Ninjaguy446
[14] Master
What lol Amy was legitimately top 5 in SC4, definitely top tier without a doubt
Soul Calibur VI: General discussion
- Thread starter SSfox
- Start date
Rusted Blade
[14] Master
Your memory does not even vaguely serve you right on that one. Amy was the second techiest character in that game after Ivy. She required immense reserves of patience and dedicated practice to be even remotely viable and was the absolute last character you could play in a "brain dead fashion". Her general DPS was the lowest in the game, she was highly punishable if you didn't know all of her mix-ups extremely well and alternate them constantly in order to secure the lengthy combos that were her only chance of competing with virtually the entire roster--and you needed constant stance changes as well as head games with your opponent in order to even get into those combos. I don't know where you got that memory of her being some button-masher's delight, but she was pretty much as close to the diametric opposite of that as any moveset ever created for any game in the franchise.
I must thoroughly disagree. In the hands of the right player she could be devastating, but she required that experienced, skilled hand to be able to even stand a chance against most of that roster. And I feel that in order for any character to be labelled as "top tier", they need to be at least marginally abuseable by even mediocre players--that's what separates a mid-tier from a top-tier character, imo.
Last edited:
Ninjaguy446
[14] Master
When you're talking about tiers, personal skill and ability goes out the window and does not affect placing. That's like saying A Pat and Setsuka are also low/mid tier because a mediocre player can't pull of their just frames. That's like saying Viola was not top tier because her ToD combos and setups were hard lol if anything, Amy is the worst character to use that logic with because she was super easy to use lmao
I don't want to come off as sounding mean but everything that you said in that post is really wrong and misinformed about Amy. She was not highly punishable at all; that's apart of why she was good. She was an oki monster who could keep pressing buttons because her pressure and aGI were so good. Obviously you can't mash, but she could definitely disrespect the opponent more often than not.
You can ask literally ANY person who competed in SC4 and they will tell you Amy was top tier. Again, skill and mediocre players do not count when talking about tiers and MUs.
FleshMasher
[13] Hero
Maybe not up there with Ivy, Hilde, and Kilik, but close.
Let's all just agree that SC4 balance was shit xD
Let's all just agree that SC4 balance was shit xD
Rusted Blade
[14] Master
Sorry, but I again have to disagree, at least on certain particulars. Ease of use is definetly something that is considered in terms of how balanced a given character is--both commonly by players and expressly by the devs (all the time) when discussing balance work and patching. And I'm sorry--it's just not the case that Amy was a pick-up-and-go character. You would get punished (indeed, wrecked) constantly if you just went out spamming with Amy. In other respects I think if you review my previous comments you will find our sentiments align more: yes, Amy can be a pressure monster, but only with a high degree of success with mix-ups and a fine understanding of the timing of her toolset and the ability to carry long combos, which involve constant stance changes. Actually, many of these are not true combos but combinations of short strings which end you in a position to continue to the next one if you outwit the opponent on the mix-up game or you lure them with backstep or backstance.
So yes, we do judge by the standard of good players (or at least, its as good a place as any), but that doesn't mean that the fact that Amy requires a lot of practice and precision in the management of her style is irrelevant. Yes, she absolutely could disrespect the opponent. In fact, that's exactly why I think people remember her as more dominating than she was, by and large. But that disrespect had to be carefully planned in advance, and that makes all the difference for the balance equation here.
Ninjaguy446
[14] Master
This is a competitively aimed forum. In a tier list discussion, ease of use is not a factor. That's not an opinion, that's just a fact in how tier list discussions go. What you're saying could literally be applied to any character and is not helpful. I could say that about SC4/6 Ivy, Viola, Setsuka or insert character. You would get punished constantly if you went out spamming with them. Yes, that's obvious, which is why when talking about tiers, it is assumed the characters are being played at the highest level possible. It's redundant to take into account difficulty or an understanding of the toolset because there's no way to measure that. And because there will always be someone who can execute. Oh, Viola just killed me with a one touch? She's not top tier, she's balanced because that combo was hard to execute. Alpha Pat just took half my life on a punish? That's alright, he's mid tier because I'm sure it took my opponent a long time to practice that. Do you see what I'm talking about? It makes 0 sense to take into account the skill of the player.
Like I said before, characters like Viola, Algol, A. Pat, Ivy and Setsuka wouldn't be considered top tier (which, they objectively were) by your logic. And also, your entire point doesn't even matter because Amy is not a hard character to use or understand!! None of her combos or execution were hard. 2B+K, 3BA, 33B, 3A, 1A, 66A+B, B+K. Those are literally the only moves you needed to win. Obviously you can't throw them out willy nilly and you have to know what you're doing, but that applies to every single character in the game which is why you don't take into account skill and knowledge and ability when talking about tiers. I'm gonna say that again because I feel like you don't understand that which is why you're thinking that Amy isn't top tier. No matter what character you are using, you need to have an understanding of their toolset and moves and MU knowledge to succeed. This is why player skill is not relevant. When discussing tiers, the highest level of play is assumed.
Also Amy doesn't have a backstance so I don't know what you're talking about there.
Rusted Blade
[14] Master
Ninja, I know you're not meaning to do it, but you're jumping to a lot of conclusions about how I view various situations and it's making your rebuttals feel a bit like strawman arguments. For example, of course I wouldn't view Viola's endless combo (or Asta's full-life-bar wall combo, for that matter) to not be overpowered, just because they might require some practice. Those are just plain broken. I said that ease of use was a factor, not a factor that couldn't possibly be outweighed by other considerations, even massively so. But those characters were top/top-ish tier not in spite of ease of use. And I'm sorry, but we just have a fundamental ontological/semantic disagreement as to what "balance" means with regard to ease of use. You say that we assume a "perfect" player for purposes of judging one moveset's advantages against all others, but the problem there is that there is not firm standard for perfect; its subjective what the better player would do in some circumstances, and to the degree that success often hinges on outthinking your opponent in the mix-up game as it does perfect controller inputs, I think you fail to understand somewhat that the distinction between ability and moveset advantage get blurred in places.
Beyond that. while I can accept your differening standard, I will note that mine is clearly the one embraced by the actual devs of the game, who routinely talk about ease of use as a major factor in balancing work, not just in pre-release materials but even in the actual patch notes. Anyway, at the end of the day we can boil this down to a more refined question: was it easy to just pick up Amy and win easily with her, as compared to other characters? And the answer is no, though it seems you disagree. Which, fair enough. Maybe we're just too far apart on this one to come to a meeting of the minds.
Heniek
[13] Hero
The only somewhat difficult part about SCIV Amy was her 236K:A move. Second in line would be 6:6B which was one of the easiest jf's in the game imo. Nothing she had was even remotely as input difficult as - I dunno - Cass' 236:(B) combo (which I hope will return in SCVI). As far as I recall she had great frames, good range on some moves, 6:6B was pretty retarded her 33B was a really good launcher with decent range and it hit grounded oponents, 66A+B had ridiculous range, her 1A was unreactable similarly to her 2B+K. She was a really strong and easy to use character. She could be played with finesse and that's why I did played her a lot (tho Yoshi was way more fun back then). She wasnt the best but definitely among them
Last edited:
Ninjaguy446
[14] Master
Yes, you're right the devs have taken your side. The same devs who are balancing for online and getting rid of moves like flapjack because people suck, so I would take that with a grain of salt. But sure you can have the devs. I have literally every single competitive SC4 player on my side. Amy was top tier. She was easy to use. Even if you don't want to see me as an authority on the matter (which, I am), at least listen to people who played against her, in a setting of the highest level.
I was using hyperbolic examples to show you how far one could go with your logic, which is why skill is not taken into account in tiers. There is a firm standard for perfection. One used by almost every single person who makes tiers. When talking about tiers, it is assumed that the characters are being played at their highest level. This includes things which you want to exclude, things like MU knowledge and execution. I will give you yet another example. SC6 Ivy is top tier. But I could say that she's not top tier because you need to know all of her ins an outs, her perfect ranges so you can land 2A+G, you need to have the execution to do her command throws which are really really hard and you need to be able to read your opponent. If you can't do all of that, you will be punished, and Ivy will lose. You can't just pick up Ivy in comparison to other characters, you need to put in time and work into her so that you can learn to buffer her grabs and do this that and the third. With your logic, this would make Ivy a not top tier character. Please, tell me if I'm wrong but that's exactly what you're trying to say about Amy.
Again, it's not that "we" have a fundamental difference in where execution comes into balance, it's that "you" have one. I'm sorry but you can ask any competitive player worth anything, and they'll tell you the same exact thing that I have.
Leonhart
[10] Knight
I would say Amy is easy to use but to fully utilize her potential she should constantly be moving. She gets weak when momentum is lost. I remember using 236 mixups every chance I got (236K:A was great for RO), coupled with back dodge 44B and side dodge 4A. Imo, her unblockable cancel 44A+K (?) into A was one of the best moves in IV, as well as her unblockables in general.
Last edited:
I'm fond of how this article explains tiers.
I can see why folks' definitions can run up against one other, and why it sounds like @Ninjaguy446 is contradicting himself when he says "skill is not taken into account in tiers," then almost immediately follows it up with "When talking about tiers, it is assumed that the characters are being played at their highest level." The key notion here, though, is the "skill" of the character, not the player.
Though I do also think there's value in ranking the way @Rusted Blade (and the devs, apparently) speak of, where "skill is not taken into account" is applied to players who have never picked up the controller. That's where the majority of players are going to live, so it's worthwhile to log how characters will perform in beginner-to-intermediate matchups. Unfortunately, it's difficult to do that altogether accurately, as the article I linked above notes. There's just too much variability when you look at it that way.
Ultimately, the concept of fighting game tiers was coined and pioneered with thought to competitive play at the utmost performance for the characters selected. That's the most appropriate definition in the context of the fighting game community.
I can see why folks' definitions can run up against one other, and why it sounds like @Ninjaguy446 is contradicting himself when he says "skill is not taken into account in tiers," then almost immediately follows it up with "When talking about tiers, it is assumed that the characters are being played at their highest level." The key notion here, though, is the "skill" of the character, not the player.
Though I do also think there's value in ranking the way @Rusted Blade (and the devs, apparently) speak of, where "skill is not taken into account" is applied to players who have never picked up the controller. That's where the majority of players are going to live, so it's worthwhile to log how characters will perform in beginner-to-intermediate matchups. Unfortunately, it's difficult to do that altogether accurately, as the article I linked above notes. There's just too much variability when you look at it that way.
Ultimately, the concept of fighting game tiers was coined and pioneered with thought to competitive play at the utmost performance for the characters selected. That's the most appropriate definition in the context of the fighting game community.
Crash X
[14] Master
Amy was up there at the top with the likes of Setsuka, Ivy, Kilik, and Voldo in SC4 (Hilde ban included). I don’t see how anyone can deny that, especially after you see what she was capable of pulling off.
Last edited:
Pyrrus
[14] Master
Amy's 2B+K ruined my online experience forever. That shit was annoying as fuck. I hope its not as stupid in SC6 as it was before.
Ninjaguy446
[14] Master
I mean....spoiler alert....it's the same lmao
MONEYMUFFINS
[13] Hero
LOL AT AMY BEING "BARELY, BARELY MIDDLE-TIER".
WHAT KIND OF PERSON WHO IS TOTALLY IGNORANT ABOUT COMPETITIVE SC4 FEELS THE NEED TO DEFEND IGNORANCE WITH SUCH CONVICTION?
WHAT KIND OF PERSON WHO IS TOTALLY IGNORANT ABOUT COMPETITIVE SC4 FEELS THE NEED TO DEFEND IGNORANCE WITH SUCH CONVICTION?
Leonhart
[10] Knight
I doubt Okubo & crew will let her 2B+K be as prominent as it's been if people raise their voices against it. I wouldn't mind having it nerfed since she has many other good lows.
Pyrrus
[14] Master
What i mean is it being grossely fast.
Zanaken
[10] Knight
Everyone’s a gangster till the roach starts flying.
Tiers mean so little. Raphael is top tier in 6, but his matchups are not good. He also has high execution moves, and reactionary followups, that make him see less play in tournaments.
Mina is higher tier than Kilik, until you realise that the guy next to you struggles against his strings, but has solid fundamentals.
Ivy is top tier, until you realise most people push her to 50% of what the mythical top tier unicorn player can do with her.
I played Viola in a tournament in 5, till I lost and tried to push the rest with my low-tier comfort pick. Turns out everyone and their mama brought anti-Viola tech. Tiers mean next to nothing unless the game has a C-S+ spread in the character pool. This game has something like A-S.
You didn’t lose to a character, you didn’t lose to cheese, you lost to someone who picked a win strategy you haven’t learnt to dealt with. There’s usually a bar at the venue to go cry at. Tip the barman, he doesn’t care either.
Tiers mean so little. Raphael is top tier in 6, but his matchups are not good. He also has high execution moves, and reactionary followups, that make him see less play in tournaments.
Mina is higher tier than Kilik, until you realise that the guy next to you struggles against his strings, but has solid fundamentals.
Ivy is top tier, until you realise most people push her to 50% of what the mythical top tier unicorn player can do with her.
I played Viola in a tournament in 5, till I lost and tried to push the rest with my low-tier comfort pick. Turns out everyone and their mama brought anti-Viola tech. Tiers mean next to nothing unless the game has a C-S+ spread in the character pool. This game has something like A-S.
You didn’t lose to a character, you didn’t lose to cheese, you lost to someone who picked a win strategy you haven’t learnt to dealt with. There’s usually a bar at the venue to go cry at. Tip the barman, he doesn’t care either.
Rusted Blade
[14] Master
I'm afraid you're continuing to miss rather an essential point here which, as a batter of basic reality, forecloses your "perfect player" standard and always will. I've made this point previously but you didn't respond to it (either because you didn't recognize its massive importance or because you realized it is difficult--or rather impossible--to account for with your standard), so I'll just have to foreground it more. There's more than one type of skill in this game, and while one (and only one: inputs) is amenable to a linear progression analysis (meaning you can realistically make an empirically useful measurement about whether someone is good or bad at it, because you either flub the inputs or you don't), all of the others are most certainly not. When I am talking about skill with a given character, I suppose to some degree I am wrapping in the "how reliably can one pull this move/sequence of moves off when necessary--but mostly, like you, I am using a standard that presumes that players I am mostly concerned about for my analysis (top level) mostly hit their inputs when they need to (the reality of course is a little more complicated than that, but I share your desire to simplify the analysis wherever we can, so there you go).
But the rest of "skill" in this game is not a simple linear function that can be easily be isolated from the rest of a given player's play, measured, and judged against an empirical standard. Regardless of how complex a character's inputs used to be compared against other characters (and this used to be a borderline legitimate question for SC, but has become less and less so with time as even characters like Ivy have had their inputs adjusted towards a more uniform scheme), others also have greater or lesser abilities to deal with certain very common (and less common) situations. This is the very reason we have tiers in the first place. In this area, it's not often a simple binary analysis of good or bad choices, but rather what the context calls for, what kind of read you have on your opponent, whether you've been able to condition them to expect a certain response, where you want to be when the dust settles and the frame advantage kicks back to them, and other factors far too numerous to list them all here, but which I trust you are perfectly familiar with in any event. Now, insofar as certain characters have very obvious, strong, and dependable responses to certain situations and others have responses that require you to seek a specific supporting advantage or context by luring your opponent to play into the situation or by otherwise setting up the necessary situation, I call those real advantages/disadvantages. Sure, at this point, we can conjure up the notion of the perfect player who knows to frame-perfect precision every scenario and the response which best balances their ability to beat you to the punch and end their guaranteed string/combo in a position where their perfect abilities allow them to be free to wait for the next similar scenario again, but such a standard is absolutely useless for the purpose of evaluating tiers--tiers don't matter to that kind of "perfect" player, because they are prepared for every scenario, regardless.
So yes, I very much do think that a character's selection of tools for dealing with certain scenarios head-first, as opposed to having to think ahead, is a very important function of balance. Maybe you didn't understand that it was this kind of skill I was talking about, as opposed to simple inputs, or maybe for some reason you still disagree with me and we're just going to have to let ti go at that (I am happy to continue to talk about it at length if you like, but if my last points above don't put us somewhat on the same page, I suspect we are at an impasse). One thing I will say though, is that when you ultimately cap your comments with this:
...you pretty much throw any credibility your argument might have otherwise had. First off, this is a classic argument from authority--recognized since the beginning of human rhetoric as a non-argument that doesn't even reach to the issues being debated. Basically you're just saying "trust me, I know. Therefore I am right." (or in your case here, "Trust me, I know. And I also I know all of the other people who know and can speak for them about what they know. Therefore, I am right." That's a non-feasible argument in the best of situations, to say nothing of two additional factors here: 1) you essentially say expressly above "I know better than the people who actually engineer these movesets how to judge the balance between them,--which, uhh, ok, wow...I mean if you feel that easygoing about setting aside their perspectives, what chance do I have of changing your mind, realistically? And no, you can't just dismiss them because they are making some questionable calls lately (and seriously you're putting flapjack in the same category of seriousness as balancing towards online?)--for one thing, they still remain the most qualified experts on the subject, by leaps and bounds, and in any event, its not just Okubo's team that has talked in these terms. Homie, the put it in a graph as one of the five most major factors in the game when you selected your character, in SCV! And the development teams for entries prior to SCV (and those of many other fighters) talk explicitly in these terms, regularly. And 2) you fail to appreciate just how subjective the area of tier judgements is, by its very nature.
And look, contrary to your assumptions, I don't base my assessment of a character's ease of use on inputs simplicity, and even then I give the "ease" factor less weight than you seem to presume: basically if I have an impression of a character's place in the tiers and they are right on the edge, I might credit them up or down based on whether or not they have a massively large or small propensity for being abuseable by even the uninformed scrub (or, on the other end of spectrum, if a character is difficult to pick up and make feasible even by an experienced player). It doesn't play a huge role in my analysis, but I think it is a logical error to pay no attention to which characters have easy to spot advantages in certain areas and those which require patience and the skill to wait for and set up specific scenarios in order to be effective in that same area of play. And it's not like this conversation of ours is the first time I've become aware that there are two ways to look at this situation--I've been having conversations about balance in this series for well over two decades and as an analytical matter, I'm not the type to adopt my standards arbitrarily. In any event, in all of those conversations across decades, a character's ability to react more or less quickly to specific situations definitely comes up frequently, as do other questions of ease of use. You may have a different standard, but you're not the living embodiment of the Soul Calibur zeitgeist--you can't realistically speak for how all other people formulate their tiers across the many context that they do it in the greater community, and even if you somehow could, it still wouldn't mean your approach is the most rational.
Last edited:
