Teyah

That will frequently get you a superjump, and for some characters like Baiken, you also want to be able to double jump after recovering from a whiffed/blocked/RCed TK623. But since TKYZS is now very easy to do via 6239S thanks to developer assist from Slash onwards, it's sort of a moot point. I do recall a few players using the 6321473S motion during the #Reload days, though.

I don't think so, the horizontal positioning in the list just reflects the 'official' order in which the characters are prioritized into the Guilty Gear series (generally by seniority, but with a few exceptions). The standard ordering is: SO KY MA MI ED PO CH FA BA JA JO AX AN VE TE DI SL IN ZA BR RO AB OS

People, please post only on-topic posts, there's no sense in devolving this thread yet again.

Good. I hope you understand for the next time you want to put forth a (rather major) argument, some explanation is in order. When the opposition manages to refute pretty much every single one of your supporting points, you can't get by on nitpicking on minor details and then calling it a day. There is nothing wrong with my comprehension. I read what you post; you don't post much new material (other than to reword your argument several times), so there isn't much for me to draw from. If I see any further comments like this one, your posts won't remain here, as this is just plain trolling now. Consider this a warning.

You're the one raising the point that tiers don't exist, not me. The burden of proof is on you if you ever want to prove anything aside from what has historically been accepted by the majority. This is pretty standard fare for any debate. The number of high-tiers used in this SBO is 39.6% (38 of 96 players), from the chart of matchups posted in this thread. And uhh yes, this "a fourth of the cast" is a minority in this case, using either of these numbers. Less than 50% = Minority. Do you seriously not understand this basic principle. Well, it would appear so, from your lack of addressing anything actually related to statistical analysis and not just raw numbers. Please don't bother posting again if all you have to say is something along the lines of "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm not going to explain why or go into any analysis of available data, kthxbye"

Yes it is hasty, because you haven't even bothered to look into the statistics of the tournament records of various top players. And of course, I'm providing 'nothing to support my criticism', since you don't understand the relevance of what myself and others have said about the character and matchup statistics so far. Saying things like "a player of [Ogawa's] caliber in a game where those tiers really played a role at top level play would win much more", fails to account for the fact that Ogawa is generally playing against other top players, and only needs to uphold roughly a 60% ratio of moving beyond the first round of a major tournament to satisfy the level of play of a top-player that plays a high-tier. Ogawa being knocked out in the second round of a tournament such as SBO would have been the most statistically likely event, but even that didn't happen. Yet you still deride him (and in that line of thinking, other high-tier players) for not winning enough in the past year, as if winning is the decisive measuring stick here. A more prudent person would not have made this mistake. Success and skill of top players of each character is directly observable, recordable, and easily tracked over time. It doesn't matter what you think of this method, because, short of a theoryfighting robot (lol), this is as accurate as it gets. The Japanese certainly find it specific enough to use this method in their tier listings, and that's what counts. No comment was made about the number of top players, but considering how 'top level play' is defined by the Japanese, the answer is fairly clear. Yes, 'between 1/3 and 1/2 of all players' is a minority. I sincerely hope this is not indicative of your knowledge in the field of statistics. ... LOL. And you wonder why your main argument catches so much criticism. If you've got a probability table or control chart (or anything, really) to go along with this unfounded assertion, it'd be a lot more convincing.

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.

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".

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. '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.

Air throws were reduced in range for every character from Slash to AC, so you have to be a bit closer now to land them. The range reduction for most characters is 20% (from a range of 110 pixels to 88 pixels). You can view each character's air throw range, among other odd bits of data, on the AC System Data Page.

Each character has a limited set of options in various situations (oki, neutral ground/air, slight frame +/-, wakeup, etc) that can all be ranked and compared to the rest of the cast with a general degree of accuracy (see posts #2 and #3). Regarding the discernment of which characters hold an overall advantage, it's pretty clear that would go to characters with increasingly less risky/more rewarding options. No problem, the effort is appreciated. I'll link your posts from the main page, but I really would like to get an accurate translation of the remaining characters (A.B.A, Faust, Zappa) for consistency's sake, if nothing else.

The deleted post that mentioned these players included (iirc): Isa switching from Sol to Eddie Nemo switching from Faust to Testament MDR switching from Chipp to Eddie Arisaka switching from Robo to Slayer Kaqn switching from Order-Sol to Millia (but played OR in SBO) As well as another Testament and Eddie that I can't recall.

Really? Yet when I addressed this earlier: "It also cannot be true, due to differing move properties inherent to each character (ie. tiers); ", you did not dispute that at all. But now it is your main argument. Okay. If this were true, the tier list (which ranks at top level of play) would show every character at the same rank, but it does not. The reason Ruu does so well is not because Bridget is fundamentally equivalent to a character like Eddie. It's because he 'works harder' to compensate for his character's weaknesses in his style of play - something that's certainly not limited to Bridget, or any other character for that matter. It sounds like you are mistaking this for some sort of uncharacteristically high learning curve. No two characters in this game are fundamentally equivalent, 'due to differing move properties inherent to each character (ie. tiers)'. Chipp does not have the same potential (safe/effective risk-reward tools) as Testament, nor Johnny as Eddie, nor any other low-tier vs high-tier. I don't think I even need to argue this point. The purpose of that statement was to rule out the impractical (but possible) techniques that are used in high levels of competition. Eg. Techniques such as 100% damage combos from stored Sidewinder mixup for Sol are not factored into the creation of tier lists (Sol is not ranked SS for Max Damage), because they're not realistically doable or useful in competitive match play. Hellmonkey has said "every character is as good as any other character at top level play", which can only be taken to mean that tiers don't exist or aren't relevant at the top-level. Despite the slew of evidence pointing against this, he's only favoured a few recent tourney results in coming to this conclusion. @ Oiboi - is that a translation from that website, or is that your own interpretation of those grades?

I'm not quite sure whether you are conveniently ignoring my relevant posts (to salvage your ego? I don't see any other reason), or if you're just not able to understand the connection between your argument and what I have posted, three times - no less. Nevertheless, here is what you are asserting: Now, again, for the fourth, and hopefully final time: You are saying that through enough dedication, a top player can take a low-tier character and raise them to the same level as other high-tier characters that are played by other top players. The glaring flaw here is that this does not account for similar efforts by said other top players, who are using fundamentally better (higher-tier) characters, who have less risky/more rewarding options available. Moreover, due to the better options and tools for higher-tier characters, similarly high amounts of effort should theoretically result in higher adeptness for these characters than for characters with fewer tools/options (low-tiers). It's not like the low-tiers have more naturally safe or more naturally effective options that can be unlocked by X amount of practice - if this were true, they wouldn't be low-tier in the first place. Sure, top players of low-tiers like Ruu can practice and refine their game to make it as safe and effective as possible, but so can top players of high-tiers, and since high-tiers are fundamentally better characters, they will never be on even ground. If this does not help you understand, then I refer you back to my previous posts on this topic, which I sincerely hope you will read: http://www.dustloop.com/forums/showpost.php?p=293673&postcount=1091 (para 2) http://www.dustloop.com/forums/showpost.php?p=293695&postcount=1093 (paras 1, 4) http://www.dustloop.com/forums/showpost.php?p=293811&postcount=1100 (para 1; crude, but perhaps easier to understand) According to AtG's brackets, there were 58 non-high tiers used (B/C/D tiers), compared to 38 high tiers (S/A). There being over 1.5 times as many non-high tiers as high-tiers, certainly qualifies as "a lot more". I have no idea where your numbers are from. This to me, points out that you did not even bother to read/comprehend my argument in the first place, which is a recurring theme among your posts... why should I bother replying to you, Hellmonkey, if you don't even bother reading the responses? I note that it is expected, because I've been agreeing all along that AC is more balanced than #R, to the point where all characters can realistically compete. Where we differ is that you say that tiers have no bearing on character balance at the top, whereas I quite obviously disagree. You would realize this if you took the time to comprehend my previous posts. Thanks for taking my quote out of context. If you look to the following sentence in that excerpt, you'll see the justification. "Realistic to the average level currently being played" was referring to practical techniques and combos (as that is what was being discussed between myself and deci). I can see how you could get this mixed up with level of competition, which you seemed intent on discussing, so I won't hold this one against you. But on the whole, do please try to read more carefully so I don't have to repeat myself multiple times in the future. A closing note: If it's going to take you another 3 days to come up with a post similar to your last effort: Don't bother. Quite frankly, I find it childish that you've been repeatedly dodging my main point of contention and instead focused on trying to nitpick minor details wherever possible. If this trend doesn't improve, then I don't think there is anything more worth to discuss with you.

Jam/Dizzy can be looped without too much trouble (May/Bridget are sometimes tricky) using the [*j.D-D, land, pause, rejump] x 3, then end with the standard ender. Although depending on the launcher, it may be tough to get all of the reps in. Millia can go longer since she's not as light, up to a full dustloop, and IIRC rj.D-D reps can work on her as well.

Thanks, but no. Your whole idea of "players of low-tiers have massive growth potential while players of high-tiers sit and rot at the top!" is fundamentally flawed. All this shows is that AC high-tiers are less difficult to defeat than those in #R, a fact that most people would agree on. As for SBO, it's not surprising that a team reliant on S-tiers didn't come out on top, considering the total number of entrants of high-tiers compared to non high-tiers (hint: there are a lot more of the latter). As a player that should be winning roughly 60% of his matches, all that Ogawa has to do is advance beyond the first round 60% of the time in tourneys he enters to be playing as should be expected from his character. His team going 2-1 at SBO exceeds these expectations. But if "losing tons" refers to not winning 80+% of his matches like he used to then gee, I guess you may be right! It seems you missed the point entirely, please refer to my previous post on how top players win more often than average players, regardless of characters, regardless of tiers. When you have two good players, one of which uses a high-tier and one of which uses a low-tier, it's not uncommon to see things like the Shounen vs Ruu or Ogawa vs Kaqn massacres that go well beyond the bounds of the tiers or matchup lists. More than one or two? You're jumping to the conclusion that tiers must not matter, because S-tiers aren't dominating as they used to in some tournaments this year. While in actuality, this is to be expected at some point, as non high-tiers in AC aren't handicapped to the point of having no chance to win, and are also played in much greater numbers than the top 5. I take it you've never taken a statistics class?

No, I'm not saying this at all. (Please re-read what I wrote above) The second part of your statement here is quite a logical leap from the first. It also cannot be true, due to differing move properties inherent to each character (ie. tiers); playing a low-tier character at top-level play does not give you the benefit of 'higher potential' than a higher-tier character (if anything, it's the reverse). Yes, just as #R Koichi and #R/AC Ogawa were able to take their various 6-4 matchups and in reality turn them to something closer to 8-2, Ruu seems to be doing a similar thing with his character in AC. Also: AC Ogawa "losing tons"? Do you mean to say he's losing more than 40-45% of his matches (what his win ratio should be, according to his character tier) at high-level play? Various sources prove otherwise, I believe you're only focusing on a few key losses here. For the same reasons mentioned above, this is seen across all tier levels, not just the lower tiers of AC. Players like Shounen, Woshige, Ogawa, Ruu, etc all win a great deal more often than they 'should'. Also, it seems like you're valuing a select few tournament results very heavily in your conclusions, when these results can be explained away by probability. It is entirely within the laws of probability that a team consisting of all 4-6 matchups could make it to the finals of SBO (and win), but this doesn't change the fact that overall they will have a much tougher time on average than a team consisting of characters with mostly 6-4 matchups.

Realistic to the average level currently being played, and optimistic in the sense that players have enough technical expertise to not drop their combos or perform suboptimal oki / pressure patterns. Of course there are exceptional players, but those players would likely make any character of their choosing (with equal amounts of dedication) appear better than their tier reflects, even if their character is already high-tier. See: #R Koichi (MI), #R or AC Ogawa (ED)

Yes, and this is how basically how every tierlist in existence has been made. There is no point in ranking characters based on obscure, impractical possibilities that do not turn up in match play, so of course we rank according to overall/realistic (but still quite optimistic) levels of play. This is nothing new.

Very old, I believe those lists and matchup chart were released only a few months after AC arcade release in Japan (~March 2007). It's generally agreed that there are significant inaccuracies in that chart.

While it is true that skill is often the deciding factor, tiers certainly do influence competitive play; to say otherwise would be quite foolish. This thread is here for with basic information, rankings, and discussion of each character's strengths and weaknesses relative to the rest of the cast. Akin to coming into a combos thread and saying 'optimal combos are not important', comments like these do not promote discussion and therefore have no place here.

With permission from GB, I am reopening this thread. Please keep discussion on-topic and avoid pointless/spam comments, as they will not be tolerated. Opening post updated: I've consolidated the first posts with previous translations on Eddie, Millia, Dizzy, and Bridget. I've also added the raw data/rankings for A.B.A, Faust, and Zappa, all of which still require translation. If anyone out there could translate these remaining three, it would be much appreciated.

2S-5H is probably a better choice to use in close range when you've got level, as it gives frame advantage on block (on the other hand, 2S-6H is -6 / -11 on IB, and non-cancelable) and leads to a tensionless followup for good damage. Also remember that OS doesn't need knockdown in this matchup to do well. While Millia's sweep does have great range, you always need to string 2-3 normals before it to gatling to it, in practical strings. This requires extreme closeness or lots of momentum with moves like running 2K or even 5Sf. Yeah, I was hesitant to include OS's 2D as a move to watch for, as it can be baited and punished quite hard by Millia. I think that comment was only directed towards beating out Millia's j.D, as a lot of Millias like to spam this move when in the air and Hoss's 5H can kill her for trying. Against other moves, 5H may be too slow or not have the proper angle to hit (OS especially seems to have trouble AAing just above his head, though the same applies for Millia).

Rock It is 16F startup at Level 1 (slightly more depending on distance), which is pretty much unreactable at neutral, where your eye is not going to be sitting on OS watching for Rock It startup frames with your fingers on 6P. Millia's sweep is also ridiculously slow, at 13F. If done simultaneously it will beat RI, but if RI reaches Millia by the time the sweep comes out, she's getting hit. I'm not sure of the ones he was thinking of, but other than 2S-6H RC here are a few realistic, damaging combos that come to mind: Close 2S-5H-RI (lv2 or lv3) -> aircombo (CH) Fafnir -> standard followup Gunblaze (beats or CHs many of Millia's slow pokes; 6P most importantly) -> combo/loop Care to elaborate? Millia's neutral game is very weak against OS, he has several ways to punish her 2D/j.D at relatively little risk and she isn't going to win the majority of close poking wars she takes up on the ground. The only reliable way of getting in and getting a knockdown for her is via Pin. 5H should always CH Millia's j.D if timed/spaced properly. Even a rj.H-D dj.H-D SV is plenty of damage from a hard-hitting unprorated starter like 5H.

Since I went ahead and started the thread in the OS forums, I may as well copy over the info I posted: This post by sanshiki also sums up the thread and agrees with my thoughts on the matchup pretty well: