this thread is dumb.
this has only become about being the winner of the argument, not about fact or logic. when we lose reasoning, there's no point in speaking.
I don't think Jade is the worst character. I don't think there is a "worst character". All the characters have chances and have been basically explored for the general community to know how to play said character. There isn't any new ground breaking tech with anyone to change their playstyle, ie noob into rushdown, scorpion into zoning or kung lao into vortex. It's basically the same game. There are characters who have an easier time against the top, those who don't; we are all in agreement in how a character plays out at this point, basically(minus a few like ermac, kitana, sub zero, etc. where they can be played effectively as rush down or turtle. I am not saying Sub has cage-like normals, or can keep someone locked down, or ermac can do the same. Just that they are somewhat versatile and different people play them differently. Detroitballn/Alex Valle are good examples.).
That being said, the way I think characters should be placed is on what they have for tools. Combo launchers, stagger states, specials, the works. I'm talking matchups, but not just the bad. How many good does that character have, and against WHOM. If say someone has 25 bad matchups, but has 8-2's against the existing 6(not including kratos for good reason), all of which are top tier characters like Lao, Raiden, Reptile, Kitana, Kabal whatever, isn't that character great? or not?
Obviously the matchup isn't going to be that skewed for a character, but I think you guys understand what I mean. If you can find some sort of fallacy or loophole in that idea, tell me.
But of course, all this goes to shit when you bring in the players. If you have someone who seems just unstoppable playing a "low tier character", why is that character low tier? Is it just because there is nothing to be discovered with him/her? They have bad matchups against a larger variety of the cast? Then why are they winning? Is said player winning because of matchup inexperience?
Instead of simply attributing characters to either shit or gold, consider who plays them, what the character plays like. In my opinion rush down characters are nerfed in 1.05 from jump-in's losing adv, wake up system working consistantly, and so on. Zoning is the name of the game, with Kabal and Noob owning the field. So why does it matter..? Because certain characters have no defined way of playing.. or they cannot compete against others of the same class. Also consider that people make the difference here. This community.. in a way I've never seen before, attributes the tools to the winning factor, not the people behind them.
In my opinion, the person makes the difference. Look at EGP Tyrant, MasterHavik, and CD Jr. Before 1.05 and maybe even 1.04 people thought jax was the worst or one of the worst characters in the game. But they continue to play them.. why? Because it's STILL POSSIBLE TO WIN. There is no character who loses indefinitely. Disadvantage only, meaning the players behind the character are the ones who matter, because they are required to come up with creative solutions to glaring problems in their matchup.
Rambling aside.. and I'm sure I've contradicted myself multiple times.. thanks for reading. PM me if you find me to be retarded or something.
