Then I hereby declare Jacqui to be an F-tier character.
Fool of the Week candidate.
You'd like that wouldn't you? Go to bed charlatan
.
I believe in dragon too, since you guys could also block an 18f overhead on reaction and a 8f low from the same move that could come out at any time.
Huh? What are you talking about?I believe in dragon too, since you guys could also block an 18f overhead on reaction and a 8f low from the same move that could come out at any time.
I almost forgot you guys are super humans.
I heard the letters are arbitrary
Than Shao Kahn is in J- tier. Semantics.
Sounds accurate to me
No, she's not. At best, you could make an argument for placing her up 1 tier. To put her tools in line with basically every other character's, she'd need a ridiculous amount of buffs.
I think they're nice to look at in a general way, just to get an idea about a character. My main dislike of them is that people seem to spend way too much time arguing about tier placements, and the nerfs/buffs needed to change a tier placement, and don't seem to invest as much time discussing strategy, character matchups, stuff like that. Tier lists just get too much attention.
They may be nice to look at, but saying "Character X is S+++ Tier" without any explanation is useless. What makes them great? What are their weaknesses? What characters best exploit those weaknesses? Maybe Mr. Unstoppable S+++ tier has that one weird 2/8 matchup, completely negating their tournament viability. Maybe Mr. Unstoppable is only really S+++ Tier if you play like a Jedi with Mr. Fantastic fingers, so non-pro players will never see success with them. Without adequate information backing up the tier list, there is absolutely zero benefit.
I do agree that matchup charts carry considerably more weight than tier lists as matchups are what matter (as you said). My question is, though, whether a matchup listing could even be practical when custom variations are available. The inconsistency between variation move options means the #/# scale is going to be in flux a LOT.
I think the easy solution is just to base it on best-case-scenario matches. So you just assume that for a Baraka/Cetrion MU, he's going to be kitted out specifically for it and so is she. So, when Baraka and Cetrion fight and both characters are prepared for the MU, who wins on average?
The letters shouldn't matter. All it means is that one is slightly above the tier below. It could be S, S- or A, B or Apple, Orange. Its the same thing. The idea that S- is just slightly worse than S is literally the point of a tier system, so why not just call it A. If its the idea that ots between S and A then thats the point of there being 1 more tier than it either wise would be. What the tiers are called is literally meaningless, its just who is in them and how many there are.
Kinda, but I still think that accepted conventions actually help people understand what you mean.
Not at all. MK11 is definitely more balanced than previous games, but putting everyone in S tier tells us nothing. It basically would mean that essentially everything is even/characters don’t matter. That is definitely not the case.
Yes and it's not accurate, lmao, besides this was first impressions. Mileena is a solid mid tier character.Did they rank Mileena too high for you?
Keep in mind I was the old person who brought up the issue of S-tier being meaningless in this thread. I'm just aware that meanings evolve, not always for the better, and that seems to be what's happened to S- tier, given that this is hardly an isolated event.
Nah bro, just kidding, hope you laughed.
Yes the letters do matter, if you actually want to communicate effectively. Everyone can intuitively understand what "A, B, C" means. No one would have a clue what "Apple, Orange, Banana" means. So using "Apple, Orange, Banana" to mean the same thing, when you could have used "A, B, C", automatically makes your tier list a worse communication tool.
