Tier lists are just personal preference. (Most people like chocolate but some don't. Same with MCOC champions) . Seatin's list is a fine tool. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. But I'm glad it's available for conversation.
Most people like large damage, strong utility and ability to easily clear content. I guess some people don't?
I guess I could see things shifting one category left or right based on preference but the "general idea" is usually pretty spot on.
He says in every video that the rankings are his opinion. He does have a good bit of experience playing so I'm sure his rankings aren't too far off. Some players will be more skilled using champions that others may find to be not as promising...
He is mostly right but I think he discourages some champions that I think are quite good like Antman and Red Skull. Could be my play type, I am not good with high skill characters like Void and Aegon and am just getting used to Ghost.
Tier lists are just personal preference. (Most people like chocolate but some don't. Same with MCOC champions) . Seatin's list is a fine tool. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. But I'm glad it's available for conversation.
Most people like large damage, strong utility and ability to easily clear content. I guess some people don't?
Most experienced players know that "strong utility" and "easily clear content" are subjective evaluations.
For example, I've felt since the very beginning that Invisible Woman has a ton of utility value, just in very unconventional ways. I'd place her higher than Seatin currently does. For example, what value does starting a fight invisible have? Depends on how you look at that. If you're fighting something that is immediately unblockable from the start, maybe a lot. Dave recently did a video on how that property could make IW an extremely strong option for legend runs because she doesn't have to joust at the start of the fight, and especially for quicker fights being able to immediately get the first hit in can save several seconds per fight - and when the fights themselves only last several seconds that could be a substantial percentage speed increase. And if you play her well, few champs can stack as much debuffs permanently onto a target as she can. Combined with certain mastery builds that can also be very valuable.
I think she's an excellent rank 2 candidate, but I recognize that not everyone would feel the same way. But I think that's because other people could see things differently, not because they just don't want what I think she can deliver.
I completely support tier list. Kabam and the developers themselves know some champs are more powerful than others, and this is even true for the comics as well. I consider it a research tool, so definitely use it as part of your research if you're unsure or even green in the game. They might give you some insight and info. However, it's still tier list owners opinion as they're clear on that. No tier list is perfect or can ever be perfect cos the game gets complex as time passes by, making SOME CHAMPS very good and others not so good or even bad. So tier list in general should be reviewed from time to time and updated.
If you're not in support of tier lists, that's your opinion and that's fine. But you can't tell me its practical and more sensible to maxed out a 5star Cable over Domino or Archangel.
Like I said I see these lists as a research tool, not the only tool.
If you're not in support of tier lists, that's your opinion and that's fine. But you can't tell me its practical and more sensible to maxed out a 5star Cable over Domino or Archangel.
I took my 6* IW to rank 2 before taking my 5* Quake to rank 5. I took my 5* King Groot to rank 4 before my 5* Hulk Ragnarok. I make rank up decisions all the time that run contrary to conventional wisdom, but I think those decisions are always sensible and practical for what I want out of them.
I think she's an excellent rank 2 candidate, but I recognize that not everyone would feel the same way. But I think that's because other people could see things differently, not because they just don't want what I think she can deliver.
I think you're encapsulating the issue. When I look at say, IW at high demi God vs God tier, I think "close enough". Doesn't mean I won't rank her up if she fills a need. I care more about the extremes, things like Yondu vs IMIW, its hard to imagine any scenario where IMIW is less valuable than Yondu for people who are thin on resources and have to make hard decisions.
Hope that makes sense nothing you said was unreasonable I just give the list more leniency maybe.
I think she's an excellent rank 2 candidate, but I recognize that not everyone would feel the same way. But I think that's because other people could see things differently, not because they just don't want what I think she can deliver.
I think you're encapsulating the issue. When I look at say, IW at high demi God vs God tier, I think "close enough". Doesn't mean I won't rank her up if she fills a need. I care more about the extremes, things like Yondu vs IMIW, its hard to imagine any scenario where IMIW is less valuable than Yondu for people who are thin on resources and have to make hard decisions.
Hope that makes sense nothing you said was unreasonable I just give the list more leniency maybe.
The post you quoted was in response to someone saying "most people like large damage, strong utility and ability to easily clear content. I guess some people don't?" implying that if people disagree with the evaluations, it must be because they want something totally weird, and not because they might simply evaluate things like "strong utility" differently. That's what that example specifically addresses: I think IW has very strong utility, but Seatin's tier list implies her value is only average - she's in the middle of all possible rankings.
But if you think at least no one could disagree at the extremes, then my other post above addresses that. My King Groot is r4. My Gladiator Hulk is r3. If you think that's because I just have no idea how to play the game or I did it on a dare, nope. That's not a gag rank up: that's a practical one. He might be at the very lowest tier on Seatin's list, and maybe there's good reason for him to be there, but I ranked him up because he's tanky, because he has special case uses, because I used him in Variant, and because I had tons of extra cosmic cats at the time.
I think you think we're all "grading" the tier list. Most people aren't. I'm certainly not. The question is whether the tiers are an objective measure of champion value and whether a general measure of value is even something you should factor too strongly into rank up decisions. I'm not saying Seatin's list is wrong. I'm saying no one's list could possibly be right for everyone.
The fact that he changes it from time to time just shows how reliable the list is.
Because meta changes from time to time? I think he doesnt change the tier list more often but thats just me
I don't watch his videos regularly, but just recently he moved Human Torch from "God Tier" to "Beyond God Tier" (the classification alone is ridiculous). It's not because of the buff, which provides very little improvement, but because he just "realized" how good he is.
A lot of the newer players make the mistake of ranking up champions based on his list rather than what they actually need. It's obviously their fault but it's dangerous to use his list as a reference point or measurement of how good a champ really is.
The post you quoted was in response to someone saying "most people like large damage, strong utility and ability to easily clear content. I guess some people don't?" implying that if people disagree with the evaluations, it must be because they want something totally weird, and not because they might simply evaluate things like "strong utility" differently. That's what that example specifically addresses: I think IW has very strong utility, but Seatin's tier list implies her value is only average - she's in the middle of all possible rankings.
But if you think at least no one could disagree at the extremes, then my other post above addresses that. My King Groot is r4. My Gladiator Hulk is r3. If you think that's because I just have no idea how to play the game or I did it on a dare, nope. That's not a gag rank up: that's a practical one. He might be at the very lowest tier on Seatin's list, and maybe there's good reason for him to be there, but I ranked him up because he's tanky, because he has special case uses, because I used him in Variant, and because I had tons of extra cosmic cats at the time.
I think you think we're all "grading" the tier list. Most people aren't. I'm certainly not. The question is whether the tiers are an objective measure of champion value and whether a general measure of value is even something you should factor too strongly into rank up decisions. I'm not saying Seatin's list is wrong. I'm saying no one's list could possibly be right for everyone.
The post she was quoting was my post...
If you mean that some decent champs can rank one way or the other for diff accounts, we agree. Is there however *no* objective measure of value? Of course there is. The economist in my can't imagine that if all heroes could be sold that they'd all be equally valuable. Barring a market though or at least access to the metrics, a tier list is the closest we get. And from what I can tell, Seatins is pretty close to what I'd also get though obviously I'm sure I might make a couple minor shuffles.
I feel that champions such as Wolverine and SW are too overhyped, while Blade does not quite deserve the Beyond God position as he is nowhere near being on par with, say, Hyperion and Aegon. Plus, champions with huge potential, such as Punisher, Vulture (insane power burn from Thermal Feedback) and even Howard the Duck, should be placed in at least a tier higher.
I feel that champions such as Wolverine and SW are too overhyped, while Blade does not quite deserve the Beyond God position as he is nowhere near being on par with, say, Hyperion and Aegon. Plus, champions with huge potential, such as Punisher, Vulture (insane power burn from Thermal Feedback) and even Howard the Duck, should be placed in at least a tier higher.
it's kinda obvious you have no idea how to play. Punisher has "huge potential"? How? That makes no sense. This is not as old as some other posts you revived, but please stop
Seatin is absolutely a great resource and ambassador for the game. His tier list is very specific when the champion needs awakening, synergies, and/or high signature or skill levels. To this day, I still watch all his tier list videos (in addition to his other content). I know for a fact I wouldn’t have progressed as much as I have without Seatin’s tutorials.
I think the community is helpful for certain information on champs that make parts of the game more manageable, but the tier lists are not really something I pay attention to. I rank my champs up when they are great fun to use and get content done for me
First thing seatin do not test all the champions fully.He says Doom is better than Claire why cause he never used Claire on full potential.He never tested taskmaster.He never tested omega red on it's full potential.He says killmonger damage is not even close to Cyclops,he compared 6* ran 1 sig 20 killmonger to Cyclops , everyone knows killmonger damage increases on based of his signature ability.
I feel that champions such as Wolverine and SW are too overhyped, while Blade does not quite deserve the Beyond God position as he is nowhere near being on par with, say, Hyperion and Aegon. Plus, champions with huge potential, such as Punisher, Vulture (insane power burn from Thermal Feedback) and even Howard the Duck, should be placed in at least a tier higher.
Howard the Duck? Vulture? Punisher? First off Punisher is very hard to get, and you kinda need some RNG to get him. Also he has some fantastic bleeds. That's it Vulture has the Chitauri Energy, which steals power away, but why use him when you can use someone else like Doc Ock, Dormmamu, Magik, and much better power control champions that actually work Howard the Duck has some okay damage, thunderquack not bad at all, but again why use him when you have ghost, warlock, Stark Enhanced, Sentinel, Darkhawk, and much better champs? Anything above C tier in my opinion in his tier list are close enough that ranking either of them up isn't mistake. Up there in those tiers, you can have an argument. But anything below is probably should not be ranked up in my opinion unless you need them for a niche use
First thing seatin do not test all the champions fully.He says Doom is better than Claire why cause he never used Claire on full potential.He never tested taskmaster.He never tested omega red on it's full potential.He says killmonger damage is not even close to Cyclops,he compared 6* ran 1 sig 20 killmonger to Cyclops , everyone knows killmonger damage increases on based of his signature ability.
he's been saying he will do a taskmaster video for the past couple months. It is never going to happen.
Comments
I guess I could see things shifting one category left or right based on preference but the "general idea" is usually pretty spot on.
For example, I've felt since the very beginning that Invisible Woman has a ton of utility value, just in very unconventional ways. I'd place her higher than Seatin currently does. For example, what value does starting a fight invisible have? Depends on how you look at that. If you're fighting something that is immediately unblockable from the start, maybe a lot. Dave recently did a video on how that property could make IW an extremely strong option for legend runs because she doesn't have to joust at the start of the fight, and especially for quicker fights being able to immediately get the first hit in can save several seconds per fight - and when the fights themselves only last several seconds that could be a substantial percentage speed increase. And if you play her well, few champs can stack as much debuffs permanently onto a target as she can. Combined with certain mastery builds that can also be very valuable.
I think she's an excellent rank 2 candidate, but I recognize that not everyone would feel the same way. But I think that's because other people could see things differently, not because they just don't want what I think she can deliver.
If you're not in support of tier lists, that's your opinion and that's fine. But you can't tell me its practical and more sensible to maxed out a 5star Cable over Domino or Archangel.
Like I said I see these lists as a research tool, not the only tool.
I think you're encapsulating the issue. When I look at say, IW at high demi God vs God tier, I think "close enough". Doesn't mean I won't rank her up if she fills a need. I care more about the extremes, things like Yondu vs IMIW, its hard to imagine any scenario where IMIW is less valuable than Yondu for people who are thin on resources and have to make hard decisions.
Hope that makes sense nothing you said was unreasonable I just give the list more leniency maybe.
I think you're encapsulating the issue. When I look at say, IW at high demi God vs God tier, I think "close enough". Doesn't mean I won't rank her up if she fills a need. I care more about the extremes, things like Yondu vs IMIW, its hard to imagine any scenario where IMIW is less valuable than Yondu for people who are thin on resources and have to make hard decisions.
Hope that makes sense nothing you said was unreasonable I just give the list more leniency maybe.
The post you quoted was in response to someone saying "most people like large damage, strong utility and ability to easily clear content. I guess some people don't?" implying that if people disagree with the evaluations, it must be because they want something totally weird, and not because they might simply evaluate things like "strong utility" differently. That's what that example specifically addresses: I think IW has very strong utility, but Seatin's tier list implies her value is only average - she's in the middle of all possible rankings.
But if you think at least no one could disagree at the extremes, then my other post above addresses that. My King Groot is r4. My Gladiator Hulk is r3. If you think that's because I just have no idea how to play the game or I did it on a dare, nope. That's not a gag rank up: that's a practical one. He might be at the very lowest tier on Seatin's list, and maybe there's good reason for him to be there, but I ranked him up because he's tanky, because he has special case uses, because I used him in Variant, and because I had tons of extra cosmic cats at the time.
I think you think we're all "grading" the tier list. Most people aren't. I'm certainly not. The question is whether the tiers are an objective measure of champion value and whether a general measure of value is even something you should factor too strongly into rank up decisions. I'm not saying Seatin's list is wrong. I'm saying no one's list could possibly be right for everyone.
A lot of the newer players make the mistake of ranking up champions based on his list rather than what they actually need. It's obviously their fault but it's dangerous to use his list as a reference point or measurement of how good a champ really is.
Also, nothing on seatin. Fantastic Youtuber.
If you mean that some decent champs can rank one way or the other for diff accounts, we agree. Is there however *no* objective measure of value? Of course there is. The economist in my can't imagine that if all heroes could be sold that they'd all be equally valuable. Barring a market though or at least access to the metrics, a tier list is the closest we get. And from what I can tell, Seatins is pretty close to what I'd also get though obviously I'm sure I might make a couple minor shuffles.
Plus, champions with huge potential, such as Punisher, Vulture (insane power burn from Thermal Feedback) and even Howard the Duck, should be placed in at least a tier higher.
This is not as old as some other posts you revived, but please stop
First off Punisher is very hard to get, and you kinda need some RNG to get him. Also he has some fantastic bleeds. That's it
Vulture has the Chitauri Energy, which steals power away, but why use him when you can use someone else like Doc Ock, Dormmamu, Magik, and much better power control champions that actually work
Howard the Duck has some okay damage, thunderquack not bad at all, but again why use him when you have ghost, warlock, Stark Enhanced, Sentinel, Darkhawk, and much better champs?
Anything above C tier in my opinion in his tier list are close enough that ranking either of them up isn't mistake. Up there in those tiers, you can have an argument. But anything below is probably should not be ranked up in my opinion unless you need them for a niche use