Most technical character?

Promiethius said:
I was talking about offline the entire time.
If were talking about online man. I say setsuka all the way, in both difficulty and being the most technical. That shit is retarded. You have to hit moves before they even come out for them to work, thats bullshit. You have to guess before you do your attack will it hit them or not, lol.

It truly is the dummest shit. I'm sure every Setsuka player feels me on that.
Click to expand...

Seconded.

You know, maybe we should come up with a single definition of what "Technical" is for this game, instead of just saying what we each think it means.

Edit:
Plume said:
Land 1BBA, follow up with 4B:B if they don't shake. Most won't.
Click to expand...

See, this is why most of us don't take online into consideration. After landing a 94 damage combo with Yun online, I always tell people,"You can shake that, you know," they ask me what the hell shaking is. IT'S IN THE FUCKING MANUAL! EVEN... NO, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE A NOOB TO SOUL CALIBUR, READ THE FUCKING MANUAL!

@Plume: My point is, many of Zas' combos and such don't work past a certain point, and given how unsafe many of his moves are (They're also slow and telegraphed). Since he's one of the slowest characters in the game (And he doesn't have really damaging shit like Asty does), he really has to take advantage of improvised mixups (I sure hope my opponent can't break throws well), then he's got an uphill battle compared to many characters. Offline, because many online players are noobs.
 
Dullyanna said:
See, this is why most of us don't take online into consideration.(...)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but I think we agree...
Yes, offline is played differently. But the first post was about online, which is why I started talking about online.

And I know that most people here don't take online seriously, which is another good reason for me to keep insiting that I'm talking about online, and that this thread is about online.
I already knew, while typing my posts, that what I said made no sense in offline high level play.
 
"Technical:
--demanding or difficult: ie. a technical violin sonata; a technical ski run."

THIS is the most generally accepted definition for "technical" and THAT is what we are talking about. If we wanted to say "Which character is the hardest to win with?" we would have said it.

There is NOTHING technical about mixing up Zaz's 66B,B and 66B into 2K. It's dirt simple.


And Tiers, in their very definition, apply MAINLY TO high level matches. Tiers very obviously exist and anyone who says they don't is just being a whiny child who doesn't want people calling their character "bad."

SOME CHARACTERS SIMPLY HAVE BETTER TOOLS THAN OTHERS!!

This is a fact. And that is all that Tiers are trying to say. It is an objective ranking of characters based on their tools to succeed. No more, no less.

No one is trying to say that Zaz can't beat Yoshimitsu. He can. But that doesn't change the fact that you have to work harder with Zaz in order to win.
 
Yet, I would say people that say tiers exists, are looking for an excuse for when they lose. Tiers are simply stating that this character is the best and this one is the worst. Match-ups are where the analysis of character tools is applied.

There is no one way to play a character. This is most definite in Soul Calibur. I have stated this before, if two people play use the exact some style, with similar stats, in terms of applying universal tools...gi's, throws, and the like;the character with the better tools wins. Hence the theory of tiers holds true. This best applies against bad matchups...example if a Raphael player is a rusher, a Zass player has smaller % of getting wins if he rushes just the same.

You turtle against the rush, you bait against the turtle...and vice versa. And to really overcome theory (or to compensate for your lack of tools) you have to have a high stats against your opponent. This means, your throw %, throw break %, gi %, whiff punish % with application of step, and TJ and TC, etcetera, is higher and more effective.

And on top of that your mind game has to be superior. SC is won and lost within frames, within seconds; it's a mental game, where one gi can shift pressure from a loss to a victory. As you have seen plenty of times, you can have health advantage to where your opponent need only eat a low for you to claim victory, yet for some reason the chance never comes because you don't have pressure. Come-backs.

That most technical character is still the one who demands the most from the player to win consistently, especially in high level play where execution of character tools are close to perfect.
 
Oh yeah, I'm definitely just looking for an excuse to say that Setsuka is better than Maxi (both characters I play).

Pretty much ALL of Setsuka's launchers are mid, safe and fast and lead to 60~75 damage. Maxi's are mostly unsafe, slower, worse in every way, and do less damage.

Facts are facts, guy. I don't give a damn who's better than who when I'm picking my characters, but I'm not going to flat out LIE to make myself feel better and say some characters aren't just FACTUALLY better.

Some characters get 80 damage off of a single whiffed move and others get half that if they're lucky. Some characters can play entire rounds using nothing but safe, damaging moves while others hardly have any safe moves at all and even LESS that are even half decent. You can't possibly tell me that that doesn't give one of the characters an advantage over the other.

You're just trying to be an outsider by disavowing Tiers and attributing more meaning to them than they actually have. Every character can win. No one is arguing this. Some characters have it easier than others. You are the only one arguing against this here and you are flat out wrong if you don't believe it. And if you DO believe that some characters have better tools than others then guess what, you've just agreed to the existence of Tiers because THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TELL YOU. No more, no less.
 
When you figure out a completely accurate Tier list, without biased and human error, and considers every possible variable in the game; when you get that constant...I will eat those words son.
 
You're missing the point of what a "tier list" is.

For most of a game's lifespan a tier list will change until the evolving metagame has began to cool down. But, just because tiers are an evolving thing doesn't mean that they don't matter. They're not an excuse for a loss--they're more like an advance warning. If you know that Amy is a popular character because of the number of tools she's known to have, then that means you need to come to a tournament or gathering with strategies for fighting against her shenanigans. If you show up with, say, Zasalamel and lose, you can't blame the tiers . . . you knew damn well what you were up against ahead of time.

Besides, what you ask for is silly. No one can account for every human error or variable within a fighting game. But just because I forgot that Setsuka is -17 on block after attack X doesn't make her tier position suddenly not matter when I get punished and lose the fight. I had plenty of other options and chose the wrong one.
 
A match-up review does what your stating 100 times better because it actually breaks down the game tools of each character, and how they handle each other. A tier list on the other hand, ignores match-ups and tries to draw generalizations, ignoring many factors especially since it is based off human opinion.

A match-up isn't likely to change over time. It is more accurate and more useful. Once again tier lists are just ego driven entertainment for the whole family.

For the most accurate listing, the characters on top of a tier list have the best match-ups or the least number of bad match-ups. However, because we never actually complete match-up stats for every single character, we start drawing baseless assumptions, about who is actually the best tooled character in the game to handle the rest of the cast.

And the last thing you forget is human error. We have already generalized that characters like yoda and rock suck, however if a couple of players come to the scene and win tournament after tournament with just these characters will it affect tier lists? Like you said it will, because tier lists are never constant, there always evolving...Yet my argument is, if these so called players where only experts at applying SC's universal system, gis, spacing, TJ, TC, step, mind games. It would have nothing to do with their character's tools, and everything to do with the player. Yet, despite the lack of tools, people would be hard-pressed to keep yoda and Rock at the bottom of a list, with such a high win ratio.

So either a tier list is a final result of a complete study of each character’s tools using match-up reviews, or a baseless assumption drawn from win ratios and human opinion which are driven through uncertainty. And therefore go through page after page, through pointless bickering and argument for clearly entertainment value.
 
I fail to see how matchup lists are any more stable than tier lists. A character's tools are set in stone. If this move is a a safe TC and aGI, that won't change. People may learn to anticipate it and fight around it, but that doesn't change the tool itself. Both matchups and tiers are generalizations; an Astaroth player won't beat a Hilde player in every case any more than a Yoshi player will always beat an Astaroth.

Likewise, human error cannot be a factor in either. Both matchups and tiers assume that both characters are being used to their full potential under the best circumstances.
 
Mitsurugi has always been the most technical character offline. There's no way to win with Mitsurugi offline without being technical. Now that Yoshimitsu is questionably better in terms of raw power and combo ability I'd still say Mitsurugi is more technical because Yoshi can launch into helicopter, launch into 2 hit and always tack on a 2 hit to the end of his combos. Mitsurugi, however, is forced to fight through every knockdown and launcher because his damage output is so technically demanding. Winning a Mitsurugi battle is like walking a tightrope when your opponent can block everything on reaction. I think that is a great definition of technical, high APM and tricks thrown in every half a second combined with slight delays in order to get the hits in and a complete lack of launchers and ground control variety(you can see why I feel voldo is technically demanding as well)
 
KingZeal said:
I fail to see how matchup lists are any more stable than tier lists. A character's tools are set in stone. If this move is a a safe TC and aGI, that won't change. People may learn to anticipate it and fight around it, but that doesn't change the tool itself. Both matchups and tiers are generalizations; an Astaroth player won't beat a Hilde player in every case any more than a Yoshi player will always beat an Astaroth.

Likewise, human error cannot be a factor in either. Both matchups and tiers assume that both characters are being used to their full potential under the best circumstances.
Click to expand...

That's false...and this is why.

A match-up is a specific analysis of two characters and how their tools relate. Like Namco says, the sword style comes before the character, for that reason best off design alone some characters counteract each other. A match-up doesn't put human influence in it's analysis. Based off tools alone it draws conclusions on which character would have the advantage or disadvantage. Once this analysis is complete then the human can apply himself, on how to get around his characters weaknesses in certain match-ups, or gain advantage in the reverse.

A tier list.
Is a generalization, because it's attempting to draw conclusion on an entire cast of characters, thus has a much large room for error. And since no real data is actually collected; for the most part, it's based off human opinion and thus subject to countless errors. If I have an easier time defeating Cassandra than Sophitia, I might be inclined to conclude that Sophitia is a better character...and so on and so forth.
 
KingAce said:
That's false...and this is why.

A match-up is a specific analysis of two characters and how their tools relate. Like Namco says, the sword style comes before the character, for that reason best off design alone some characters counteract each other. A match-up doesn't put human influence in it's analysis. Based off tools alone it draws conclusions on which character would have the advantage or disadvantage. Once this analysis is complete then the human can apply himself, on how to get around his characters weaknesses in certain match-ups, or gain advantage in the reverse.

A tier list.
Is a generalization, because it's attempting to draw conclusion on an entire cast of characters, thus has a much large room for error. And since no real data is actually collected; for the most part, it's based off human opinion and thus subject to countless errors. If I have an easier time defeating Cassandra than Sophitia, I might be inclined to conclude that Sophitia is a better character...and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

Except that the same generalizations exist in both.

As you said, someone might lose to a Sophitia consistently and feel that Sophitia > Cassandra, especially against their particular main. However, I'm failing to see how someone who makes this assumption in, say, a matchup thread, is automatically more accurate than someone who simply assumes that Sophitia is a higher tier. Neither opinion is necessarily fact, so why would does one triumph the other.

For your argument to work, you have to assume that every alledged matchup posted on a matchup-related thread was 100% true. And judging from those types of threads on this forum alone, that's not the case. People make "countless errors" both ways and neither debate will be truly settled until the game has been out for a lengthier period of time.
 
Jebus, guy.

It's not like there's some set in stone list of which characters can beat which characters in matchups.

Matchup-based rankings are ultimately the same as regular Tier lists as EVERY matchup result is just a compilation of public opinion.

Both regular Tier lists and Matchup lists are designed to be argued logically and as a generality, regular Tier list ALSO take into account whether a character has advantages on specific matchups.

ALL Top Tier characters, for example, would have more matchups in their favor than Low Tier characters. The very nature of a tier list makes this so.

Again, you're assigning more meaning to Tier lists than they actually have. In general, Tier lists ARE NOT based off of tournament results. Sure, if a character is consistently placing high in tournies (by different players) then it stands to reason that that specific character should be looked at with the possibilty that they are in a higher tier. Simply winning a tourny DOES NOT boost a characters Tier ranking.

Example: tieTYT won a major with Zas in the early SC3 days using simple poking tactics. Even though it caused people to discuss that his basic poking game was very solid, Zas was still not regarded as a high tier character in that game.

Also, you continually try to factor human error into the equation but BOTH regular Tier lists and Matchup lists assume that human error is minimal. It makes NO SENSE to consider human error in ANY sort of listing because then ANYTHING could be contradicted with "But what if the person you're playing keeps dropping his controller and missing button pushes?"

You are talking about things that you don't actually understand in any way shape or form. Hell, you don't even understand Matchup rankings even though you're still arguing for them.
 
KingZeal said:
Except that the same generalizations exist in both.

As you said, someone might lose to a Sophitia consistently and feel that Sophitia > Cassandra, especially against their particular main. However, I'm failing to see how someone who makes this assumption in, say, a matchup thread, is automatically more accurate than someone who simply assumes that Sophitia is a higher tier. Neither opinion is necessarily fact, so why would does one triumph the other.

For your argument to work, you have to assume that every alledged matchup posted on a matchup-related thread was 100% true. And judging from those types of threads on this forum alone, that's not the case. People make "countless errors" both ways and neither debate will be truly settled until the game has been out for a lengthier period of time.
Click to expand...

It seems that you're not comprehending what is being written. A match-up analyzes tools and draws a conclusion based on those tools. The assumption in a Match-up discussion is actually based on tool study as well as win ratio. So although one character might possibly have advantage over Cassandra and lose out to Sophitia...This doesn't automatically imply that Sophitia is generally better than Cassandra...this is what tier list would conclude. However a match-up study would say that despite this one character having an advantage over Cassandra; Cassandra has more positive match-ups than Sophitia, so Cassandra is overall better than Sophitia.

Rico
Don't draw assumptions about me please,and respectively I won't about you. Unless you desire flames.

Exactly how many tier lists are there? Everyone seems to have one.
Yet When it comes to Match-up discussions there is barely any conflict...people tend to agree. Each individual player can assess which match-up his/her character has difficulty with or otherwise. And usually this is constant.

So what you're saying is match-up reviews are the same thing as tier lists.

"Matchup-based rankings are ultimately the same as regular Tier lists as EVERY matchup result is just a compilation of public opinion."

So what you're saying here is that, it's an opinion and not a fact that lets say Kilik is a better design(has better tools) than Rock.

All these characters are a written program that have coding, and in that effect can be objectively assessed, and the only real subjective equalize is the Universal SC engine...gis, throws...etc. and human ability.

A realistic match-up review, analyzes only the tools without applying human opinion or human ability. Once the tools have been successfully anaylzed, then the human applies what he knows based off that already given information.

I am saying that since this objective match-up study has not happened at all. Tiers are baseless assumptions based on simple human opinion. That's why everyone has one...
 
id say Ivy and tira just because they seem much harder to master than the rest from my own personal experience.

but regardless I only need to learn how to beat them not use them as they dont fit my play style :P
 
I have read all the post and i have to say its all opinonated but some ppl on here seem to attack others. Its all opinion.

ok back to topic
KingAce has a point, you can look at the thread about tier list (1.03) and can tell it pretty much opinonated. Rico and KingZeal u have to see what he is saying is true. opinions dont give u true figures, its just hugh unseen errors.

But then again not one should be able to conclude who is better than who unless its the ppl who made the game, cause am pretty damn sure then they know. There is favoritism in this game whether you believe it or not.

If i stated my opinion about whos is more technical i'd say Setsuka and pretty much the majority of the male characters in the game. We have this safe bitch who someone has more range with a short sword than an abomination of Astoroth calibur swinging a lava imbued Axe. i mean i have never seen any of the male character being completely safe but with all the girls u can do it, exception i guess Tira and Ivy. Anyways thats my opinion.

Flame are coming, i know oh well, its just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom