Discussion Why is tier placement based on MU?

[Skedar70]

Hey guys,

I have been thinking about this for a while because it doesn't make sense to me. The general notion is that tier placement should be based on number of winning match ups vs losing match ups yet match up numbers are very subjective. What a person believes is a 6-4 winning match up for a character, another person believes is a 4-6 losing match up.

Recently there was a discussion on the Kitana vs Tanya (Pyromancer) MU some believed it was in Kitana's favor while other believe it was in Tanya's favor, in the end Tanya ended up mopping the Kitana's and this didn't change anything on their opinion they still believed the MU was in Kitana's favor or even and that the Tanya player was better. So the match numbers in the end didn't prove anything and the opinion was based mostly on the idea that Kitana does have the proper tools to even up the match up if used correctly.

Now people say that tools isn't the way of determining the tier placement of a character. But why is this?
Its easier to agree on what are good tools and bad tools. Proof of this is that people who play the same characters usually use the same strings, staggers, specials while avoid using the bad tools. So a tool being good or bad is not as subjective as MU numbers.
Also, tools are actually what determine if a MU is good or bad. For example a character without any tools to get in or out of Subzero's clone set ups is considered a losing matchup against subzero.

Its not possible for a character to have great tools and be garbage, and it's also very likely that a character with very few decent tools is bad character.

So why is tier placement based on MU instead of the set of tools that the character has? I can easily say that my character loses all MU in order to downplay but how can you deny your character being good if he has plenty of good tools?

 

[TheGangstaFace]

It's as simple as this. A characters tool(s) on paper can be really good but against some of the cast or a lot, they could either counter those tools or negate them altogether. Mu numbers can typically be figured out by a general community of the character/variation discussing it. Youre right about them being each persons individual opinion BUT if a community can't decide upon a mu number then gameplay is the simplest resolution. If more of the Tanyas beat Kitana's then in theory Tanya probably beats Kitana (Idk the mu, im just offering insight). Or if that's not good enough you could actually ask some of the players known for their characters. @RevetLeafing @Kitana Prime

 

[Doombawkz]

MUs give light into the consistency and utility of a character. Someone like Quan Chi may excel at fighting zoners, but isn't an all-rounder in comparison to say... Shinnok.

His MUs would reflect this, being skewed in certain MUs and generally unfavorable in most others. It can be said a character with nothing but 5-5 MUs would be both the best and worst character in the game at the same time.

 

[ThaShiveGeek]

Being in tune with the FGC leads me to believe the following to be true. Tier placement, and MU numbers only applies to the best players whether it be in causal or tournament settings. Basically character specialist or "Professional" players. Again this is my opinion. When it comes to those numbers it's based on the highest level of play.

 

[Wigy]

Tools are all relative. Some tools look great but are very mu specific so you can't just say x tool so they're the best.

Statistically the best character will overall have the best matchups, the only issue is getting honest MU numbers.

In terms of tournament viability we should also factor who they're good and bad against, in MK9 cage was outstanding versus a lot of characters but got absolutely roflstomped by kenshi who was a popular top tier. This bumped him down in the tier list a lot. But that wouldnt have been shown through a basic MU chart average.

Nothing wrong with the system just people not being truthful about MU's.

A lot of characters are underrepresented so hard to figure out MU's at the highest level; and even if they are played at the highest level you dont know the MU properly so the numbers are again bias.

@RevetLeafing is a good example as there has been limited pyro tanya usage, hard to tell if he's just really good and people dont know the MU or if tanya is indeed ad good as he says.

You really need to remember all tier lists are based on the highest level, there is always braindead characters who are really hard to combat but once you are good enough to deal wih it they arent as good as they seem. Different skill ceilings and all.

 

[STRYKIE]

Regardless of how great the 'tools' in question may be perceived, they're still relative to how they fare in given matchups. And thus it comes down to how the entirety of their matchup chart stacks up compared to others.

He's already been mentioned here, but MK9 Cage is a good example of this. His F3 in that game was one of MK9's most controversial and hated normals, used as common ground for Cage being a lock for top 5 when looked at in a bubble. But when his matchup chart was scoured over, where there were apparent occurrences of other character's tools inflicting just as much if not more nonsense than F3 did to them and all the clearly embellished matchup numbers were sieved out (anyone remember the claims of Cage going 5-5 with Freddy Krueger? That was a good'un), there was a legit chance that he may not have even been top 10.

Also, I think it's possible for a character with "great tools" to still be low tier. In any fighting game roster, regardless of the relative level of tier disparity, someone has to be at the bottom of the food chain either way.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

It doesn't matter how good a tool is if it doesn't help you fight the other characters.

Let's say I'm REALLY FUCKING GOOD at making PANCAKES.. ok... cool that's not a bad skill to have. BUT everyone around me needs me to be good at say.. DEEP SEA DIVING... well fuck I can't say I'm as useful in a situation that requires a diver with my pancake skills. Let's say this game is an ocean. Sonya, Sub-Zero, Shinnok, etc are your deep sea divers. Erron Black is probably a pretty good pancake flipper.

 

[mkJohnson]

MU's determine how good a character is. The reason why you here different MU numbers because you see casuals losing one ft3 and then saying it's a bad MU. Matchups must be determined at the highest possible level,that's why I never comment on MU numbers because I'm simply not a high level player. Getting MU numbers based off high level long sets is the best way to determine how good a characters is.

 

[SneakyTortoise]

The real question should be "why do people care about tier lists?"

 

[Dankster Morgan]

The real question should be "why do people care about tier lists?"

They're important for sure but the obsession with them on this site is crazy. I find them interesting and I like discussing them if I'm being honest but still..

 

[omooba]

match up numbers are very subjective

TIER LISTS are very subjective

 

[Crusty]

If mus were determined by the quality of the tools the character had, character up playing would be left and right.

The greatness of a character's tools is relative to how they can utilize those tools in the mu.

 

[shura30]

Regardless of how great the 'tools' in question may be perceived, they're still relative to how they fare in given matchups. And thus it comes down to how the entirety of their matchup chart stacks up compared to others.

In all honesty I've never seen a full matchup chart
there's been a few projects even for mkx but dropped right after

we'll never have a proper muc/tier list because it's a boring process for such big roster

 

[Colest]

There's a very long and methodical answer I could give but I'll stick to the short one.

MUs traditionally weren't this widely debated. They were more statistically focused and based more on data than top players' opinions. Look at a MU chart for something like SSF2T and it's pretty much unanimously agreed upon. Hell even some later iterations of tier lists were widely accepted in SF4's various versions. Things are not done as quantitatively around here and thus you get more disagreement for MU figures.

A very well-researched and analyzed tier list is by and large objective if only for the methodology used to create it being as such. You didn't really have pros making threads about a MU(s) saying "This feels like a 6-4 to me."

 

[Xxonemanwolfpax]

I dont see anything wrong with it, a character is put somewhere based on how well they do against other characters, think about it, it makes sense.

 

[UGL Preon]

On Paper God based on Tools. Jacqui High Tech & The new Cryomancer

A character cam have really good tools, great damage, good mobility, Mix ups, defense, and anti zoning and still have a slew of 4-6 & 3-7 MUs against them. See Bedman in GG XRD.

A character that 8-2s half rhe cast but gets 2-8'ed by the other half would be on even ice with a characrer that 5-5s the whole cast.

Also MUs arent normally called into question often. Usually after the game has been DUG OUT do people even begin tossing out the word Matchup. But with all these patches/hotfixes the discussion gets expedited

 

[Mikemetroid]

Regardless of how great the 'tools' in question may be perceived, they're still relative to how they fare in given matchups. And thus it comes down to how the entirety of their matchup chart stacks up compared to others.

He's already been mentioned here, but MK9 Cage is a good example of this. His F3 in that game was one of MK9's most controversial and hated normals, used as common ground for Cage being a lock for top 5 when looked at in a bubble. But when his matchup chart was scoured over, where there were apparent occurrences of other character's tools inflicting just as much if not more nonsense than F3 did to them and all the clearly embellished matchup numbers were sieved out (anyone remember the claims of Cage going 5-5 with Freddy Krueger? That was a good'un), there was a legit chance that he may not have even been top 10.

Also, I think it's possible for a character with "great tools" to still be low tier. In any fighting game roster, regardless of the relative level of tier disparity, someone has to be at the bottom of the food chain either way.

Cage was definitely top 10 though... Only real problems were Kenshi and Sonya....

 

[shura30]

Look at a MU chart for something like SSF2T and it's pretty much unanimously agreed upon.

I wish mkx would last the 20years of ssf2t

 

[Eddy Wang]

To actual answering the question in the thread title:
Tier placement are based on MU numbers, because a tier list just a compendium of which characters have the highest winning MU rate compared to others, while tier list can be subjective, the tier list itself removes human error and focus only on comparing character tools at highest level.

For example, Kabal was a character in MK9, who was superior at zoning vs a good half of the cast, and was a superior rushdown against the other half, in theory every character Kabal coudn't fight up close he would zone, and every character he couldn't zone he would fight up close and obliterate them.

As result this ended up Kabal having no losing MU and going 6-4 by default against every cast in the game, so he had a tier o his own.

The others just followed suit, Cyrax overkilled everyone else but Kabal or Sonya, so he was second.
Kenshi Overkilled everyone else but Cyrax and Kabal, so he became third.
Freddy, Cage, Sonya where character that obliterated everyone else but Kabal.

Any other character in the game that was a top 10 character had some good runs against many of these, but where either obliterated or having a slight disadvantage against the top 3, Kabal, Cyrax, or Kenshi.
Kung Lao was solid, but on rooftop against kabal it was bad, it turned a 6-4 Kabal MU into a 7-3 due the stage advantage.
Skarlet was solid but she was forced to play on the edge against cyrax making her type of game extremely risky, which felt very disadvantageous so it was a 7-3 MU

 

[STB Shujinkydink]

They're important for sure but the obsession with them on this site is crazy. I find them interesting and I like discussing them if I'm being honest but still..

I was posting on the virtua fighter forums for a bit and when I asked they didn't even know what a tier list was.

I don't bother with them tbh. What's more important to me is my personal tier list. I have a number of match ups I struggle in. Master of souls ermac for example is one because he counters my personal play style whereas I can deal with mystic much easier even though mystic is regarded as better. I think when it comes to getting better, this is largely more important. Tier lists can also be heavily opinionated based on how a persons character does. Example, everyone said piercing mileena was borderline broken but once I learned the MU with warlock he completely shut down her game. So my opinion may be swayed. Tier lists should always be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Matix218]

There's a very long and methodical answer I could give but I'll stick to the short one.

MUs traditionally weren't this widely debated. They were more statistically focused and based more on data than top players' opinions. Look at a MU chart for something like SSF2T and it's pretty much unanimously agreed upon. Hell even some later iterations of tier lists were widely accepted in SF4's various versions. Things are not done as quantitatively around here and thus you get more disagreement for MU figures.

A very well-researched and analyzed tier list is by and large objective if only for the methodology used to create it being as such. You didn't really have pros making threads about a MU(s) saying "This feels like a 6-4 to me."

Our community is unfortunately too small to have the wide range of data to draw from. Generally in the NRS community there are one or two players with each character that are considered "top level" tournament pros who have enough "weight" in what they say on individual matchups to be taken seriously by the rest of the scene. In Capcom games there are probably as many top Ryu players worldwide as there are total NRS players.

 

[Colest]

Our community is unfortunately too small to have the wide range of data to draw from. Generally in the NRS community there are one or two players with each character that are considered "top level" tournament pros who have enough "weight" in what they say on individual matchups to be taken seriously by the rest of the scene. In Capcom games there are probably as many top Ryu players worldwide as there are total NRS players.

I understand. Was just explaining to the OP and everyone who was curious that MU charts are generally a bit more data-driven in methodology. In other scenes, you have sponsors who provide that kind of service to the community by gathering data of that sort. Other scenes also more seriously use Eventhubs system so it can be a bit more accurately reflected.

 

[YoloRoll1stHit]

Here's why: Your character has a thousand good tools to be a decent zoner/good rush down? Face the clone! 1-9 match up