I know this is just some nitpicky shit, but wouldn’t having all characters balanced or even only one character mean that there would be one tier? Or is the fact that there is only one prevent it from being a “tier”?
Anyway, I’ll add another “No” to the pile.
Unless fighting games have online updates standard then no.
Truth.
Why was that genesis version so different from the snes version anyway?
These matchups are balanced, even when they weren’t originally. The forge fast expo into sair build made pvz balanced around 2006. And Zerg vs. Terran has never been imbalanced.
Tiers just are. Despite the old saying, not all men are created equal and we all have our unique advantages and disadvantages.
There are certain games where tiers are all that strong in determining the outcome of a match like in the recent games in Virtua Fighter series and the more recent GGXX revisions but overall tiers are just the way the cookie usually crumbles.
I’d play a game without a tier, but it would have to be spectacular in order to keep people coming back to it.
I didn’t say they are imbalanced, I even noted that each of them is 50-50. And still one side has to be more careful. That what I meant with “meta-triangle”.
Play to win, guys.
And even A3 managed to fuck that up with side-dependent infinites.
Gotta love Sisyphus ring projectile. Really cracks me up they invented desparations moves, that have no kind of value in real matches.
Reminds me of NKI and Mike Z’s Killer Instinct combo video, a freaking treasure.
:“Thanks to Rare for creating this fighting game, even though they apparently never played one.”
Probably the only way to get a “tier-less” fighting game would be to implement matchup-specific changes. I’ll use Guilty Gear as an example since I am most familiar with it. Take the Chipp vs. Potemkin matchup, arguably one of the most unbalanced matchups in the game in favor of Potemkin. For this matchup only, you could increase Chipp’s defense rating or decrease Potemkin’s overall damage output, or you could alter some of Chipp’s attack hitboxes so that he has smaller vulnerable hitboxes on his attacks and therefore has increased priority on his attacks. In any other matchup Chipp and/or Potemkin would go back to normal, and the changes that help to balance this matchup have no effect on their matchups with any other characters.
Obviously this method of balancing can be a complete disaster if character changes include things like “this poke’s hitbox extends to the end of the arm vs Character A, but against character B it only extends to the forearm or goes out past the actual sprite.” But as long as changes are kept to more subtle things like defense ratings and vulnerable hitboxes, the player will still be able to remember basic matchup-specific things like move priority and how much damage your combos will do to your opponent. It will not matter to a Potemkin player if Chipp’s defense modifier changes vs other characters, as that is completely outside of his matchup.
It’s possible to have a fighter with limited tiers and unique characters. The problems that crop up are certain characters are always better in certain match ups no matter how balanced the game is. Even if you gave every character the same number of favorable/unfavorable matches there would be tiers based on the meta game, although the fighter itself would technically be tierless. This type of tiering is even present in the fighters played now.
If RTS games can be reasonably balanced there’s no doubt in my mind a fighter can be too. The problem is patching it constantly, and modern consoles (or a pc fighter, novel concept) will hopefully help solve that.
FPS games generally have no tiers and one character. Quake and similar fps games don’t get boring fast. A 3d fighter could definitely have only one character and be enjoyable for an extended period of time, but additional gameplay mechanics would have to be introduced.
Characters that gain abilities depending on the matchup could work good. It would also take a lot of effort for the game designer to come up with (n^n)-1 new moves that fit the character and aren’t repetitions of existing moves.
Lol, I think counter picks are just something you’ll have to live with. A character that gains more life or more range depending on who he fights is retarded. Just pick who you want to play with and realize that there are bad matchups for them.
No matter what, if you have a variety of characters some will definitely be better than others in certain matchups.
Excessive balance kills a game anyway. It just becomes boring that everyone has no real strength or weakness since everyone got nerfed to the bone.
Say… do beat-em ups, particularly the ones made by Capcom, have tiers?
i think if they gave chipp over all more damage and def he could easily be B rank. i think the only thing that makes guilty “unbalanced”(although it’s exceptionally balanced compared to other games) are the exaggerated damage modifiers they give certain characters; which is imo for the sake of character design. potemkin is a big monstrous character so they give him ridiculous damage while chipp is a super fast pixie that can be squashed in a single combo. i think the simple way out would be just fix the over all damage modifiers to balance it out but then again it can make the game boring if that’s the only change they make. i think chipp has made quite a bit of progress through buffs to his moves and over playstyle opposed to just increasing his damage/health.(yea i know they buffed his health/damage, but it wasn’t massive)
anyways i think guilty takes the right approach in balancing with each installment in order to keep each game fresh fun. My thoughts on tiers in a game i personally don’t mind there being a tier list as long as all the characters can compete and the game is deep/fun. besides it’s always entertaining to see low tier characters overcome top tier characters.
Almost every single game, regardless of genre, has tiers.
Hmm, people do think this way but I’m not so sure. A lot of my favorite fighting games were balanced this way - GG Slash, Real Bout 2, Samsho V Special. I like that it places the focus squarely on the individual’s mindgame & fundamentals. The opposite approach does have its own appeal as well, though.
Rikidozan: Hah, I recall reading in a magazine back in the day that the people designing Killer Instinct didn’t include throws because they were “cheap”.
Effenhoog: Chipp vs. Potemkin is actually not bad. Pote wins but it’s only 5.5 or MAYBE 6-4, as he has a very hard time touching Chipp at all. Chipp’s real worst matchups include Eddie/Slayer/Jam.
millia vs baiken ruins my life
I don’t play either of those characters so I can’t really comment, I just remember Chipp vs. Potemkin being one of the few matchups that people regularly talk about as a horrible 7-3. The other one I see a lot is Potemkin vs. Eddie in Eddie’s favor. But yeah, Slayer vs Chipp is the only time I’ve ever managed to do a 100% life combo in a real match, lol.
For me though Dizzy vs anybody often feels like 7-3 :sad:
I’m a strong believer in counter-picks to help balance a game. If low tier character X just so happens to have the skills to counter top tier character Y, then the low tier character will still get some play, and will therefore be worthwhile to learn.
However, designing a game with counterpicks in mind could lead to all sorts of unbalance, so perhaps that’s not the best idea after all.