Something that SERIOUSLY bothers me...

[jaym7018]

I didn't read each post in the thread, but I did want to mention that Injustice isn't the only game with this kind of "problem."

Don't know how many people here play Tekken or listen to the ATP podcast, but they recently discussed something similar to this. The idea of there being a difference between on paper success and tournament success was brought up. They were talking about how certain characters are very top tier on paper, but rarely do well or show up in tournament. One theory was that while a character may have all the right tools, they could be difficult to use properly. A character might have all the tools to be the best in the game, but unless the player has extraordinary fundamentals, knowledge, and execution, those won't mean much. It was mentioned that there could be an "on paper" tier list and a "real life" tier list. Perhaps a character with lots of tools PLUS ease of use will do much better than one with amazing tools that require tons of effort, practice, and execution.

I think it could very well be that the characters that are so prevalent in these top 8's are often the ones that are not only good, but relatively easy to use compared to the rest of the cast. Characters like The Flash who often make top 5 and top 10 on lists might require the player to have exceptional amounts of experience in order to properly use his tools, and because of this, a character with tools equally as good but easier to use will definitely see more play. I think it makes a lot of sense and applies to all fighting games.

tl;dr: I believe ease of use plays a big factor, and that if there are two characters will similarly good tools, the one that's easier to use will definitely do better in a high-stakes, high-pressure situation.

How can you me or anyone dtermine the viability of a characters tools without actually putting said tools into practice?

 

[ELC]

If the people you are playing cant block properly you are playing bad players and any opinions your form from playing those players should be disregarded. Bottom line if you are gonna say a match up is 7-3 real life better support that argument otherwise that "hypothesis" is wrong.

That's half of my point: without testing hypotheses, the player doesn't level up. The other half is that without hypotheses to test, the game doesn't level up either.

 

[jaym7018]

That is not training. People are having fun man.
I mean actual training dude. You know, when you sit down with your partners, discuss things while playing.

The situation you described to me, I would also say is not the right environment .
but you seem to be ignoring the environment that I have been describing.

You are describing a tournament envirnment. Basically any time when the 2 players competing are playing their hardest.Stop arguing semantics.

 

[jaym7018]

That's half of my point: without testing hypotheses, the player doesn't level up. The other half is that without hypotheses to test, the game doesn't level up either.

I agree, which is why the original post is wrong. The conclusion absolutely matters when it comes to making a tier list. It isnt the whole answer but its a part of it.

 

[zaf]

You are describing a tournament envirnment. Basically any time when the 2 players competing are playing their hardest.Stop arguing semantics.

Im not trying to argue anything.
If what I am describing is in fact tournament level play, then why can those casuals not be considered valid for tier discussion?

 

[jaym7018]

Im not trying to argue anything.
If what I am describing is in fact tournament level play, then why can those casuals not be considered valid for tier discussion?

They can be, when i said tournaments matter its because in a tournament the players are guaranteed to be playing their hardest i said that as well, so logic would dictate anytime when the players are trying their hardest is the best data which was my point.

 

[zaf]

jaym7018

This is what is happening here.
You are telling me tournament results are valid because two players are at the highest level.
I describe a situation to you, that you then tell me is the same as tournament level.
Then you go on to say that my example and situation is not valid, but it is the same....

" so logic would dictate anytime when the players are trying their hardest is the best data which was my point."

This I agree with. However, this can happen when you are training with someone.
I do not count goofing off casuals as a point to withdraw information from

 

[ELC]

I agree, which is why the original post is wrong. The conclusion absolutely matters when it comes to making a tier list. It isnt the whole answer but its a part of it.

Fair enough, though I believe all conclusions need to be taken into account, not just matches for top 8. Like I believe zaf is implying, those pre-tournament casual games and training sessions can be used to test hypotheses as well.

 

[jaym7018]

jaym7018

This is what is happening here.
You are telling me tournament results are valid because two players are at the highest level.
I describe a situation to you, that you then tell me is the same as tournament level.
Then you go on to say that my example and situation is not valid, but it is the same....

" so logic would dictate anytime when the players are trying their hardest is the best data which was my point."

This I agree with. However, this can happen when you are training with someone.
I do not count goofing off casuals as a point to withdraw information from

You didnt clarify what you meant till you said tournament environment. You just said casuals then you said training in both of those scenarios the players more or may not being trying their hardest. They might be trying some new gimmick they arent comfortable with or a set up they havent mastered or a combo they cant execute reliably.

 

[zaf]

jaym7018
I do agree that tournament level play is good for tier list discussion since it yields high level play.
But there are other ways to get high level play.
I just also believe that the same results can come from training.
Training is also more easily accessible since you can do it any time you want.


EDIT: Okay, if I have used the word casuals I mean training. Training would be sitting down with someone and going in hard.

 

[ELC]

(since I can't edit my posts) Let me clarify that a bit. Conclusions are not just the results, but the justification of the results and the validity or lack thereof of the hypothesis. In my previous example, if I bodied people who didn't block properly, I'm not going to say, "oh hey, I won because of better tools!" I'm going to say, " alright, I won, but that's more or less due to a lack of knowledge on my opponent's part rather than an actual character advantage".

 

[jaym7018]

Fair enough, though I believe all conclusions need to be taken into account, not just matches for top 8. Like I believe zaf is implying, those pre-tournament casual games and training sessions can be used to test hypotheses as well.

If they are tournament environment casuals/training then yes. But often in training/casuals you might do something you arent entirely comfortable with which could result in a mistake you wouldnt normally make.

 

[zaf]

If they are tournament environment casuals/training then yes. But often in training/casuals you might do something you arent entirely comfortable with which could result in a mistake you wouldnt normally make.

That is fine. I will admit, who does not do that(test out shit in training sessions and lose matches for it)
. Training is the best place to test out something new.
But it is not like this is happening every training session. You will get those really solid training sessions, where both players are really on point and really working their best to win more matches.

 

[Vithar]

Please just shut the fuck up. I've been posting here for years, and one random forum no-name isn't going to change that. Especially when probably more than half the people here don't even attend any tournaments.

Yeah , the people that noone cares about , the people like you.

 

[ELC]

Vithar ... who are you again?

 

[zaf]

xWildx ELC Vithar

lets drop the convo right where it is.
keep on the topic of discussion.

 

[Vulcan Hades]

I get where OP is coming from but at the same time you can't deny that tourney results never lie. I do prefer things based on facts rather than on paper theory fighting and speculation.

Since I usually play "low/mid tier characters" in most fighting games I'm used to being told things that's accepted by the majority. Stuff like "your char sucks and loses all these matchups because this and that in theory and on paper shuts down your options and blablabla" but in practice it's never the case. Most of those people don't understand that human players don't have to play the flowchart gameplan and don't have to put themselves in the situations that would handicap them. They can adapt and develop counter strategies. So you can't base your analysis only on the superiority of tools and specific range dominance.

For example people that say "oh at this range your character loses because this move beats all your moves". Well I'm not going to be in that range when I play that character. "This godlike AA leads to 40% damage into a vortex". Well then I'm not even going to jump forward so it doesn't matter does it. The way I see it some matchups are only 4-6 or 3-7 if you play them wrong.

imho If a character places top 8 in a tournament filled with top Superman, Black Adam, Aquaman, KF and GL players it means that character is at the very least tourney viable and it automatically makes him top 10-15 "currently".

 

[zaf]

I get where OP is coming from but at the same time you can't deny that tourney results never lie. I do prefer things based on facts rather than theory fighting and speculation.

Since I usually play "low/mid tier characters" in most fighting games I'm used to being told things that's accepted by the majority. Stuff like "your char sucks and loses all these matchups because this and that in theory and on paper shuts down your options and blablabla" but in practice it's never the case. Most of those players do not grasp the concept that human players don't have to play the flowchart gameplan and don't have to put themselves in the situations that would handicap them. They can adapt and develop counter strategies. So you can't base your analysis only on the superiority of tools and specific range dominance.

For example people that say "oh at this range your character loses because this move beats all your moves". Well I'm not going to be in that range when I play that character. "This godlike AA leads to 40% damage into a vortex". Well then I'm not even going to jump forward so it doesn't matter does it. The way I see it some matchups are only 4-6 or 3-7 if you play them wrong.

imho If a character places top 8 in a tournament filled with top Superman, Black Adam, Aquaman, KF and GL players it means that character is at the very least tourney viable and it automatically makes him top 10-15 "currently".

If a character that is a low tier makes it into a top 8, it is more the player and not the character.
Does not mean the character is automatically top 10-15. Any character has the chance to make it to a top 8 depending on who is playing them and how the bracket turns on.
Tier lists are suppose to be everything that is on paper, before a player gets behind the character

 

[THTB]

I guess the time is right to get this done in an official way with TYM's staff support.

The best way for it to be respected by the community as whole is if the site itself presents those tier lists as the official tier lists.

I've wanted this done for a while...plans fell through each time.

 

[jaym7018]

If a character that is a low tier makes it into a top 8, it is more the player and not the character.
Does not mean the character is automatically top 10-15. Any character has the chance to make it to a top 8 depending on who is playing them and how the bracket turns on.
Tier lists are suppose to be everything that is on paper, before a player gets behind the character

That has never been what a tier list is. Like ever.

 

[zaf]

That has never been what a tier list is. Like ever.

tier lists are suppose to be like, a ranking system on which character is the best all the way to the worst.
some people or some groups of people do it based off just match ups alone.
other tier lists are based off just the character tools and move set alone.
but when you start to factor in the players, then it changes because not every player is on the same level.

the prima guide for mk9 had a good tier list in it.
it was based off match ups alone,
that is usually the kind i would use.

 

[jaym7018]

tier lists are suppose to be like, a ranking system on which character is the best all the way to the worst.
some people or some groups of people do it based off just match ups alone.
other tier lists are based off just the character tools and move set alone.
but when you start to factor in the players, then it changes because not every player is on the same level.

the prima guide for mk9 had a good tier list in it.
it was based off match ups alone,
that is usually the kind i would use.

How do you think match ups are determined? Its not possible to judge a match up without the characters facing each other. The japanese base their tier lists very heavily on how a character controlled by a player does competitively. For example aquaman beats batgirl cause he can trait her vortex(amongst other things) was this discovered on paper or in practice, matter of fact was batgirls vortex discovered on paper or in practice. Its not possible to determine match ups without players.

 

[zaf]

How do you think match ups are determined? Its not possible to judge a match up without the characters facing each other. The japanese base their tier lists very heavily on how a character controlled by a player does competitively. For example aquaman beats batgirl cause he can trait her vortex(amongst other things) was this discovered on paper or in practice, matter of fact was batgirls vortex discovered on paper or in practice. Its not possible to determine match ups without players.

well yes of course you do need the players there to be able to use the characters.
nothing is going to discover itself on its own.
i just mean that the tier lists should be more based on match ups between characters and the character tools.
it is true we need the players to get those results.

tier lists should not be based on characters making it to top8s.
there are too many factors for that, such as easy rides due to easy match ups or some pools have better players then others etc.

 

[jaym7018]

well yes of course you do need the players there to be able to use the characters.
nothing is going to discover itself on its own.
i just mean that the tier lists should be more based on match ups between characters and the character tools.
it is true we need the players to get those results.

tier lists should not be based on characters making it to top8s.
there are too many factors for that, such as easy rides due to easy match ups or some pools have better players then others etc.

You are looking at it so black and white. I agree tier lists shouldnt be based soley on who makes top 8. But a characters performance in a tournament environment (by that i mean matches played to win) is a pretty good chunk of the pie that makes a tier list. I mean if superman f23 was instead dbfd1,dbfd3 hed still be the same character with the same tools but his execution would be much tougher this would effect his place in the tier list accordingly. The human factor is very much part of a good tier list.

 

[zaf]

You are looking at it so black and white. I agree tier lists shouldnt be based soley on who makes top 8. But a characters performance in a tournament environment (by that i mean matches played to win) is a pretty good chunk of the pie that makes a tier list. I mean if superman f23 was instead dbfd1,dbfd3 hed still be the same character with the same tools but his execution would be much tougher this would effect his place in the tier list accordingly. The human factor is very much part of a good tier list.

No, superman would stay in the same place. His pressure is the same, just harder to do. Doesn't mean he can not do it.
Same thing with kabal, his pressure up close is the best, but the hardest to do. He is still number 1