I think the "tiers don't matter until high level play" argument is a more ham-fisted version of "If you don't plan on winning EVO then play who you like.". Modern fighting games tend to be much better about having a roster that is mostly playable, though, so it works out better.
Yeah, there are some low tiers that are bad and some that are good I mean look at gill in Sf5 he's like bottom 5 but he's great if you know how to play him
I can’t believe I never replied to this but yeah 100%. A game like soulcalibur 2 or Mark of the wolves you’ll frequently see the best character in the game lose frequently to the worst. But in games like mk9 or tekken yeah no, tiers exist and matter a lot no matter the level of play. It’s why I like to explain how much tiers matter on a game before talking about what tiers really mean for the game.
@@Neogears1312 I generally agree, but Tekken is not a great example of non-existing tiers. Otherwise I'd love to see you argue how Gigas = Mishimas/Akuma/Paul/Nina. I understand your point being that a good Gigas player will more often than not beat a worse player with one of the other characters. But that entirely depends on the skill level, matchup viability and context - even if Gigas is only 1% worse, he's just a lower tier in principle. Because characters in fighting games aren't all the same, there will always be tier lists.
@@nivyan I think this was just strangely punctuated I think its meant to be: In a game like street fighter or tekken, "yeah no", tiers exist and matter a lot... The "yeah no" being a dismissal of the arguement rather than it reading: In a game like street fighter or tekken, yeah, no tiers exist...
Another argument: On beginner levels, tiers are also a thing, because some strategies are harder to counter when you're a beginner. For example, if you don't know how to deal with command grabs, Zangief will be a stronger character. Or, it you're not fast or blocky enough, M. Bison and Vega can spam sweep and that command jump-in.
This is why I argue yuzuriha isn't top tier at my level in uni or why yosuke isn't nearly as good at a low level people need to realize skill changes tier placement
In MK games, this is why teleports are so potent at lower skill levels... it's a gimmick that in a way breaks the rules of the game, and you have to actually have knowledge on how to counter it. These scrubkiller characters are basically SSS-tier until you take a game seriously and do like 5 minutes of research lol
Well said. And in games with auto combos not all are created equal so mashing/low execution for good reward combos or buttons benefit lower ranks disproportionately. Lower ranks also are less likely to know frame data and think in appropriate punishes so "cheap" stuff can be repeatedly rewarding
@@quickcar5255 ???!!?? wtf are you talking? Have you ever played mvc2? Even Justin Wong says cable is top 4 right behind those 3. All of them are S+ tier
@@mrhObo9921 I mean its not just that. A character could be easier to use but in the long run provide no easier ability to win with than a character is harder. The issue is more who is easier to win with with easier to use being a bonus. I mean take sfv and Ryu after season 2. Hes so easy to use but in comparison but struggles to win in comparison to other characters.
I agree with your take on this, even if I think MK in general has horrid balance. Tier lists based on high levels of competitive play can be irrelevant for beginners and in some cases intermediate players but beginners/intermediate play has it's own "tier list" based on how easy it is to abuse an attack/setup if your opponent doesn't know the matchup well, and even then you have stuff like Cable's Hyper Viper Beam combos which are really easy to use making him incredibly strong in low levels of play and remain relevant in high levels of play, so only tech that requires high execution/deep knowledge of the fighting system fall into the "only relevant for pros" category rather than tiers themselves. My example would be Eddy from Tekken 3, most casual players consider him the strongest character in the cast because his animations are harder to read so blocking his attacks is pretty hard if you don't know well his movelist and can't use the movement options well enough to avoid getting caught in his blockstrings. Meanwhile in high levels of play Eddy is almost irrelevant and characters who looked tamer on the surface become incredibly overpowered once you learn exploits and the intricacies of the combat system.
@@Bafael that's actually somewhat refreshing to hear. For some reason even tho NRS games are hugely popular, it's somewhat hip to just shit on the games for some reason...
Tier lists do exist and they exist for a reason, but people like to forget they also need to look at match-up charts in games like ST to get the full picture
Shoutouts to Fei Long having a 3-7 against Honda even though they're both "mid tier" and Old Sagat having a 3-7 against Dhalsim even though they're both "top tier"
I think that's something the melee community does kinda well, tiers obviously exist there, but they take mus into consideration a lot more than most games.
Matchup charts went the way of the dodo with SF5. People just assign random letters with no context other than "oh this character won this many tournaments."
@@henriquerodrigues7795 Yeah, I love that there's a balance between the top 7 characters. Specially how somehow Fox isn't winning mayors half the time despite being considered the best and instead we get Peach then Jigglypuff and now Marth on top.
Sailor Moon tiers are really weird tbh only the third- and second-lowest-ranked characters have infinite combos, and the lowest-ranked character can force a timeout and guarantee a round win from a life lead now, Marvel? You're gonna learn about tiers REAL fast
@@tanyaharmon6739 Melee is a good example but it gets more obvious in Marvel when it's not just a low tier vs a top tier, but 3 low tiers vs 3 top tiers ESPECIALLY in marvel2
I think that when people say, "Tiers don't matter at lower levels of play," they usually mean that unforced errors, rather than differences in character strength, tend to be the deciding factors of those games. That rings true for me, but it doesn't mean that characters with better toolsets aren't more consistent at all levels of play, just that an Ultra Bronze Alex can beat a Gold Akuma if the Akuma makes bad decisions due to lack of matchup knowledge.
Well, it's also that some characters' strengths don't come through if the players don't know what they're doing. Like if a character has strong okizeme set ups and option selects, it doesn't matter if the person playing them doesn't know/can't execute them. It's why simple characters, or characters with tools that need a little training to figure out how to counter, are generally very strong at low levels.
A small thing I'd like to say: Tiers are a thing, but it shouldn't discourage you from picking up a low tier. Yes they might have bad matchups or bad normal. Though this shouldn't discourage you from playing them, if you enjoy them, keep playing them. Understand their weaknesses and play to their strengths. You can't tell yourself that "my character is so bad." Why are you playing this character then? If you really only care about your performances/wins, play a character that is objectively better. An example of this is Ryu over Ken in third strike. Ryu is objectively worse than Ken, but does that mean you should just play Ken? Not really. They have a similar moveset, but have their own unique moves to separate them. You really have to understand that yes, your character is weaker, but it does not mean matches are unwinnable. Play to your strengths, and understand your weaknesses. Play what you enjoy, but don't complain that your character is trash all day. Adapt and learn what you can do in unfavorable matchups. Even if you lose in those matchups, analyze what you did well, and what you could've done. So you can fix from previous experiences. That's what fighting games are all about; outplaying your opponents. Also sorry for rambling, but I hate low tier warriors who complain all day about how they wish their character was top tier. Like just pick a top tier if winning matters that much to you. If not, keep practicing and play to your advantage! Read your opponent, and learn their habits.
speaking of third strike, this makes me think about how the dev's deliberately made Sean trash so that experienced players could use Sean against newer players to help balance their respective experience gap. If tiers didn't exist then why would they feel compelled to do this rather than, for example, allowing you to reduce your starting life bar like some older games used to do? If tiers weren't real then any character would work just as well to help new players have an advantage against experienced and there wouldn't be a need to deliberately neuter Sean from his 2nd impact build. At least any shoto would work given their similar move-sets and frame data. At least it makes sense to me.
Varies from game to game, can you win with claw, Dan and Dee Jay in USFIV, of course you can, it will just be harder, can you win with Roll, Zangief and Chun-li in MvC2 ??? FUCKING NO.
@@lunadachi4792 literally what my whole post was about. I play a lot of low tiers, but I don't blame anyone but myself for my loses. Because I know I could do better
I "main" Sagat and sometimes it's frustrating that I lost because I know I could win but the match up makes it harder, so I just use a different character. I love Sagat but I sometimes prefer other characters in matchups so I can give them a different look and present a different playatyle to perhaps confuse them
I kind of understand complaining about bottom tiers if there aren't any competitive characters with a similar role/playstyle. Like if you play a game in which every single grappler is low/bottom tier and you only like playing grapplers, it can feel like "do you want to have fun or do you want to win". Of course, that situation is really rare and probably only happens in very poorly balanced games.
Most of the time when I hear someone say "tiers don't matter" it's generally offered as advice to newbies who want to learn to play. If you're picking up a stick for the first time in your life, the differences between Ryu and E.Ryu in a game like USF4 are going to mean nothing to you. But once you actually learn to play to a certain extent, character differences start mattering.
I feel this. When I try to teach my Ult friends Melee I tell them to pick whoever they have fun with. Once they're familiar with the engine and want to take it more seriously we'll talk about viable characters.
People who think tiers don't exist probably beat their Meta-Knight using friend in Brawl with a low tier and thinks that means something despite never having played any of the thousands of people who really know how to play the game.
@@raphu2272well… they said “played”, “played” is past tense, not present tense. And as for that… well you’re statement is just wrong, brawl sold millions of copies so people did in fact play it and people do in fact still play it.
It's actually weird to here people argue that tiers don't exist when we live in an era where whenever a new fighting game/dlc drop, people are immediately going "who's top tier/bro x is top tier/man y is fucking broken dude" 2 hours in.
I just wish people would stop hiding behind tiers as an excuse for why they're not succeeding. In a game like Street Fighter, you absolutely can take a "bad" character really far up the ranks before you hit that wall where their weaknesses are glaring. At low levels of play there are a lot of fundamental holes that players need to cover, so the differences between characters in terms of tiers or even matchups are much more diminished. People who say things like "I quit SFV because Ryu is just too bad to win with" while being in Silver ranks are only making excuses.
It's the same pushback you see when folks get to talking about any sort of meta. I may have only been super into fighting games for like 2 years, but I remember hearing the same stuff for years in games like Pokemon, League of Legends, and World of Warcraft. I think it's defensive personality thing. Character/Class, playstyle, team structure, end goal, etc; these games offer an undeniable personal appeal to them and I think that leads to people getting VERY attached to those personal choices and thus feel slighted when it falls short in the eyes of inherently impersonal meta theory. In the end no can actually stop you from playing what want, but I feel like out right ignoring the meta is silly and causes you to miss out on vital information since from those tier/meta discussions you learn so much that to me really does help clear the gap sometimes or at the least gives a better visual to the problem that you needs to overcome in play. TL;DR: In all things understanding and knowledge is king, and what are tiers and metagame but explorable information?
games like league are so much more complicated and have so many variations (practically infinite amount of possible team compositions) that it is much more difficult to make strong "X champ is better than Y champ" arguments, because of how situational everything is in these games. in fighting games it's much easier. everything is a pure 1v1 with full information on both sides, so character tiers are much easier to establish
That's a great point. I wish people like that would understand that metas add MORE appeal and character for some people. When I played Titanfall 2 I mained Scorch, which was arguably one of the worst titans in the game. But because I knew how bad scorch was, every victory felt so much more sweet. Or think about characters like Dan in SF or Tachanka in R6: Siege, who for the longest time have arguably been popular as a result of how bad they are.
"I remember hearing the same stuff for years in games like Pokemon" Wow, there's people who think pokemon is balanced? Not only do half your favorite pokemon suck, they suck on purpose because you're supposed to switch them out for better ones later in the game.
Yeah, there are Tier lists and *TIER LISTS* Some games like Jojo's Heritage of the Future have clear cut good and bad characters. Pet Shop is top tier and Kahn is low tier Now there are games like Street Fighter 4 where even the lowest tier characters like Hugo (Who is arguably the third worst character in the game) have great competitive representation. The most iconic moment in the game's history was a Hugo play (Alex Valle vs Bonchan).
I agree, but I think the general sentiment with the "tiers don't exist" argument is to advise newer players to not choose who to play based on a tier list, but instead who they like. Like for instance, if a newcomer really like Alex or Nash in SFV, they should play them instead of not doing so because they're lower down on the tier list. If someone wants to play a character because they're high on a tier list, go ahead. But no one who isn't at a competitive level should not play a character they really like just because they're weak.
I main Alex, and I'm mostly in Silver rank, so I'm definitely the prime example of someone not particularly good at the game, but have enough basic knowledge to pull moves and combos. Even at Silver, I always feel I have to work a lot harder to win matches. Alex's normals are generally worse than a lot of characters, so you'd have to space them out and hit at the tip. If you used a crouching MP at a range when you can combo off it in a Counter Hit, then you're way too close and pressed the wrong button because this close just about everyone outpokes him. And that itself is already how telling tiers can be. I stuck with Alex for a long time, but I also knew I needed to learn other match-ups and play styles. So I picked up Bison, Ibuki and Rashid. And whenever I use them, I generally win more matches, and with less effort. So for someone to say tiers don't matter in low level games is BS. Ibuki has easy target combos that are entirely safe on block, won't activate on whiff, and a dash that lets her get in close and mix up. Rashid has easy frame links, easy and reliable anti-airs and a great V-Trigger 1 that forces your opponent to go on the defensive. In comparison, Alex can't even throw out a standing or crouching MK without opening himself to a full jump-in combo if it whiffs. And the thing is, learning to play other characters helped me play Alex just that little bit better, simply because I have better idea what an opponent of my skill level can and would do if they were using Bison, Rashid, Ibuki or another Alex.
I agree that a tier list is not going to be useful to someone who is just starting to play fighting games, but I also think that "just play who you like" is bad advice for players like that. The first fighting game I tried to be good at was Third Strike. Chun-li was my favorite from the start, so I picked her, and I was absolute ass. Chun-li is a terrible character to hand to an absolute newbie because she teaches horrible habits. She teaches you to use her really good moves as a crutch instead of as a tool. I ended up googling "how to become good at Street Fighter" and got some excellent advice: Play Ryu until you're decent. Ryu is a fantastic character for new players because none of his tools are that good, but he has tons of them. You win with Ryu by learning your opponents weaknesses and figuring out how to exploit them, which requires you to build up a little knowledge about every aspect of the game. That's the advice I give to new players. Play the mediocre character who can do anything poorly. Even if they aren't your favorite or even if you think they're totally lame. I main Chun now and I love it, because playing Ryu for three months all those years ago made me appreciate all of the things she can do and readied me to hone every strength she has. It made me want to be the best Chun-li I can be. It's an experience I never would have had if I'd tried to just stick with her from the start.
@@awkwardcultism just play who you like is a bad advice? Sure. That’s your experience and what worked for you. I played MKX without giving a tad shit about tier lists,and got pretty good results with what apparently is a “low tier character” named bo rai cho. Mainly,play who you like,the process of seeing which playstyle you like more is in practicing each character and finding your way through how to get better at the game while playing who you like. Sometimes y’all need to step back and check what are you playing for.
I think you're underestimating the number of people who don't play fighting games and sincerely make arguments like "Oh but the slow character is strong so that's why it's balanced" or "I beat my friend with [bad character] so tiers are fake". It's not just a sentiment that's been misunderstood, I have actually seen people say stuff like this, although it's not common.
We still play umk3 competitively in russia, community is actually growing here, also the ultimate cup Rom was hacked by our community member. Few things i can add: 1) h.smoke doesn't have just one combo that scorpion has (hk-hk-lk-lk). 2) tier list shown in the video is pretty old, ermac is top 3. 3) at high level tiers in umk3 do matter. Also there is a jab-block technique, that really equalised characters, it is a offensive+defensive tech at the same time. Many umk3 players think this game has a decent balance, especially considering its age, despite having infinite combos and traps. I think even those things are balanced enough by tight execution requierment.
im teaching a few of my friends. I simply tell them "tier lists are relevant, they just aren't relevant to you yet". Partially because i believe it to be true, but also because they get easily demoralized and think they just simply can't beat a character who is considered better than theirs. That's the downside to having access to high-level play footage online. New players build this overwhelmed impression of the game and if everything isn't perfection and S tier then its no point for them.
This. It's especially a problem when they also play other competitive genres where it's easier to emulate tournament-level play, so they get this really broken expectation of what the learning curve is supposed to be like
Even at the lowest level, tier lists exist. Low skill level players prefer some character to others due to them being easier to use and giving better results with less effort than other characters.
Tiers exist. The only truly balanced fighting game would be one that lets players only pick one character. Imbalance is fun. It creates matchups, theory, differences in gameplay. I feel like the goal with fighting games is not to balance the game completely but to make the distance between high tier and low characters as small as possible. Tiers happen because of character differences within the game design and mechanics. Certain characters are going to universally have an easier time in said game design/ mechanics than others in a cast. Certain characters are going to do well or have easier options against most of the cast so by default a division of characters already appears. Maybe the arguement is not that tiers don't exist but restructuring what we mean by tiers or defining matchups better within a tier list.
I'm an 09er that got back into the fgc while in quarantine... so I'm pretty fresh but... From my perspective some of these long held opinions from folks who played like st in the 90s before widespread internet are so strange.... i get the same vibe hearing Seth Killian talk about why he wrote Domination 101 and the confidence some folks had when spreading misinformation. Coming from games like melee of course tiers exist and they do affect all levels of play... i can look at all this data on the internet and prove it pretty soundly
Smash is even worse because some roles are so broke that almost everyone on that umbrella is automatically high or low tier. The ones of the "tank" type like Bowser.
@@Spunney definitely, most characters are unique and the only categories I can think of are “swordies”, “spacies” and “heavies”, but even in those categories they vary wildly character to character unless direct clone characters
I’ve always really liked this argument, because people tend to confuse “tiers don’t exist” with “tiers don’t need to factor significantly into character choice”. There are lots of games where weaker characters are still considered competitive (Virtua Fighter is a fantastic example of this), but strong characters are considered so for a reason, and all of this depends on the context of the game. I also really appreciate the way you frame it as putting a lot of pressure on developers to perfectly balance a game, which is very difficult to do in a genre largely based around asymmetrical toolkit design. I loved the plug for UMK3 at the end as well -- it’s a very fun game with a low skill floor and a fairly high skill ceiling. And the top tiers are all extremely fun characters!
Because everyone has their own tier and i don’t give a shit if everyone in any fighting game is carried and broken in someone’s eyes. That’s why i don’t think tiers matter
It was a much more prevalent opinion before competitive fighting games (and competitive gaming in general) went mainstream. I think most people understand the concept of "high tier" or "meta" now, between MMOs and MOBAs and RTS and FPS and FGs.
@@Bafael i think online video sharing helped too, you can see the broken stuff day 1 rather than flipping a coin on whether your arcade has anyone who knows how to use genei jin or not
@@Bafael people were arguing yesterday that Tiers don't exist in Genshin Impact lol, it's fucking ridiculous. It's clear they've never played a competitive game in their life - it doesn't matter what genre the game is, the choices you make are tied to number values and some choices just lead to inherently better numbers. That's all gaming is when you boil it down. Obviously you have to consider context and situational value but some people can't even acknowledge the games they play are based on 1's and 0's.
I used to believe the "tiers exist but don't matter except at the top level" but once I actually got past the skill level where people blame their character I realized I had the right idea, but was actually wrong.
Tiers exist. If you bring a knife to a gun fight, you are opting for the lower tier weapon, and putting yourself at a disadvantage. Now, you could still win. The chances are slight, and it will take you more work to do so, but you are 100% at a disadvantage. Also doesn't help that guns are plus on block.
I just wish people would stop hiding behind tiers as an excuse for why they're not succeeding. In a game like Street Fighter, you absolutely can take a "bad" character really far up the ranks before you hit that wall where their weaknesses are glaring. At low levels of play there are a lot of fundamental holes that players need to cover, so the differences between characters in terms of tiers or even matchups are much more diminished. People who say things like "I quit SFV because Ryu is just too bad to win with" while being in Silver ranks are only making excuses.
@@Cybrisk grinding rank does not mean low tier character is useless. In tekken all my character pass genbu already, the different how much effort is required to rank up
I knew you were gonna make a video on this but I was hoping you'd make it an April Fools Bad/Good Balance Video where you praise Smoke and then rip on Scorpion lol
I think the argument that “tiers don’t exist at low level” isn’t attempting to argue that the game is objectively balanced so much as saying “whether or not the opponent’s character is better, that’s not the only reason you lost” I.E. it’s not so much saying that tiers don’t matter as much as saying that being a better player is still the most important option until you get to a point where everyone is optimized Going with your example, at a low level if you play Scorpion and you keep losing to a Human Smoke player who is slightly better than you, yes they were playing a better character, but even if you switched to Human Smoke, they’d still usually beat you, whereas if you got a lot better, you’d win with either Scorpion OR Human Smoke
Its wishful thinking to say that tiers dont exist. If any argument should be made, it should be that you can play really well with mid or low tier characters if you invest enough time or come up with good enough strategies
Awesome video; thanks for the link to the mod btw. I think the conception that tiers don't come up in beginner level play is from the fact that sometimes high tiers are high execution/difficult characters and sometimes low tiers are very easy to learn. Sometimes a person won't get why a character is high tier without deeper education.
It is possible to make a game where characters can't be separated into tiers. You need to make a game where ALL characters with the exact same traits - in other words, spriteswaps. As long as characters have differences, tiers will exist. The matter is how much influence said differences have.
Great work Bafael, this is basically a perfect video that effortlessly demonstrates in an easy to digest way that there are imbalances in fighting games that players uses tiers to quantify. The only thing that could be added is that tiers often looks different at lower levels of play because some strategies are either easier to execute or harder to defend against without a deeper understanding or stronger execution.
The fact that there are FGC weirdos that would disagree with this video is proof that there's something wrong mentally with the community, as they all try too hard to be contrarian masters of fighting game knowledge.
To even entertain the argument feels like you're justifying it too much. This is the kind of garbage you hear from ignorant newbies. It's self-evident to anyone that has extensively played even just a few fighting games. The only way tiers wouldn't exist is if every character were perfectly balanced, an arguably inhuman feat for developers to perform given every circumstance, especially with larger rosters.
Tiers don't matter if you're skilled For example, I play HFTF, a game where pretty much everyone is extremely broken I main the only grappler in the game who's in low D tier, however I've beaten other people who use high B tier Zoners and others who used S tier It takes skill to pretty much nullify tiers, however they matter for newbies, since they may find high tier characters difficult to use or low tier easier, etc. If tiers actually mattered, we wouldn't have gotten moments like Evo moment 37
@BerBer Adventures Nullify top tiers, sir, madam or other, you do realize that tiers often have stuff to do with frame data, for example Top Tier Tyler has a 1 frame punch, and Low Tier Diety has 7 for the same move, nullify that, or Low Tier Deity has a special that has a special that deals say 27%,, Top Tier Tyler has a special with 56% damage, you can’t nullify that difference, can you, essentially tiers often have to do with, frame data, damage, and other things that just can’t be changed, -The guy who can’t use periods
@@blutagg63 I do acknowledge the frame data and gameplay mechanics that create a top tier However, skill is always the one which comes out on top There was a Street Fighter 3rd strike team tournament or something, some guy named "Pierrot" was using a low tier called Remy, Remy had awful moves since they were slow or took lots of time to recover, not to mention his strongest moves are his projectiles, but because of the parry system on 3rd Sttike, the projectiles only give the rival Super Meter instead of harming them However, Pierrot managed to defeat everyone in the rival team, who were using top tiers like Dudley, Ryu, Chun-Li and Yang Tiers have some impact but even with the game's advantage you don't have an assured victory
@@berberrb-3754 Tiers often deal with how easy it is to win, the frame data helps but it isn’t impossible for a lower tier to work, but it depends on the game, but most games that were made before patches were a thing had insane imbalances, also sometimes people play lower tiers to catch people off guard, but often times they have to work harder to win, but most of the time the top tiers dominate, skill isn’t the end all be all of video games, and it will never be.
@@blutagg63 if tiers were the only thing that mattered, everyone would use the same S tier character... oh wait... Melee... Tiers are part of the game, but it really depends on your skill and hard reads Have you ever seen the first time Mike Tyson was defeated? He could be considered an A or superior Tier, and was against Buster Douglas who had an inferior record
I think Tekken is the biggest example of there being different tierlists for different skill levels. King and Eddy are scrubkillers but never tend to make it far in proper tournaments.
This video is kind of dumb. Yes some characters will always be better. I don’t think literally anyone denies that. However, in the FGC a lot of bad players complain about tier lists, when in most games the tiers lists don’t mean much until top level play because most characters aren’t scorpion vs smoke. For example in SFV until master rank balrog and Abigail win much more than akuma, but akuma is the best character. I think you may be mis understanding what a lot of people in the FGC are saying. It’s not that tiers don’t exist, it’s that tiers aren’t as big of an excuse as some people make them out to be modernly, and also tier lists made by professionals won’t show accuracy in the hands of shit players because at low level easy execution > maximum potential. Also keep in mind that most modern games are not umk3 and melee. Games are balanced much closer now a days for the most part
actually agree with this, he's missing the point a bit. he shows an example of a character who is objectively tied or superior in every aspect but that is rarely the case. characters are way more complicated than that and often have completely different tools and options, making for a much more muddy comparison which often has to dive pretty deep into theory for those looking to analyze. what you said was correct as well, there are millions of other factors that matter more at the lower to mid levels of play than a characters tier (within reason).
Fahkumram is a good comparison to this video too. Like with Smoke and Scorpion there is no point in using Josie at all in T7 with Fahkumram around because he does everything she does better with no exceptions. Not to mention even if he weren't around she's still trash. Kagemaru was struggling with her against some random Lili a year or so back at EVO and it made me wonder what the point is.
Tiers exist , however I do think that to make a point it’s not very useful to use games from the 90s . Let’s face it , not only are those games outdated , back in the 90s and 2000 just about every fighting game had one or two characters that were so OP you’d be stupid to pick anyone else . Mothers fighters (like SFV) are a lot more balanced . Is Cammy better than Ryu in that game ? Most people would say yes , however Ryu is not totally hopeless against her and can actually win , unlike most 90s games like SF3 where picking anyone else other than Chun Ken or Yun in serious competitive play was a serious handicap . When people see videos of Japanese players destroying people with Remy they aren’t taking into account the fact that only a handful of people still play SF3 competitively and that during its hay day , no one used Remy . I too can pick a low tier character and destroy someone who is new at a game . My final point would be that tears in modern fighting games don’t matter that much if you’re talking about a well balanced game . But they do matter if you’re talking about a game in which one or two characters dominate the entire cast .
Only argument I could pose is that with newer games having the ability of patches, tier lists aren't as important as most characters can play on the same level. For example, smash ultimate on launch had numerous glitches, top tiers, bottom tiers, etc. But now, with all characters out, you can usually pick any character, and with enough time, be amazing with them. Although that doesn't mean patches are always good in all games. In TF2, the patches were usually unbalanced and guns that were broken with godlike power on launch, becoming irrelevant with the next patch. Also sorry for writing an essay.
I think its pretty well agreed among fighting game players that tiers exist. The bigger problem is people talking about "meta" and "tier lists" when they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about. So when someone complains about a scrubs shit opinions, its not against the idea of tiers but against the scrub. Also tiers and bad matchups are often used as excuses to not improve, which is another issue.
Tiers do exist, the scaling that the games exist in is different though, for example MvC2 is tier scaling is WAAAAAAYYYYYY too far apart to the point where they have separate tournaments specifically for high tiers and mid/low tiers. DBFZ is a game where everyone is virtually viable, but that doesn't mean there aren't certain characters who have the advantage over others, thus meaning that tiers are true, but deciding on who is on top and bottom is subjective, since we have different awareness of what each character has and how the meta of said game can be played.
In a nutshell, some characters will have strategies and abilities that will work way better than others. The difference in effectiveness can be really low though or really high.
Even more against the point of "tiers not mattering until high level" a lot of times a characters normals are a big part of their strength and placement in a list. Even if you are brand new to the game, fighting against someone else brand new. It will take you 2 seconds to realize if you have a normal that reaches way farther than theirs and is faster, and you will intuitively just spam it against them. This exact situation is what happened when I got some of my friends who aren't fighting game players to fight each other in sfv
I know its like, a year late, but I like to throw my hate into the ring. I am one of the more "casual" players who can't exactly get into fighting games competitively, not just because "I suck" but because I watch those fight animations and want to replicate it in a video game, and otherwise just feel good about myself. Fighting Games don't really allow for that if you don't really want to put into the time and effort to really "get gud", and honestly I am one of those people. I still love fighting games, but I usually stick to fighting the CPU and stuff like MUGEN because I feel better beating up the computer then fighting a human opponent. My say is that while I acknowledge tiers exist, I don't care for them as a causal player. When I pick up a game, what I care about is the character themselves and how cool they are to play. I don't care about combos or metadata and all that nonsense, I just want to get in, beat up some CPus for a few rounds then move on with my day. I hate being competitive in my daily life, why would I want to be competitive in my video game life too? It's all harmless fun, and i rather live in blind ignorance of tiers than have it dictate how I play. And hey, if I do get into competitive, I am going to follow my own rules, not what other people say. IF I end up on bronze for the rest of my life, let me be in bronze. I don't give a damn.
I understand where this perspective comes from, and it’s cool to have more people with different experiences share their thoughts, but I think you’re sorta missing the point, tiers aren’t objective rules for what you can do, they’re suggestions inherent to fighting games with diverse rosters
For anyone who watches this and still doesn't think tiers exist, load up 3rd Strike on Fightcade and play as Sean, Twelve or Q. Proceed to get bodied by anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Chun-Li, Ken or Yun and you'll see what I'm talking about real quick.
@@PixelAtionGuitar just got done watching a video about that, actually. I don't hate Q. In fact, I fuckin' love him! But he's low tier for a reason. If you got that Kuroda swag on deck, to where you can play him on the highest technical level, he's great! Good luck tryna do any of that shit on a controller or keyboard though, especially the frame perfect kara-cancel tech. Normal-skilled players are still getting bodied hard for using Q.
@@BridgetGX yeah of course he's bad but my comment was about how since he has a lot of helpful tech he can get wins and he isn't nearly at the same level as someone like Sean also I'm 98% sure on the video you watched and yeah, its a great video
I think people like to say tier lists dont matter because of those moments when you see a low tier character beat high tier. What people need to understand is a character being low tier doesnt mean they cant win. All a tier list is telling you is that this character has more or less tools to deal with different kinds of situations. The more tools you have the more problems you can handle and vice versa. I know the video has already stated this but I just wanted to reaffirm it.
I like to think of it as how much work the player has to put into a match. Certain characters require tremendous focus and defense and difficult combos to be effective. Top tiers have some combination of high damage, speed, easy combos, powerful specials and the like.
Tiers are real for sure. People who say they don’t exist must only play in a very small circle of players and never google the game they play. Or use training mode. Or play other characters.
For the longest time I always assumed that tier lists were created solely off of opinion and not any substantial information; this video very much changed that perception for me.
Actually,they are opinion based. This is just a very very very specific example where this character has exactly the same stats as the other but with a few extras. That’s just bad character design
@@PomadaGaming with matchup charts, math, and a whole lotta research, tiers can actually be factual. A lot of people just stopped doing them and started basing tier lists on their opinion
"Tier lists don't matter" "The differences between high and low tier are imaginary" "All characters are equally good at top level play" (SSBU) Little Mac: So you're telling me there's a chance...
Zero was beating up active pro players with Little Mac, doesn't mean little mac is equal but he does have a chance if you do your homework even against that level of play, but still Mac has to do a lot of work to pull it off at that level. If you are not playing international level pro players then it really doesn't matter as long as you put the work , tiers do exist and will always exist.
I'll just say my performance with Balrog in SFV was enough to demonstrate tiers to me. I picked him up on launch in season 1, he was...not great. But I enjoyed playing him and kept at it and was slowly climbing. Then season 2 Balrog dropped. I think I won something like 17 of my next 20 ranked games. The buffs had made him top 5 at least, maybe top 3. I didn't change overnight, Balrog did.
Honestly it's stupid to even argue they only exist at a certain level. Tiers exist. Characters counter other characters. A video game is made up of 1s and 0s. So it doesn't matter how much "heart" or "courage" you have, one move that comes out on frame 1 will beat a move that comes out on frame 15 100% of the time. Now when it comes to arguing how much of your loss or win came from the victory is debatable but its incredible naive, as stated in the video, to think characters are 100% equal if played perfectly.
One other thing that wasn't explicitly mentioned with Human Smoke (I could be wrong through): Human Smoke has an auto-combo that leads into a "parsed" Infinite Juggle Combo, based on resetting the auto-combo timing system within the game system itself; Scorpion doesn't have anything close to that. For reference, (HK, D+LP, D+HP) is the dial-a-combo that sets up this "parsed"/"reset" infinite, and is the combo I'm referring to. By delaying the input slightly between (HK) and (D+LP), the game's combo detection system will get slightly thrown off, even though you're still in the middle of performing an auto-combo. This will cause the combo meter to reset and allow you to perform the rest of the combo, which leads to a juggle state. I.e., the combo is this: {Spear --> (HK, D+LP, D+HP) --> JK ~ Teleport --> Spear...}, Repeat Loop. It's extremely hard to break out of that loop. Usually, only a computer controlled character can throw you to break the loop because of the small timing window between HK and D+LP. Other than that, good video.
I think you framed the 'no tier' people's argument in a pretty slanted way. Nobody is arguing that characters aren't better than other characters in a vacuum. That's clearly true. But characters don't exist in a vacuum, they're played by players who have indivudual skill levels. As long as a high-skilled player can beat a low-skilled player, even if they're using a low-tier character - then the whole argument is pretty stupid. 99.99999% of FGC players are not people who win tournaments. So for 99.999999% of people, tiers should not matter.
Most characters in UMK3 on the surface level are definitely pretty easy to learn, but difficult to master. It takes a looong time to be able to actually “compete” with good players. Anyway, tier lists absolutely exist, to suggest otherwise is just factual incorrect. However, having an actual list isn’t as important as people make it out to be.
Tier lists definitely exist and are relevant in every tier of play from casual to high level. There's a reason characters tend to be considered "scrub killers". Because they beat up on lower level players who don't know better hence low level players view them as good. No matter what level you play, a tier list can be made. Ignoring it and saying that a tier list doesn't exist is not only being ignorant towards data proving otherwise, but there are examples of tier lists existing. Why do you think it was so amazing to watch Rangachu win a major with panda? Because panda is considered a bad character, but he made it work. Not all characters are viable and that's something you have to accept. That doesn't mean you can't play them, it means that you will have a harder time doing well with that character. But if you really enjoy a character, keep playing them. Fighting games are meant to be enjoyed.
Still one of my favourite videos of yours. Some people get extremely delusional about game's balance, I've genuinely seen people act like developers are flawless human beings and their first iteration of balance is perfect. Some people also dismiss tiers as not mattering because it's *theoretically* possible for a character with all-round awful tools to beat a flawless character, ignoring that tier lists mostly quantify how much effort it takes for a character to perform well, relative to others.
If I was to play Devil's advocate, I'd say that this is one extreme example which doesn't apply to most fighting games. Human Smoke is literally Scorpion with more tools, whereas even clone characters in other games, like Ryu and Ken from the earlier SF installments, had their advantages and disadvantages when directly compared to each other. I've honestly never encountered someone with this belief, so I have no idea what their reasoning could be. Seems pretty clear to me that some characters are easier to win with than others.
How much different is this version from the arcade version? I swear I thought some of these combos don't work in the corner cause there is like a pause on certain corner hits. Like at 2:46 in the 360 arcade port if you roundhouse in the corner it pauses after that hit, which I assumed was to prevent certain broken combos/infinites. Or it's very likely I'm just a scrub and it has to do with timing/being JUST far enough from the corner that the pause doesn't register? 🤷♂️ EDIT: Also maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I swore I thought as human smoke you could do an infinite with his quick combo that ends in launch and then you just spear them and can repeat it infinitely?
Tiers exist, but in a good game, most if not all of the cast is viable. Mortal Kombat, I can’t speak for the newer titles but I’m sorry the first 3 (4 counting ultimate) have no semblance of balance, the designers just didn’t have the knowledge to implement it, it wasn’t something considered in the design phases outside of fixing some infinite combo “glitches” that players found, that’s about it. So it’s trash as a competitive game and not even worth discussing. Now juxtapose that with something like Street Fighter or Virtua Fighter, yes Super Turbo has tiers but there are Cammys winning tournaments Honda’s and T.Hawks ranking high there isn’t a character that’s not viable. But that’s the difference between tweaking a game over 5 iterations (which was ahead of its time now balance patches are the norm) and being one and done like the old Mortal Kombats were. And that’s nothing against Mortal Kombat fans but at what point does Human Smoke vs Human Smoke get a little stale. Oh that’s right Ermac or the dude who wears a gas mask can also be used sometimes if you have the right player lol. Sometimes good balance is just in the design of characters (ST, Alpha 2) other times it’s in terms of the system itself (3rd Strike, parry and throw = the great equalizers).
The problem with the majority of fighting games is bad balance. Sometimes a fg is the forerunner for another which becomes a series. Some argue that you should play what you like and enjoy the character and game. Although this is true as you should, some cases its possible but in the majority theres no "enjoyment" because the top tiers in some fg's are THAT dumb where weaker characters cannot compete at all and mu's are unwinnable no matter how good or well rounded the player is. CE (Championship Edition) being the perfect example. Bison is a SS tier character which should be banned but he's allowed in the community. The top tiers are Ryu, Ken and Guile and the somewhat viables are Vega and Sagat (viable but still cant consistently beat the top tiers mentioned above at all) The problem with CE is that the other characters are unplayable and can't cope at all against the top tiers at all. AE is another example of bad balance and even USFIV to a degree, SFV and i can go on and on. Bottom line is that fighting games although fun are bad because players cannot express they're skill or pick what they want if they want to win. More often than not characters will "carry" a player even though the other person (without the top tier) is better skillfully. 2002UM has pretty good balance outside K/Kasumi Todoh/Nameless but games like that and Hyper Alpha etc are exceptions. Its all about what you pick! I personally think there's politics involved when developers are "balancing" fg's and games in general but that's a whole other topic. There will always be lack of variety in fg's because i don't think dev's want true balance in the first place. Its as if they create bad balance on purpose.
I think the only person who would say Tiers don't exist are amateurs and scrubs with little to no understanding of fighting game mechanics. Id say Tiers are way less common now due to patching and constant updates. Even if a character is busted, he won't stay that way long enough for people to fully master them. The best example of a busted Tier is Akuma in the original Street Fighter 2, also Marvel vs Capcom 2 with Cable, Sentinel and Magneto. Millena and Jax in MK2 have some exploits that can make them pretty busted too. Cinder had an easy infinite 80 hit in Killer Instinct, most characters in TMNT Tournament fighters too.
Also who the heck disliked this video? I mean you can't get anymore bullet proof than what Baf is saying here. This game is 25 years old - and it's legitimate historical proof here.
Id say smash melee is a good example of very clearly defined tier differences with how each character interacts with the universal mechanics of the game. For instance, crouch-cancelling is a very good reversal tool that allows you to tank through a hit almost like hyper armor, and then punish it with your own, and the best characters have tools that counter this tech with either a wide degree of application or heavy damage (crouch-cancelling peach’s down smash would be the fighting game equivalent of taking 50% of your hp off of one hit). Low tiers dont have these same tools and struggle a lot more to play neutral or punish better characters because every risk they take is higher and every reward they land is lower. That same risk/reward skew translates to any game and is what defines tiers most predominantly, even moreso than blatantly glaring issues. But smash isnt a fighting game so it doesnt count : )))
I don't even know why you felt the urge to make this video. People who disagree (as if their agreement matters, you can always disagree with facts) generally tend to do some olympic level mental gymnastics in order to make their case. They simply argue out of DESIRE for proposed balance, and not actual achievement of it. I guess this was simply fun for you to trash their dreams, and if that's the case I'm all for it.
I'm pretty sure you already uploaded this video about tier lists, at least I'm sure I watched it some time ago. IMO Tier list DO exist, but only matter in a competitive environment where both players are about the same level AND both of them know the ins and outs of the matchup they are going to play, I know pretty common opinion.
I think this is a common take but I actually disagree with it. I have a paragraph about it in the description but basically I think tier lists are simply DIFFERENT at low level play. Some characters punish you a LOT for not knowing the matchup. Example: Raiden in MK11 with his huge hitbox electric field which he can turn into a launcher on reaction, and if you fully block it it's completely safe. However, you can neutral duck the final hit and if you do it's always punishable. Characters who exploit matchup inexperience are "top tier" when both players don't know the matchup, but there's not much point discussing which characters are good in low level play since most players get out of low level pretty quickly.
@@Bafael Yes I agree with you in that sense, my response was referring to the tier lists in an ideal case at the highest level that most people refer to even at intermediate play level made by top players (admittetly without knowing too much they tend to peek at them for various reasons, I usually don't care), if you lower the skill level of the player and the knowledge of the game he has he will do different plays compared to better players, and if you don't know how to counter certain stuff you might see what are considered low tier characters as god tier (probably someone who keeps getting looped by Quan Chi in MK9 could be a good example).
I'd also like to add a little note regarding how time matters in establishing a tier list, if a game is brand new even "top players" might misjudge what is a good character, and that can be rectified only by playing and with time, an example that comes to mind is in MvC2 when people believed Ice Man to be top tier, only to fall to mid tier by other previously "lower tier" characters.
Tiers obviously exist, what i like to say is that you should pick a character that you like, regardless if it is top tier or not, in my case, i use Twelve in 3rd Strike, and i can't deny that i'm handicaping myself, becouse Twelve is weak overall, but it works for me becouse i can hardly identify with the rest of the cast, and then since we have the parry, you can just go with whatever you want.
Classic subzero and cyrax are not low tier. Classic subzero has ridiculous damage output. Cyrax can drain half your life with 2 bombs and a uppercut. His dial a combo is stupidly powerfull and he has a net and to many tools to mention.
I don't get how it's even an argument. If you follow a game like League of Legends, the developers go into great detail every patch about the changes to the characters and how it will affect play both at the casual and pro level. They back these up with statistics and charts to an exacting degree with not only winrates, but damage, range and mana regeneration at every level. Capcom and other fighting game companies have access to the same amount of data, but don't seem to care enough to bother informing their audience if they even care about balancing patches in the first place.
I agree 100%. I also believe you can achieve success with low tiers if you put in the extra effort . You'll get quicker results with high tiers but you can still get places with low tier. I think a lot of beginners think that the reason they lose is because of tiers and not their skill which is why people have to tell them "tier lists dont matter" when really they mean tier lists dont matter at ur level.
The "Tier lists don't matter every character can perform well" shit is so corny LMAO. There literally ARE characters who have way less tools and perform worse than others, its not about the players skill its about what the characters have at their disposal
I agree and I can prove it. Sonic Fox is the only person on the planet that can use mk11 D'vorah and even he wouldn't be caught dead using her in a big tournament.
Tiers do exist But I will admit it’s super rewarding when you somehow beat a player who is using a high tiered character while you’re using a literal shit character
Tiers do exist but lower tier characters aren't necessarily automatically bad but rather they need a lot of more work and knowledge to use the tools they were given compared to a higher tier character
@@ninjahedgehog5 I don't think he's good at high level lol the problem is everyone complained about him at low level. Characters can absolutely be strong or weak even in the context of casual low level play.
