Before MK9 can evolve any further, It's time to admit the truth..

[Big Pampering]

a 7-3 is pretty bad imo. we are going by two players who are around equal level and understand their character. if you play an equal player you wouldnt even want to play a 6-4. but then again within the 6-4's there are big differences imo.

for example: Kung lao vs kitana might be 4-6. but if you look at kung lao vs sub that is also 6-4. but KL vs sub is a lot worse than kung lao vs kitana. thats why we HAVE to use .5 numbers whole numbers aren't accurate enough.

 

[HGTV Soapboxfan]

a 7-3 is pretty bad imo. we are going by two players who are around equal level and understand their character. if you play an equal player you wouldnt even want to play a 6-4. but then again within the 6-4's there are big differences imo.

for example: Kung lao vs kitana might be 4-6. but if you look at kung lao vs sub that is also 6-4. but KL vs sub is a lot worse than kung lao vs kitana. thats why we HAVE to use .5 numbers whole numbers aren't accurate enough.

I dont think accuracy is an issue because of how subjective and opinionated this stuff is. Also, even in a 4 6 against an equal player you can still make the better reads and outplay them in that set. Otherwise a lot of matches would basically have a predetermined winner, which is not the case.

 

[Big Pampering]

I dont think accuracy is an issue because of how subjective and opinionated this stuff is. Also, even in a 4 6 against an equal player you can still make the better reads and outplay them in that set. Otherwise a lot of matches would basically have a predetermined winner, which is not the case.

one player being able to outplay another is irrelevant, that is not what the discussion is about. if one characters tool lose 6-4 it is 6-4, simple as that. whole numbers cant be accurate. if we go by whole numbers and there are no 10-0. you will only have 9,8,7 and 6 which are 4 levels of bad match ups. 4 levels is inaccurate no matter how you look at it.

also a LOT of matches are almost predetermined, are you going to look people in the eye and say kenshi vs cage is not almost predetermined at the highest level. 16 bit kitana vs pig kenshi is looking way to one sided to not call it predetermined while 16 bits level doesnt differ much from pig( not to take anything away from pig). if matches wouldnt be at least a little bit predetermined, 16 bit should have done a lot better.

 

[HGTV Soapboxfan]

one player being able to outplay another is irrelevant, that is not what the discussion is about. if one characters tool lose 6-4 it is 6-4, simple as that. whole numbers cant be accurate. if we go by whole numbers and there are no 10-0. you will only have 9,8,7 and 6 which are 4 levels of bad match ups. 4 levels is inaccurate no matter how you look at it.

also a LOT of matches are almost predetermined, are you going to look people in the eye and say kenshi vs cage is not almost predetermined at the highest level. 16 bit kitana vs pig kenshi is looking way to one sided to not call it predetermined while 16 bits level doesnt differ much from pig( not to take anything away from pig). if matches wouldnt be at least a little bit predetermined, 16 bit should have done a lot better.

I wasnt saying outplaying should be part of discussion, I was responding to you saying that you wouldnt want to play a 6 4 in tournament. But using decimals increases precision, not accuracy. There is a big difference.

 

[Big Pampering]

I wasnt saying outplaying should be part of discussion, I was responding to you saying that you wouldnt want to play a 6 4 in tournament. But using decimals increases precision, not accuracy. There is a big difference.

lol, what is the big difference between precision and accuracy.

 

[HGTV Soapboxfan]

lol, what is the big difference between precision and accuracy.

You could say a matchup is 4.5 5.5 and you would be more precise ( You are being more specific) but you may not be being more accurate ( It is actually 4 6). Since it is practically impossible for our community to agree on whole numbers, it is irrelevant and possibly even harmful to use decimals since it just gives us more to pointlessly argue about.

 

[XBlades]

Actually Tom Brady, i have different approach on this, Since there is no mains AND I mean character loyalty to each character... such as kano sheeva... we will never know anything.. to determine solely on character movesets that conquer other characters is all theoretical, Its up to the player to utilize the difference in those strategies and obstacles to defeat that advantageous character. Best thing to do is have the each player with there respective mains and duel it out. That is what true match up chart will look like. but then again, most of us do not have the luxury of traveling nor time to keep this up to date. I do admit though kenshi vs kang is 7-3, i might change it slightly due to differences of play.. but regardless to normal average player thats what it is...

 

[YOMI MITYEAP]

Denzell Smoke vs Sub is 7-3 but you have to play someone who hits the reset 99.999% of the time from every situation to see why its 7-3.

DJT posting: yeah I can agree with that. sub's 7-3's are very winnable and his 4-6's. despite all the losing matches sub has, he can win them all. dat ice clone. dat d4. aha I really don't care what people put for numbers. Just got to be professional about it

 

[BlackBryan]

I second the 10-0s. Kabal vs Kano could be another possible one.

No. 8/2. Tops. Kenshi vs Kano its 10/0 at the highest level. Imo.

 

[Cibernetico]

If anything, I think the one thing people need to admit is that there are too many worthless characters in this game. It's almost the same with AE2012 if you think about it.

Cheers!

 

[bipolar_shango]

MU charts are an imprecise and controversial science to begin with -- I don't think everyone will ever agree about everything.

Science? Loooooooool The problem is there is no science behind ANY of the mk9 matchup charts and tier lists. Until there is, there will never be a generally accepted tier list/chart just subjective BS. What is the criteria for a character being S+ , S or A+ tier, is it the number of winning matchups, number of 7-3's, number of losing matchups? What makes a matchup 6-4 or 7-3? Is it lack of unique options/counter strategies against a 'move/tactic' or absolutely no option(generic or unique) against a 'move' that makes a matchup 8-2 ? If these aren't ironed out we just wasting our time.

Also a general question I want to ask the 'community' as a whole.... Do you think it is possible for the best character in a fighting game to be A+ tier or do you feel the best character in a game MUST be considered as S+ tier?

 

[eskuAdradit0]

Take away 50/50 zoning and stupid ass recovery projectiles/specials (on whiff and on block) and we may talk about balance.

 

[MK_Salivial]

I second the 10-0s. Kabal vs Kano could be another possible one.

no.

 

[peachyO]

Science? Loooooooool The problem is there is no science behind ANY of the mk9 matchup charts and tier lists. Until there is, there will never be a generally accepted tier list/chart just subjective BS. What is the criteria for a character being S+ , S or A+ tier, is it the number of winning matchups, number of 7-3's, number of losing matchups? What makes a matchup 6-4 or 7-3? Is it lack of unique options/counter strategies against a 'move/tactic' or absolutely no option(generic or unique) against a 'move' that makes a matchup 8-2 ? If these aren't ironed out we just wasting our time.

Also a general question I want to ask the 'community' as a whole.... Do you think it is possible for the best character in a fighting game to be A+ tier or do you feel the best character in a game MUST be considered as S+ tier?

i like your post very much. i feel in a truly good game, it is entirely possible to have the top characters no be "S+" or whatever goofy fuckin' tag players give them. in a truly great game, there actually wouldn't be any. characters would be balanced to the point that tier lists would be seen as irrelevant as they really are; EVERY character would be viable, and those characters with slightly better tools wouldn't be overpowered to the point that they render 2/3 of the cast unusable in tourney play. a skilled player would have a decent shot of winning with whatever character they chose so long as they played skillfully. in MK, a player can actually win and be a rather unskilled player. simply pick one of the OP'd characters, learn their ridiculous exploits, and that's it. a douche who knows how to abuse 2,NDC, 2,NDC, an f3 frame trap, etc. will almost invariably defeat a highly skilled player whose character doesn't have such ridiculous exploits.

and yes a 2d fighter can be reasonably balanced. only tier whores wouldn't admit this readily. the exploits that made their way into the game and never were addressed are indicative of sloppy design, which is why MK is not embraced by the FGC as it otherwise would be. a game in which one wrong move translates into nearly 100% damage is sloppy. a game in which resets and frame traps trump skill and strategy is sloppy. a game in which some characters have a dozen or more specials while others have less than half that is sloppy. a game which has only about 7 viable characters out of a cast of 30+ is sloppy. a game whose online play is not only useless for tourney practice, but is actually a hindrance, is sloppy. in short, MK is simply too sloppy to be a contender. fun as hell, yes. killer good times in casuals, yes. worthy of the tourney players and community that loyally support it despite everything? HELL NO.

p.s. MK CAN'T evolve any further until either A. a new patch comes out (no chance in hell) or B. the sequel comes out. as it stands now, aside from possible new ridiculous ways to exploit its sloppy design, this is it.

 

[HGTV Soapboxfan]

i like your post very much. i feel in a truly good game, it is entirely possible to have the top characters no be "S+" or whatever goofy fuckin' tag players give them. in a truly great game, there actually wouldn't be any. characters would be balanced to the point that tier lists would be seen as irrelevant as they really are; EVERY character would be viable, and those characters with slightly better tools wouldn't be overpowered to the point that they render 2/3 of the cast unusable in tourney play. a skilled player would have a decent shot of winning with whatever character they chose so long as they played skillfully. in MK, a player can actually win and be a rather unskilled player. simply pick one of the OP'd characters, learn their ridiculous exploits, and that's it. a douche who knows how to abuse 2,NDC, 2,NDC, an f3 frame trap, etc. will almost invariably defeat a highly skilled player whose character doesn't have such ridiculous exploits.

and yes a 2d fighter can be reasonably balanced. only tier whores wouldn't admit this readily. the exploits that made their way into the game and never were addressed are indicative of sloppy design, which is why MK is not embraced by the FGC as it otherwise would be. a game in which one wrong move translates into nearly 100% damage is sloppy. a game in which resets and frame traps trump skill and strategy is sloppy. a game in which some characters have a dozen or more specials while others have less than half that is sloppy. a game which has only about 7 viable characters out of a cast of 30+ is sloppy. a game whose online play is not only useless for tourney practice, but is actually a hindrance, is sloppy. in short, MK is simply too sloppy to be a contender. fun as hell, yes. killer good times in casuals, yes. worthy of the tourney players and community that loyally support it despite everything? HELL NO.

I agree with this post except I believe morethan half the cast when used in teams to cover bad matchups are viable. and this quite possible did to the simplicity of most characters in this game. About ten characters with a solid chance at winning a tournament almost two years into a game is not bad.

 

[peachyO]

I agree with this post except I believe morethan half the cast when used in teams to cover bad matchups are viable. and this quite possible did to the simplicity of most characters in this game. About ten characters with a solid chance at winning a tournament almost two years into a game is not bad.

i understand, but one of my main sticking points is just that...needing to cover bad matches. i don't believe any character should be so handicapped against another that one should have to switch characters. one character should be able to suffice, one character should have a reasonable shot of going all the way. there should be no need to go into this foolish counter-picking garbage that MK has made necessary. and i feel that even 15 characters out of a cast of over thirty is shameful.

 

[HGTV Soapboxfan]

i understand, but one of my main sticking points is just that...needing to cover bad matches. i don't believe any character should be so handicapped against another that one should have to switch characters. one character should be able to suffice, one character should have a reasonable shot of going all the way. there should be no need to go into this foolish counter-picking garbage that MK has made necessary. and i feel that even 15 characters out of a cast of over thirty is shameful.

That's extremely unrealistic if you want to keep the game interesting. Especially the way mk works. But I think 15 characters in mk9 could win a major. Some have better chances than others but that's how fighting games work.

 

[Illmatix]

Tom Brady
Can i hear what you think those 8-2 matchups are?

 

[Zoidberg747]

i understand, but one of my main sticking points is just that...needing to cover bad matches. i don't believe any character should be so handicapped against another that one should have to switch characters. one character should be able to suffice, one character should have a reasonable shot of going all the way. there should be no need to go into this foolish counter-picking garbage that MK has made necessary. and i feel that even 15 characters out of a cast of over thirty is shameful.

hen you must hate all fighting games. But seriously I do not know any 2d game in which there are no really lopsided matchups.

 

[peachyO]

i think it would make the game even MORE interesting to have every character well-designed enough to go toe to toe with any other character!! i mean, at EVO in SC5, tira (considered to be one of, if not the, lowest tier characters in the game) won grand finals. do you honestly see sheeva, kano, jade, stryker, baraka, quan chi, CSZ, or even scorpion doing so? i wish, but i just don't see it...

 

[Zoidberg747]

i think it would make the game even MORE interesting to have every character well-designed enough to go toe to toe with any other character!! i mean, at EVO in SC5, tira (considered to be one of, if not the, lowest tier characters in the game) won grand finals. do you honestly see sheeva, kano, jade, stryker, baraka, quan chi, CSZ, or even scorpion doing so? i wish, but i just don't see it...

Lol, that was because tira got nerfed so everyone called her shit tier. She was A tier at least, just super underrated. Also let's face it, no character other than Kabal can win a tournament on his or her own. Even then REO will often switch to KL. If you don't want to counterpick just play the game and have fun

 

[LanceMonsoon]

No. 8/2. Tops. Kenshi vs Kano its 10/0 at the highest level. Imo.

Damn I was just joking lol, I don't know shit about either characters. But to hear Kenshi vs. Kano is a 10-0 at highest level is crazy. I can see it though.

 

[Tom Brady]

Denzell I agree that almost all of Sub's bad mu's are winnable to at least some extent, even the 3-7 ones. The only exception is Kenshi, that mu is near unwinnable.

Tom Brady
Can i hear what you think those 8-2 matchups are?

most of them involve the low tiers vs top tiers. Kabal and Kenshi cause the majority of the 2-8 and 1-9 mu's.

 

[DuBBer Kiir]

Jax v Jax is 6 - 4

 

[Seven]

ummmmm, I really want to comment but I have nothing to say, so here: