Character skill vs Player Skill: A Graphical Relationship

[Brinzy]

Funny. I'm being told right now that a certain few are not viable. Logic suggests that if I want to win, I should quit said characters and pick up MK.

Studying trends is just a facet to cover up our ignorance. You could compile all of MKs matchups and compare them with the rest of the cast and easily conclude that he is the best character in the game... Falco is 3rd for the very same reason.

So basically, you think that just because most of the top tier show a trend to be very viable by winning tournaments does not mean they're necessarily viable? If I'm having clarity issues, let me know, because it sounds like you're saying trends don't tell anything. Trends, in fact, do tell most of a story in a game like this. Notice how MK is doing well. Notice how Falco is doing well. Notice how Peach is not.

This is a trend in many tournament results. It isn't everything, of course, but trends are important. Studying the climate of a certain area of the world, politics in history, and past philosophical theories aren't facets to cover ignorance - they're good blocks to stand on when you want to have an idea of what could happen. You can figure out why whatever you're studying turned out the way it did and use that to compare it to the present in most cases.

As far as competitive fighting games go, characters can shift from viable to nonviable and vice versa over time, but there are some characteristics of characters that will never change. These may limit them for the rest of the game. Some characters are doomed to mid-tier or lower because they're so limited that there is probably little that can be found which will propel him/her/it upward. These limitations are part of the reason why certain characters perform poorly than others. It also parly accounts for why they are not played as much in the tournament scene.

Now, this isn't to say that trends are the end all, be all of who is and isn't viable, as I said earlier. Say, for example, Olimar climbs even higher in the tier list and he gets used three times as much in tournaments. One could say that Peach would begin to perform better because a match-up that's "easy" for her is now more present. This is where trends can fail. However, as far as MK and Falco go, chances are they're not going to drop much, if at all, from now on.

 

[Hive]

D tier will never be able to do it alone.

But the Tiers are set there for a reason, and there's a big disconnect from D to C. D can't make it alone, and that's why they are there. They are not tournament viable if going Solo.

i don't think if someone is in D-tier that they are totally unviable. i don't think peach, but zero suit samus definitely had an ok chance i thought? didn't she almost win winter games fest? claw got 3rd with her right, losing to dsf who he had beaten before in that tourney (so he at least had the capacity to get second).... (i just don't think its definite with the info we have right now, like others have said), or am i wrong?

 

[Yuna]

I appreciate and accept your apology and conceding of this matter.

I should find a quote from this arguement for my yuna got ***** in this debate sig.

good day sir.

Now you're blatantly lying. Or failing to comprehend plain English yet again. Nowhere in that post did I concede defeat.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I have nothing more to say to you.

I continue talking to KID.

yuna,

the person you are debating is drawing you into a useless debate for the sole purpose of trolling you, in which case, you ought to be intelligent enough to realize.

now,

good day sir.

 

[Yuna]

yuna,

god its so fun messing with you

Yes, acting like an immature brat and saying inane things is so much fun.

After all, when you cannot best someone in a debate, why not resort to trying to annoying them with saying a bunch of unintelligent things and possibly breaking the forum rules of "no trolling" instead?

 

[da K.I.D.]

talk about blatently lying, where did i even say that?

and i had bested you and you decided to excuse yourself from the topic,

and now you are outright lying about me....

 

[Hive]

yuna, stop trolling him. you can't justify this as "condescending instead of belittling" if they are both inappropriate.

 

[brinboy789]

i love how we're on topic.

Spoiler

/sarcasm

 

[Natch]

i don't think if someone is in D-tier that they are totally unviable. i don't think peach, but zero suit samus definitely had an ok chance i thought? didn't she almost win winter games fest? claw got 3rd with her right, losing to dsf who he had beaten before in that tourney (so he at least had the capacity to get second).... (i just don't think its definite with the info we have right now, like others have said), or am i wrong?

I believe ZSS will be climbing up the tier list. From the 1st to the 2nd tier list(the current one) she jumped a whopping 5 spots up. I believe she's going up further. However, as of now there aren't enough people playing her(in my opinion). Only time will tell if she really has potential or not.

However, I believe that Peach has gone through that trial period. Peach seems to be doomed forever to D-Tier. ZSS looks like she still has growing room.

 

[Brinzy]

yuna, stop trolling him.

That isn't even trolling.

i love how we're on topic.

Spoiler

/sarcasm

Back to your hole, peasant.

 

[.Marik]

i love how we're on topic.

Spoiler

/sarcasm

This discussion is amazing, is it not?

Also people, nobody here is trolling. Yuna is providing a reasonable debate. Other people are saying stuff.

Nobody will actually change each others minds, and set the standard for which to believe in.

So in other words, this debate is practically useless.

 

[doom dragon 105]

I've always thought about this and this is what I have to say

There are different types of skill, there is tech skill, matchup skill, the skill you get by experience ect. I'm pretty sure M2K has more experience than 95% of the people he plays. And I'm sure that there are alot of people have better tech skill than M2K have lost to him. Why? MK and experience. M2K probably has alot of different character experience while some good players don't. Take me for eg. in Brawl now I went to a tourney and played Lambchops in a friendly and I won. I main Ike who is really really bad. His meta game has gone no were. look at a Ninja Link match from 8 months ago and it's the same way Ike pros play today. Ike has no options. He has a decent Nair and a decent Fair, those are really his only approaches and the occasional mind game approach. anyways I played chops MK. I won by some miracle. First round was **** for him and the second I won because I Aether spiked him with a reverse Aether (Ike's like only AT, you just do an Aether backwards and it makes spiking easier.) I don't have much tourney experience and I get really nervous when I play pros. But I beat chops, a top ranked FL player and I m a nobody. How does this tie into what I said earlier? Well Chops has more experience than I do, he has played better people, he has better tech skill than I do and he probably doesn't get nervous, but he didn't know the matchup. I'm sure because he got caught by things that are Ike game staples that are kinda o_O wtf just happened. So all this to say we need to look at all the types of player skills there are to completely understand this.

 

[Hive]

I believe ZSS will be climbing up the tier list. From the 1st to the 2nd tier list(the current one) she jumped a whopping 5 spots up. I believe she's going up. However, as of now, there aren't enough people playing her. Only time will tell if she really has potential or not.

However, I believe that Peach has gone through that trial period. Peach seems to be doomed forever to D-Tier. ZSS looks like she'll move up.

yea i think there are a few people who could move up. you're right. (i think pokemon trainer judging by how ad, typh, and magickarp do with her imo) there are still techs being found and still surprises from characters who before seemes useless though so you never know for sure. (and i was mostly addressing sky saying the current d-tier isn't viable by themselves, not necessarily peach )
you're probably right that peach is probably going to stay in d/c-tier (which isn't too bad really) though imo, d-tier is sort of that tier where its on the edge of the character having a capacity to win or not (toon link, zss, peach, pit, are all somewhat debatable). even though peach probably won't win i'm at least going to try to keep that option open, especially when some in the peach community still feel like she can. its not like samus boards, where everyone pretty much knows that she won't.

also, i thought there were a few zss players? not like as much as gw, marth, or mk say but still?

@successor- how is him berating dakid constantly not trolling? seriously? even when yuna is occasionally true on points it doesn't in any way justify how he presents it.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

So, who thinks that making a graphical realtionship of character potential based on player skill is possible? It seems like a good idea, even if the graph is currently unrealistic.

I heard somewhere that a person "wins" if no one disagree with him. Since the construction of a graph is technically the topic, then it's universal - developing a graph of the relationship between character potential and player skill is a good idea.

/close thread/

 

[da K.I.D.]

i agree with THC and hive.

close plox

 

[Virgilijus]

Everyone stop trolling, now. Don't post "you should stop trolling", "close this thread", etc. Just contact one of us and we'll handle it. I'm going to leave the thread open for the time being in the hopes that intelligent discussion comes back to the forefront of the topic. Anyone that flames or trolls will be infracted, no discussion.

 

[Adapt]

also, i thought there were a few zss players? not like as much as gw, marth, or mk say but still?

There isn't that many...
Claw and Snakeee are the only ones you hear about placing in major events. There are a few others like Dazwa, Nick Riddle, Spec etc... but they aren't as high profile.

She is starting to see a rise in popularity, but not there yet

 

[Yuna]

So in other words, this debate is practically useless.

While the people in the thread might not change their minds, the people not posting might. Someone who is still on the fence about, among other things, whether or not Peach is viable or not will wander into the thread to see a lot of debate about it.

It might help sway them. This goes for all debates. If someone is on the fence and walks into a thread and sees 5 people providing very intelligent arguments for one side while very few people are arguing the opposite (or their arguments are just inane), it might help them see the light.

I heard somewhere that a person "wins" if no one disagree with him. Since the construction of a graph is technically the topic, then it's universal - developing a graph of the relationship between character potential and player skill is a good idea.

/close thread/

Only you didn't provide an argument for debate, you merely suggested a course of action. And no one debated you on it because there was nothing wrong with it. Be my guest, make that graph. Or form a band of people with enough time on their hands to do it.

Everyone stop trolling, now. Don't post "you should stop trolling", "close this thread", etc. Just contact one of us and we'll handle it. I'm going to leave the thread open for the time being in the hopes that intelligent discussion comes back to the forefront of the topic. Anyone that flames or trolls will be infracted, no discussion.

There's not really much to say. Some characters perform differently depending on the level of skill... um... and?

Also, did the forums go through a special update? It seems that when I post posts below a certain length (I have yet to test out what they length might be), the forum refuses to let that post show my sig. New feature?

 

[Adapt]

I think you are right about the post length<->sig bit Yuna
I dunno when it was implemented though

 

[.Marik]

While the people in the thread might not change their minds, the people not posting might. Someone who is still on the fence about, among other things, whether or not Peach is viable or not will wander into the thread to see a lot of debate about it.

Wow, that's actually true.

Good point, I agree with you there.

 

[salaboB]

To determine if there's any value in a graph like this (Or if it's possible), this is the question: Does the tier list change based on the player skill in the matchup?

If the tier list shuffles as people get better, a graph like this will track it and can be used to recommend starting characters, mid-level characters, and serious-play characters. If the tier list remains relatively constant (The best few characters are the best few characters at every skill level, etc.) then there is little point to trying to make it.

So, does the tier list change at lower levels of play?

 

[bobson]

So, does the tier list change at lower levels of play?

Considerably. Ask a novice and a pro what they think of Ike and compare the answers.

 

[Yuna]

To determine if there's any value in a graph like this (Or if it's possible), this is the question: Does the tier list change based on the player skill in the matchup?

If the tier list shuffles as people get better, a graph like this will track it and can be used to recommend starting characters, mid-level characters, and serious-play characters. If the tier list remains relatively constant (The best few characters are the best few characters at every skill level, etc.) then there is little point to trying to make it.

So, does the tier list change at lower levels of play?

Ah, but you see, the Tier List is constant. Because unless specifically designed for another purpose, the Tier List is a representation of the currently known metagame regarding the maximum (humanly possible) potential a character holds at the highest level of skill when two (or more in teams, but then the Tier List changes) people of roughly equal skill meet up.

If we're to wander lower down on the skill level, it's not that the Tier List changes, it's that it's a different Tier List altogether.

 

[Sky`]

A valid question:

Do people really think that Peach, where she stands now, D tier, can still win a regional?

 

[salaboB]

A valid question:

Do people really think that Peach, where she stands now, D tier, can still win a regional?

A valid question for a thread titled: "Is Peach tournament viable as a solo character?"

 

[Sky`]

A valid question for a thread titled: "Is Peach tournament viable as a solo character?"

We can debate whether or not my question is valid in this thread if you'd like, but you seem like you're just playing devils advocate. Or you're just being a D!ck.

Either way, This chart can be co-related to my question exactly. The graph clearly shows that when peach is playing in perfection, she can over come every other character except Metaknight. This is the truth of this graph.

So when I ask, "Do people still think that she is Viable in a tournament alone?" I'm asking "Do you believe this graph is false?" There's more than one way to say the same thing. Think before you just rule it out. Debates and the like are not always in black and white. This graph was said to be inaccurate, which is probably true, given the fact that it was done in five minutes. There in lies the contradiction, and therein lies room for debate.

My question remains valid in this this thread, for it is a linking question to further debate. Not only does it relate to the graph in question, but it also opens up a topic for any character in the D list to be analyzed.

So, if you'd excuse me, I'll continue asking my question with out my mother attempting to clean up after me, and I won't be ignored.

 

[da K.I.D.]

sorry sky, id have to say no

 

[mikeHAZE]

We can debate whether or not my question is valid in this thread if you'd like, but you seem like you're just playing devils advocate. Or you're just being a D!ck.

Either way, This chart can be co-related to my question exactly. The graph clearly shows that when peach is playing in perfection, she can over come every other character except Metaknight. This is the truth of this graph.

So when I ask, "Do people still think that she is Viable in a tournament alone?" I'm asking "Do you believe this graph is false?" There's more than one way to say the same thing. Think before you just rule it out. Debates and the like are not always in black and white. This graph was said to be inaccurate, which is probably true, given the fact that it was done in five minutes. There in lies the contradiction, and therein lies room for debate.

My question remains valid in this this thread, for it is a linking question to further debate. Not only does it relate to the graph in question, but it also opens up a topic for any character in the D list to be analyzed.

So, if you'd excuse me, I'll continue asking my question with out my mother attempting to clean up after me, and I won't be ignored.

lol get ***** SalaboB.

 

[ExCeL 52]

A valid question:

Do people really think that Peach, where she stands now, D tier, can still win a regional?

Yes, Yes, and maybe Yes.

 

[Niko_K]

Learn to speak English better.

I'm quoting this. Too funny.

 

[salaboB]

So when I ask, "Do people still think that she is Viable in a tournament alone?" I'm asking "Do you believe this graph is false?" There's more than one way to say the same thing. Think before you just rule it out. Debates and the like are not always in black and white. This graph was said to be inaccurate, which is probably true, given the fact that it was done in five minutes. There in lies the contradiction, and therein lies room for debate.

But your first version is not the point of this thread, and has a distinct emphasis that only can serve to derail the main topic. Do you see the name "Peach" (Edit: Or "D rank" or "Low tier") "viability as a solo tournament character" anywhere in its title or the OP?

No, the graph is not accurate. Edreeses specifically admits this in the OP. So arguing about it is pointless because we already know, by the guy who created its statement, that it's the result of 5 minutes of work and not intended to be the final layout of it.

The discussion is more "Is this useful?" (Edit2: Or "What should this look like?"), not "Is it currently accurate?" because we already know the answer to the second: It is not currently accurate.

Edit: I am also not playing devil's advocate, I am trying to rerail the thread. Devil's advocate implies I believe you're correct (Or at least, I'm not simply arguing what I believe) that this is still on topic and am just trying to force you to prove your points more, but I think you're better off starting your own thread for what you're wanting to talk about.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I heard somewhere that a person "wins" if no one disagree with him. Since the construction of a graph is technically the topic, then it's universal - developing a graph of the relationship between character potential and player skill is a good idea.

/close thread/

Only you didn't provide an argument for debate, you merely suggested a course of action. And no one debated you on it because there was nothing wrong with it. Be my guest, make that graph. Or form a band of people with enough time on their hands to do it.

That is all.

 

[BentoBox]

So basically, you think that just because most of the top tier show a trend to be very viable by winning tournaments does not mean they're necessarily viable? If I'm having clarity issues, let me know, because it sounds like you're saying trends don't tell anything. Trends, in fact, do tell most of a story in a game like this. Notice how MK is doing well. Notice how Falco is doing well. Notice how Peach is not.

That is not what I'm saying. Trends+Character Potential+Experience & accurate Matchups ratios => Somewhat accurate analysis leading to a justified character's placement in the tier list. But you can remove the Trends aspect and still be as accurate because said element is mostly influenced by popularity. "Notice how Falco is doing well" you say? Where are those results you allude to? I haven't heard of any notable Falco player placing in the money end q4 2008, q1 '09, in a large scale tournament. So here again, the Trends element is non-existant, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the character has a lot of potential (proven), and his matchups are in general favorable. (matchup ratios are in general less accurate the lower you go in the tier list)

In the case of Peach, there are no trends because of a lack of representation (just like Kirby, Lucario, Pikachu...), the character potential hasn't totally been fleshed out (applies to every other character, I know), our current match-up knowledge is far from accurate as discrepancies remain amongst our community... and the Tier voting system is shaky at best.

Knawmean?

 

[Eddie G]

A valid question:

Do people really think that Peach, where she stands now, D tier, can still win a regional?

My current belief is no, but I am still hopeful of that happening some day. If she doesn't, then that which is determined about her right now will still stand as truth. *crosses fingers*

 

[ShadowLink84]

Are you not paying attention to what it is I am addressing? Please quote me on where I ever said Peach is better than high tier characters, but you won't find that claim anywhere in any of my posts because that is not the point that I am addressing.

you missed my point, I am justifying my comparison from earlier by using Peach as an example. It is an sbolute fact that Peach is not as good as the high tier characters.
Programming does not change.

I'm not focused on what his argument was based on, but rather your silly comparison of absolute, factual, and universal data, being 1+1=2, to a shaky topic. The shaky topic, in this case, is the unknown future when it comes to Peach placing higher or winning tournaments, despite several characters clearly being better than she is overall; Do you mean to tell me that you can predict future tournament results as well? Do you not see the uncertainty of this topic for yourself?

Oh , so you re saying that Peach has the same potential and capability as thos ehigh tier characters?
Peach CAN win a tournament. That is NOT the issue though, Captain Falcon can win a tournament as well. The difference is hos asily they can win, what are their chances, how hard it is for them.
I am not saying Peachc annot win a tournament. That is a fallacty.
The issue is that her capability in winning a tournament in comparison to high tier characters, is much lower. That is a fact.

This is what I mean by topics such as these being debatable, and opinions toward these topics being acknowledgable as long as they are not composed solely of bias or "garbage", and absolute facts such as 1+1=2 not being debatable.

how s it debatable to say that Peach does NOT have the same chances of winning a tournament as Marth and MK?
Apparently you didn't understand what i was saying.

My statement stands, the two are not comparable, don't make irrelevant comparisons in debates revolving around uncertainty.

Except that is of your OWN opinion.

Facteach is not better than those high tier characters which is what i was discussing EARLIER hence that is the reason for my example of 1+1=2. I was discussing Peach's capability in comparison to others.

Those things are facts, low tier characters<high tier characters.
High tier characters have better chances of winning.
Low tier characters do not. Those are absolute facts, nothing changes with programming,.
So no, your point does not stand.

it also took me a while to respnd since the topic was marked as read @_@


Peach CAN win a tournament. It is entirely possible as long as she doesn't have a 100-0 matchup.
This goes for all characters. It is how good of a chance they have, when it comes to Peach and several other characters, they just don't have as good a chance as characters like Marth,MK, Snake etc etc.

 

[Eddie G]

Why are you pointing out what I already know and acknowledge as a response to my argument regarding something totally different? I'm done; When people start to bring up rehashed and already understood points again and again just for the sake of continuing a debate, it becomes tiresome.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Why are you pointing out what I already know and acknowledge as a response to my argument regarding something totally different?

Which is why your response was addressing a different subject earlier because of something that YOU misunderstood.

I'm done; When people start to bring up rehashed and already understood points again and again just for the sake of continuing a debate, it becomes tiresome.

Then if you understand those points prior to your response, why make the ****ing response in the first place?
I mean if ou CLEARLY understood the point I was making then obviously your response was needed at all.

You can't get angry when it was YOUR post that caused ithe argument in the first place.
Whatever, good night.

 

[Eddie G]

Nag nag nag "it's YOUR fault!"

Of course it is. No one is ever wrong in their arguments on here. My...who am I to think otherwise? I'm so ashamed.

**** off.

 

[Yuna]

Yes, Yes, and maybe Yes.

Based on what evidence, I ask?

I'm quoting this. Too funny.

I trust that sentence was entirely grammatically correct and it was funny because it was true. Also, what is your view on this?

Peach, viable or not?

 

[Eddie G]

Don't answer Niko, don't answer!