Discussion about the Tier Discussion

[Slaya]

I posted this in the Tier Discussion but it was waaaay too big and felt it invaded the thread by taking up an entire page so I'm posting it here instead. I also added a poll. I expect to be called a called a massive dumb ass but I'm honestly curious about what a high level gaming community has to think about what I discuss below.



I have more or less a question now regarding this thread's topic in a general premise. The thread is for Tier discussion. I assume this is to discuss and speculate what the current Tiers are. Again, I assume this is far too early especially considering a rebalance patch came out mere months ago.
Note: I have somewhat taken a seat from SC a little after the re-balance patch.
Q: Has there been any announcement of another patch or update to game play, not simply content like maps or customizable stuff?
As I read over the last few pages of this post many people are constantly referring to buffing or nerfing characters. So shouldn't it be focusing more so on what the definitive tier list is as of right now? Allow me to mention back to my Q above; if there has been any official and definitive announcements of another real update then my statement of focusing on a definitive tier list as of now is null.

Now, allow me to go off in a mild tangent. I am a firm believer and a big fan of balance especially when it comes to fighting games. Unfortunately I have played many games where something is far more dominant than something else.

I'm going to use the tier list below because I simply have not been around for a while and have not done the technical research to justify any personal claims of tier list placement...

My list (updated) :
S: Algol*, Alpha Pat, Cervantes, Mitsurugi
A: Viola*, Patroklos, Omega
C: Nightmare, Astaroth, Yoshimitsu, Voldo, Ivy, Natsu, Pyrrha
D: Ezio, Leixa*, Maxi, Aeon, Xiba, Hilde, Tira
E: Siegfried*, ZWEI*, Dampierre
F: Raph*

I cut the remaining to simply use this list for reference.
Shouldn't the list be as linear as possible? Let me make a few examples under the following premise: Both players have the EXACT same skill level. Essentially, I want the players abilities taken out of the picture.
If Raph is truly F tier; ie that bad, if he were to play against anyone above him he should lose. I'll make up some numbers as well.
S vs F tier = 100% chance of losing for F tier
A vs F tier = 80% chance of loss for F tier
B vs F tier = 60 % chance of loss for F tier
C vs F tier = 40% chance of loss for F tier
D vs F tier = 20% chance of loss for F tier
E vs F tier = <20% chance of loss for F tier
I know this looks silly but at the very least humor me. If the tiers were very significant which I've felt they are in certain aspects; this includes other games, then my haphazardly made percentages are plausible.
Therefore, Raph should lose to all S tier characters like.... always and YES I know that is not the case but if tiers are in fact significant then the odds of Raph beating an S tier is slim to none. There are simply things he has cannot compete with when stacked up against the S tier characters.
Note: I am using Raph as an example simply because he is on the bottom of the tier list I've decided to use as an example.
This trend continues if it's Raph vs any of the A tiers, B tiers, etc. No matter what he's got a massive uphill battle that according to the tiers he should not be winning.
So if we were to actually focus upon re-balancing we should we trying to nerf or buff everyone until there is one tier. It shouldn't be focusing one or two characters. That makes me feel like people are falling into a trend of favoritism.

"Oh well I played Nightmare in the last game and he was god tier. He's only C tier now, he should be buffed back to where he was."
Note: Nightmare was an example. I don't know of his tier placement in the SC4, I've forgotten. I suppose I could just say Sophitia and Pyrrah/Pyrrah omega instead but what was on top seemed to have stayed on top. Again, if I'm wrong/inaccurate I apologize.

In my opinion all characters should be nerfed or buffed to an extreme level until the tiers are near subliminal. There should not be tiers with a few characters on them. Ideally there should be 1 tier; EG perfect balance, but that won't happen. But there most certainly shouldn't be a small number of characters that stick out for some reason.
I honestly don't know if Raph is 'THAT' bad but if he is that's pathetic on the developers part. In addition, the S and A tiers should not be that much better than the lower tiers.
If I had to recommend a re-balance method I would most likely merge everyone into the B or C tier. For example let's say I decide to merge into B.
S and A tiers need significant debuffs until they are on par with the B tier.
C, D, E, and F tiers need massive buffs to be able to be on par with the B tier.
Now, if this occurred then this game would completely rely upon player skill which I would love but that won't happen.
Note: My current recommendations on tier is based upon my premise that tiers are entirely dependent upon the move list frame data and properties. By properties I mean tech traps, NC strings, jF capabilities, Guard break, aGI's etc.
Now, if all characters were balanced upon that standard that would leave another manner of unbalance but this one would not and should not be corrected to keep the game unique. This manner of unbalance would be character match ups. Naturally some characters will have stronger points than others but this would be specific per character.
Example (This will be a poor one and incorrect. It's simply to enforce the point.):
Raph vs Lexia = In Lexia's favor.
Lexia has many auto evades so she can easily avoid many of his attacks. In addition lets just say she has an aGI that can counter the majority of Raph's moves. So this is a bad match up for Raph.
Note: Again, let me remind you these examples are not meant to be accurate or truthful, simply to enforce a point.
Lexia vs Asta = In Asta's favor.
Asta has many mid hitting horizontal and vertical moves. He also has great range and massive damage.
Asta vs Raph = In Raphs favor.
Raph has speed, decent range. He can keep Asta at bay and such.
Note: AGAIN, not accurate info, simply to get the point across.

So to recap, if we are discussing tiers, why not focus on the current tiers. Yes, the game is clearly unbalanced. To what degree? That is debatable but the way I see it if the game was rather balanced, the tiers would show little diversity.
If we were to focus on things that need to be done then why not focus on the big picture. Not just one or two characters which in many cases I feel are biased.
Note: I fully understand wanting to buff or debuff a few characters but I feel the reason is either to save someones character, debuff someones worst match up, or to revert the game to an older edition of Soul Calibur. Or in other words, "Ivy was so great in SC2, she should be buffed until she's like old Ivy and S/A tier again!"
(The quote was an example, not an accurate fact.)


Now, I know this post was massive but I hope I get some decent feedback from my post. I figure that if there is no more updates/patches coming give up on changes and work with what you have. We're gonna need a real definitive tier list from what we have here. If there is an update coming that we can influence 'AT ALL' then we should focus on what needs to be done to truly balance this game.

 

[Synraii]

Option 2

 

[WuHT]

Not to set a cap on you, but you may find replies that are less condescending if your "scope" of tier discussion was strictly "intermediate" level play. My ability to see a thread detoriate may not be as developed and i'm optimistic about the merits of open discussion so I will just comment on your logic.

I think you erroneously believe that all characters within one tier will behave exactly the same when matched up against any other character within one tier. Thats fundamentally wrong.

 

[Heaton]

The thing with tiers is that they are - especially in SCV's case - extremely subjective, and subject to many different things that you cannot necessarily quantify. There is a reason that there is very little consensus in tier debates. Yes, right now the game is young, but even looking at SCIV or SCIII - you had people vehemently insisting that this character or that character was not top tier and could never be - even when everyone else in the community thought the opposite was true. In addition to unorthodox opinions, you also have language barriers (and all of the possible misunderstandings that entails), half-truths from some who wish to turn the game balance in their favor, and people who simply have no idea what they're talking about in terms of game balance and design.

Essentially, your time is probably better spent playing the game and developing your opinion of a character that way, as opposed to sitting in a lab and trying to calculate how all the different variables. Or, better yet, just play the game - in the grand scheme of things, tiers aren't necessary to enjoy the game.

 

[Slaya]

I think you erroneously believe that all characters within one tier will behave exactly the same when matched up against any other character within one tier. Thats fundamentally wrong.

I believe I clarified that this wasn't the case.

The thing with tiers is that they are - especially in SCV's case - extremely subjective, and subject to many different things that you cannot necessarily quantify. There is a reason that there is very little consensus in tier debates. Yes, right now the game is young, but even looking at SCIV or SCIII - you had people vehemently insisting that this character or that character was not top tier and could never be - even when everyone else in the community thought the opposite was true. In addition to unorthodox opinions, you also have language barriers (and all of the possible misunderstandings that entails), half-truths from some who wish to turn the game balance in their favor, and people who simply have no idea what they're talking about in terms of game balance and design.

Essentially, your time is probably better spent playing the game and developing your opinion of a character that way, as opposed to sitting in a lab and trying to calculate how all the different variables. Or, better yet, just play the game - in the grand scheme of things, tiers aren't necessary to enjoy the game.

You have quite a lot of interesting things in there. While yes, tiers are open to debate I expected tiers to be defined more or less by raw numbers and data. I suppose there are other factors that I have not considered that must be taken into account.
My last major fighting game had a very significant tier list. To me it's clear this game is not as strict but wit the implimentation of JG I feel that will be the defining factor that will show how relevent tiers really are.
If your character has to JG to get a chance to go on the offense while another character can aGI or punish something due to that characters frames or what-have-you then that character in my opinion would be better. Is this a wrong assumption.

 

[Heaton]

My last major fighting game had a very significant tier list. To me it's clear this game is not as strict but wit the implimentation of JG I feel that will be the defining factor that will show how relevent tiers really are.

I wouldn't say the defining factor, but it's another factor to take into account. It's definitely something that has very different implications depending on who you're playing as, and some characters can utilize Just Guard more effectively than others.

If your character has to JG to get a chance to go on the offense while another character can aGI or punish something due to that characters frames or what-have-you then that character in my opinion would be better. Is this a wrong assumption.

Sort of. The days of Kilik's Asura Dance are gone. In SCV, a lot of auto-GI moves leave you incredibly open if they don't connect, for example Raphael 4A+B or Siegfried B+K. If done in anticipation of something that doesn't come, you're left vulnerable. With Just Guard, you're not really committing fully to anything, and still have loads of other options at your disposal if you don't Just Guard successfully. Just because a specialized option is available does not necessarily mean it's the best (or even a good) option - you need to choose your defensive options on a case-by-case basis.

Not to mention, certain characters benefit from Just Guard heavily. Let's take Raphael and Siegfried for example again. Raphael can punish most AA and BB with h 6BB if he Just Guards them, and he can use that to lead into Preparation to antagonize the opponent. Siegfried, on the other hand, can punish those same moves on a successful Just Guard with K, which doesn't really leave him in a great position even on hit. In Siegfried's case, he might be better off doing B4 for some guard damage, or entering SRSH and forcing a 50/50 mix-up. In other words, Just Guarding an AA with Raphael is a means to do some chip damage and start a bit of pressure, whereas that Just Guarding that same move with Siegfried is a means to force the opponent into a mix-up situation or accrue guard damage. Those are two very different rewards that Just Guard gives, even being a universal mechanic.

Note that Raphael's reward in this case comes not from being able to damage someone for blocking AA, but rather just for the fact that he CAN do that and also pressure the opponent - or try to throw the opponent, or go for guard damage, or any number of things. Just Guard opens up a lot more options for him than if he had simply done B+K or 4A+B, and so he "benefits" the most from it. But even taking that into account, most people put Raphael in the bottom tier, regardless of the reward he gets from Just Guard. So just because someone gets greater rewards from Just Guard doesn't necessarily mean that character is better, either.

In short, you can think of a character's tier placement by considering the number of options they have combined with the strength and viability of those options - just looking at one leaves you in the dark and can cause you to make rash judgements.

 

[Slaya]

So just because someone gets greater rewards from Just Guard doesn't necessarily mean that character is better, either.

In short, you can think of a character's tier placement by considering the number of options they have combined with the strength and viability of those options - just looking at one leaves you in the dark and can cause you to make rash judgements.

In regards to the JG, the rewards isn't what I'd consider what defines whether a character is better or worse thanks to JG. I think of JG and it's relevancy to tiers not by its rewards, but by the need to JG.

In your example Raph or SF cannot punish the hypothetical AA or BB. Using that same example, lets take Omega into account. Omega can punish an AA or BB with 236B; in this example at the very least. To repeat, that same AA/BB cannot be punished by Raph or SF unless a JG is used. The way I interpret this is that Raph and SF are inferior to Omega in that scenario unless a high level player based skill is used; ie JG.
Note: If it's not considering high level pardon me. I still consider it far more taxing than something like a JF.

Also, allow me to mention that I simply used Omega as an example because she is a commonly accepted high tier character and her 236B is the most obvious example of what I was describing.

 

[Heaton]

In regards to the JG, the rewards isn't what I'd consider what defines whether a character is better or worse thanks to JG. I think of JG and it's relevancy to tiers not by its rewards, but by the need to JG.

That's just the thing. The meta-game is currently evolving to where people WANT to Just Guard - its use is only necessity because not doing it leaves them behind other players, not characters. Just Guarding basics, safe pokes opens up some generic options that nearly everyone has, and you need to look at who can do what with these options to see which character is better by it. The necessity for Just Guard happens because of the meta-game, and not because of a character's lack of other options. In most cases, Just Guard is the ONLY option, besides guarding normally.

In your example Raph or SF cannot punish the hypothetical AA or BB. Using that same example, lets take Omega into account. Omega can punish an AA or BB with 236B; in this example at the very least. To repeat, that same AA/BB cannot be punished by Raph or SF unless a JG is used. The way I interpret this is that Raph and SF are inferior to Omega in that scenario unless a high level player based skill is used; ie JG.

I think you've misunderstood something. Raphael can punish anything Ω can and more. Raphael 6BB is i12 - by comparison, Ω 236B is i14, or 2 frames slower. As far as I know, most AA or BBs are around -12, -13 on Just Guard, which gives Raphael the greater reward in this situation, not Ω.

Note: If it's not considering high level pardon me. I still consider it far more taxing than something like a JF.

Any time you discuss tiers, you need to be talking about play at the highest level. Play of any lower calibre means that player strength is almost always going to shine over character strength.

Just Guard is incredibly simple to preform, and I do it all the time. The more I play the game, the more places I find to use it, and the easier I find it to use. It's a defensive option that's extremely low risk for potentially very high reward - I have a feeling it's going to become a fairly big part of play at a high level as the game gets older.

 

[darkfender]

the point is there is never 100% losing.
The point is that tier can be defined on matchups.

Matchups can be defined by risk/reward

Risk/reward can be defined by chance of success paired with damage dealt against chance of being hit against damage suffered.

But if you guess really good you can win against everybody....
Also matchups are not linear as tiers.

For example raph vs astaroth is a worse matchup than raph vs mitsurugi by far (would be a good matchup for raph if only mitsu didn t have that absurd damage output -.-).

 

[Iceman]

Shouldn't the list be as linear as possible? Let me make a few examples under the following premise: Both players have the EXACT same skill level. Essentially, I want the players abilities taken out of the picture.
If Raph is truly F tier; ie that bad, if he were to play against anyone above him he should lose. I'll make up some numbers as well.
S vs F tier = 100% chance of losing for F tier
A vs F tier = 80% chance of loss for F tier
B vs F tier = 60 % chance of loss for F tier
C vs F tier = 40% chance of loss for F tier
D vs F tier = 20% chance of loss for F tier
E vs F tier = <20% chance of loss for F tier

So, you are saying Raph loses 10-0 to Algol, Alpha, Cervy, and Mitsu,
Loses 8-2 to Viola, Pat, Omega,
Loses 6-4 to no one
Wins 6-4 against NM, Asta, Yoshi, Voldo, Ivy, Natsu, and Pyrrha,
Wins 8-2 against Ezio, Leixa, Maxi, Aeon, Xibe, Hilde, Tira
Wins 8.5-1.5 or better against Sieg, ZWEI, and Dampierre

Hell, Raph beats half the cast, not bad for bottom tier.

 

[damn-I-Suck]

I had this big, long post, then I deleted most of it after I decided to be short and to the point:

SC5 is balanced enough that no one should complain.

No character is bad (remember sc4 Rock? or Sc3 Hualin?), and no character is overpowered (remember sc4 Hilde?).

Without going into specifics, the more I play this game the more balanced I think it is. Like someone else said, tiers are not objective fact, but subjective opinion.

Edit: I voted option 2, not because I think "you're a dumbass", but because I think you're trying WAY too hard to solve a mystery that can't be solved, or trying to make something objective fact when it's all a matter of taste anyway. The fact that even the "pros" have very little consensus over this (even for sc4) should tell you something.

Allow me to simplify this for you: Play the character you like, learn to make do with the tools you have, and learn to not give a hoot about tiers, or take them with a huge whopping grain of salt.

 

[darkfender]

I had this big, long post, then I deleted most of it after I decided to be short and to the point:

SC5 is balanced enough that no one should complain.

No character is bad (remember sc4 Rock? or Sc3 Hualin?), and no character is overpowered (remember sc4 Hilde?).

Without going into specifics, the more I play this game the more balanced I think it is. Like someone else said, tiers are not objective fact, but subjective opinion.

Edit: I voted option 2, not because I think "you're a dumbass", but because I think you're trying WAY too hard to solve a mystery that can't be solved, or trying to make something objective fact when it's all a matter of taste anyway. The fact that even the "pros" have very little consensus over this (even for sc4) should tell you something.

Allow me to simplify this for you: Play the character you like, learn to make do with the tools you have, and learn to not give a hoot about tiers, or take them with a huge whopping grain of salt.

no just no.....
I'd gladly play scIV hilde all day rather than having to play a game broken like scIV

Its known that against hilde one single mistake could cost you a round.


Well in scV it isn't even a mistake but gambing that is rewarded.

Using the word tier is wrong but there is a seious issue in this game:

Most "high tier" characters have fast launchers for half health (or almost half).
They can abuse this against any character who lacks of rieliable half health fast NH mid combos for half health (i.e. again half cast).

Also most "high tiers" have spammable safe fast mids that can do lot of damage again.


If you play any character that lacks those tools simply there is no game.

Opponent can randomly gamble to duck/step everything because they know they risk almost nothing (20 dmg?) but in case of success they get 120 dmg.

Its not that difficult to understand this game is far worse than even playingscIV hilde vs rock.

I mean even getting up with mitsu fc1BB can net you HALF HEALTH -.- because you GAMBLED....
so "low tiers" have to risk even to get their attacks blocked but high tiers don t and on top of that against low tiers they can gamble because risk/reward is so wrong that they'll probably win due to simple statistic.

On top of that add those broken moves with stupid properties like verticals tracking both sides, moves with delay that can be used to discourage reaction (and keeps priority).

Going down a step, if only amy would be in scIV would be considered probably fair and even weak in scV.... same for scIV ivy etc nuff said.

Between characters with similar tools the game changes a lot.. risk/reward is more balanced and ducking randomly is discouraged.

But half cast lacks tools to do that and have to rely on highs because mids are either slow or horrible unsafe... (note that i am not referring to raphael only but to most low/mid tiers).

 

[Synraii]

My character is completely worthless which PROVES this game is bad even though the majority of the cast can compete, WAA, WAA!
Also, my opinion is valid on these matters, I play Xbl/PSN all the time!

Darkfender, you are not a tournament player, you have no high level experience and you cry about this games balance because you play one of a few characters who isn't tournament viable. You are just a salty online player and I really wish you would stop posting in threads like these when all you do is bitch about how bad your character is. Don't like it? Learn someone else. Don't want to do that? Then stfu.

I also seem to recall Omega beating Keev with a character that is almost universally considered worse than Raphael.

Jeez, The Tira and Leixia SA's combined aren't as bad as this guy...

 

[ChaosK]

Jeez, The Tira and Leixia SA's combined aren't as bad as this guy...

Lol :D
Yes, i did just make a post only to say "lol".

 

[Ring]

I'm glad Ivy SA isn't mentioned as an epitome of crying/whining/complaining anymore.

What a relief.

 

[Synraii]

Ban Ivy.

 

[Ring]

Ban Viola.

Fixed.

 

[ChaosK]

I'm glad Ivy SA isn't mentioned as an epitome of crying/whining/complaining anymore.

What a relief.

I kind of felt the same about the Sieg SA.

 

[Synraii]

Fixed.

Lulz

 

[Heaton]

I also seem to recall Omega beating Keev with a character that is almost universally considered worse than Raphael.

If you've looked in the Tier Discussion thread lately (God forbid) you'll see that Raphael sits in many people's bottom tiers - the absolute worst in the eyes of the people.

Unless you're saying Omega beat Keev with Yoda.

[notice]It should go without saying...keep tough guy internet talk in PMs.[/notice]