I started picking up Sagat recently and after getting a few things down I decided to head down to my local arcade to try him out. I managed to do pretty well with him, much better than expected, I managed a 6 win streak, something I have never done before (don’t laugh). I told a friend (who plays SF4 of course) that I had started picking up Sagat and he went off on me. Basically, according to him those wins don’t really count. I won’t even discuss when I tried to use my Sagat against his Chun. Another friend of mine (who plays BlazBlue, no SF4) basically had the same reaction.
Around here, I often see people complain about all the use of Sagat, Ryu, and Ken online. It’s true, I see alot of them (actually I see more Akuma then Ryu, but I digress) myself.
I just don’t understand why suddenly everyone is mad that alot of people play the high tiers in a fighting game. Nobody complained about all the Chun and Yun in 3rd Strike or the heavy use of MSP in Marvel (I never played Marvel myself, only 3S). Why is trying to be the best character to play the best you can suddenly a crime? What is this sudden requirement of using the low-tier characters. Many of the best players main Ryu, Sagat, Balrog or Rufus right? Why is it not okay for the less talented players to use them too?
I searched for a similar thread for a similar topic, couldn’t find one. If there was one, I really did try searching “tier” for awhile.
Look its very simple: Sagat takes less effort to win and people just don’t like that.
That’s all there is to it, I don’t really care as I can beat most sagats I face anyway since they are just like you, picking him for being toptier. Imo it’s the wrong approach to picking your character but thats just me. Pick a character that suits you and enjoy, if that happens to be sagat so be it. Don’t let other people stand in the way of that.
If you want to play a top-tier character, pick a top tier character. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s the most logical choice to make when playing a game that revolves around breaking your opponent’s virtual face in. Sagat has enough tools to give you ample room to get better and practice, so you’re not really hindering yourself by playing him. Also, he’s not broken by any stretch, despite what your whiny friends say, so go nuts.
It’s insulting to low-tier players if you feel you need to coddle them in their game of choice. They picked the low-tier characters and all that goes along with them. Your friends may not realize this, but they’re scrubs. General consensus is that Sagat doesn’t have any 8-2 matchups, ergo, not broken by my standards, especially at your level, where balance is an evershifting ocean of new techniques and discoveries.
As a Dan player, I demand that you learn to use Sagat, just to mess with your friends. You tell them I said that.
[media=youtube]sGh4ZU4H5Hk#t=1m28s"[/media], even though Evelgest beat me to it.
play who u like
if u like sagat then play him
I play characters that make the game fun for me
it seems like that 6 game streak for u felt good
so stick to sagat until ur bored
Their problem is assuming they are as skilful as you, statisticly you will be winning 60% of the time, and if they are slightly more skilful than you, statisticly you can be winning 50% of the time. That being said it’s the games problem, not yours. Play to win but know in 2 months Sagat will be more balanced so if you’re only playing him because he’s top tier you’re wasting your time, by the time you’re decent with him he won’t be top tier any more. Unless of course you only play in arcades, then I guess arcade release will be a while longer, but I don’t know how much sf4 will get played in arcades once ssf4 is out.
To me, a new game with a 40% roster increase is a free pass to switch mains, for whatever reason.
And it wouldn’t be a waste of time, depending on how he practiced. Sagat’s got execution and spacing fundamentals that lends to every character. Obviously the onus will be on him to learn them, but it’s not like he’ll get worse at Street Fighter by picking Sagat now.
I mean, I suck at linking jabs under pressure because Dan can’t do it. If they suddenly let his jabs link in Super, I’ll be up a goddamn creek without a paddle. You learn different skills and habits with different characters.
You should pick the character that you want to play. That doesn’t necessarily mean the characters who have the best shot at winning. The characters all fall into different types - there are offense/rush-down oriented characters, characters with strong defense but limited mobility, quick characters who have poor defense, characters who want to zone you, etc. What playstyle do you like? Do you want to play rushdown? Do you like finding ways to keep your opponent away from you? Pick the character that best suits your playstyle.
People will come in here and tell you “PLAY TO WIN”, but most of us aren’t pro gamers and aren’t going/trying to be. Pick whoever is the most fun for you. Me, I don’t enjoy top tiers. I like using characters where you really have to outthink/outplay your opponent. So for me, losing with one of these characters is ultimately more fun than winning with a top tier. That’s just my outlook. Do whatever jives with yours.
One thing to be careful about picking the top tier though, is because so many people flock to them, there are a lot of people playing these characters, and therefore everyone has a lot of experience against them. Maybe your friend never bothered or doesn’t care to learn the Chun vs Sagat fight, but if you come across a Chun player who has played Sagat plenty and knows the matchup, he will dismantle you with his experience despite Chun disadvantage in the fight.
Your friends are being silly. Play a character you enjoy that suits you, especially if they’re top tier. If your friends want to play lower tier characters, then they need to realize that they’re accepting a handicap and adjust accordingly.
Be mindful though that playing a top tier character is a double-edged sword. As you will be playing one of the most threatening characters in the game, you will find yourself faced with a multitude of opponents who know that match up better than any other. More match up theory is going to be generated for the top tiers simply out of neccessity. If you do not know the match up as well as your opponent, then their knowledge of the workings of the match up could entirely negate the advantage of using a top tier.
Another example of this sort of thing appears in Chess. The Sicilian defense is black’s best defense against a king’s pawn opening. Among defenses in chess, it is certainly “top tier”. However, because of its strength and popularity, most players are extremely familiar with it out of neccessity, which takes some of the edge off of it. Playing the Sicilian against someone better prepared is suicide. Contrast this with weaker, unfamiliar defenses which don’t have the mountains of theory behind them, like the Borg defense. On occasion an opponent may be caught off guard by the Borg, but usually any adept player can defeat it over the board.
Some pretty good responses here, but as many people said, pick who you like. As it had been mentioned, people hate top tiers because it is easier to win with them. I honestly doubt that there will be any fighting game that would be perfectly balanced, or any game for that matter. Maybe except Chess.
Because I love being that echo in the room, I agree with the others: play who you want. Like the others said, people don’t like the top-tiers because they’re a little less challenging. There’s also probably a perception that if someone wants to play Sagat or Balrog they just want to play them to win. Because clearly there is no way they could just like the character. I doubt anyone will shed tears I’m leaning towards Vega though
Draughts has been solved. Playing perfectly the person who goes first will always win unless the person who goes second plays perfectly also (literally perfectly), then the game will always result in a draw.
norborb: had a thought - try picking up Ken for a couple of weeks, then every time you play your friend the Chun player and he wins, bitch about him using a higher tier character and he should switch (the chun-ken matchup is 6-4, same as the sagat-chun matchup). If he doesn’t switch, then you should switch back to Sagat. Hopefully the irony isn’t lost on him =).
Over time statistics have demonstrated that white wins more often. It could be because of something as simple as white’s first move dictating the direction of the game that makes that side more prone to winning. One could easily take an opponent down lines they don’t know, which is all part of tournament preparation. However, this human element doesn’t seem to matter too much, as computers playing each other (with the same opening book and end game tablebases) tend to get the same results.
It is heavily debated in the chess world (just like our arguments about balance) whether or not chess is a forced win for white or a draw.
