Read on Twitter
One of the things that is always abundantly clear around the time of even a modest title update for a fighter is that there is a prevailing thought amongst quite a few that it is natural and necessary to "dethrone," if you will, a top tier character because that's what you do
Here, the very notion of there being a character (or, more often, a group) that stands out above the rest is something that not only *can* be workshopped and ironed out the longer the game plays out, but *should.*
Now naturally, when you push back on that, the goal posts shift
Now naturally, when you push back on that, the goal posts shift
"Oh, I want characters to be top *and* good, but I just want them to be less *dumb!*"
Well then what is "dumb?" This often ranges from everything to "this is a bad matchup for the character(s) I play" to "This character is degenerate and difficult/not fun to fight against"
Well then what is "dumb?" This often ranges from everything to "this is a bad matchup for the character(s) I play" to "This character is degenerate and difficult/not fun to fight against"
It's a far too vague descriptor, which would make it a pretty shoddy metric for determining what should be nerfed about a character.
It's also an ouroboros: when, naturally, a new character rises to stand out above the rest, they, too, will be seen as an oversight
It's also an ouroboros: when, naturally, a new character rises to stand out above the rest, they, too, will be seen as an oversight
There's also the issue of people, when they say this, seemingly having a delusion that there's like a knob you can adjust from "top" to "just below top ten" to "in the conversation for top 5," and balancing is just a matter of twisting the knob to find the Goldilocks scenario
Sometimes a character has nerf after nerf after nerf (Modern examples: Akuma USF4, Catwoman Injustice 2), and no matter what, their very base toolset, the one you can't upend without major consequences, is just always going to work in the particular way the game plays
I would see people say "Well, NRS is so bad at balance that they never fixed Catwoman in I2," but she had been nerfed considerably, going back as far as the very first patch for the game. "Well they didn't go far enough!" And then it just would come down to hyper-niche grievances
It's a total dead end to have this sticking point of "Always bring the people considered top down," because that isn't a static position, and it can change with perception instead of results. Much like the stock market, which is the analogy I always use to describe tier lists
What I would advise against is believing that because a top character (who isn't just steamrolling matchups due to 1 or 2 moves) didn't "drop" from being considered top, that is a failure. Stability isn't an undesired state, but I fear many think it is
To me, this mindset burns you out far more than constantly playing. It can lead one to believe that they are constantly in the endgame state, where nothing more is to be learned and a heavy developer hand is needed to "shake things up," despite only being maybe a year or so old
Bear in mind this is *not* an argument for no intervention, but simply highlighting what I believe to be an issue in *perception* that causes frustration and anger, and not *reality*. As players, we tend to get coddled a lot and start to believe that no one is smarter than us
In a way it's true, right? Unlike devs, we aren't focused on maintaining the massive infrastructure of a game - we just play and dissect the game for what it is at the moment, and hundreds of skilled players accrue more valuable data for game balance than tens of varying skill
But where the issue lies is *goals,* and how those goals affect the ways the accrued data is *interpreted*
There are ways in which player and dev goals align: no one wants a broken mess where one character is so obviously dominant that it hurts player's fun, for example
There are ways in which player and dev goals align: no one wants a broken mess where one character is so obviously dominant that it hurts player's fun, for example
But *how* do you determine dominance? Players' data points are usually when a character is winning/frequenting top spots at a high level, populated tournament or used as a side pick throughout the bracket, alongside anecdotal evidence (online ranked play, local play, etc.)
Devs, on the other hand, are more likely to use their ability to monitor the stats and character use of *hundreds of thousands,* possibly millions, of players, and analyze from there.
The key differences here are, as said earlier, the *goals* and *interpretation of data*
The key differences here are, as said earlier, the *goals* and *interpretation of data*
A dev, naturally, wants a massive player-base playing - skill level likely isn't going to be discriminated against in their analysis. At the same time, they may have had specific design intentions that were either not met or crunched by time into a compromise to be amended later
They may visually see a high-level tournament and note that, say, Jacqui in MK11 was used quite a bit in bracket and placed 2nd, but at the same time, that is a pool of roughly 100-200 players. Their internal data may show that Jacqui ranks quite *low* in characters used online
That tournament data is useful, but it's a very small percentage of the playerbase. Why aren't more players playing her if she's so busted? There's a million reasons possible here, almost inconceivable to narrow it down to just a few. Not only that, *how* is she busted?
Is the frame data on some of her moves too good? Is it a whole *move* that is too good in its current incarnation? It might be hard to change - see the recent Kombat Kast where @Osu16Bit explained how long it took the team to scrap together just the *UI* for kustom variations
If a move needs to work completely differently just to be more fair, that will probably take lots of time if it requires the animation to look different.
Before you even get there, you still have to determine if the low user rate and tournament successes are or aren't anomalies
Before you even get there, you still have to determine if the low user rate and tournament successes are or aren't anomalies
My point is, there are *many* ways to interpret the boatloads of data a dev has to parse through in order to achieve a very broad goal across many skill levels and types of players.
For a player, however? Most of that is, frankly, gaga. Our goals are far deontological in nature
For a player, however? Most of that is, frankly, gaga. Our goals are far deontological in nature
Typically we want to play the character we identify with in some way, play in the specific way we enjoy playing and expressing ourselves, and, for the vast majority, win far, far more often than we lose.
For us, game balance is important because that gets in the way of our goals
For us, game balance is important because that gets in the way of our goals
If our character is bad? Balance issue. If someone is not fun to play against? Balance issue. If I can't play the way I want to? Partial balance issue, although assuredly more complex.
And to analyze that balance, most rely on their interpretations of "high-level play"
And to analyze that balance, most rely on their interpretations of "high-level play"
For some, that is watching tournament or online sets between players that appear to be playing at a high-level, and for others, it's their anecdotal experience playing.
So players tend to hyperfocus on one specific area. Can you spot the problem with that already?
So players tend to hyperfocus on one specific area. Can you spot the problem with that already?
Anytime you get boxed into thinking about one area with iffy indicators like "high-level play" and highly personalized interests, these goals, while certainly not bad or in any way unreasonable, might become quite myopic as the deontological nature takes root!
If you love, say, Mileena (stans, shush) and really only want to play her, do you give a damn whether or not, say, Scorpion is very good? Or if you prefer to throw projectiles a lot - if you are losing and frustrated, you will *always* think rushdown tactics are way too good
This can get bad in long running series - SF2 fan may love 1 thing about, say, Dhalsim in SF2, but in later SF iterations, his, idk, http://c.mk slide isn't as good as it was then. In your mind, this is fundamental to the character being fun and makes you cranky
It may not matter that in the context of the newer games, his http://c.mk may not even factor in to his particular strengths *or* weaknesses, it's just not the *same* as when you enjoyed him, so the character doesn't feel good and you grumble that it needs to change
Here, your complaint isn't tied in to whether or not the move is important to use and lacking *right now,* it's about the *principle* of it not being good and why that isn't fun for *you*.
This is all to say, our idiosyncrasies play a *huge* factor in our personal enjoyment
This is all to say, our idiosyncrasies play a *huge* factor in our personal enjoyment
To tie this back to the beginning, we as players are stroked into believing we have all the answers, but the truth is our goals are often mired in self-interest, and are also more pointed and direct than the goals of the developer, who *have* to look at it a different way
"You have to nerf the characters we perceive as top tier right now" isn't really a simple request - there's lots of factors to consider, and even then, it's stabbing into the darkness and hoping you find gold. Time and resources are in play for them, not for us
As you can expect from that, our goals are going to clash, time and again. One other thing is this: developers are expected to be non-temperamental, gracious, and understanding - they're not only having a conversation, but also engaging a customer/potential customer
Players don't *have* to woo, so they often have tempers. It might be a sense of wasted time, it might be frustration from losing, it might be stress because they're a "professional" player and losing isn't really an option for them, but whatever the case, it gets toxic frequently
Devs can *literally* state several truths about their intentions, and that won't register to the players because it isn't aligned with their goals so it was ignored. And sometimes it's vice versa, too! Lots of talking past each other, rarely having an understanding
It's understandable why players would have little patience for dev hesitation on balance changes, and it's also understandable why it's not just as simple as flicking a switch for devs to balance things.
At some point, we're going to have to reconcile these two truths!
At some point, we're going to have to reconcile these two truths!
Humbling ourselves as players, to understand that just because we are the best equipped to mine a game doesn't mean we have the ability to dig out all the gold so quickly, will be important. Recognizing when our frustration is more *personal* than it is *helpful* is also key
We might be bored of playing a game, but there are many good reasons to doubt that it's because there's "nothing left" in the game. Optimization rarely comes quickly, and perceptions change constantly. Your "4 character in top 8" today may be "8 characters in top 8" the next time
Lobbying for nerfs and buffs (let's not pretend this isn't a cottage industry) requires having to at least *appear* to know it all, which means you have to put yourself in the reality that everything is stripped down, and what we have now is what we'll have forever.
It sucks!
It sucks!
It puts players in a bad space that may impede not only their enjoyment but their progress, it puts pressure on devs to make galaxy-brain choices that could negatively impact the entire game, and it just doesn't reflect the reality we live in where we're all learning each day
Talking it out, having these discussions about tiers and strength, etc. isn't the problem, it's that this happens in a bubble, where "the highest level of play" is always achieved (conveniently by you or by someone you like), therefore it's now just "informed" vs. "uninformed."
We've all seen Gootecks, isn't it incredibly frustrating to see someone deny basic science and facts so flippantly? We apply that same level of exasperation for people with different fighting game opinions, and that sucks because that *isn't* hard science most of the time!
"Top tiers should always be nerfed" isn't a hard rule, "Low tiers should always be buffed" isn't a hard rule, we're all playing with fire and trying to craft glass. Glass is easy to break!
Move away from deontology, embrace a more open and understanding philosophy
Move away from deontology, embrace a more open and understanding philosophy
If the only fun you get is through a reality that is likely not our own where you enjoy the game...my advice would probably be to not argue from that position? Maybe just move on? I want you to be happy, that doesn't sound like a happy setup to me!
