Wasn’t it mentioned that, at least for the Japanese tier lists, they weren’t using win/loss ratios, but rather a vage “difficulty rating?”
Being a character loyalist builds character (sorry, only choice of words available).
If you can manage to get around nigh unwinnable matchups you’ll be able to overcome anything. Even if you choose to learn other characters later to counterpick it’s still a good exercize.
And I completely agree with this. However, if you go this route, don’t complain about how the character your trying to get around these unwinnable matchups with sucks… if you are going to do that just pick another character.
Basically this. You know what you signed up for, so either figure that shit out or stop playing. I was sick of hearing in Super how those poor Mak / Guy / Hakan players are soooooo persecuted
To whit, yes. I do agree with this; however, my point is that saying *tiers don’t matter unless it’s at that level *is oversimplification. Again, even if Soldier A is far more skilled than Soldier B, equipping them both with Carbines makes the gap between them narrower. In FG terms, an intermediate-level, but very solid player using the best tier in the game is still a major concern for a top-level player using a weaker character or even the same character.
It devalues the tier list, in my opinion, if skill level is a factor in its build. Characters either have a tool or they don’t. Like I said, no matter how good you are at 3S, you have to respect Chun’s cr.mk on some level. Even if you’ve built an entire game to get around it, you still need to be wary. That’s all I’m saying.
I really think that people get a little too up in arms about the recent trend in patching console only fighting games like MvC3 and MK9; remember that with an arcade game in the past a new patch to fix things meant releasing and buying a whole new version of the board, and even games like 3S got patched (version A versus version B).
No other genre of competitive game has been expected to just ‘deal with it’ as fighting games have, even racing games with arcade roots receive balence patches all the time these days. I’ve also never seen people complain about developers adressing flagrant balence issues as much as fighting game players have. In old school Counter-strike they patched out bunny hopping because it allowed you to reach enemy spawns before a non-bunnyhopping player could leave the area on certain maps, despite that it was a common technique in tourney play at the time, because people complained that it was stupid and the game was becoming too much about hopping around like a tard with a shotgun, and less about actually developing the skills the game was intended to revolve around.
Balence patches are a good thing when they’re well targeted.
A game needs more time than a year to figure out everything. There were still new tactics and playable glitches found in MvC2 years after it had come out. In ST O.Hawk just now has started to become a viable character to play as. Over 15 years after the game came out, new strategies have been found that helped him make a huge leap up in the tiers.
However at what point is the cut off. 15 years is too long (and you get people who have grown too attached to the imbalances to make any patches accepted: ie see HDR), but 1 month is far too short (about the amount of time for sent to get nerfs in MvC3).
I say after evo/sbo. This gives the players a general year to figure out the new strategies and counter match-ups. With the culmination of everything at the two largest tournaments in the world. Patchers can watch the worlds best players play and see what truly needs to be patched if anything at all.
Another thing to consider is that most of the longest competitive games have not been balanced. Meanwhile games that are fairly balanced get pushed to the way side fairly quickly. Regardless of what you think about patching, people love “up hill fights” or “easy wins”. Watching MightyMar beat Floe with the worse character in VS would not have been as exciting if the game was “patched”. You had the worst character in the game beating one of the best characters in the game.
O.Hawk has been considered a threat for a couple years now. Just pretty much no one willing to put in the time outside of japan.
It’s not the current generation of fighters that bother me. It’s the current generation of players that need to stop whining and give their games a chance to grow and see what comes of it.
Yes, about 15 years after ST came out. Which is what I said above. And in the grand scale of the ST development that is a relatively recent discovery.
thats where the million dollar question comes in. Are people losing because they suck or because of an ACTUAL unfair design in the game? I wonder.
Except version B was universally hated and A is still the tournament standard. Even (the upcoming) 3SOE is using version A (at S-kill’s insistence I might add).
It comes down to one phrase: Level up your game.
As long as characters have a move list, they will have a way to defeat the other players character. Level up your game until you get to the top. Whining is useless.
…
Gasp… nonononono
…
Aside from that last part, what does that post have to do with anything? In your universe does an unbalanced game not exist?
Ive made a poor assessment since I based it off the new generation of competition witch has more network option than earlier times
I do agree that with sites like u2b, streams of tournaments that people can’t “save that shit for nationals” anymore. So people are using all of their secrets in these majors that take place throughout the year. So more people are exposed to higher levels of game play and can develop new strategies to combat whats presently working. So game play is evolving faster than it did 15 to 20 years ago. But I don’t believe that if MvC2 came out today that we’d find out everything that presently know about all the characters, match ups, glitches, and strategies in 1 year.
I’m replying to this without reading the rest of the thread but I’ll put it like this: I was playing fighting games years before I knew what a tier list was and have been playing years after. A tier list has never made me decide which character to use. Balance is one component of many that makes a good game. You could have perfect balance and if other aspects are lacking you’re going to have a shitty game.
If a games good and fun, I’ll play it. I don’t care about the odds. It comes down to the individual more than the character most of the time. (I know this isn’t always the case) Besides, if you know the odds are against you, isn’t it more rewarding when you succeed?
Anyway I kind of agree with you, I can see why all the complaining comes across as pathetic, but I can also see the necessity of it.
IMO, this is something worth looking into. Anyone got numbers to throw around?
Honestly… The most balanced of all the Marvel vs. series was MSHvsSF, and it was BORING as fuck. I think Wolverine was the only “Good” character. It was also the least competitive.
I don’t know about most 3D games, but I think the only really “balanced” fighters that ever lasted a long time were Super Turbo, Virtua Fighter, and Guilty Gear. Those last two are debatable, since VF isn’t THAT big of a thing, and GG took several renditions before AC, and that’s still not really perfect. Sup Pot?
I think the imbalance adds something to the game. It provides a solid challenge for people who want to stick to their low tiers and it gives everybody else a “cool” character choice.
I honestly do like learning and adapting to anti-D. Phoenix methods, and I liked learning all the unique Sent Unblockables and infinites.
I like a game to be balanced, but imbalance can often lead to more fun learning the game, even if it causes frustration while playing occasionally.