Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

liquidrain

What makes a character good? CPE discussion and help needed

Recommended Posts

Hi all, 

 

I was sorta confused on why in BBCPE some characters are considered better than others... I have a very basic understanding of fighting games and I really wanted this explained to me. So essentially I was playing a little bit of CPE in order to figure out who I wanted to play and I liked both Lambda and Nu (along with Bullet and Tsubaki). Noticeably, Nu and Lambda are fairly similar for the most part in terms of moves and specials but with slightly different playstyles. I wanted to know which of them was better because I liked them both equally and wanted to start learning others. Why is Nu rated so much higher than Lambda when they're so similar and have similar damage? What aspect makes her better? Also, since I also like playing them, what are similar things about Bullet and Tsubaki that make them stronger or weaker than other characters in the game? I'm just trying to get a better sense of fighting game dynamics. Any help at all would be very appreciated. Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a character's effectiveness is based on the number of good matchups they have. the more matchups they have in their favor, the higher they're generally considered.

 

i'm not a nu or lambda main, so if someone can correct me on this statement, feel free. i suspect the reason why nu is considered better than lambda is because of her fundamental game. nu seems to be more focused on zoning, while lambda seems to be an all-around character (hybrid between rushdown/zoning). zoning in this game is very powerful, and many characters still struggle with projectiles, albeit with varying degrees of difficulty. with that said, the game works well in nu's favor since she's a very strong zoner. lambda's rushdown isn't particularly noteworthy, so she struggles trying to find a compromise for her playstyle.

 

the thing about a character's effectiveness is that because it's heavily based on the matchups in this game, it's hard to consider who's stronger/weaker than who. the drive system really differentiates the matchups in this game a lot, so there's huge debate about the discrepancies between characters' strengths and weaknesses.

 

now if you were to analyze a game like street fighter 4, then you'd probably have an easier time analyzing matchups since some characters share extreme similarities with others. in blazblue, it doesn't really work that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a character's effectiveness is based on the number of good matchups they have. the more matchups they have in their favor, the higher they're generally considered.

Sorry, but this is kindof a backwards answer. No, a characters effectiveness is NOT based on the number of good matchups they have. The number of good matchups they have is based on their effectiveness. A character isn't good because they have good matchups, they have good matchups because they are good. You are confusing "good" with "high tier". They're not the same.

 

i'm not a nu or lambda main, so if someone can correct me on this statement, feel free. i suspect the reason why nu is considered better than lambda is because of her fundamental game. nu seems to be more focused on zoning, while lambda seems to be an all-around character (hybrid between rushdown/zoning). zoning in this game is very powerful, and many characters still struggle with projectiles, albeit with varying degrees of difficulty. with that said, the game works well in nu's favor since she's a very strong zoner. lambda's rushdown isn't particularly noteworthy, so she struggles trying to find a compromise for her playstyle.

 

the thing about a character's effectiveness is that because it's heavily based on the matchups in this game, it's hard to consider who's stronger/weaker than who. the drive system really differentiates the matchups in this game a lot, so there's huge debate about the discrepancies between characters' strengths and weaknesses.

 

now if you were to analyze a game like street fighter 4, then you'd probably have an easier time analyzing matchups since some characters share extreme similarities with others. in blazblue, it doesn't really work that way.

I don't think this is why Nu is better than Lambda either; I think Nu just has more and better options.

Let me try my hand at answering this question.

How good a character is, is made up of a few fundamental components:

A) How strong their neutral game is. This is comprised of various parts, such as how much space they can control from a given location on screen, how much they have to 'commit' to control that space, and how easy it is for them to maneuver around an opponent's attempts to control space.

Nu is better than Lambda at controlling space, because Lambda's double swords mean that she is more committed when she pushes a button to control space - if she misses, she's far more vulnerable than Nu. Nu's swords are also faster, I believe.

B) How strong a character's pressure & mixup are; This, too, is made up of subcomponents - how fast and difficult to see their mixup is, whether they need any special resources to perform it, how vulnerable they are to different defensive options (can you just safely jump out a lot of the time?) and how difficult it is for them to reset their pressure. I'd also put okizeme in this category.

Nu is better than Lambda pressure, because she can very easily keep an opponent blocking swords at 2/3rds screen length and punish them for tryign to escape, as well as reset them with sickle storm.

C) How much damage the character does. This one is a little more obvious than the others, but there are still various parts here - how much damage they get off an 'average' hit, how much damage they get off a 'punish' hit, how much they can boost their damage with resources (heat and/or character specific gauge) and how hard those resources are for them to get.

I don't know how Lambda's damage is, but Nu has above average damage for her her 'average' hits, though her 'punish damage' might be a little lower than some characters.

Any one of those facets can make a character good as long as they aren't completely lacking in the others - a hypothetical character who can kill you in one combo, but is so godaway slow that they'll never hit you is bad, but a character who can kill you in one combo and can probably manage to get that one hit in sometime during the match is really good. A character that can mix you up and trap you in infinite blockstrings but can't win at neutral is bad, but one who can do that after eventually winning at neutral is formidable.

Tsubaki, historically, has been bad because her neutral tools were weak, her pressure was easily beaten by barrier since most of her options were so short ranged, and her damage was dependant on filling up her special gauge. Her neutral has gotten a little better in CPE and her damage is now pretty okay, but her mixup and pressure are still weak, so she's still not a strong character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was always of the opinion that the player makes the character good.  

 

All you have to do is look at Ruu, Satou, Goro, Daiwa, Damosu, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but this is kindof a backwards answer. No, a characters effectiveness is NOT based on the number of good matchups they have. The number of good matchups they have is based on their effectiveness. A character isn't good because they have good matchups, they have good matchups because they are good. You are confusing "good" with "high tier". They're not the same.

 

 

 

This is such circular logic lol. A character is considered good because their tools give them advantages in certain matchups, so yea a character with good matchups is kind of an indicator how viable they are. There's like now way to test if a character is good or not without playing against other characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys Toki has 9-1 matchups in his favor. Doesn't make him a good character though. KAPPA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is such circular logic lol. A character is considered good because their tools give them advantages in certain matchups, so yea a character with good matchups is kind of an indicator how viable they are. There's like now way to test if a character is good or not without playing against other characters.

No, it's NOT circular logic. That was my point. Yes, matchups INDICATE who is good. They don't CAUSE who is good. You are confusing cause with effect. If you want to know WHY someone is good, you don't look at their matchups, you look at the actual character and the advantages they have.

And no, characters can be good independent of players. To pretend otherwise is silly.

Good job everyone for completely not answering the guy's question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's NOT circular logic. That was my point. Yes, matchups INDICATE who is good. They don't CAUSE who is good. You are confusing cause with effect. If you want to know WHY someone is good, you don't look at their matchups, you look at the actual character and the advantages they have.

 

 

But if matchups don't matter, how can you determine who has an advantage :V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was always of the opinion that the player makes the character good.  

 

All you have to do is look at Ruu, Satou, Goro, Daiwa, Damosu, etc

Yes and no.

 

Sometimes the game and their characters have so much depth, and gives you more than enough tools and resources to play with, that the player can take his character to higher levels, being able to compete against even the stronger characters. Ruu and Satou are examples of this, they have mastered every aspect of their respective characters (Bridget and Johnny). Satou is even capable of performing very difficult confirms in matches, and some say his Johnny is the only one that does that. Satou's Johnny has no equal!

This is the case where the player uses his experience, skills and abilities to get the best out of the character, to make the difference. And I only talked about Satou, there many other GG players capable of that, and that's why Top GG japanese players are considered Gods. They have even achieved a consensus about Tier Lists:  "It's impossible to rank the characters in GGAC. It just gets endlessly debated between the Japanese players."

In other words, GGAC (and +R) is so balanced that that ideal is true, the ideal of "The Player makes the character good". It's a rare, very rare case.

 

However there are games where being a weak character will always suck, even if you have really godlike players like Damosu and Goro. It just happens because the weak character himself lacks useful tools (literally useless moves that have little to no purpose) and the resources/tools in the game dont give the player something to work with. This results in the player becoming limited by their own character. Goro himself is a very strong player but even when he works harder than anyone else, he might not get results if he uses a weak character (EX/CP Makoto). Bad characters, in the literal sense, do exist and here's an example of how you can describe one: Eshi's Thoughts about CPE Amane.

And this brings me to the most important question, what if a player that works as hard as Goro plays a stronger character? This is an important question because we're often discussing high level play, and that's pretty common to see.

So, the ideal of "The Player makes the character good" isnt the case here, because weak characters will remain weak.

 

I *personally* believe that an ideal fighting game has the following attributes:

  1. Varied - Having characters that play mostly the same is boring. Different and unique styles encourage player variety and adds depth
  2. Balanced - Doesnt need to be perfectly balanced full of 5-5 matchups, just balanced in a way that every character their own strengths
  3. Good Depth - Is what makes a game stay interesting even after years and years of being played intensely.

If a fighting game achieves that, I *personally* believe that all their characters will be as good as their players. And that's perfect for me, because players will no longer be limited by their characters and everyone will play the character they like and that fits their own style without worrying about "strength", "tier lists", "top tiers" etc...

But that's difficult to achieve and that's not in the interests of some fighting game developers, it appears most only care about "catering a wider audience" etc but that's another story haha.

 

I really hope we get more ideal fighting games in the future ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if matchups don't matter, how can you determine who has an advantage :V

Matchups don't matter to who is better. End of argument.

Matchups ARE a good way to INDICATE who is better.

If that distinction is lost on you, you should probably bow out of this chat. :P

If a fighting game achieves that, I *personally* believe that all their characters will be as good as their players. And that's perfect for me, because players will no longer be limited by their characters and everyone will play the character they like and that fits their own style without worrying about "strength", "tier lists", "top tiers" etc...

But that's difficult to achieve and that's not in the interests of some fighting game developers, it appears most only care about "catering a wider audience" etc but that's another story haha.

 

I really hope we get more ideal fighting games in the future ;)

Nice post, but barely has anything to do with the OP. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post, but barely has anything to do with the OP. :P

 

Title of this thread is "What makes a character good?"

 

Tong's post literally just went into a pretty nice explanation on why characters can be good and why they can be bad.

 

:psyduck:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Title of this thread is "What makes a character good?"

 

Tong's post literally just went into a pretty nice explanation on why characters can be good and why they can be bad.

 

:psyduck:

Actually, he spent a lot of time talking about what makes a fighting game balanced (not the same at all as what makes a character good) and about how if the game is balanced enough then it's all about the players. He had one sentence in all that about what makes a character good. Not sure what post you were reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but this is kindof a backwards answer. No, a characters effectiveness is NOT based on the number of good matchups they have. The number of good matchups they have is based on their effectiveness. A character isn't good because they have good matchups, they have good matchups because they are good. You are confusing "good" with "high tier". They're not the same.

 

in CS2, tager had a good matchup against noel (as well as some of the other lower tier characters, but i'm not counting those for the sake of the argument). by the logic that you stated, that should make tager a good character, since he has a good matchup against what was considered a top tier character.

 

but he's wasn't. he had tons of bad matchups against the higher tier characters. most people would consider him pretty low in the scheme of all things. i'd argue that good matchups don't happen because they are good, it's all dependent on the context of a certain character's options against another. if a character is good, then they'd be able to win more easily than other characters. put more technically, they'd win a higher number of matches than lose in the long run.

 

if you haven't noticed yet, i just defined what a matchup is supposed to be.

 

also, wouldn't a more effective character end up being a better character? seems to me that it's pretty much one and the same.

 

EDIT: and i guess to also add on an extra opinion on mine; regarding the comment that a character is good based on the player: i can understand the thought process behind that. surely, if the character is played in the right hands, then they can be "good."

 

i have two things for why i don't agree with this statement though. one, this statement is more of a representation of how good the player is, not how good the character is. just because one person is able to do well with a character doesn't mean that the flaws and restrictions stop existing. it just means that the player knows how to circumvent around those issues and utilize the character to its fullest potential. two, i'm pretty sure this answer doesn't really help the original poster out. if OP truly decided to accept this answer, then he/she'd also find that if he were to play against some shitty azrael or hazama, then he/she'd consider either of them as bad characters on the premise that the player was bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we're getting into "what does /good/ mean." Imagine if there was a character that had shitty normals, everything was -50 on block, but they had some instakill combo or one trick that could make them get 7-3 matchups across the board because of some sort of glitch like Carl's clap loop in CT. Are they a good character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my eyes, there has to be reason for why a matchup would be 7-3, regardless of how bad the options for either character are. if that same character only had one good matchup while the rest were balls, then that'd be a different case. remember, i'm arguing that the number of good matchups defines a character's effectiveness (and i guess also how "good" those good matchups are).

 

and before we get too complicated into the notion of "what good means," keep in mind that matchups are also completely subjective. there's no concrete guidelines on how matchup judgement is supposed to go: it's entirely based on a player's instinct and opinion, nothing more. which would mean that the definition of "good" is also completely subjective. so let's not get too antsy about a notion that's going to be different between people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok! SO since people feel so inclined to just talk 
 

Hi all, 

 

I was sorta confused on why in BBCPE some characters are considered better than others... I have a very basic understanding of fighting games and I really wanted this explained to me. So essentially I was playing a little bit of CPE in order to figure out who I wanted to play and I liked both Lambda and Nu (along with Bullet and Tsubaki). Noticeably, Nu and Lambda are fairly similar for the most part in terms of moves and specials but with slightly different playstyles. I wanted to know which of them was better because I liked them both equally and wanted to start learning others. Why is Nu rated so much higher than Lambda when they're so similar and have similar damage? What aspect makes her better? Also, since I also like playing them, what are similar things about Bullet and Tsubaki that make them stronger or weaker than other characters in the game? I'm just trying to get a better sense of fighting game dynamics. Any help at all would be very appreciated. Thank you!

Lambda is worse than Nu due to the effectiveness of her mixup, in optimal play it just doesn't pan out well in risk/reward (she has to extend a bit more to land a hit) as for Nu she can control midrange and land her mixup MUCH MUCH safer than lambda, her oki edges lambda out a bit better and damage I guess, even though they both have basically the "same" tools. So something like this comes up in various situations. In general Nu can just keep herself really safe and land a hit. they both don't have a reversal but a backdash to work with and a 50 meter super.

Bullet and Tsubaki have good damage but both do not do that well in neutral due to their short reach with normals so they control a smaller space as they go around. their oki is manageable. both have DPs and have SOMETHING to manage (Tsubaki/Bullet's drive). 

One of like the things this game likes to place a heavy emphasis on is NEUTRAL. so high mobility characters are usually really good out of the design of that (coupled with whatever else they have) 

What makes a good character? how stable they are in terms of risk/reward along with whatever is given to them to handle the various situations that are placed on them. So a character like Izayoi is really good and stable due to her gain art mixup and that she has the threat of a DP. it's a fairly good one at that. she can also keep herself REALLY safe during her pressure when done correctly so it's a bit nuts x.x 

Valk, Tao, are really good, but they don't have a reversal to for when they want to get out. so when they are on the defense it's pretty painful for them as they are a bit limited in options. to make up for that they have really high mobility and Valk has really good mixups that are pretty "accessible", Tao is a unique character where every iteration she has some weird shit going on with her haha. This version it's her reset potential. another thing is how quickly they can gain momentum which is another pretty big thing in this game.

A REALLY stable character in this version is Jin, good overhead, good pressure, can keep himself pretty safe while maintaining pressure. good mixup. really good neutral, damage. his meterless reversal is really slow but he has a 25 heat DP that's pretty good and can convert into knockdown. 

That's pretty much the basics of gameplay in terms of stability and risk/reward that makes a character good.  





 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in CS2, tager had a good matchup against noel (as well as some of the other lower tier characters, but i'm not counting those for the sake of the argument). by the logic that you stated, that should make tager a good character, since he has a good matchup against what was considered a top tier character.

 

but he's wasn't. he had tons of bad matchups against the higher tier characters. most people would consider him pretty low in the scheme of all things. i'd argue that good matchups don't happen because they are good, it's all dependent on the context of a certain character's options against another. if a character is good, then they'd be able to win more easily than other characters. put more technically, they'd win a higher number of matches than lose in the long run.

 

if you haven't noticed yet, i just defined what a matchup is supposed to be.

 

also, wouldn't a more effective character end up being a better character? seems to me that it's pretty much one and the same.

 

EDIT: and i guess to also add on an extra opinion on mine; regarding the comment that a character is good based on the player: i can understand the thought process behind that. surely, if the character is played in the right hands, then they can be "good."

 

i have two things for why i don't agree with this statement though. one, this statement is more of a representation of how good the player is, not how good the character is. just because one person is able to do well with a character doesn't mean that the flaws and restrictions stop existing. it just means that the player knows how to circumvent around those issues and utilize the character to its fullest potential. two, i'm pretty sure this answer doesn't really help the original poster out. if OP truly decided to accept this answer, then he/she'd also find that if he were to play against some shitty azrael or hazama, then he/she'd consider either of them as bad characters on the premise that the player was bad.

 

Noooo. You are backwards still.

 

Tager is NOT a good character because he has a good matchup.  Good matchups can indicate goodness, but they don't make a character good. That's what I SAID EARLIER.

 

I really have NO IDEA where you got the idea that I said having a single good matchup makes a character good.  In fact, I said that matchups NEVER make a character good. They just show whether a character is good.  And in any event, a SINGLE matchup is always irrelevant by itself, and I'd expect that to go without saying, so I don't know why you're harping on it.

 

Again: A character with awesome tools will have good matchups.   The matchups flow from the tools, not the other way around.   Matchups are the EFFECT, not the CAUSE of a good character.  Saying that matchups make a character good is like saying "Having a big number show up on the scale is what makes a person fat."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we're getting into "what does /good/ mean." Imagine if there was a character that had shitty normals, everything was -50 on block, but they had some instakill combo or one trick that could make them get 7-3 matchups across the board because of some sort of glitch like Carl's clap loop in CT. Are they a good character.

 

I went over this already.   It depends on how bad their neutral and mixup are. A character, for example with no overheads at all and super slow normals is never going to get a hit in to land that instakill, and they will be a bad character even though all their attacks do one MIIIIILLION damage.  A character with Tsubaki-level normals and mixup who does one MIIIILLION damage per hit is really good because it's pretty much guaranteed that even though normals and mixup are pretty meh, they're good enough that you can count on getting that one hit that will kill your opponent.

 

Three parts. You need some measure of all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, i think the tools that are good which in turn make the character good is actually determined by matchups, and the opposite goes as well. They work in harmony to create the characters. Good tools are only effective in the people they are used on. If a character has a great poke that is beaten by just one character that only slightly diminishes the effectiveness of the poke and only against that particular character. A good hammer is only useful against the nail it's used on. No nail, no need for the hammer and vice versa.

This is more of an open ended question but it can be answered. Essentially it is each tool measured individually against every other tool a character has. This is the absolute longest way but provides the most clarity to determine who is good. I call this the development of the game, and such clear results are truly achieved only after years and years of dedicated monsters playing the game they love. Preliminary tier lists show the progress of developement, but a really solid tier list can take upward of ten years or more to create because the game still has some exploring to do (not just finding treasures or ways to exploit the game, but really understanding each tool and how your character can get over them).

So, along with development and time spent with the game as the glue that takes forever to hold, a character's particular tools (this means everything from running to attacking to supers to taunting: never know what has hidden properties), carefully tested against the entire cast, And matchups. I do believe though that tools come first before anything else, as they create the matchups, and then as time goes on, matchups are potentially strengthened or weakened.

This is a general perspective that I hope makes sense because I typed this without really ironing my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, I said that matchups NEVER make a character good. They just show whether a character is good.

 

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. 

That aside it seems to be arguing semantics more than anything at this point. Everyone generally seems at the consensus of "characters that have good tools or consistency are good", a result of this being they have more positive match ups than negative. For sure you can't just say match ups exclusively determine a characters strength, but it goes without saying if a character has a lot of match ups in their favor they're probably good, and if they have a lot of bad ones they're probably not so good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put in a very basic way, "Goodness" is determined by how many options/tools a character has to use for all the different board positions (offense/defense/neutral).  Matchups are determined by some character's tools neutralizing the other character's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. 

That aside it seems to be arguing semantics more than anything at this point. Everyone generally seems at the consensus of "characters that have good tools or consistency are good", a result of this being they have more positive match ups than negative. For sure you can't just say match ups exclusively determine a characters strength, but it goes without saying if a character has a lot of match ups in their favor they're probably good, and if they have a lot of bad ones they're probably not so good.

 

Scales are an excellent way of determining if you are overweight, but they don't make you overweight.

 

Similarly, I don't think matchups influence whether you are good - though other characters certainly do.  No one is good or bad in a vacuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scales are an excellent way of determining if you are overweight, but they don't make you overweight.

 

Similarly, I don't think matchups influence whether you are good - though other characters certainly do.  No one is good or bad in a vacuum.

Airk has a point, A causes B, but B doesn't necessarily mean A. Commie has it right though, at this point it's just semantics.

Following up on that, it's hard to determine whether a character is good, when there are no other characters to put them against. Since Hokuto no Ken was mentioned in this thread, Jagi on his own might seem like a solid character(having solid tools), but not in a game like Hokuto no Ken, where characters like Toki exist(having said 1-9 matchup against him) He simply does not have good answers for tools the top characters have, while still having to take risks against other lower tiered characters. So in the end, the solid tools he has, are drowned out by the problems he has no solutions for when playing against other characters. However, this is where a good player can make a character work, solely on the strong points a character has, though you have to realize he is limited to options that may or may not be a factor against other players and their respective characters.

 

Tools can be valued in many different ways. I think it's safe to say system mechanics also play a role in how good a character is. System mechanics in a sense are tools everybody in the game has access to. In BlazBlue for example, okizeme can seem like a gamble for certain characters outside the corner, since BlazBlue provides people with multiple options upon wake up. Rolls are usually not very strong in the corner though, so corner carry/sideswapping capabilities are important. A character that has good answers against every wake up option in the game is pretty rare and valued, whereas characters that don't have an answer, but can work around it(so what if they get away, my character's neutral is good anyway) can also be great. Taokaka is a special case, since her reset potential is strong now, you could argue she doesn't really need oki midscreen. If the reset isn't successful, it still is safe and in fact, you are still going to be pressuring them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not "just semantics" because if you say "A character is good because they have good matchups" that prevents conversation from addressing what actually makes them good.   It's "You're fat because you weigh 300 lbs" vs "You're fat because you eat three buckets of KFC every day."

 

To determine what makes a character good, you have to look at WHY they have good matchups.  I laid out three things in my post. Mac asked a good question.  Crossfire gave an intelligent analysis of Nu and Lambda.  Everyone else seems to want to say "Nuh uh! Matchups are the ultimate cause of goodness!" :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not "just semantics" because if you say "A character is good because they have good matchups" that prevents conversation from addressing what actually makes them good. It's "You're fat because you weigh 300 lbs" vs "You're fat because you eat three buckets of KFC every day."

To determine what makes a character good, you have to look at WHY they have good matchups. I laid out three things in my post. Mac asked a good question. Crossfire gave an intelligent analysis of Nu and Lambda. Everyone else seems to want to say "Nuh uh! Matchups are the ultimate cause of goodness!" :confused:

Nuh uh! Matchups are the ultimate cause of goodness!

I am become the straw man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×