Hate Speech Theory Fighter University: Tiers

[Dakota Racine]

In my opinion it doesnt matter about tier just how well you can play.


UNLESS of course you play Amy that stupid lil' whore, honestly who can easily beat the shit out of there step father? Nobody but Amy, I tell you AMY!

 

[Dr. Hates]

Too summarize, So you don't HAVE to read all that, I like being unique, and I like the challenge; whether the challenge be a difficult character, or a weak one.

That's all perfectly legitimate, actually. There are times in which uniqueness offers a strategic advantage, too, but really choosing the character you find to be most fun/engaging/whatever is probably going to be what gets the most out of you, anyway.

tl;dr?
Calling 'low-tier heroes' 'scrubs' or a form of 'cowardice' is misleading and frankly, WRONG.

It's not wrong at all. First, examine the specifics of what I'm arguing--namely, that some people intentionally gravitate toward low tier in order to hide behind an inability to win, and they try to shame people who choose other characters while focusing on "moral victories." It's a counterproductive strategy, and it deserves to be called out, so within that specific context those people are indeed cowardly. Choosing a character you like that just happens to be low tier is an entirely different phenomenon. As I mentioned to the guy above, you should go for it!

I'd further like to engage with the notion that low-tier players are "better" than the people who beat them because they know the system better. This is very, very difficult to prove, firstly. More importantly, I see it as a potentially problematic way of thinking. The ultimate objective metric for any fighting game player is wins and losses. Matches are played out on the screen, not in the form of a multiple choice quiz on who knows mechanics the best. Do certain top tiers allow for significantly less skilled players to win? Absolutely. It's incredibly difficult to parse the difference, though, without further encouraging people who want to hide behind bad characters instead of finding a character they might actually enjoy more, not to mention possibly winning in the process.

 

[d3v]

I'd further like to engage with the notion that low-tier players are "better" than the people who beat them because they know the system better. This is very, very difficult to prove, firstly. More importantly, I see it as a potentially problematic way of thinking. The ultimate objective metric for any fighting game player is wins and losses. Matches are played out on the screen, not in the form of a multiple choice quiz on who knows mechanics the best. Do certain top tiers allow for significantly less skilled players to win? Absolutely. It's incredibly difficult to parse the difference, though, without further encouraging people who want to hide behind bad characters instead of finding a character they might actually enjoy more, not to mention possibly winning in the process.

Food for thought: there have been recorded instances of top players who use top tiers switching to low tiers and still winning. Case in point, in MvC2 Justin Wong has been known to go to random mid/low-tiers for exhibitions and still win. Same with kuroda at 3rd Strike, where he is known for picking low tiers in exhibition matches, but goes back to Ken come SBO.

 

[BLACKSTAR]

It's not wrong at all. First, examine the specifics of what I'm arguing--namely, that some people intentionally gravitate toward low tier in order to hide behind an inability to win, and they try to shame people who choose other characters while focusing on "moral victories." It's a counterproductive strategy, and it deserves to be called out, so within that specific context those people are indeed cowardly. Choosing a character you like that just happens to be low tier is an entirely different phenomenon. As I mentioned to the guy above, you should go for it!

I'd further like to engage with the notion that low-tier players are "better" than the people who beat them because they know the system better. This is very, very difficult to prove, firstly. More importantly, I see it as a potentially problematic way of thinking. The ultimate objective metric for any fighting game player is wins and losses. Matches are played out on the screen, not in the form of a multiple choice quiz on who knows mechanics the best. Do certain top tiers allow for significantly less skilled players to win? Absolutely. It's incredibly difficult to parse the difference, though, without further encouraging people who want to hide behind bad characters instead of finding a character they might actually enjoy more, not to mention possibly winning in the process.

I agree with most of your points actually. :)

My only beef was that when reading your bit on 'low-tier heroes', it gave the impression that you were talking about all people who tend to pick low(er)-tierd characters. It sounded like a blanket statement that didn't necessarily fit. I just thought I clear it up with my own thoughts, that just because a person tends to pick lower-tiered characters, or even call themselves low-tier heroes, doesn't mean they have the scrub mentality you described. Don't get me wrong, as both you and I mentioned, there are people like that (I used to be one of them) and find it just as offensive as you, but there are people who aren't like that too.

"The ultimate objective metric for any fighting game player is wins and losses" -- 100% totally true. Totally agree, BUT it's not as simple as who wins a tournament double elimination, FT3, FT5, or even FT10. To definitively judge who's better of two players, going by this metric alone, you would have to do alot of matches spread over a decently long period of time statistically. As you said, proving (objectively) who's better is very very difficult, and I'd argue nearly impossible in a practical manner. But speaking in a pragmatic sense, in real life, usually wins are enough to show who's better, but only between two opponents with a large difference in skill gap, but for those with relatively close skill gap? Going by experience, people usually judge according to how good each particular player is by how well they use their tools in matches -- punishers, matchup knowledge, taking risks with educated guesses that pay off, etc. Now this doesn't 'prove' that the low-tier character user is better by any means, but I say that their skillful use of character abilities and game knowledge is usually much much more evident with the player with the low tier.

 

[GreatOne1939]

I have a question as far as the who is better thing. Let's say there is 2 people. Now person A never loses to anyone ever. Except, when he goes up against person B. Person B beats the ever living dog shit out of person A every time. However Person B loses the some of his matches against all these other people that Person A runs through. So, my question is, who is better? Person A or Person B?