Does a character being harder to play, or more skilled make it okay for it to stronger than the rest of the cast?

Does a character being harder to play, or more skilled make it okay for it to stronger than the rest of the cast?

Image unrelated

Other urls found in this thread:

danbooru.donmai.us/posts/2495408
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

for me yes yun in 3s is really op but to dominate and maintain pressure with yun is also quite skillful so i quite respect that,
there is a player on fightcade we have played a lot of time and he literally was my first opponent on fightcade he play dudley but after learning oro and practicing i was able to beat his dudley and urien than he picked yun so i was really not able to win against him, now he always play yun against me

Of course. That's why learning to play them is rewarding.

>man feet
Capcom is getting lazy as shit. They used to be gods.

No. There is zero justification for /purposely/ making a character strong.

The bottom line is, skilled players will rise to the top, and if there options are restricted to this one character whose only barrier is skill level, then it won't matter.

You're intentionally restricting choices a person can actually play by doing this.

You mean Genji right?
Because no, it means a game becomes unplayable when a few good people start picking them

IMO it should be as balanced as it can with everyone being fairly equal, but if it is significantly harder like having pretzels and all kinds of crazy stuff then if you can pull that off you deserve a bonus.

They should be as hard to play against as they are to play

It depends on what level of play your game is aimed at.

If you're balancing primarily for tournament-level play, then it's most definitely not okay. At that level players are expected to be as good as it gets, so a higher skill ceiling should be irrelevant. A character that is better than the rest is an obvious imbalance regardless of how hard she is to play.

If you're aiming at lower levels of play though, it can be a viable way to balance a character. If a character is powerful, but that power is hard to use, it can be assumed that the majority of players will never be able to properly use that power. In that way, the powerful character rewards the skillful player, which is what fighting games are supposed to do.

The problem is that such a balance is hard to find. If the power difference is too big, the character might end up dominating even in the hands of a noob, and just gets more powerful the better they get. If the difference is too small, noobs will simply never use her and/or complain about how she's too shit.

Alex and zangief are really strong IMO, but they are slow as fuck and dont have really good tools like a normal anti-air

I would say yes, generally characters like this have more moves than the usual thus having more ways to wreck opponents, take Lei in Tekken or Angel on KoF for example.

No. I think characters that are harder to use are their own reward. The reason to use them is because they're more interesting to play or because low skill ceiling ones are just boring in comparison.

AUUUUUUUGHHHHHHHHHHH
danbooru.donmai.us/posts/2495408

Juri has a hime cut.

Yes, and?
See those two rolls of hair on either side of her head?
That's long hair curled up.

>Yes, and?
And it's the best thing ever.

No, a hard to play character should not be outright stronger than everyone else just as an easy to play character should not be weaker.

Image unrelated? I've been waiting for a Juri thread all day

>female character
>inherently has less health and does less damage

Why does this continue to happen?

>Alex and zangief
>dont have really good tools like a normal anti-air
Are we playing the same game? They both have easy as fuck jab aa's allowing them to 50/50 you when you're landing between either a command grab or meaty.

If the character is difficult enough

name one example, one where the character herself would logically be on equal footing

Why in the fuck would they remove so many of her attacks that made her juri. Then on top of they give multiple new attacks and she doesn't feel familiar at all. The only thing that's the same is how she looks. She should have just been a new character.
>no dive kick
>to multiple fireball holding
>to teleport
>FSE sucks and doesn't last long or allow creativity

Capcom clearly doesn't think so since Ibuki is one of the worst and Ryu is one of the best

I don't think so. Competitive games should always have every single character be viable and ideally a perfect 50/50 chance of victory for each side.

You pick a character because you like how it looks and plays and that's it.

Mitsuko

why does capcom hate ibuki?

If they make her good scrubs will cry bitch tears like in SF4, hence why Ryu is as good as he is so scrubs can do a shit ton of damage with 0 work

Yes, but when the difference between the top tiers and the rest becomes too large then it's a problem, no matter how skillful you need to be.

Braindead characters being overpowered is fucking inexcusable though LOOKING AT YOU CT V-13 YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

No as those who play a lot will reach that level, which means top level play will be dominated by that character

Plus something like that isn't easy to make work. Especially in the case of fighting games, there may just be one thing that is super easy to pull of that wasn't meant to be meaning that character is broken at all levels. Or it may turn out that some tech makes that character useless

Laura and makoto don't. In fact the damage one isn't true at all, only the vagina tax on health is a real thing

...

>female character
>does less damage
This is almost never the case

It is in belt scrollers.

No.
But they should be allowed to have strong tools if they're hard to execute, see: Viper's seismo feint meterless FADC stuff.

If when you say "harder" you mean hard execution or aiming or whatever related to only the character you play - no.

If you mean some kind of mindgame - it depends.

Interesting gameplay should be a reward, not a win.

>Blaze
>Tiris
>Cody

Females tend to have high damage in side scrollers too

>Cody

The level of skill required to use a character has nothing to do with the characters overall effectiveness in m a match. If the character is high tier and has a high execution barrier, the two coincide. Being able to use the character, given all the execution barriers and fundamental design choices that make him harder to play as won't delineate the ease of use. Tiers are dependent on the ease of use, a character dependent on execution barriers and tons of other mechanical or design choices will ultimately come under the same scrutiny as a character without any of those problems, hence why charge characters and shoto characters have always been rivals in tier theory.

Your theory only holds up if the character is actually good once you master the execution.

flat

Not at all. Character tiers are drawn from how well the character is applied to any situation. The character having a high execution window has nothing to do with whether or not you can punish anti-air, tick throws, or block strings. It all comes down to practicality and ease of use. Being bad with the character will still enable you to punish things that other characters might not be able to due to frame data and an assortment of other benefits.

No.

A perfectly played Exdeath in Dissidia is literally impossible to win against and that should never be allowed on the basis of ''no one will git that gud'' because if it was a more popular game someone would have