You are saying the obvious flaw with tier lists is because theoretically some character isn't being utilized right? Or theoretically humans can't play on the level of computers so these tiers lists aren't valid? None of that matters because if something is found the tier lists can adjust to it and like I said humans are the ones doing the playing.
When tiers are obvious they are obvious. There comes a point in where saying certain characters aren't top is like saying a Ferari isn't a fast car. You clearly haven't played a good hilde so you rag on her. But anyone who has definitely isn't going to keep making statements like you do. It's one of those things you need to experience because until you do theres no real reason for you to talk about how good she is. Btw, I like how almost all the arguments against Hilde I have seen on here have to do with taking something away from her then saying she isn't good. She does have the doom combo and she isn't restricted to only the cage so these are barely worth mentioning.
It's obvious playing against Hilde has left you scared. I have played good Hilde's and lost terribly. However, my point wasn't about Hilde entirely. Mind you...if you do play a certain way, which I am not sure about, and eliminate the doom combo...you will stand a chance.
My point is that tier lists are assumptions nothing more nothing less. Eventually over time, we can come to an exact estimate but nonetheless...it is never clear nor measurable by human standards who the best character in the game is.
Nori came here and stated Cervantes was somewhere at the top. And he pointed out a number of tools and options the character has that would make him a viable candidate for the top.
However, is Cervantes dorminating? No. So the consesus states Nori is talking out of his ass. The obvious flaw here starts with the fact that Cervantes is an execution heavy character...and indeed only someone like Chang'sFriend could make you consider Nori statements. Believe it or not...since I have started to train with Cervy myself...his very much a viable candidate for the top...depending on how you play him, and how good your execution is. Some story with Setsuka, Hilde might not be a discussion for dethroning, but Amy, Voldo and Kilik are fair game.
I guess the question is does winning mean you're better or more skilled? And can you answer this question without uncertainties?
Hilde is easy enough to pick-up and learn...master and win. The character does most of the work, and requires very little from the player. That said I personally can still see a small enough window to suggest, there are characters with stronger options. However...this is merely opinion.
If you must persist then we must come to an understanding that tier lists are representations of the most dorminating characters in the game, and not necessary the best or strongest characters in the game. It is obvious that Amy dorminates so she is at the top, it is not obvious that Cervantes dorminates so he isn't; this seems to be the reasoning. And that reasoning is flawed.
And you have it backwards theory is what tiers are based on. Tiers aren't based on scientific or mathematic data, that would otherwise prove with the greatest amount of accurance the strongest to the weakest...they're based on assumption; assumption driven by human perception and individual experiences. All theory my friend.
Concentration is the ability to utilize the greatest amount of brain power, to successfully accomplish a task. They say that humans use about 2% or something of their brain power. This is where it starts.
