An analyzation of match-ups, and a very strong argument for the existence of tiers.

[hough123]

Link to original post: [drupal=2807]An analyzation of match-ups, and a very strong argument for the existence of tiers.[/drupal]



To start off, I'd like to start with a story about my personal opinions of match-ups and tiers over the years. If you'd like to get to the good stuff, skip to the stars.

In melee, I mained Ness, Kirby, and eventually Pikachu. Coincidentally, I hated the idea of tiers. I believed that they were just a popularity contest, and were not a serious tool in battling. (I also never planned to go to any tourneys, hmmmmm...) I loved Taj for his maining of Mewtwo, and adored the best Ness players.

Oddly enough, my friend and I both had an unofficial "Don't use Fox/Falco" rule. Except, he used Marth :|

When Brawl came out, I gave up that notion, and matured in my thinking. Now, I believe that tiers are a necessary tool for the measurement of the metagame. Nowadays, my interactions with tier lists start with me counting where Lucario is on it.

************************************************** ********
First off, a definition of match-ups.

A match-up is basically the measure of advantageous, and disadvantageous traits between two characters in a battle. This system assumes one thing: that the two players are of exactly equal skill. By "advantageous and disadvantageous traits," I mean that it measures anything that would make it easier or harder to win. So a 50:50 match-up would rely solely on skill level. A 55:45 would have a small, but helpful tactic that helps your character. A 60:40 would mean that your character has a large tactic over the one that you are fighting. Ideally, a fighting game should only have 50:50's, but due to their nature, this is impossible.

The main problem that people debate is that no two players are of equal skill. Any player could beat any other player depending on any number of things. I have a friend who argued with me about this for a while before I ended it. These people see that match-ups are based on a perfect system, and that our world isn't perfect.Thus, they argue.

This person also debated the existence of a tier list. When I asked them why, they stated that the only variable is skill, and that the characters don't matter. I responded by asking him if he felt that Ganondorf had a hard time fighting Shiek. He answered yes. I then went on to tell him the basis of my theory of a tier list; If you believe in match-ups, then you believe in a tier list. This is because a tier list is, quite simply, a list of match-ups with favor towards the ones with those at the top of it. He continued to argue before I ended it, but I digress.

This leads to a strong argument towards convincing skeptics. If you think that it's hard to beat a character, then you believe in match-ups. If you believe in match-ups, then you believe in tiers. Case-in-point.

I'm open to discussion and criticism. If you find anything hard to understand, or would like me to elaborate on something, please ask.

Thanks for reading,
~Hough123

 

[Deleted member]

10/10. Good read. This reminds me of when Brawl came out, my brother and I would argue over whether it was rounded or not. I said it was extremely unlikely that anyone could make a game perfectly rounded, and he said that every character had their own advantages and disadvantages, lol.

 

[Firus]

You make a good point; the existence of match-ups basically does prove the existence of tiers.

Of course, the TR4Q crowd will probably refute that argument (as the guy in your post did), but it pretty much is proof. If some characters perform well against more characters than some other characters, then they are overall a better character.

The only way you can argue that all of the characters are equal is if you want to go the Animal Farm route and say that some characters are more equal than others.

 

[GwJ]

I thought we already established the existence of tiers. Was I wrong?

 

[BSP]

Good read. And we have clarified that tiers exist.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I used to be a casual gamer, but I never doubted the existence of tiers.

It honestly amazes me that people think that there are no such things as tier lists in fighters. It's just amazing. How can you honestly believe that all characters (who have all have entirely different move sets, movement properties, etc) could possibly be balanced? It's just illogical, dumb thinking. No fighting game is balanced. The only way to have a balanced fighting game is to have one character, and one character only.

 

[Firus]

I thought we already established the existence of tiers. Was I wrong?

Good read. And we have clarified that tiers exist.

Logical people have.

But there's always going to be the crowd that will shout "TIERS ARE FOR QUEERS" until they're blue in the face, even when logic says otherwise.

 

[BSP]

Logical people have.

But there's always going to be the crowd that will shout "TIERS ARE FOR QUEERS" until they're blue in the face, even when logic says otherwise.

My guess is that the people that throw 'TR4Q' around either dont know what a tier really is, or just dont want to accept the truth. I mean, when you really look at the game, it's fairly obvious that there are differences, and the differences lead to tiers.

 

[_Keno_]

But there's always going to be the crowd that will shout "TIERS ARE FOR QUEERS" until they're blue in the face, even when logic says otherwise.

TIERS ARE FOR QUEERS.
Really.
Just play who you have fun playing.

I'm not denying the existence of tiers, but I'm saying that tiers are useless to me. I do not pick a character based on how good that character is, just on how comfortable I feel playing that character competitively. Tier lists don't matter at all, even if they do exist.

 

[TP]

TIERS ARE FOR QUEERS.
Really.
Just play who you have fun playing.

I'm not denying the existence of tiers, but I'm saying that tiers are useless to me. I do not pick a character based on how good that character is, just on how comfortable I feel playing that character competitively. Tier lists don't matter at all, even if they do exist.

Dear CHEAP PEACH,

I understand if you do not care about me, but others do. Respect their opinions.

Truly yours,
Money

 

[GOD!]

haha, a couple years ago I joined that facebook group called "Friends don't let friends play space animals." I thought they were sooo broken.

Just a side note for the people using the word logic: logic cannot prove anything. Logic cannot prove tier lists existent any more than it can prove my favorite color is orange (which it is). Logic is used simply to remove anything foolish or wrong from a discussion so that truth can be more easily seen.

Obviously there is no concrete way of adding up each character's worth and arranging them in a definite order. This means that you have to get everyone to agree on who's better and who's worse, and this is almost impossible to do.
And if you deny that there are tiers in the game, then you probably haven't been around the game very long...

 

[Aurasmash14]

I actually got in trouble when i got into an argument with my english teacher (who's a fellow gamer) over the existence of tiers lol.

 

[Jam Stunna]

At the most basic level, tiers are about differentiation. If you program a fighting game with two totally identical playable characters, you have no tiers. But if you even change one thing, like making character A's punch range a pixel longer than character B's, or making character B's special start up one frame faster, then you now automatically have tiers. Those changes have made one character better (or worse) than the other.

It's hard to compare characters as directly in Smash because they're so different, but it's the same idea. The only real argument here is one of style; that is, what really constitutes better, because you can't deny that characters are different.

 

[_Keno_]

Dear CHEAP PEACH,

I understand if you do not care about me, but others do. Respect their opinions.

Truly yours,
Money

What are you even talking about...?

If you think I was being offensive, I was just jokingly repeating what Firust said about noobs saying "tiers are for queers," which is why I quoted him. Then I went on to say that tiers do exist, but that I believe them to be worthless. I wasn't disrespecting anyone, unless stating my own opinion is a crime nowadays.

 

[highfive]

Tiers. No tiers. Either way people will still pay gay as Meta Knight.

 

[Hobs]

What are you even talking about...?

If you think I was being offensive, I was just jokingly repeating what Firust said about noobs saying "tiers are for queers," which is why I quoted him. Then I went on to say that tiers do exist, but that I believe them to be worthless. I wasn't disrespecting anyone, unless stating my own opinion is a crime nowadays.

He means people want to win money, so they'll go with their best chances (higher up the tier list).

 

[_Keno_]

Ah, I did not see the money part. Now I feel stupid.

Anyways, I think playing with a character you feel naturally comfortable with is better than being one of the 30 MKs in your area. I know for a fact I would be half as good as I am now if I played MK. Whatever though, people seem to pick MK regardless whether he feels right. Maybe it just works for me... oh well.

 

[highfive]

Well... I think people use MK because he's pretty efficient no matter what you do. That and he can be even more efficient if you know how to use him. So... yeah. MK's more efficient then pretty much anyone else and that's why people use him.

 

[Deleted member]

Well... I think people use MK because he's pretty efficient no matter what you do. That and he can be even more efficient if you know how to use him. So... yeah. MK's more efficient then pretty much anyone else and that's why people use him.

You should see my MK. I'm terrible with MK, and I spent a lot of time trying to pick him up as my secondary, but I still can't beat a lv 5 cpu with him.

 

[Xivii]

I play better with Jigglypuff, I win more with MK.

 

[Signia]

I used to be a casual gamer, but I never doubted the existence of tiers.

It honestly amazes me that people think that there are no such things as tier lists in fighters. It's just amazing. How can you honestly believe that all characters (who have all have entirely different move sets, movement properties, etc) could possibly be balanced? It's just illogical, dumb thinking. No fighting game is balanced. The only way to have a balanced fighting game is to have one character, and one character only.

Ever play Virtua Fighter 5? The characters in this 3d fighter have enough tools that players can adapt accordingly for any matchup. It is possible to have perfect balance as well, if you can assign values to risk and reward of each and every option in the game, and make everyone's risk/reward ratio the same, then you have a balanced fighter. But I doubt Brawl was ever meant to be balanced anyway...

 

[Melomaniacal]

Ever play Virtua Fighter 5? The characters in this 3d fighter have enough tools that players can adapt accordingly for any matchup. It is possible to have perfect balance as well, if you can assign values to risk and reward of each and every option in the game, and make everyone's risk/reward ratio the same, then you have a balanced fighter. But I doubt Brawl was ever meant to be balanced anyway...

I'm sorry, but no. There never has been a balanced fighter game (no, not even Virtua Fighter 5), and there never will be one. Some may come closer to balanced than others, but there will always be better and worse characters.

So, maybe Virtua Fighter 5 comes a little closer to balanced. Maybe there are more viable characters - maybe they are all viable. But it is not perfectly balanced, there are better and worse characters, and there is a tier list.

Oh, and of course Brawl was meant to be balanced. Be realistic, what game designer would purposely unbalance a game? Sure, Brawl was designed as a party game, but still, you couldn't possible think that when they were designing the game they were thinking "hey, let's make Ganon terrible. No one likes him anyway," right?

 

[GOD!]

I'm sorry, but no. There never has been a balanced fighter game (no, not even Virtua Fighter 5), and there never will be one. Some may come closer to balanced than others, but there will always be better and worse characters.

I don't think this is true. If you look at what they are doing with BBrawl, the game seems to be becoming more and more balanced. With hacks, characters can now be changed continually, even as time goes on and the metagame evolves for each character. Since there is still no way to determine who is the better character besides common experience, BBrawl can change as people say "this character is too good" or "ICs have chain grabs."

In the end, characters can get so balanced that any imbalance is so small that it is either unnoticeable or negligible. So BBrawl kind of breaks that rule, and I wouldn't be surprised if another fighting game might sometime in the future.

 

[Nibbles 2]

Great read, completely agree. In my opinion, there's no way to create a huge roster with 35+ characters (I don't know the actual amount of characters in the game Well, I guess it depends as to how you count PT ) all with different movesets, weights, dash speeds, air speeds, fall speeds, size, etc. and have every player equal. So, naturally tier lists will emerge as certain characters do better in certain matchups and other characters do worse.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I don't think this is true. If you look at what they are doing with BBrawl, the game seems to be becoming more and more balanced. With hacks, characters can now be changed continually, even as time goes on and the metagame evolves for each character. Since there is still no way to determine who is the better character besides common experience, BBrawl can change as people say "this character is too good" or "ICs have chain grabs."

In the end, characters can get so balanced that any imbalance is so small that it is either unnoticeable or negligible. So BBrawl kind of breaks that rule, and I wouldn't be surprised if another fighting game might sometime in the future.

Okay, so BBrawl is striving to be balanced. Is it balanced now? Absolutely not. Will it be balanced in the future? Maybe, but it certainly won't be perfectly balanced. I'm sorry, but the only way to have a perfectly balanced fighting game is to have one and only one character.

In a perfect metagame, even the most miniscule balance issues will make a huge difference. Like someone else said in here, if two players are of equal skill, but one character has a one frame faster attack, that frame will make a difference. Of course this is speaking in terms of perfection, which is not realistic, but you get the point. That small difference made one character better than the other. In this case, it doesn't matter since the difference is negligible, but again... you get my point.

Tier lists are based on the metagame. They are based on how each character performs in the absolute peak of ability. In these absolute peaks, every little difference makes a much larger impact.

Again, I'm not saying that there won't ever be a game where every character is viable competitively - some games have already pretty much done that (see: Virtua Fighter 5). I'm saying that no fighter will ever be perfectly balanced, and even if the difference is small, there will always be better and worse characters.

 

[Requiem]

SOmething can be balanced, and all the characters can be ABLE TO WIN OVER THE OTHER, but some characters are always gonna be better than others, because perfect balance in a game with complex difference in characters(talking weight, length of hitbox, %, knockback, other effects, jumpt height, u-b height, aerial mobility, lagtime, etc) This is meant to be different for each character. Meaning that is is simply impossible to create perfect ballance. the most lopsided matchup in the game might be 4.9 = 5.1 but there will ALWAYS be a difference.

Things can be balanced in the meaning that all characters are viable to play at higher levels of the competitive scene (wich the creators of brawl didn't give a **** about so stop playing brawl, and start playing meereee) but there will always be characters better than others.
Now stop being ignorant

 

[Firus]

My guess is that the people that throw 'TR4Q' around either dont know what a tier really is, or just dont want to accept the truth. I mean, when you really look at the game, it's fairly obvious that there are differences, and the differences lead to tiers.

I really have no idea why they think what they do. I have two friends who are usually very sensible people who clearly know what a tier is and just have a total mental block when it comes to them. You mention tiers and they'll automatically go into "TIRES DON EXITS" mode.

Just a side note for the people using the word logic: logic cannot prove anything. Logic cannot prove tier lists existent any more than it can prove my favorite color is orange (which it is). Logic is used simply to remove anything foolish or wrong from a discussion so that truth can be more easily seen.

Obviously there is no concrete way of adding up each character's worth and arranging them in a definite order. This means that you have to get everyone to agree on who's better and who's worse, and this is almost impossible to do.

There's a difference between the EXISTENCE of tiers and the accuracy of actual tier LISTS. I don't really think tier lists are that accurate. Semi-accurate, yes, and the higher characters are definitely fairly accurate, but I would not live by them at all since they're off, and with good reason, as you point out.

Logic, however, proves that tiers have to EXIST, whether or not they are arranged a certain way.

You should see my MK. I'm terrible with MK, and I spent a lot of time trying to pick him up as my secondary, but I still can't beat a lv 5 cpu with him.

Bahaha, that sounds like me. I'm really rather pathetic as MK.

Oh, and of course Brawl was meant to be balanced. Be realistic, what game designer would purposely unbalance a game? Sure, Brawl was designed as a party game, but still, you couldn't possible think that when they were designing the game they were thinking "hey, let's make Ganon terrible. No one likes him anyway," right?

The same kind of game designer that would add in tripping.

I don't think they necessarily TRIED to make it balanced but I don't think they actually gave a crap if it was balanced or not. If he did put specific effort into balance, I would assume it was a very low priority. That’s not necessarily an attack or anything; I wouldn’t really expect him to try and balance a party game.

 

[CRASHiC]

I don't think they necessarily TRIED to make it balanced but I don't think they actually gave a crap if it was balanced or not. If he did put specific effort into balance, I would assume it was a very low priority. That’s not necessarily an attack or anything; I wouldn’t really expect him to try and balance a party game.

But there are clear indications at an ATTEMPT at balance. Look at how some characters and attacks were nerfed/buffed in this game. Some were taken overboard of course, but they make moderate sense in some cases, such as Jiggly, and how the natural changes to the game enhance her, so it would make sense to nerf her tools otherwise. Of course, all of their balance means **** when we change the very way the game was meant to be played. 4 people item free for all.

 

[jivegamer]

You should see my MK. I'm terrible with MK, and I spent a lot of time trying to pick him up as my secondary, but I still can't beat a lv 5 cpu with him.

Sounds like me

Yup, I agree, tiers are logical. The reason people don't all go for #1 or even the top 5 on the list is because they don't always feel right. I main Captain Falcon because I love the way he fights. Sure, he's just about garbage, but that doesn't make him any less fun to play.