From the entire discussion about tiers, there are several points we can take away, if we're being realistic:
1) REO - People will never agree
I think this hits the nail on the head. Different players have different ways of using characters, and each fighting style or set of tech changes the matchups vs. other characters. We're watching characters continue to evolve before our eyes with every tournament, and there are lesser-played characters that still haven't reached their full potential.
2) Pig of the Hut - Tiers don't matter anyway
I'd put it like this: matchups do matter; and so to a certain extent, tiers also matter in a *general sense*. It's simple math that the more unfavorable matchups someone has against commonly-played characters, the harder it is for your to put together the streak of matches required to come out on top in a tournament situation.
Put another way: a Kano player isn't likely to win a tournament even if he's equally skilled as the other players.
However with that said.. It's far from an exact science, and it doesn't matter nearly as much as people would claim. The fact that certain players have almost single-handedly moved specific characters up the tier lists is proof enough of that.
3) Tom Brady - We should all be able to agree on something
I applaud Tom for trying to find a consensus, and for moving to base the tiers on actual matchup math rather than random speculation. But, the math for a lot of matchups is pretty inexact, and will continue to change as the game gets played. When people aren't sure of a matchup, they just say "5-5" or "maybe X", which tells you that we're not at the point where we can claim to have a comprehensive set of data on matchups in this game.
Especially once Skarlet, Kenshi, Jade, Rain, and Freddy, are brought into the mix, we simply don't have enough tournament-level data to authoritatively state what their matchups are against every single character.
So why force it?
Lets all agree that this is a fuzzy science, and a moving target. And that having some god-tier-list doesn't really improve our community; but rather it's the discoveries and discussions that re-evaluate or CHANGE matchups that are the most productive.
Thoughts?
1) REO - People will never agree
I think this hits the nail on the head. Different players have different ways of using characters, and each fighting style or set of tech changes the matchups vs. other characters. We're watching characters continue to evolve before our eyes with every tournament, and there are lesser-played characters that still haven't reached their full potential.
2) Pig of the Hut - Tiers don't matter anyway
I'd put it like this: matchups do matter; and so to a certain extent, tiers also matter in a *general sense*. It's simple math that the more unfavorable matchups someone has against commonly-played characters, the harder it is for your to put together the streak of matches required to come out on top in a tournament situation.
Put another way: a Kano player isn't likely to win a tournament even if he's equally skilled as the other players.
However with that said.. It's far from an exact science, and it doesn't matter nearly as much as people would claim. The fact that certain players have almost single-handedly moved specific characters up the tier lists is proof enough of that.
3) Tom Brady - We should all be able to agree on something
I applaud Tom for trying to find a consensus, and for moving to base the tiers on actual matchup math rather than random speculation. But, the math for a lot of matchups is pretty inexact, and will continue to change as the game gets played. When people aren't sure of a matchup, they just say "5-5" or "maybe X", which tells you that we're not at the point where we can claim to have a comprehensive set of data on matchups in this game.
Especially once Skarlet, Kenshi, Jade, Rain, and Freddy, are brought into the mix, we simply don't have enough tournament-level data to authoritatively state what their matchups are against every single character.
So why force it?
Lets all agree that this is a fuzzy science, and a moving target. And that having some god-tier-list doesn't really improve our community; but rather it's the discoveries and discussions that re-evaluate or CHANGE matchups that are the most productive.
Thoughts?