Support NeoGAF

[Nymphae]

I see a lot of talk around various FGC hangouts about tier lists. They've always been a thing with this genre, but people these days seem particularly obsessed with figuring out tiers asap and arguing about character standings endlessly.

There also seems to be no real agreement on what the actual criteria is for the tiers. Some say it's simply a reflection of which characters are winning the most at major tournaments. Others say it should be based on an analysis of the toolsets of each character and how likely they are to achieve wins against the other toolsets.

This is a comment in a recent character discussion at Eventhubs from a regular who gets downvoted a lot:

Tiers in SF5 are self-fulfiling prophesies.

For example, everyone thought Sakura was garbage, and as a result, no one uses her in tourneys.

It takes a dedicated high level player like Nauman to actually stick with Sakura, get top 8 in a CPT event, and show us how viable she can be.

The same is true with all these other characters. No one really uses them, because they were written off almost immediately. So, no one really knows how good they are or aren't.

I think this is true in part - pros gravitate to characters with the best toolsets because they want to secure wins against the best competition in the world, and then don't really bother looking too deeply into characters with "inferior on paper" toolsets for various reasons. Pro usage does seem to dictate tiers, but is that the final word?

Almost no Pros use Vega, and he is widely considered to be trash tier in the game, yet he is sitting right behind Dhalsim (another typically overlooked character choice for pros in V) at #4 for characters with the highest online win percentages. Online is it's own beast of course, but these stats are interesting to me. Dhalsim and Vega with #3 and 4 highest win percentages? But they are trash tier?

How much do tiers matter? Personally I have never chosen a character based on their chances of securing wins - I'm always choosing based on which character designs speak to me, and which characters moves/flow of gameplay feels fun to me - regardless of how hard it is to achieve wins.

 

[iconmaster]

There also seems to be no real agreement on what the actual criteria is for the tiers. Some say it's simply a reflection of which characters are winning the most at major tournaments. Others say it should be based on an analysis of the toolsets of each character and how likely they are to achieve wins against the other toolsets.

The only tier lists I take seriously are those that consider both.

These lists mean absolutely nothing to 95-99% of a game's players, however. Very, very few reach the point where any of that matters. And even with the pros, seeing someone take a "lower tier" character and proving its viability -- like the Sakura example, though I didn't know about it -- is one of the more entertaining things to see.

 

[AV]

Wasn't there some kid who beat the Smash pro with the lowest tier character or some shit recently?

I know Smash isn't a real fighting game, but still.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Good thread. I don't play at a level where tiers matter much and generally I think their usage has a negative effect on the fighting game. Part of the fun of fighting games is picking someone that is considered 'weak' and mopping up.

Nowadays, players are obsessed with "picking the right main" and "picking the right fighting game to start with" and "picking the best arcade stick", essentially in an attempt to min-max their participation in the genre. The internet makes it even easier to bicker over these mix-max details now that communities have vast amounts of frame data and matchup data at their fingertips.

*pushes up glasses*

"Heh, are you unaware that my Elphelt's aerial 214K has a 10 frame advantage?"

Sorry, weebs, but this isn't a JRPG.

Establishing tiers only reinforces the echo chamber. Worse, I think it discourages people from playing whichever character they think is cool. Instead, newish players seem feel like they have to pick their main right away instead of enjoying the journey. Worse still, tier lists create blind spots (like you mentioned) and discourage the growth of a healthy meta.

I mean, if the game is years old like Smash Melee, okay, by all means check out a tier list. By that point, the consensus is fairly well-reasoned though it still isn't canon (like AV mentioned above). But in the modern fighting game scene, until that final patch drops (and several years after that) I wouldn't trust any tiers.

 

[kunonabi]

How much tiers really matter depend on the game. Some games have low tiers that can compete and some just dont. That said, just because one or two players can get a decent result with a low tier doesnt mean that character isnt heavily flawed.

 

[K1Expwy]

Tier lists are entirely fluid, depending on playtime and "tech" discoveries and patches. And even then they're subjective, as certain advantages/disadvantages in some games are more/less pronounced and balanced than others.
Tiers are ultimately guides and suggestions, because those advantages/disadvantages are almost always based on something important. Kyoshiro having an unusually small hitbox, or Ibuki having an easy-to-build V-Trigger meter, isn't really debatable.
The vocal minority of fighting game communities, especially in the last 10 years, do get pretty annoying with treating tiers as immutable gospel.

 

[Nymphae]

And even with the pros, seeing someone take a "lower tier" character and proving its viability -- like the Sakura example, though I didn't know about it -- is one of the more entertaining things to see.

People go nuts when Bonchan brings out his Sagat, it's definitely more interesting to me to see someone get wins with underused characters than it is to see Akuma and Cammy over and over again.

Part of the fun of fighting games is picking someone that is considered 'weak' and mopping up.

100%, I use Vega in SFV and it's so satisfying to get wins against top tier picks with what is considered one of the worst characters in the game. I've found I don't get runbacks as often anymore with Vega, people get salty when they lose to free characters lol.

just because one or two players can get a decent result with a low tier doesnt mean that character isnt heavily flawed.

Absolutely, Vega on paper is absolutely trash compared to the rest of the cast, I've seen some absolute beasts win with him, but it doesn't mean the character design isn't flawed. But I can't help but think a Pro could absolutely tear it up with a low tier pick because how often do people really train hard against these matchups?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I've found I don't get runbacks as often anymore with Vega, people get salty when they lose to free characters lol.

The ability to tilt the opponent is just as important (if not moreso) than tier lists and frame data, so picking low-tier characters will always be a valid way of competing, in my opinion.

 

[Nymphae]

The ability to tilt the opponent is just as important (if not moreso) than tier lists and frame data, so picking low-tier characters will always be a valid way of competing, in my opinion.

For sure, it's part of the reason I chose Vega, I wanted a non-shoto playstyle to get me out of my comfort zone first of all, but then also he has pretty unique moves that tend to cause a good level of annoyance - his flying barcelona attacks, wall jumps, the FBA grab & command grab, the sliding sweep, and his fairly long pokes. Sometimes it feels like he's kicking you around forever, hitting you just outside your effective ranges, and hopping all over the place.

 

[TacosNSalsa]

Tiers don't matter to the pros really as far as I can tell. The only reason some even put out their own tier list is because people harass the ever living hell out of them or they do it for fun . Max put it the best in his last video where he said that the people that are most interested in tier lists tend to be the ones that would benefit the least from them.

As far as Sim and Vega go I would say it's that people tend not to know how to really fight them properly .I've seen streams of diamond ranked players trying to throw fireballs at Sim ...like dafuq wrong with you? Once you figure them out though they really do turn out to be not great..you knock down Sim he's in a f*ck ton of trouble .

 

[cireza]

People should play whatever character they prefer and are the most comfortable with. If you pick a "top tier character" but play it like shit because reasons, then what's the point ?

This is not fun anyway, playing the same character for tenths of hours is not how I enjoy my fighting games.

 

[Space Runaway]

Tiers definitely exist and they do matter to varying extents but as we've seen time and time again, they're never the be-all end-all and constantly reshape as a game develops.

A big issue is people that aren't good at a game or new to the genre tend to put more emphasis on tier lists and flocking to whatever top players are using, expecting to have an edge and instantly be better at the game. Though that usually doesn't work out as skill and talent will overcome odds and such players will remain at a low skill level. It's similar to in failing to developers dumbing down fighters in hopes of bringing up lesser players, yet experienced players still dominate them because they are skilled enough to use the tools better regardless.

Still, tiers are fun to mock up and speculate upon, causing interesting conversation and at the very least, being something of a struggle chart. They definitely have value but never take them as gospel.

 

[lock2k]

I see a lot of talk around various FGC hangouts about tier lists. They've always been a thing with this genre, but people these days seem particularly obsessed with figuring out tiers asap and arguing about character standings endlessly.

There also seems to be no real agreement on what the actual criteria is for the tiers. Some say it's simply a reflection of which characters are winning the most at major tournaments. Others say it should be based on an analysis of the toolsets of each character and how likely they are to achieve wins against the other toolsets.

This is a comment in a recent character discussion at Eventhubs from a regular who gets downvoted a lot:



I think this is true in part - pros gravitate to characters with the best toolsets because they want to secure wins against the best competition in the world, and then don't really bother looking too deeply into characters with "inferior on paper" toolsets for various reasons. Pro usage does seem to dictate tiers, but is that the final word?

Almost no Pros use Vega, and he is widely considered to be trash tier in the game, yet he is sitting right behind Dhalsim (another typically overlooked character choice for pros in V) at #4 for characters with the highest online win percentages. Online is it's own beast of course, but these stats are interesting to me. Dhalsim and Vega with #3 and 4 highest win percentages? But they are trash tier?

How much do tiers matter? Personally I have never chosen a character based on their chances of securing wins - I'm always choosing based on which character designs speak to me, and which characters moves/flow of gameplay feels fun to me - regardless of how hard it is to achieve wins.

Huge fighting game fan here. I have almost every major edition of the major fighting games and a lot of smaller ones as well for several platforms.

Don't care for tier lists, never followed them, and I don't like the FGC and its elitists. I just like to play fighting games and have fun and feel the thrills of playing them.

 

[zenspider]

I'm of two minds here.

On the one hand, I not only enjoy knowing what pros think and how visualize what a strong toolset is, I really enjoy the "meta shifts" that develops around those codifications. These tiers are "wrong", and often, and allow people to be expressive in the space that nobody is watching.
MenaRD's Birdie (SFV) and Axe's Pikachu (Melee) are great recent examples.

The downside is - Armada put it best - tiers only really matter when you're in the top 10 or 15 in the world. For new or even intermediate players, they are not only innacurate, but detrimental.

The "meta" does not belong in casual or intermediate play. It's not a fighter, but Overwatch is a perfect example of a game ruined by a bunch of dopes doing "meta comps". As a 'tournament player' in the early days, it was fucking embarrasing to to play pubs on consoles with people swearing by the PC meta, screaming at me/us who were playing console-specific counters to great success.

To speak directly to OPs point: SFV Vega and Dhalsim have a lot of shenanigans that are super effective online. As Chris T said, online "-3 may as well be +2". There should be multiple tier lists, but the trap is people taking an Eventhubs list as gospel, and not the start of a discussion that could actually go somewhere.

Tl;dr:

"Meta" is short for meta-game, and it too is meant to be played, not ratfied.

 

[Tesseract]

when you get to the level where yer counting 1f/2f links, they matter somewhat, especially with glass cannons

it is a bunch of dopey shit i find tho, unless it's tied to ELO or some equivalent

i've never cared, play whatever is fun

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Tier lists matter to some extent but most fighting games these days aren't as broken/are balanced as past games.
For example
Jin Tekken 4>everybody else.
That being said Shiki got fucked in SS. You can block almost everything she throws at you while crouching. :/

 

[Nymphae]

I find character selection in fighting games really interesting. I was watching the LevelUpLive Twitch stream last night, watching Valle practicing some Samsho online. He was using Shiki, now he's using Galford.

Someone called him out saying "you went to the dark side", and he immediately shot back with this defensive "no way, Genjuro and Tam Tam are the dark side".

A lot of people want to win (why else would you play a 1 on 1 competitive game), but not with what are considered top tier picks. I don't even think these guys are considered cheap, just head and shoulders above the other toolsets. So for a lot of people, it seems like the only acceptable character picks are middle ground - no top tier, and no bottom tier obviously.

 

[Ten_Fold]

Tiers don’t matter to most people playing, an average player playing top tier won’t beat a high level player playing mid/low tier. The main thing you need to know is tiers only matter at the highest level.

 

[Knightime_X]

I don't know ...some games have tiers that make no sense.
Other games have tiers and the lowest tiered character is actual trash.

 

[dust bunny]

Adding to all this; an important thing that people tend to overlook is that tier lists aren't actually straight up lists. A character can be at the very "bottom" and still have favourable matchups. Something like this gives you a better picture, but even then you have no idea what the reasoning behind the numbers is. List are just easier to digest and easier to argue about.

Tiers probably doesn't matter to most people but you're still changing the odds of winning by counter-picking, regardless of who you are. This is what tiers mean. It's impossible to say to what degree though, there's so many moving parts at play that it isn't even interesting to discuss imo.

 

[zeorhymer]

People want to chase the meta because they want to win with the least amount of effort. If someone says that xxx is S tier, then people will flock towards it because they think that the character is overpowered or stronger compared to the other choices.

 

[TheDuskwalker]

Really depends on the balance of the game. In games like Tekken 7 you can play whoever you want at any level, though lower tiers will have some notable issues, and tops usually have 1 or 2 really annoying moves on top of a well rounded move set.

On the flip side you have stuff like Shiki in the new SamSho, in its current state, that are so bad even the actual game mechanics of the game are out to get them.

Tiers were a bit more important in older fighters, now it's just more of a guideline for what the devs probably should look at in the next balance patch, which they never do.

Wasn't there some kid who beat the Smash pro with the lowest tier character or some shit recently?

I know Smash isn't a real fighting game, but still.

If you're talking about that "girl" that caused controversy, it was a lower tier character (Isabelle) but not the worst.

The worst in Smash Ultimate is Little Mac, although he's one of those special cases where he's his own tier.

 

[Keihart]

I love how much legacy skill is in Tekken and how players that have character loyalty can make those shine sometimes


In my mind, tier lists should reflect how risky it is trying to win with the characters based on the tool-set and understanding of the matchups and game. If a high tier character dominates tournaments tho, i think there is probably something wrong with balance.

High risk wins, low tier. Low risk wins, high tier. At least in a tournament environment since it usually is all about consistency.

 

[ghosttouchdowns]

An oddity in MK11 tier lists, Krushing Blow requirements can completely change a characters ease of use / damage output. That can have big effects on the tiers. A character like Geras will get Krushing Blows naturally through normal play. A character like Shao Kahn has to hit specific requirements that aren't natural in the normal course of play to access some KBs. Both characters are pretty good, but KBs make Geras a way better character.

That is a very tangible part of a tier list that will affect everyone playing the game.

 

[Griffon]

Come play Tekken 7, where tier lists don't matter.

 

[theclaw135]

The idealist tier list assumes perfect play by AI.

For human players, tiers are flexible as long as new techniques remain to be discovered.
Any characters with abnormal win rates after that are probably a fault in the original game.

 

[Melubas]

If you play on a high level (read: can do well in tournaments) they absolutely do matter. For the average joe who only plays for fun and are, for lack of a better Word, average at the game, then no. Tier lists are based on characters Power levels at the absolute highest levels of play. A good example is Vega which was my main in SF4. He's got things you can abuse to hell and back if you're fighting players that aren't very good at the game, but against good players they will absolute dismantle shenanigans and you have to play safe (Vega was lowest tier in the first iteration and ended up at about low-mid in ultra). Another example is Akuma in SF4, who is pretty hard to play well but when he IS played well he is deadly and has good matchups against most of the cast. Thus he is high tier.

To summarize: You don't need to care about tier lists unless you plan to compete on a high level.

Edit: Realised I didn't answer the first question. Tier lists can work in a few different ways, but the most common way they're made is from matchups. If a character has good matchups against most of the cast they will probably be high tier, if it's the reverse they will be low tier. Characters that go even with most of the cast can also be pretty good if they have good Tools, but tend to end up mid-tier. Some characters have a lot of good matchups but they're only against low-tier characters. These don't tend to end up on top. However, if a character has a few really bad matchups but they're only against lower tier characters that tend to be less common they can still end up doing pretty well.

 

[INC]

Only if you're LTG, and need an excuse