The SC Revival Thread

teflon2105 said:
No thx. The low tier characters are capable of winning just need too put in more effort wit them. Me preferably i'd rather stiick wit all high tier characters.
Click to expand...


With that being said....makes me feel THAT much better when i beat your face in offline...don't sleep on the wing sir...Krayzie knows about teh Dub that is called "chickenwing"...

can't wait for Devastation....:D
 
Marginal said:
That kinda defeats the whole concept of balance. Some characters have concretely better tools than others. If you use a low tier character, you can possibly win, but you have to work much harder to do so....
I play Maxi because I enjoy the character, but look at the match up charts. I'm simply being realistic here.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know where to begin with this post because it's seems you're arguing for the sake of not seeming wrong rather than proving a point now.

What is this supposed concept of balance you're talking about? And, beyond that, I'm starting to think that you don't even understand the concept of tiers. You're stating all these useless facts and then just reiterating things that I've already said.

Okay, now I'm starting to go in circles because, like I said, I don't even see the point of to your post anymore. So, I have a couple of questions for you:

- You say characters have better tools; does this mean that these character's tools completely negate these lower tier characters own tools? Who are these characters? What tools do they or do they not have?

-Who are these characters that are at a major disadvantage and what are they're unbelievable disadvantages? Do no other characters have these disadvantages in any other way? Can these disadvantages be compensated for?

- And where you completely lose me: you mention mechanics. What are these mechanics you speak of? I know of only a few character specific mechanics in the game. Otherwise, are there some universal options that these characters are lacking that I don't know of? Other than that, what are these MASSIVE shortfalls and is there no way to compensate for them?

I'm sorry but you're saying all of this bullshit about how characters are flawed, but then you mention match-up charts and tiers, but back it up with these mechanical flaws I hope you can enlighten me on (which, as far as I know, would entail that these characters are so bad that they shouldn't be winning). I'm sorry, but you seem to be intermixing the terms, tiers, matchups, and flatout design flaws (and only one of these would be a reason why a character CAN'T win while the other two would reflect that).

Like I said earlier, I didn't say tiers don't exist, but tiers and balance are two entirely different things; By your logic, there are characters who flat out can't win, as opposed to have bad matchups (but, like I said, you're interchanging your words). And, if you can find me any type of competitive and diverse fighting game where tiers don't exist, I'll suck your dick!

I'd also like to ask, while I'm at it, on the topic of Hilde, since you liked to mention her (and balance in the same sentence, no less): is Hilde broken, her Doom Combo, or the fact that the forementioned combo can ring out? I'm not trying to play the semantics game, but you said we're not talking about the same concept of balance, yet you change it every so often to fit your argument.




Vincent said:
Sorry, but Marginal is correct...
Too many characters don't stand a good chance at competing on a fundamental level, based on their options for damage alone. The cast is unbalanced because not enough characters have viable moves against other characters. This can be measured if need be.
Click to expand...




Well, if you said it, he must be right!

Once again unless we're talking about someone like Yoda, how can any character in the game have not enough viable options against some characters, but then have some against others? I mean, you could mention stepping and whatnot if you want to, but then I think we'd be dwelling on the grounds of theory fighting. But, still, if you want to go the 'This could counter that' route, please go ahead. You're confusing bad matchups for balance.

I mean, I could see you two's argument if this were a game with 25 characters and only 3 seemed completely viable, while the other character's worth was indirectly related to how well they measured up to those characters options, but, for better or for worse, it's not. Still, if this is the way you all feel about this game, I'd hate to see you all play some of the fighting games I think are unbalanced.

P.S. - Because I forgot to mention it. Why you play Maxi is of no relevance. You're saying these characters are holding all of these players back from placing/winning tournaments, and I'm just not seeing it. I never said some character have it harder than others, but, since you honestly feel your characters holding you back, why not pick one of these win button characters and prove it?
 
LostProvidence said:
I honestly don't know where to begin with this post because it's seems you're arguing for the sake of not seeming wrong rather than proving a point now.
Click to expand...
It's impossible to have a conversation if both sides refuse to agree on the terms being used. Typically when someone talks about balance it is speaking on the level of what's hardwired into the characters. It's assumed that both players are equally skilled, and the tools used are basically the determining factor. (This is also compounded into silliness by the fact you're bitching that I gave examples.) Also, you might notice that I also try to play Cassie and Kilik. Guess why?

There's a reason most people say Maxi's not that great in SC4. There's a reason that most longtime Maxi players have picked up other characters after playing SC IV for a while. Maxi is a vry risky cahracter to play and he doesn't deal a lot of damage when he actually does catch someone. (How many other characters have to bank on sidestepping an attack and hitting an extra flaky just frame combo?)

Just to waste some more time since I'm pretty sure you'll idly dismiss anything I say regardless:

Maxi for example, he's at disadvantage after AA or BB is blocked. B doesn't loop. His most useful starter is i18, and most characters 2A or B will shut down a lot of his loop options. Maxi when he does connect usually has about a 1 in 3 chance of guessing *right* to avoid taking damage.

So the "grr play him right or play someone else and win a tournament because that will somehow prove me wrong" strawman argument guy then has to stick to very short loops and mainly bait CH and guaranteed hits to get any offense going. Against someone who actually knows how to play against Maxi this becomes much trickier since Maxi can be interrupted during a lot of his mixups.
 
You know, I had a nice reply all types up, but I don't know what just happened to it. Regardless, you seem to getting angry for whatever reason and I have to take some Darvocet soon enough, so, in summation:

1. Balance is a reflection of tiers and viability against the rest of the cast; imbalance is created when characters don't have the ability to actually compete against the tools against other characters or, such as in the case of MvC2, characters(s) are so far ahead of the cast that those who aren't those characters become unable to compete, counter-strategies are impossible, and the playing field is no longer diverse because of the forementioned characters. Except for Hilde's Doom Combo (whom my current argument is actual consistent with), I don't think imbalance can be argued in SC4's case

2. While difficulty winning can stem from imbalance, I don't believe such is the case in SC4 (especially because of the universal options). As we all know, tiers are inevitable in any fighting game, but, as stated in #1, I don't believe there is any character whose options are shut down completely by any other character in the game and surely don't believe any one character is dominate to the point that we have only a select few characters thought to be tournament-viable.

3. How can you claim straw man fallacy when your initial supposition is that if we use low-tier characters we will see how unviable some of the cast is (which you can read as you having this knowledge, you experiencing this, and thus you being hindered by a character) and, by that logic, I argued, if you believe YOUR argument to be true (as we obviously don't share the same belief), there should should be some tangible proof to your supposition if you were to pick a higher tier character and go so far as to place at a tournament (using tournaments as the highest echelon of competition)?

And, honestly, there's no reason for you to be offending or angry (especially if you met me offline and witness how I speak when socializing), you're, by all means, welcome to your opinion and I'm not calling you stupid or your beliefs stupid. I just so happen to like arguing and this is one of the things I'm passionate about when it comes to SC
 
Yo LostProvidence Sophie is pretty safe, and she has auto gis, a quick ass punisher, in any case you even thinking her low tier is absurd. What would rock think or mina.

SC4 is pretty balanced but like this.

The top chars and the low chars. What separates the top chars from each other is a very small margin, From top to high to high mid, the game is pretty balanced. However, towards mid to low, the game isn't.

Nobody has said that such and such character can't win a tournament. But what we're saying is that players that use low tiers char have to work harder.

I know the fighting game community lives in LaLa Land where its correct to assume that skill is the deciding factor in winning. If a game isn't balanced then those imbalances take a part in the outcome of a match, it's just inevitable. That's why so much emphasis is put on balance in many other competitive video game genres.

In SC4 they're match-ups where a char has to eliminate a good amount of it's tools just to not die.
 
KingAce said:
Yo LostProvidence Sophie is pretty safe, and she has auto gis, a quick ass punisher, in any case you even thinking her low tier is absurd. What would rock think or mina.

.
Click to expand...


Didn't read the rest of that and probably won't until later on, but I had to hit this point.

To me, one you and your opponent get to a certain point, Sophie's best chances to deal damage are going to be from whiff punishing, interrupting, and her aGI. Once she plays a good Kilik or any player who's good at turtle, she has to try to mount what I can most adequately describe as a proactive defense in order to 'trick' your opponent into giving you openings.
 
LostProvidence said:
1. Balance is a reflection of tiers and viability against the rest of the cast; imbalance is created when characters don't have the ability to actually compete against the tools against other characters or, such as in the case of MvC2, characters(s) are so far ahead of the cast that those who aren't those characters become unable to compete, counter-strategies are impossible, and the playing field is no longer diverse because of the forementioned characters. Except for Hilde's Doom Combo (whom my current argument is actual consistent with), I don't think imbalance can be argued in SC4's case
Click to expand...
Now you're arguing the that game's not broken. There's a difference between that and the game being balanced.

2. While difficulty winning can stem from imbalance, I don't believe such is the case in SC4 (especially because of the universal options). As we all know, tiers are inevitable in any fighting game, but, as stated in #1, I don't believe there is any character whose options are shut down completely by any other character in the game and surely don't believe any one character is dominate to the point that we have only a select few characters thought to be tournament-viable.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that such a claim can only be made by someone who actually knows a character well enough to recognize the flaws is really qualified to be weighing in on whether or not a character actually is balanced.

3. How can you claim straw man fallacy when your initial supposition is that if we use low-tier characters we will see how unviable some of the cast is (which you can read as you having this knowledge, you experiencing this, and thus you being hindered by a character) and, by that logic, I argued, if you believe YOUR argument to be true (as we obviously don't share the same belief), there should should be some tangible proof to your supposition if you were to pick a higher tier character and go so far as to place at a tournament (using tournaments as the highest echelon of competition)?
Click to expand...
Which is summed up thusly:

If you can't win with a low tier character, why aren't you using a better one? Since you're not, the game is balanced. (Then you claim you don't care why I'm using a low tier character even though such information's kinda relevant to the question you posed.) You also further posit that the only reason Maxi isn't placing better is because every single Maxi player is a weak willed schlub who just doesn't know how to play the game properly. (No offense intended. Tee hee!)

My reasoning was actually:

It's easy to say the game's balanced when you have no idea how the lower tier characters play. If you actually used them, you'd realize that the people who actually know what they are talking about have a concrete bone of contention here when people start rambling on about how balanced the game is supposed to be.

If a game is balanced, then every character should have roughly the same shot at placing well in high level play. (Not, "Oh, it's not the slop pile that MvC2 was, so it's fine.") This is not reflected in actual tournament results, so I don't see much merit in the claims that the game is balanced, and that the only thing hold Maxi back from winning lots of tournaments is the broken will of every single Maxi player on the face of the earth. (Which is IMO, an asshat of an argument if I've ever seen one.)

And, honestly, there's no reason for you to be offending or angry (especially if you met me offline and witness how I speak when socializing), you're, by all means, welcome to your opinion and I'm not calling you stupid or your beliefs stupid. I just so happen to like arguing and this is one of the things I'm passionate about when it comes to SC
Click to expand...
You should think about what you're saying a bit more in that case. Don't blow off stuff you don't want to hear just because it doesn't fit into your tiny world view.
 
Yeah, whatever, keep misconstruing my words to fit your own little argument with yourself. I'm done here. Keep playing this overwhelmingly unbalanced game, though!
 
LostProvidence said:
Didn't read the rest of that and probably won't until later on, but I had to hit this point.

To me, one you and your opponent get to a certain point, Sophie's best chances to deal damage are going to be from whiff punishing, interrupting, and her aGI. Once she plays a good Kilik or any player who's good at turtle, she has to try to mount what I can most adequately describe as a proactive defense in order to 'trick' your opponent into giving you openings.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much a description to how all low tiers are played. I would know I play Raph, Yun, Zass and Night.

Biggest difference is Sophie is way faster and safer.
 
Wouldn't know about Yun, but Raph has range, nice low pokes, and good comboes to boot; Zass can keep his opponent out (albeit, he is slow and does have to fish for openings a lot); and Nightmare has his stances to compensate a bit (though, if your opponent falls for it, you can wavedash a bit with Sophie to create openings).
_________________________________________
====== DOUBLE POST AUTO-MERGE ======
I find it funny, also, that you all are speaking as I'm just talking out of my ass. Hell, I play with her all the time. If you think I'm just pulling things out of my ass, I plan on traveling to a lot of tournaments whenever the Army permits. And I know I'm not the best, but I can guarantee I can more than hold my own.
 
Pretty sure Nightmare isn't low tier anymore, hes at least mid. You have to have some dedication and experience against a diverse community playing him as a main for this to be true I believe.

Also, LostProvidence is actually a good player for not really playing anyone. You better start traveling like you said! :p
 
Also, if the game were balanced then we wouldn't have so many levels of rankings. Everyone ought to be in B tier or A tier. But instead, we have extremes ranging from Hilde/Amy to Mina/Tira. Again, this isn't just a matchup thing, what I'm comparing is the number of turns and chances you have in order to win each round with the best moves against any character. Moreover, it's harder to even use those best moves if the character isn't well rounded to begin with, giving you less chances to try.
 
Biggest issue is safety. A lot of low tier characters are low because they're unsafe..and it doesn't help when their moveset is super linear.

Compare Yun to Voldo for example, yun has a lot of moves that do great SG damage but just about most of them are unsafe. While Voldo on the other hand has both SG damage and safety for his moves. Similar story with mina.

Sophie might be linear, but she can take risks compared to lets say Raphael. Raphael's tools are unsafe and if he carelessly enters his stances he can easily expose himself., his lows give no advantage at all on hit, and he's weak against step etc.

Zass doesn't keep you out he pulls you in. His throw damage is nerfed because of his pulls, and all his lows are unsafe and give no adv on hit. His greatest tool is mind games.

NM has always been mid, but mid is generally considered low tier. So I am only saying what the people say, but all NM players know just how dangerous NM really is. A linear NM will easily expose himself and die. An effective NM is patient and punishes stupidity, because when he strikes a RO or a good chunk of your health goes flying off the screen.

In closing, if any of these characters where as safe as sophie, they would go up far on the tier charts, after all punishing is how we get most of our damage. Sophie falls in a class of chars I call the punisher class, it's usually the fastest, and usually the strongest, and it's usually filled with female chars.
 
Is this the Soul Calibur revival thread or the OMGWTF low tiers can't win because they suck thread? Come on.

Low tiers are capable of winning, you just won't see them consistently win tournaments because the people in the finals are not only highly skilled but also use characters that will put themselves in the best position to win because money is on the line. If money wasn't on the line, you would see more emphasis on skill but as things are, you need to account for the character and the player using that character.

I would love to see more low tier characters used in tournaments in America, but as long as money is involved, that's not happening because people are trying to win. If I was playing Mahvel, why the hell would I use anyone else by Sentinel/Magneto/Storm? If I wanted to win at SC4, I would just use either Amy or Voldo, but I got money so I don't need to win a tournament. I want to win, but it's not a need for me. I'm here to support the scene and use my favorite character which is why I use Sophitia mostly in tournaments.

As far as balance, this game is very balanced. Having so many ranges in characters is a good thing. If you want everyone to be 5/5 or just have two levels of characters, then this game would be boring as hell. The only game that I can think of which has the most balance is Virtua Fighter. How many people play Virtua Fighter for all the balance that it has?

If money wasn't an issue and people were willing to just compete at Soul Calibur, then Hilde/Algol would not be an issue for me. But in America, not only is money on the line, but it takes money to get to a tournament to compete at it. If people feel that they don't have a fair chance of competing, then they will just quit and move on to another game, like Street Fighter. As good as Sagat is, he can't take an entire round from you in one hit.

But we all know where each character ranks in this game, and no added discussion is going to change things. Take this balance talk somewhere else and play some damn Calibur. It's time for a revival bitches!!!!
 
Malice: You always talk about playing that Calibur like all of us aren't. I simply find it ignorant and/or misleading to say the game is "very" balanced but then completely ignore the fact that tiers range from Mina to Hilde.
 
Vincent said:
Malice: You always talk about playing that Calibur like all of us aren't. I simply find it ignorant and/or misleading to say the game is "very" balanced but then completely ignore the fact that tiers range from Mina to Hilde.
Click to expand...

give the man some credit. tho what he's saying isn't 100% accurate, he still has a point. What Malice means is that SC4 is the MOST balanced of all the SC games we've played

:D
 
Look at a player like omega he's a god wit zasa or kura wit talim they put in great effort too make them charaters play like high tier. The main problem i see ppl have are wit charaters like algol,Ivy,Hilde in all FG we have are low,mid,high, tier charaters.

IMO Sophie is high tier wit the damage she does and how safe she is wit that step why not main her ?
Ralph pretty much fell behind amy by a large margin. Nightmare is mid i agree, when i fought silentwall in a FT10 he tried too punish off my mistakes and was very patient that's how NM should be played.

Most of ya'll think the game would be balanced if hilde was a little toned down but a big part of SC is about RO i think it was pretty brillany they build a character whose playstyle centers around this.

Wanna complain bout tiers try taking your low tier character and get the most out of them. They won't hang wit the hilde's Ivy's and Amy's of the world but still can hold their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom