What makes a character "top tier"?
- Thread starter Sp1d3r
- Start date
optymuss
[12] Conqueror
Is it safe to say that you believe that every character just has a different learning curve? The easier the learning curve would mean a more higher tier and the harder the learning curve would mean the more lower tier. i am sure this would relate to past experiences in the older SCs. Ex: People who have used the same character in SC3 and SC4. Would that mean it would be easier to learn the "basics" of the character in Sc4 based on what you have learned form SC3?
???
???
Digitality
[08] Mercenary
The learning curve has little to do with it. Tira compared to Setsuka can attest to that.
optymuss
[12] Conqueror
yes i agree the apsects of their learning curves are different but the overall time commited to learning the character is short (not including competitive play of course. There is so many vaiables of learning the character in that category) and easier to learn because they are more solid.
For example, learning lets say tira compared to learning ivy.
In competitive play:
A tira has many different variables to worry about compared to ivy. For variables that are the same, the tira player would have to worry about them in a more stressful situations. (health would be an example)
Tira would have to worry about self-damage regulation, moods, spacing, setting up pressure via mind games and SG, and dealing damage to the opponent.
While an ivy could easily set up SG damage and pressure from it. She can also deal better average damage than tira. The only thing that an ivy player would have to mainly focus on IMO would be Stance shifts if going by the spacing and avoiding damage, but unlike tira, ivy has many tools to shift the outcome of the match to her favor while a tira has only one thing which is GS and she will have to be on the defense 24/7 and look for openings while conserving health.
This of course would be the learning curve of tira (hard) and the learning curve of ivy (meduim, because she is very different from her former SC3 self. Once you have her advanced techniques down you can stand a good match to most average skilled players.)
i just want to know if this theory is valid and if i could believe it?
Honestly, that doesn't stack up to me. When you are at high level your character as an aspect, I think is just a means to facilitate winning or losing. What you look at before the match begins is: who am I playing? What is their strategy? Where are there holes in their game I can exploit and what tools can I use to best take advantage of these? The last two are where character comes into the mix.
Because all tiers really are is a summary - its not a comparison to other characters, its a summary of the tools they have to hand. Learning them really doesn't mean anything because in tournament, odds are everyone has learned their character to its full extent anyway. For example, if I were fighting a Voldo who used a lot of 66:B at midrange, my strategy would partially involve a character with both a good step and the ability to punish it, amongst other aspects. Therefore, I would be inclined to not use my Siegfried against said Voldo player, I would favour something like Xianghua, because she has tools which strike strong disaccord with my opponent, you see? I know its a really bad example but I hope you see what I mean.
Winning at high level requires two things: outwitting your opponent and having the tools necessary to break their style with your own counter strategy. I just don't see where learning curves come into the matter... =/
Because all tiers really are is a summary - its not a comparison to other characters, its a summary of the tools they have to hand. Learning them really doesn't mean anything because in tournament, odds are everyone has learned their character to its full extent anyway. For example, if I were fighting a Voldo who used a lot of 66:B at midrange, my strategy would partially involve a character with both a good step and the ability to punish it, amongst other aspects. Therefore, I would be inclined to not use my Siegfried against said Voldo player, I would favour something like Xianghua, because she has tools which strike strong disaccord with my opponent, you see? I know its a really bad example but I hope you see what I mean.
Winning at high level requires two things: outwitting your opponent and having the tools necessary to break their style with your own counter strategy. I just don't see where learning curves come into the matter... =/
optymuss
[12] Conqueror
okie dokie thats all i wanted to know. For a minute there i thought i wouldve started an argument.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Fuzzieviking
[13] Hero
If anyone played any character absolutely perfectly, with zero wiffs or mistakes, than no one would ever hit each other. Which leads me to believe any character can win. You just have to be a better over all player than your opponent.
Sp1d3r
Demon Beaver
Since I got back heavily into SC4 I have spent quite a bit of time learning the roster. After spending a couple years playing low tier characters (Sieg, Nightmare, Tira, Zas), I have finally made my way to higher tiers such as Asta and Ivy. The difference from Tira to Ivy is immediately noticeable. And while it's true that playing lower tiered characters will teach me how to think outside of the box, the fact is that higher tiered characters dont have to think more/out guess/or worry about lots of aspects that lower tiered characters do. Even the difference between Asta and Ivy is outstanding.
The abilities of higher tiered characters are spectacular and there is no denying that tiers matter. If I want to play to win then I have to opt to play as higher tiered characters. This is a conflicting answer because it means that my favorite characters will not be able to withstand the test of time unless I find some magic bullet that changes how my characters are played. To immediately decide on tier seems smart, but to deny low tiers and assume they aren't worth exploring would make me a complete idiot.
Remember that tiers are decided by the players who put the effort into them. Don't put down your favorite character just because they are low tier. You may end up finding that magic bullet. But at the same time, don't shut out all of the other great choices there could be.
The abilities of higher tiered characters are spectacular and there is no denying that tiers matter. If I want to play to win then I have to opt to play as higher tiered characters. This is a conflicting answer because it means that my favorite characters will not be able to withstand the test of time unless I find some magic bullet that changes how my characters are played. To immediately decide on tier seems smart, but to deny low tiers and assume they aren't worth exploring would make me a complete idiot.
Remember that tiers are decided by the players who put the effort into them. Don't put down your favorite character just because they are low tier. You may end up finding that magic bullet. But at the same time, don't shut out all of the other great choices there could be.
IdleMind
BANNED FOREVER
I'd like to step in from my Skyrim induced coma for a moment and say that low tier characters have trashy options, and trashy options are just not FUN. Sitting here and talking about how much work and how many decisions you have to make is just another padding for the ego when you get smashed.
"Oh it's ok because I work 10x harder, therefore my play with low tier characters has merit that is equal to a character who isn't trash." This is bullshit.
I take issue with the idea that playing a low tiers provides any inherent benefit because you have to "work harder". For the most part, a Low Tier has to be played in a very specific way in order not to get smashed; whereas high tiers have the luxury of adapting and playing different styles within that one character. Options and adaptability make you a better player, not a hugely focused style. Example: If you don't play Safefried against good players, you lose. Period.
You have to accept that it is flat out irrational to play a low tier if you have improvement or competition in mind.
When I sit down and play Rock, it's after a long session of playing Asta, Mitsu, Cassy, etc, when I no longer care about winning or losing and just want to press buttons. I'm not gaining anything but having fun. The previous 3 hours I spent playing Asta, Mitsu, Cassy etc, I'm having fun AND working on improvement at a much faster rate; as they work the key skill required to be good at the game.
"Oh it's ok because I work 10x harder, therefore my play with low tier characters has merit that is equal to a character who isn't trash." This is bullshit.
I take issue with the idea that playing a low tiers provides any inherent benefit because you have to "work harder". For the most part, a Low Tier has to be played in a very specific way in order not to get smashed; whereas high tiers have the luxury of adapting and playing different styles within that one character. Options and adaptability make you a better player, not a hugely focused style. Example: If you don't play Safefried against good players, you lose. Period.
You have to accept that it is flat out irrational to play a low tier if you have improvement or competition in mind.
When I sit down and play Rock, it's after a long session of playing Asta, Mitsu, Cassy, etc, when I no longer care about winning or losing and just want to press buttons. I'm not gaining anything but having fun. The previous 3 hours I spent playing Asta, Mitsu, Cassy etc, I'm having fun AND working on improvement at a much faster rate; as they work the key skill required to be good at the game.
For the most part, I agree with this HOWEVER there are succesful low tier tournament players. I don't need to call them out as you yourself know a couple, but yes - limiting yourself by character is just dumb unless you like losing.
You are wrong about not playing safefried = losing though, that's a matchup thing and even then dependant on who exactly the player is - certainly not a uniform thing. eg. I don't care about safety (Comparable to if my opponent was a cassandra for example) if my opposition is say Rock, or Mina.
optymuss
[12] Conqueror
I agree, but out of curiosity i have a question (regarding the the quotes i cut out):
Lets say i used zas for a few months. I would learn to make good decisions, be cautious, think outside the box.
i then moved on, due to losing so many times because zas is hard to use , to sophita (yes i know that zas and soph are VERY different in their styles of fighting)
In general, from what i learned from zas (thinking outside the box, strategy, cautious, etc) could this improve my general play with sophitia in high level play? Could this explain why low tiered characters shouldnt be ignored and that they are just meant to give more in depth thought?
Im just really curious on this. I have always wondered about this and wanted to ask this.
Sp1d3r
Demon Beaver
Exactly! That is why I think game designers purposely make some characters weaker.
Fuzzieviking
[13] Hero
Personally I don't think that was what they intended at all. But they hide behind that as reasoning for not patching them due to time constraints/ laziness.
IF that were true. Characters that play similarly would have one low tier and one high tier, so cassy would be low tier and sophie would be high tier, etc. Were as Zas and Tira are no where near anyone else in terms of style.
damn-I-Suck
[12] Conqueror
That's cool, I respect your opinion. Don't assume that just because I think differently that automatically means I have nothing worth saying.. I hate about half the things Ron Paul says, doesn't mean everything he says is BS.
janejana
[09] Warrior
Well, you're sort of making the assumption that you won't learn how to think outside box/be cautious/whatever if you play a high-tier character. If you're playing against constantly improving competition, it doesn't matter which character you're playing, you're going to learn all that you can to gain an edge and win as much as possible. You don't need to 'prepare' to use a high-tier character by using a low tier one. Particularly if their fighting styles are completely different - stuff you do with Zas isn't going to carry over well to Sophitia.
If you're beating people by playing a good character like crap, that says a lot more about the players than tier lists.
optymuss
[12] Conqueror
i see, but thats not exactly what i meant.
As you said, you can learn much things from any character (which was and still is my main point) but i was actually proving the point in support of spider's comment that low tiers shouldnt be ignored. However in many ways a competitive player can learn how to use "useless" tools of low tier and incorporate them in some way by using what "little"that "low tiered" character has. (a zas using 2K ). High tiers do have some/few "useless" or "less recommended" moves compared to other more "useful" moves, but from using the little tools you have of a low tier you then learn to make your style/techniques/gameplan/more diverse when using a high tier. Depending of the style of that "high tier."
I never said you HAVE to learn a low tiered character to use a high tiered character. I was curious and asked a simple question. however, I have to come to my personal conclusion that low tiered characters can HELP you be a better player by helping you with general skill and i guess insight of the game not the individual styles of each character. (Note: this is my perspective)
And of course, you dont have to learn a low tiered character to learn high tiered charcter. Thats absurd......You can use whichever character suits your style of play and you will learn many things from that character. Wouldnt it be useful though to apply what you have learned to another character? (any character) An example would be learning how to mix up well with throws/set up throws when using rock and apply that to a character to isnt so good in their throw game or just to make their throw game more fearful. This example is based on general play not a characters individual style ( i only used rock as a reference, you can learn this from any character) it really depends on how you play.
Lastly, high tiered characters provide as much thought into the game as low tiered. they have more diversity in their tools (due to their more "useful" moves) and provide better example on "what to do" and "what not to do" by learning from your mistakes and therfore developing you skill. This "what not to do" and "what to do" factor applies to all characters as well.
I said the general play of zas can HELP with sophitia not their actual fighting styles.
I do agree on what you say and i am sorry i wasnt clear enough. I was just trying to be a little more clear in this. If this um i guess rambling feels offensive or rude in any way.... It was not my intentions.
damn-I-Suck
[12] Conqueror
I played Hualin on Sc3. Now THAT'S what I call low tier LOL. She had maybe 1 or 2 good moves at best, the rest were purely situational and heavily punishable. You REALLY had to think outside the box to play her even remotely well. Did it improve my game with other characters? Absolutely yes.
I can see both side of the argument though.
She did teach me one thing though, how to block better and turtle, and how to pick my shots more wisely rather than just blind aggression.
I can see both side of the argument though.
She did teach me one thing though, how to block better and turtle, and how to pick my shots more wisely rather than just blind aggression.
Norik
[14] Master
I hope they balance SCV so well that we can look at tiers as a thing from the past.