all. First, examine the specifics of what I'm arguing--namely, that some people intentionally gravitate toward low tier in order to hide behind an inability to win, and they try to shame people who choose other characters while focusing on "moral victories." It's a counterproductive strategy, and it deserves to be called out, so within that specific context those people are indeed cowardly. Choosing a character you like that just happens to be low tier is an entirely different phenomenon. As I mentioned to the guy above, you should go for it!

I'd further like to engage with the notion that low-tier players are "better" than the people who beat them because they know the system better. This is very, very difficult to prove, firstly. More importantly, I see it as a potentially problematic way of thinking. The ultimate objective metric for any fighting game player is wins and losses. Matches are played out on the screen, not in the form of a multiple choice quiz on who knows mechanics the best. Do certain top tiers allow for significantly less skilled players to win? Absolutely. It's incredibly difficult to parse the difference, though, without further encouraging people who want to hide behind bad characters instead of finding a character they might actually enjoy more, not to mention possibly winning in the process.

I agree with most of your points actually. :)

My only beef was that when reading your bit on 'low-tier heroes', it gave the impression that you were talking about all people who tend to pick low(er)-tierd characters. It sounded like a blanket statement that didn't necessarily fit. I just thought I clear it up with my own thoughts, that just because a person tends to pick lower-tiered characters, or even call themselves low-tier heroes, doesn't mean they have the scrub mentality you described. Don't get me wrong, as both you and I mentioned, there are people like that (I used to be one of them) and find it just as offensive as you, but there are people who aren't like that too.

"The ultimate objective metric for any fighting game player is wins and losses" -- 100% totally true. Totally agree, BUT it's not as simple as who wins a tournament double elimination, FT3, FT5, or even FT10. To definitively judge who's better of two players, going by this metric alone, you would have to do alot of matches spread over a decently long period of time statistically. As you said, proving (objectively) who's better is very very difficult, and I'd argue nearly impossible in a practical manner. But speaking in a pragmatic sense, in real life, usually wins are enough to show who's better, but only between two opponents with a large difference in skill gap, but for those with relatively close skill gap? Going by experience, people usually judge according to how good each particular player is by how well they use their tools in matches -- punishers, matchup knowledge, taking risks with educated guesses that pay off, etc. Now this doesn't 'prove' that the low-tier character user is better by any means, but I say that their skillful use of character abilities and game knowledge is usually much much more evident with the player with the low tier.

 

I have a question as far as the who is better thing. Let's say there is 2 people. Now person A never loses to anyone ever. Except, when he goes up against person B. Person B beats the ever living dog shit out of person A every time. However Person B loses the some of his matches against all these other people that Person A runs through. So, my question is, who is better? Person A or Person B?

 

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).

Yeah, I understand. :) I just wanted to make it clear that it was a SUBSET, and not all low-tier users. This is pretty much why I usually don't like blanket statements.

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).

That's the thing about purposely picking low-tier: you're NOT doing yourself any favors, and you know it. It's the entire point of it. You're pitting yourself in a disadvantageous situation (learning to deal with bad matchups usually, sometimes with how to defend with overpowered shenanigans as well) to see how you will overcome it. The idea is not much different than lifting weights, and can be just as frustrating, painful, and infuriating (or impossible, like putting too much weight that you can't possibly lift on a rack), but like how your body increases muscle, your mind becomes sharper and less resilient to tactics that others find difficult/impossible to deal with.

Now this says absolutely nothing about how much effort it takes to play high tier characters. I wasn't trying to either. Ivy is constantly knocked on as a high-tier character, but NOBODY calls her a scrub character, because of how difficult she is. Just like Magneto in marvel. Learning stuff like ROM combo or gravity loop takes weeks, let alone trying to pull it off in matches.

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.

Definitely true. playing a Son-Son team in a $50K money match would be stupid. Playing Rock in a $10K FT20 would also be incredibly stupid. These all-0r-nothing win at all costs situations requires that one gets as many advantages on their side as possible. Just like when Goku took off his weighted clothing to fight Vegeta (sorry for the constant dbz references :P)

 

This is why you want a balanced game. I don't think the fighting game community has played too many of these balanced games since most of these games are made in weird ass Japan.

SC5 motherfuckers.

 

snip

I'll try a hand at it. :)

I'll say that the answer depends on EXACTLY WHAT you are defining as better. Without it, the question is too vague

if 'who's better in this match between player A and B'?

the match shows obviously that player B is alot better compared to A in that matchup

if 'who is the better player overall?'

then overall wins/losses/other statistics against other players will show that player A wins (if player B overall has significantly worse stats against other players)

That's like sports -- (don't hate me too much, because I don't watch too much sports) lets say, if the Miami heat has the best record in the NBA by a landslide, and the Clippers have the worst, but every single time the two play, the Clippers destroy the Heat, that doesn't automatically make the Clippers the best team overall (their record proves otherwise), but it does make them the obvious better team in the matchup for whatever reason (better Center? better plays ran/coaching? more capable defense? better outside shooters? some aspect of their game that exploits the Heat's weaknesses?)

 

I have a question as far as the who is better thing. Let's say there is 2 people. Now person A never loses to anyone ever. Except, when he goes up against person B. Person B beats the ever living dog shit out of person A every time. However Person B loses the some of his matches against all these other people that Person A runs through. So, my question is, who is better? Person A or Person B?

I'm sure there'd be some way to run the math on that, provided hard numbers were available (and the pool of potential opponents for both players was limited, stable, and defined) and arrive at a conclusion that's mathematically correct. Still, that doesn't strike me as terribly satisfying. I think there's always going to be an element of subjectivity involved. There's an odd and under-appreciated subjective, expressive, almost aesthetic sensibility to high level play which is probably worth further discussion.

 

Person A is better because they are more likely to place in a tournament.

 

I told this to someone when they mentioned the balance of the game and he was confused about tier list.

Ok I think you're confused on what tier list are, just because a character is top tier it doesn't mean that the character is unbeatable. It means that the character has better tools than other characters. Like comparing Maxi to Ivy, lets say they both play against the same character odds are Ivy has an answer to whatever the other character has, Maxi on the other hand on has so many things he can do. Lets do that for every character on the roster, we figure out that Ivy has an easier time against the majority of the cast so she is put higher up on the tier list. When we try to do the same for Maxi we realize that he has limited tools and has a harder time against a larger portion of the cast so we place him lower on the tier list. Does this mean that Maxi has no way to beat higher tier characters? By no means is this the case.

It doesn't matter if you try to learn how to beat a character because odds are your future opponents aren't just sitting around with their thumbs up their asses. They are learning what your character can do to stop theirs and are adapting.

 

I have a question as far as the who is better thing. Let's say there is 2 people. Now person A never loses to anyone ever. Except, when he goes up against person B. Person B beats the ever living dog shit out of person A every time. However Person B loses the some of his matches against all these other people that Person A runs through. So, my question is, who is better? Person A or Person B?

The better player is better. =)
Look at it this way, Keev is one of the best players in the world and in SCIV I think I'm right in saying that he has never beaten Malek in tournament play. I wouldn't want to say who is best out of those two, y'know?

 

That's the thing about purposely picking low-tier: you're NOT doing yourself any favors, and you know it. It's the entire point of it. You're pitting yourself in a disadvantageous situation (learning to deal with bad matchups usually, sometimes with how to defend with overpowered shenanigans as well) to see how you will overcome it. The idea is not much different than lifting weights, and can be just as frustrating, painful, and infuriating (or impossible, like putting too much weight that you can't possibly lift on a rack), but like how your body increases muscle, your mind becomes sharper and less resilient to tactics that others find difficult/impossible to deal with.)

The problem with this comes when you start playing games with a high level of character uniqueness, to the point where stuff you learn from playing a low tier character doesn't translated into playing better with a higher tiered character. Matchups change depending on the character and the matchup you learn using one will most likely not apply when you use a higher tiered character come tournament/money match time. This is something to consider since Soul Cal has been borrowing a lot from 2D fighters (which have traditionally had more match-up uniqueness) with V bringing in long distance, space control mechanics for some of its newer characters (and some old ones).

 

Just to slide this in here, the specific derogatory term for low tier heroes who get a superiority complex over playing/winning/losing with low tiers is "Tier Martyr".

 

I never put too much faith into tier list. it's fun debating but, to me, for SC4 at least, tier list is slightly more useful than useless. The thing is that SC4 is very balanced. There are exceptions, but barring those exception (namely Yoda, Rock and Hilde), most characters are approximately equal. This means that a player's skill and reaction are more important than tier. In another word, I would rather spend time practicing than researching and debating whick character to use. Furthermore, I found that some people are more suited to a character. For example, Amy is high tier, but even if I put in the same effort into learning amy as the effort for learning sophie, my sophie would probably be more powerful than my amy. and if I am vsing my brother, my amy would never beat his amy. but my sophie would have a good chance of winning. in fact, my Raph would probably be more powerful than my amy.

also the idea of tier list is very confusing for people who first see it (I was confused by it. I came into contact with the online community due to SC4, but I have SE, SC2 and SC3). that's why there are so many 'myths' associated with it. even now, people still have slightly different ideas about the definition of "tier".

 

Just to slide this in here, the specific derogatory term for low tier heroes who get a superiority complex over playing/winning/losing with low tiers is "Tier Martyr".

I feel like a Tier Martyr when I beat Amy with Rock and I'm proud of it Idle.

That's the thing about purposely picking low-tier: you're NOT doing yourself any favors, and you know it. It's the entire point of it. You're pitting yourself in a disadvantageous situation (learning to deal with bad matchups usually, sometimes with how to defend with overpowered shenanigans as well) to see how you will overcome it. The idea is not much different than lifting weights, and can be just as frustrating, painful, and infuriating (or impossible, like putting too much weight that you can't possibly lift on a rack), but like how your body increases muscle, your mind becomes sharper and less resilient to tactics that others find difficult/impossible to deal with.

Reminds me of PT with the Master Sergeant when I was stationed at Fort Campbell.

All aside, I agree with what you said. I enjoy picking Low tiers and even If I lose I don't necessarily blame the guy who beat me, but my own weakness/reflexes/etc. That being said I agree with the advantages of picking a low tier as it makes you more "Defensive" and forces you to play and think outside the box in match-ups.

I enjoy picking Low tiers in any fighting game (Yoshimitsu/Zafina in tekken 6, Felicia/Chris/Hsien-ko in MvC3, Hakumen/Tager in BBCS2, Sheeva in MK, etc.) and the results of winning feel much more satisfying and gratifying when you win.

 

I feel like a Tier Martyr when I beat Amy with Rock and I'm proud of it Idle.

A story for you- I have beaten a tournament level Amy with Rock, offline in a tournament setting. I switched to Rock because I felt the matchup was better for 2 reasons

1) Amy specific combos, and a good read on the players habits to exploit his ducking with 2B+G into those Amy specific combos

2) Character ignorance. I figured he wouldn't know how to punish or stop me because you hardly ever see or prepare for Rock in tournament.

Character ignorance is something Tier Martyrs like to gloss over- because the fact is when people know the match-ups against low tiers in SC4, you are probably going to lose.

Even Omega himself says this about Zas and his matches. Omega is a far far superior player to most; in the top class... but Zas isn't a character even near the top class. The difference in his matches at EVO 09 when nobody knew the match-up, and at DEV were telling- because some people DID know the match-up.

At the end of the day, identifying character ignorance and using it is one of the most powerful reasons to use a low tier. The thing is, like the low tiers themselves, it's a gimmick and ought not to be relied on if you are serious about competing in the game.

 

At the end of the day, identifying character ignorance and using it is one of the most powerful reasons to use a low tier. The thing is, like the low tiers themselves, it's a gimmick and ought not to be relied on if you are serious about competing in the game.

Thus why I am learning Kilik and a little Lizard at the side. However you must also admit despite ignorance how many people truly wish to learn Rock's In's and Out's?

It should be taken advantage of. And If you are playing a low tier I would say to be Proficient with at least a good 75% of the cast. When I lose to Kilik/Voldo/Siegfried I go to practice pick said characters that beat me and try to learn why they used the moves they did against my character.

Effectively however in a tournament I would theoretically say that everybody there has done there homework to a degree. Omega won with Zas but I don't recall Zas ever being a Low tier. Maybe a Bottom-Mid tier along with Maxi and Raphael but not low tier with Seong and Rock. Mid tiers are much more fun to use in tournaments compared to low tiers anyway.

 

Low tier also comes with pride...knowing that you're the only one in a room filled with players that can pull off what you're doing has it's own self-fulfillment.

Tiers are really determined by match-ups, and match-ups are determined by tools. So even a balanced game can have bad match-ups depending on how dissimilar the characters are.

Now for theory talk...
Looking at SCV we estimate that Astorath is probably going to be top tier. Consider his damage output and arguably the best CE in the game. He's also much faster. In previous games he had some difficult with rush down characters. Currently with the information out there, he has the best throws in a game where throws are buffed. Also, strongest tech trap game by far.

That said when I look at hilde, and her GC charges. Which give her the ability to shut down the opponents movement. Quick step and back dash in addition to zone out due to her fast charges that give +frames on block. I am open to say Astaroth might have the same exact problems he had against her in SC4. If you remember correctly Hilde's movement and her ability to just step around throws and bullrush was what made that match-up favorable to her. She is faster outside the range of Astaroth's throw game. Her charges will be a problem for other short range rush down characters as well. I have also called her out as one of the few characters that can effectively turtle properly in SCV.

 

The problem with this comes when you start playing games with a high level of character uniqueness, to the point where stuff you learn from playing a low tier character doesn't translated into playing better with a higher tiered character.

I think that is pretty much a different subject. I was arguing that being a low-tier hero makes you a more well rounded player overall. Learning a character with a unique style is different from that, with it's own set of obstacles. (though I'd also say that often times, you have to have ingenuity to play low tier, which could indirectly help). I wasn't trying the argue that playing lowtier will help you specifically learn higher tier characters with unique attributes -- i.e. Being a master Mina player won't necessarily make you a master Voldo player, but it WILL help you be a master Soul Calibur 4 player

It's the same with unique character matchups too. That's a case-by-case basis.

But the things I'm talking about with low-tier using is using fundamental knowledge to your fullest advantages - blocking properly, punishing properly, using frames, using system attributes to your advantage, such as life bar, game clock, stun bar/guard break/soul gauge, using psychological tools to gain upper hand, etc. Those can be learned when using higher tier characters, but when using low-tiers, it tends to become a requirement, therefore you are more subjected to learning/using these tools. For example, alot of Ivy users I see below the highest level use her pretty well and are pretty scary enough. But they don't even use things like her good soul gauge game. Why? Because they don't need it; and they don't bother to learn it because of that. But what if they did? Their overall game would become that much scarier/stronger