Spyridon
But then these players would have to play out of their comfort zone and how many people out there are willing to do that?
Pig of the Hut for example won a pretty stacked local with Sinestro, before Sinestro got his buffs and was considered as a bad character, because he had more problems with charging his trait and his Fear Blast wasn't even a mid. He has shown everyone that the character can do something.
I'm not the only one who thinks that tier lists at this point are way too early and it's all about logic. There was a guy who made a brilliant comment in the first tier list thread:
"Early Tier lists:
Broken tier = Characters I can't beat
Top tier = Characters I play
Low tier = Characters I never see being used"
And that's so right.
We're at a point, where the current meta-game only shows you easy-to-use-characters, which give you victories easier than the others. That doesn't mean that the "weaker" characters are bad. They're only harder to use and this early in the life-cycle of the game they have so much hidden, undiscovered potential.
I still think that this is a great topic, but I'm just throwing out thoughts.
I'm not qualified to say that Bane is good enough to get into the TOP 8, nor am I qualified to say that he isn't - but there is nothing that restricts me from saying that there MIGHT be some stuff we don't know yet and to discover that stuff we need dedicated players like RYX who invest time and thoughts into the characters.
And we're not going to get that from high level players, because they always use the strongest characters, which is totally fine in the end of the day.
But what that means is that the "unviable" characters are only not viable, because tournament players are not picking them up, because there are few specific, stronger and easier-to-use characters.
When other people finally unlock the potential of "low tiers" we will see quite some new stuff, even in tournaments I hope.
But then these players would have to play out of their comfort zone and how many people out there are willing to do that?
Pig of the Hut for example won a pretty stacked local with Sinestro, before Sinestro got his buffs and was considered as a bad character, because he had more problems with charging his trait and his Fear Blast wasn't even a mid. He has shown everyone that the character can do something.
I'm not the only one who thinks that tier lists at this point are way too early and it's all about logic. There was a guy who made a brilliant comment in the first tier list thread:
"Early Tier lists:
Broken tier = Characters I can't beat
Top tier = Characters I play
Low tier = Characters I never see being used"
And that's so right.
We're at a point, where the current meta-game only shows you easy-to-use-characters, which give you victories easier than the others. That doesn't mean that the "weaker" characters are bad. They're only harder to use and this early in the life-cycle of the game they have so much hidden, undiscovered potential.
I still think that this is a great topic, but I'm just throwing out thoughts.
I'm not qualified to say that Bane is good enough to get into the TOP 8, nor am I qualified to say that he isn't - but there is nothing that restricts me from saying that there MIGHT be some stuff we don't know yet and to discover that stuff we need dedicated players like RYX who invest time and thoughts into the characters.
And we're not going to get that from high level players, because they always use the strongest characters, which is totally fine in the end of the day.
But what that means is that the "unviable" characters are only not viable, because tournament players are not picking them up, because there are few specific, stronger and easier-to-use characters.
When other people finally unlock the potential of "low tiers" we will see quite some new stuff, even in tournaments I hope.
