GG:AC Official Tier List Thread

[Adelheid]

You can if you play Eddie

or if you're in America, Robo-Ky.

You say that like Dogura hasn't clearly proven that Japan can't block dust any better.

[Wirya]

Why do some people keep saying something like "eventually it all comes down to each player's skill" in tier list thread? We ain't talking about the players but the characters, you know.

[JackG]

I don't know what the deal is with Robo's 5d. Sure it's the fastest, but it's hella telegraphed and still slower than Slayer's, Millia's, Eddie's, Testament's, Potemkin's, Zappa's, and Chipp's other ground overheads as well as Baiken's Jam's Venom's Millia's TK overheads.

[Ryu]

Why do some people keep saying something like "eventually it all comes down to each player's skill" in tier list thread?

IDK either. Yea it does come down to skill in the end but with higher tier characters its possible to win with less of it. I'm sure that plenty of Jonnhy players have more skilled than some people who play other characters. That doesnt change the fact that he still sucks. Just look to the Tougeki thread for proof.

[Wirya]

@Wekk : Robo's 5D doesn't have an obvious-looking startup. Unlike Slayer's, for example.

[JinSaotome]

I haven't watched many Dogura vids, so Iunno D: but in that case, you can just subtract "If you're in America," bit then.

[reaVer]

Why do some people keep saying something like "eventually it all comes down to each player's skill" in tier list thread?

We ain't talking about the players but the characters, you know.

And how would you define character strength? I mean, the tierlist is different from a year ago now, and the characters didn't change, its the people that use them, so it still comes down to the player's skills with each character.

[whytesakura]

mind games win over character strength unless the game is really broke

[rtl42]

tier lists don't account for psychic players.

[Sesshyru]

mind games win over character strength unless the game is really broke

Yah, thats why Order Sol beats everyone 10:0

Fact

lol if Reaver isn’t arguing in OS thread hes here xD!

[Hideki]

And how would you define character strength? I mean, the tierlist is different from a year ago now, and the characters didn't change, its the people that use them, so it still comes down to the player's skills with each character.

It's neither.

Tier list change because new stuff is found, and that affects the overall level of certain characters.

Player skill doesn't have place on tier list (it's supposed that all the characters are ranked as if they where played by the "perfect" player).

[qwerty]

IDK either. Yea it does come down to skill in the end but with higher tier characters its possible to win with less of it. I'm sure that plenty of Jonnhy players have more skilled than some people who play other characters. That doesnt change the fact that he still sucks. Just look to the Tougeki thread for proof.

quotin this.

also, be grateful that ggac's tier lists are actually subjective enough to be discussed (rather mindlessly) like this. i think it's a testament to how balanced the game is and how even with lower tier characters, you're still very likely to beat someone of relatively equal skill to you.

too many people seem to think that ggac tiers are like 3s tiers, where every low tier is a 9-1 matchup and only three characters will ever win tournaments. ggac is up there with g:motw and vf5 in terms of having really shallow tier gaps, so just remember that when you discuss how tiers affect competition for this game.

[Teyah]

Tier lists rate character's potential (but realistic) strengths, regardless of difficulty. To rate their difficulty requires specifying an exact level of play, which is impossible unless you're talking about complete beginners because of GG's complexity.

Basically this shit, again.

Yes, character difficulty relates to how difficult it is to play the character to their highest realistic potential, which the tier list reflects. Specifics relating to said 'difficulty' would probably best be left to the individual character forums, as that has nothing to do with the tier list. Or perhaps if you care to discuss it in a more general sense, you could get a meaningful discussion going in the Character Difficulty thread.

quotin this.

also, be grateful that ggac's tier lists are actually subjective enough to be discussed (rather mindlessly) like this. i think it's a testament to how balanced the game is and how even with lower tier characters, you're still very likely to beat someone of relatively equal skill to you.

'Very likely' is too generous, when the average low-tier matchup of 4-6 basically points out that out of 5 rounds, the low-tier should, on average, only win 2 of those 5, while the high-tier wins 3 of 5, and therefore the game.

[Hellmonkey]

Yes, character difficulty relates to how difficult it is to play the character to their highest realistic potential, which the tier list reflects. Specifics relating to said 'difficulty' would probably best be left to the individual character forums, as that has nothing to do with the tier list. Or perhaps if you care to discuss it in a more general sense, you could get a meaningful discussion going in the Character Difficulty thread.

Specifics relating to character's difficulty? The entire point I'm making is that creating accurate or meaningful tier lists requires specifying a level of play which we can't do. Depending on how we specify the level of play the tier list changes greatly; "easy" characters like Potemkin do incredibly well at every level until top level play where everyone is so close that the character played has little to no effect compared to how well those top players happen to be playing at the time and a few "bad" matchups which hardly exist in GG compared to most other fighting games.

[Teyah]

The tier list, by default, specifies 'highest realistic potential', or top-level play. I recently discussed this topic with a player who frequents Japanese forums, who mentioned that these tier lists are written up using the most skilled player of each character to reflect character rank/potential. If this is indeed the case, then the level of play is already specified as being 'the level of play attained by X character's most skilled player', or what we would most likely call "top-level play".

[Adelheid]

... a player who frequents Japanese forums ... mentioned that these tier lists are written up using the most skilled player of each character to reflect character rank/potential. If this is indeed the case, then the level of play is already specified as being 'the level of play attained by X character's most skilled player', or what we would most likely call "top-level play".

This reminds me; I heard from tolore that John Wu said that the people he was translating for at Evo said the same thing.

[Hellmonkey]

I've seen tier lists being created that way before, most recently with MB, but I'd be interested in seeing where this has been done recently or is being done currently for GG. Tier discussion has been pretty dead for a long time now everywhere I read. Also I'm aware that the tier list is by default top level play. At top level play the tiers are too close and character strengths hardly have any noticable impact (aside from how popular characters are), so it's pointless to discuss them. Results from tournaments with top players show this. (yes every major japanese tournament in the last year, except the G3 5v5 which had ridiculously broken teams has shown this). Since there is no real way to specify "top-level play", all we can do is say what tiers feel like and reference results from top players. Top players of "low-tier" beat top players of "high-tier" characters way more frequently than the tier lists suggest they should, showing their uselessness.

[rtl42]

how could they be ridiculously broken, if top level play is supposed to create this uniform/homogenized tier list?

[qwerty]

'Very likely' is too generous, when the average low-tier matchup of 4-6 basically points out that out of 5 rounds, the low-tier should, on average, only win 2 of those 5, while the high-tier wins 3 of 5, and therefore the game.

still better odds than most other fighting games. 4-6 is pretty fucking good and leaves a lot of room for player's skill to determine the outcome (factored in with how said low tier character is disadvantaged, of course).

again, this is something that accent core, by nature, is better than most other games at. look at all the low tier players in japan (dc, suzume, bleed, etc) and how well they place. look at the a-cho ranbats and how many low tiers rank within the top 8 (or win, even).

a disadvantage is still a disadvantage- there's no changing that. luckily for us though, accent core doesn't have many matchups worse than 4-6, which is really just a step below 5-5 if you think about it (actually, that would be 4.5-5.5, but whatever ).

point is, if accent core wasn't balanced and didn't have relatively shallow tier gaps, i wouldn't play it. there really is no survival borderline for this game, it's just a matter of having more knowledge and/or better execution than your opponent. if you play a higher tier character, you just have a slightly more forgiving margin of error.

[Spirit Juice]

Tiers at top level play don't matter, but Hellmonkey learned Eddie to counter Potemkin vs Baiken. !!!

[Teyah]

The entire point I'm making is that creating accurate or meaningful tier lists requires specifying a level of play which we can't do.

Also I'm aware that the tier list is by default top level play.

You're going in circles now. Which is it?

Since there is no real way to specify "top-level play", all we can do is say what tiers feel like and reference results from top players.

There is a way, and I had posted it right here:

... 'the level of play attained by X character's most skilled player', or what we would most likely call "top-level play".

It really seems like you're trying to use any excuse to justify that tiers do not exist because lower tiers performed relatively well in some recent tournaments. This is a very hasty conclusion that you're coming to. As I've said before, high-tiers are in the minority to begin with, so this really shouldn't come as a surprise - lower-tiers on average are 4-6, not 1-9, and have a very real ability to win, especially in such large numbers as they are currently played.

[Ryu]

Top players of "low-tier" beat top players of "high-tier" characters way more frequently than the tier lists suggest they should

No they dont. Teyah, already explained this when he was talking about how Ogawa's eddie only needed to get past the first round to hit the % mark required for the tier list.

You just dont understand what we are saying because you dont understand statistics. And if you want to get really particular about the % ratio on the match ups I'd have to explain using high level algebra/calculus. Really when someone says a matchup is 6:4. that particular matchup only approaches that raito over a great many number of matches (thousands) but never actually reaches it. If you were to graph it, it would look like a asymptote. That explains some of the variance that your seeing or as you say "low tier winning more than they should"

[Hellmonkey]

You're going in circles now. Which is it?

There is a way, and I had posted it right here:

It really seems like you're trying to use any excuse to justify that tiers do not exist because lower tiers performed relatively well in some recent tournaments. This is a very hasty conclusion that you're coming to. As I've said before, high-tiers are in the minority to begin with, so this really shouldn't come as a surprise - lower-tiers on average are 4-6, not 1-9, and have a very real ability to win, especially in such large numbers as they are currently played.

Hasty? Recent? I made that other post in what, February? Since then low and mid tiers have consistently been winning in top level play. How can you keep saying that I'm being biased and considering only a few recent results that don't really matter and then provide nothing to support your criticism?

Saying the "level obtained by their most skilled player" is not nearly specific enough. We can analyze characters' strengths separately, but to combine everything in to one nice list is all opinion.

With between 1/3 and 1/2 of all of the players playing the small portion of the cast supposedly A and S tier, are you seriously arguing that there are just more players of middle and especially low tiers that cause them (somehow? you're arguing that there are more top players of them because of a bigger pool of people playing them?) to win more often? Your entire point about high tiers being a minority is backwards.

Perhaps you aren't aware about how tournaments actually work, but if a character really has a bunch of 4-6 matchups, to get to the finals and win an entire tournament with TONS of top players (1/3-1/2 of whom play top tier) should be extremely unlikely. At top level play the math behind the tiers fail, low and mid tier are winning all over as much as top-tier.

The reason we see so many "top-tier" players is because those characters are much easier to do well with at mid/high level of play, but at the top level of play we just don't see that.

[Destin]

I am confused as to hellmonkey's argument. Is he saying that the japanese are incorrect, and the 6-4 matchups are not 6-4, or is he saying that 6-4 doesn't matter? I mean 6-4 is pretty clearly defined as to what it is, so I assume he is arguing that the japanese tiers are incorrect/outdated?

[axel]

It's funny to see 2 guys who tier-whored Eddie discuss about tiers.