Sounds like a good idea, though quite complicated. Team vs team, char vs. char, assist vs. char, assist vs. assist… I wouldn’t know where to begin there are so many combinations.
I think you’re way, way understating Jill’s teleport, and her damage is fine.
Bad idea. Matchups are interesting, but what assists you use ( and whether or not XF is involved and what level it is ) can change matchups drastically. Plus a tier list has to be value to team, a character with an excellent assist might be valuable to a team even if they aren’t strong on point.
I have an idea for Viewtiful Joe that I think might push him up the tier list, but I’ll have to test it out in training mode first. If it works, I’ll be sure to let the VJ board know.
It would be Character Vs Character.
Though it would be admittedly hard to create something like this with assists involved.
I’d assume we could come up with something solid, albeit a raw representation and of course it would be subject to change.
Nuff said…
Either way is rough terrain and I can see all of the flaws of a match up chart with this game.
Just a thought.
Yes yes yes.
Most “lists” these days people come up with are based off of “Oh I think this character is really good! Top fo sho! This character isn’t good at all probably lawl tierz”
They are lists with not much substance to back it up besides thinking how good the character is or isn’t. There needs to be some measured variable to compile these charts like matchup charts on a scale of who wins how many out of 10. Then you get to the actual discussion of “ok why does this character beat this character” and not “This character has a teleport and does high damage so he is probably high tier”… which is essentially dumbed down thinking.
I agree that with a game like this it will be much harder to make some sort of matchup chart due to the game being much more complex than just 1vs1… 1 characters tools against anothers.
The question right now shouldn’t be who goes where but WHAT is where? Should we have seperate lists… one for point characters and one for assists? Should we consider both aspects of being on point and an assist? Should we have a traditional matchup chart of 1v1 and one that justs sort of ranks assists because it is hard to really make matchup charts for assists?
I think this discussion would be much beneficial to figure out some sort of structure before just a whole bunch of brainstorming. Need to have reasoning behind something rather than “I feel this character is really good” because that doesn’t really explain much at all.
Good luck making a match-up chart in this game, there’s too many variables to even think of let alone actually formulate…
Although when forming a A-D tier list you have to consider the same amount of variables but make a broader generalization of the character as a whole.
You can do the same with a match up chart.
It’s a lot easier though, a hell of a lot easier. If you want to construct a match-up chart, you’re going to have to consider so much more, like character a/b/c vs x/y/z, a/b vs x/y/z, a vs x/y/z etc for every possible match-up combination in the game, including all the assist types and different variations of that match-up on top of it (Lv1 XF, Lv2 XF, Lv3 XF etc). It’s far easier at this stage in the game to simply say character a is better than character x, then to use that base information to make estimates on how it changes when modified… Don’t expect a match-up chart untill much later in the game’s life when it’s already been established that certain teams are stronger than others; taking everything into acount is simply too much work.
This. As much as people want games to be super duper balanced and everyone has a fighting chance… yay!! That just isn’t how shit works. Some will be more balanced than others, however, nothing will have complete balance. In a chaotic game like this I just can’t see how 7-8 characters or so will eventually be dominant with 4-5 randomly popping up here than there. Perhaps I will be wrong but time will tell.
But yea once the stronger characters stick out then matchup charts for high level play will be much easier to compile since you are only considering a handful of the cast. I agree that right now figuring out all of the combnations is just too much.
Still I think there needs to be a little structure behind all of this. Very broad brainstorming really won’t lead to anything relevant. We need something to back up why we are putting people where they are at.
Ok, so I see some people throwing around the idea of matchups and how complex it would be, etc.
Basically, the first thing to do is rank assists. As basic as every assist for every character is, it’s not hard to theory craft out a pretty solid list. Some discrepancy maybe, but nothing major.
Then it would be raw matchups sans assists. I understand that this is taking alot out, but if nothing else, we can learn raw matchup counters, and then work from there to see how assists work, which would make the next step to do the same matchups with assists that best seem to fit, and to test some DHC options from there. All of these are 1v1, of course, switching back to the testing char. post DHC.
Now that it seems we’ve formed a way to empirically form this data, we need pairs of players of as close to even skill as possible, and with the capability to push them to advanced levels to test this.
Anyone feel like forming this games first tier list? :razzy:
EDIT: Also, testing X-Factors from there maybe? I think I actually saw a list of stat boosts for each character at each level somewhere, so this may be superfluous. Anyone have this information on hand?
As far as this is concerned, I think we could at least start effectively ranking Assists in the game? We can start discussing that now, as they have way less depth then chars. and matchups. The first thing to do would be to classify the assists in type (Anti-air, OTG, keep away, Get off me, etc.) and rank assists in those categories. Beyond that, we should be able to make a solid list, A-Z, of assists in the game. I’ll start categorizing these and post back when I’m done. Anyone is welcome to help!
It is way too early to form a list of any sort. We need more data/results from tournaments as well as time to let the game evolve. We need to be figuring out how we are going to compile lists and now worry about who goes where for now.
I can’t really say I disagree with you.
I was being mostly facetious… obviously all that testing would take SO MUCH TIME. But if you look at the edited version of my post, we can at least rank assists right now on raw value I think.
EDIT: @NissanZaxima: I keep reading your posts in L’s voice. Lulz
Good… L is the biggest badass of all time.
I always thought tier lists were to be generated from tournament results?
You can still make matchup information based on characters and their web of interactions. There’s a finite space to explore here, even if the space is exponential.
In a broad generalization:
Characters exist in two spaces, Point and Assist
Point has a few modes, Rushdown and Keepaway being the two most commonly cited.
Assist has a few modes, DHC and assist being the two most commonly cited.
Rushdown is a combination of damage output, mobility and ability to initiate a combo. Keepaway is a combination of damage output, mobility and coverage (time and space).
DHCs are a combination of damage and linkability. Assists are a combination of damage, get-off-me-ness (better name anyone), approach-cover (again, sucky name), combo-continuation.
So one of the technically easiest graphs to make is the linkability graph between each point character and each possible DHC. (It requires no judgment, only testing.)
One of the technically hardest graphs to make is probably the approach-cover graph since it’s judgments based on the coverage of the assist’s move and the mobility of the point character.
Do that a billion times and you’ll have a set of graphs that show how synergistic any two characters are. This doesn’t end debate but does give reasoning behind saying something like (blind, untested example) Haggar’s Lariat assist is terrible with Wesker on point and subsequently pushing all Wesker+Haggar(Lariat) teams down the list a bit. In truth, you only have to worry about teams that pass some sort of sniff test and shaking it out should cause some teams, even excluding assists, to drop down the list pretty quickly.
At the end there are only something like 90k possible teams when you factor in assists. If you could make some broad value judgments on the data (some point system) then it’s a quick check-and-sort by whatever algorithm you want to give you some potentials at the top of the list.
Granted, you’ll come up with the AI-learning-how-to-cook problem…
Edit: I do agree that there’s no point claiming anything definitive for a very long time, but it could be fun to look for patterns.
Edit another: Sorry if this is way over-complicating things; I come from a D&D background when evaluating options. D&D is SRSBSNS.
Yes and they should be. After all, lists are meant for high level gameplay not online ranked matches or you and 3 of your buddies having a casual sessions at each others house. The results from the high levels should dictate them. That is why any “list” you see posted should be taken with the smallest grain of salt possible as it is merely one person’s broad opinions on the characters overall. No real matchup thought rather just “this character is good at this and this but bad at this” which really doesn’t help too much.
You’re all making this way too overcomplicated, holy shit.