The Great Player Vs Character Debate: SCV Edition

In SCV is it more about the PLAYER or the CHARACTER?

  • It's always more about the PLAYER.

    Votes: 36 57.1%

  • The CHARACTER used always plays a bigger factor.

    Votes: 4 6.3%

  • It can be EITHER depending on the character matchup.

    Votes: 23 36.5%
  • Total voters
    63
Ooofmatic

Ooofmatic

World Warrior
I've seen this topic brought up many times throughout the span of the SC series, and I'm sure in other FG's too.

So often I've seen people say things like "He only won because he uses [insert character]", or "You only beat me because of your character's [insert move here]".

Even last night I was owning this scrub online who shall remain nameless, who then messaged me basically saying "you only win because of Dampierre's half life combos from his JF kicks", in which I responded to KingWalker by saying "No, you as a player lack the skills to avoid getting half life combo'd, it's not the character", in which he responded with a "Hell naw".

Anyways, my question to you, 8wr community, is are the outcomes of battles more determined by the player, or the character? Or is it dependant on the matchup?

If a high tier character is used and requires less correct guesses to win than the opponent with a low tier character, is it still more about the player, or the character?

Let's end this debate once and for all.
 
The answer is none of those by themselves. The answer is all 3 together. If you have a good player with a good character with a decent matchup, you're going to have a hard time winning. Matchup knowledge plays a role also because if you don't know how to fight a certain character, it'll might seem like you're not a good player or the character being used is bad when its not the case. An example of this is RTD vs. reptile. So anyone who chooses just one of those is completely wrong.
 
Thug pretty much summed it up- I did cast my vote for "It's more the player." Because, though I agree with Thug that all option come in to play, I think that the key factor (or majority) of the particular question comes down to the user of said characters.
 
A little of column A and a little of column B.

Being the over-aggressive player I am, I doubt I could perform as well with any other character in comparison to Viola. The character's strengths suit me well.
Also, I don't care how good a Raphael you are, I just don't see what you're supposed to do with the threat of Cervantes' aB. I'm sure there's ways around it but it seems to just negate the majority of his preparation crap.

Hmmm...
...There are good and bad character matchups, and each character has different strengths and weaknesses that different players may or may not be able to use to their advantage, but their overall skill at, and knowledge of the game is more important than any of that.
I suppose on that basis I have to lean towards the player, but the character does make that little bit of difference.
 
The way the game is now, it is more about the character unfortuately. People who play top tiers for the sake of playing top tiers know this, but will most likely disagree with me publically on the forums to save face. If you have to guess less and get better reward, regardless of matchup or player skill, it automatically grants a significant advantage. It's basic math at that point. (This is, of course, assuming you and your opponent are on equal levels of skill or have only a slight difference.)

On a personal note, whenever I lose, I usually feel like there's more I could've done as a player to prevent it. However, there are many times where I find myself seeing that I wasn't being outplayed and still lost the round to a lucky CH combo that kills half your life and derails momentum completely. Keep in mind, this is not a complaint or a call for balance, but merely an observation.
 
Man this is a hard question because, unless you pick two players with a very similar level of experience and skill with two characters of completely different tiers we can't know for sure, but I guess the player is more important.
 
At anything less than top level play, the variables are too many to mention. It could be character ignorance, less skill, character strength, character weakness; there is really no way to tell. That's why most people are so dismissive when people complain about tiers or "OP" this or that- it's not the concept they are against, it's who it's coming from.

On the other hand, at high level play when player knowledge and skill are at an apex and the differences between the players is less so; the differences between the characters THEN start to show. That's how it's always been.
 
I think it's more about the player. Luckily this game is balanced enough that no one is blatantly overpowered, neither is anyone grossly underpowered either.

MU knowledge has a way of leveling the playing field a bit, so this definitely leans me more towards the player being more important.

But even then, we all have our "mains". There are certain characters we play better with, period, regardless of tier placement. For example I play better with Sieg than NM, even though pretty much everyone agrees NM is better.

So character choice is indeed is big factor.

So, the question we should really ask ourselves is, which character takes advantage of our strengths as a player the most? Are you a spacing player, a rushdown, a turtler? Do you have godlike execution?

I don't believe that all players automatically do better by switching to a higher tier. Maybe that Alpha Pat doesn't play to everyone's strengths. Or maybe some people aren't good at consistently landing long juggles, so Viola is not for them.

What's most interesting to me is how fast people's perception of tiers changes when suddenly some specialist comes and massacres everyone with a so called "low tier".
 
I believe it's based more on the player. From my experience, any character can be anything from noob to cheap to so pro everyone's calling hax. There's a few characters that are just... Naturally annoying like Mitsu but in the end it depends on the player and how they're playing.
 
SuckingMaw said:
On the other hand, at high level play when player knowledge and skill are at an apex and the differences between the players is less so; the differences between the characters THEN start to show. That's how it's always been.
Click to expand...
If we're talking about previous SC's, I agree with you. But in SCV, I think it's rather the opposite since it's so well balanced.
SuckingMaw said:
At anything less than top level play, the variables are too many to mention.
Click to expand...
I was tempted to focus the discussion on high level play, but I didn't want to alienate the non-high level players from posting their opinions.
 
I'm just gonna post this in my own opinion ONLY cause I'm definately gonna get somebody butt hurt from my powerful words, my thu'um (maybe; even though I love debating).

To me, it's ALLL about the player; character never matters. The truth behind it all why its always about the player, is because Player is everything. Only the player can decide the victory of battle if you build your proficiency. Proficiency within a player comes with 3 important types he or she needs to train under.

Such as:
Skill: The experience to play with ANY characters moves. This determins your understanding of your own characters.
Logic: This determins a players understanding of what to do with moves under any circumstance. Your ability to flex your style as you see fit in order to obtain victory. This also determins what you know about your enemy & what you can do against him/her (Aka: Playing Smart).
Confidence: This determins a players resistance, behavior, & style in battle. Resistance is how well are you able to avoid enemy pressure & guard impact or block or use evasive moves at perfect times. Behavior is the ability to set the mood of battle in the way you see fit & how well you avoid playing the enemies game & not yours. Style is the ability to play confidently in your own way (Example: DEX, a Berserker who charges/relies on close quarters only & uses power atks often then not).

These are the 3 important things that determins a players proficiency. Thus, making it the reason why its only the player that matters only. Saying character matters, even the slightest bit, is only a false hope. That's exactly why I said tiers don't exist at all. It sounds like character matters when it doesn't. Character never matters, because if it did, why the hell would that character be made in the first place? Believing false hopes like character matters/tiers, tells me why pick the character? why even make the character in the game? It's like your saying, failure is all that awaits in certain characters, etc.

Example of player vs character: There's 2 players, one player has very high proficiency & uses Nightmare, the other player has average proficiency like he knows the moves, but lacks the other 2 aspects & he uses Alpha Patroklos. The one who has the highest proficiency is more likely to win 90% of the time because he has all 3 aspects of proficiency under his control. So lets take 2 players with maxed out proficiency, thats going to be a battle of who plays more smart, its not a battle of who plays with certain characters. Never was!

Lastly I've said alot before is how to raise proficiency, a slow way & a fast way. (Slow way): Play alot, (Fast way): Lose battles. Why is losing the fastest way? because you simply learn better after every defeat, making you come back twice as strong each & every time you lose. When you got that feeling of being really down, don't give in despair. That's where your just going through the emotion of feeling oppressed by your proficiency. All you simply need to do is relax, think about it, admit your faults & failures (Tell it to someone if you need to, I did), & refresh yourself for the next battle. Going by that method, you'll start to feel a change in yourself slowly getting stronger & stronger. You'll be meeting a new you that you didn't think existed.

:sc5ast1:: Accept it, or leave it, but this is the way of DEX!
 
Death_Emperor_X said:
Nobody needs a hero, I sure hell didn't start out with one. I had to suffer alone, then come back stronger on my own. I'm gonna let you do the same. (No offence)
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • 1355342324749.jpg
    1355342324749.jpg
    10 KB · Views: 154
OOFMATIC said:
I've seen this topic brought up many times throughout the span of the SC series, and I'm sure in other FG's too.

So often I've seen people say things like "He only won because he uses [insert character]", or "You only beat me because of your character's [insert move here]".

Even last night I was owning this scrub online who shall remain nameless, who then messaged me basically saying "you only win because of Dampierre's half life combos from his JF kicks", in which I responded to KingWalker by saying "No, you as a player lack the skills to avoid getting half life combo'd, it's not the character", in which he responded with a "Hell naw".

Anyways, my question to you, 8wr community, is are the outcomes of battles more determined by the player, or the character? Or is it dependant on the matchup?

If a high tier character is used and requires less correct guesses to win than the opponent with a low tier character, is it still more about the player, or the character?

Let's end this debate once and for all.
Click to expand...

The real answer is the net connection. She or He who has the better connection wins. After that one can play around with the ideas that you put forward as secondary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back