http://shoryuken.com/content/only-problem-mvc3-you-3694/
 
Anyone else read this article.  He makes some good points, but I think its a unfair comparison to say that being easy characters in a fighting game is like doing cheap tactics in Starcraft or using a noob-tube in call of duty.  2 completely different things.  If a zerg rush fails your set back, and a noob-tube is just one dimensional, its just a grenade launcher and that's it.  In a fighting game if you find a character that's great on a basic level and considered "cheap" at a beginners level, guaranteed then that character is double as good at a tourny level since the effort to be good in the first place is small.  People pick those characters in the first place because they have obvious advantages over other characters.  The article also mentions that these characters are put in deliberately to make newer players feel like they are actually skilled so that they don't get discouraged.  I don't buy that either, why would you spend years making a great roster only to have more than half of your player base only using 6-7 characters over and over.  In SF4 people usually are Ken, Ryu, and Saget.  Why?  because their easy to play, but their balanced.  And you see those characters climbing Tourny brackets. I can live with people spamming beams and I'll learn to get around that, but I can't live with the idea that I'm forced to play certain characters if I want to have a better % at winning.
 
I don't consider mvc3 to be broken in any way since its difficult to balance such a fast paced and chaotic fighting game, but to say there's nothing wrong with it seems a bit off.  Its questionable if your playing a fighting game where someone can learn a combo that can kill a character at full health, and sometimes (especially in mvc2) even kill all your characters.  The author of the Shoryuken article just seems a bit misguided.

FACE IT

lol topic derailed.  I was wrong to think I could have a serious discussion about this haha.

"In a fighting game if you find a character that's great on a basic level and considered "cheap" at a beginners level, guaranteed then that character is double as good at a tourny level since the effort to be good in the first place is small."

Well I read it, but I'm not sure what my opinion is worth given I don't own MvC and I've never been brave enough to play ssfIV online...BUT, he does sound a little...deep, into the genre already. He mentions that there are 'entry level' strategies that are deliberately effective to allow new players to be fairly competitive, but he then seems to change tack and say, but if you're good enough you should be finding ways round this. What about other entry level players? If they start playing and get reamed by a guy playing sentinel over and over, then they're the ones who are really suffering, not the guys who are good enough to counter that stuff. 
 
It just reads like a guy writing a very long winded version of l2p and completely missing the point, again, my opinion on fighting games is near worthless.

 Ha ha, sorry.
I kinda jumped around the text, it was kinda long, but I mostly agree.
 This is a game that needs alot of practice to master.

Don't agree, sir. By your logic then, full-screen fireball spam would reign supreme in high level play in Street Fighter or Marvel, which we know isn't the case.

" @thehuntsmen5434 said:

"In a fighting game if you find a character that's great on a basic level and considered "cheap" at a beginners level, guaranteed then that character is double as good at a tourny level since the effort to be good in the first place is small."

Nonsense.  Some characters have a low-entry level because of a low execution barrier, or what have you. Not all of them survive at higher levels of play.  Balrog, for example, is effective at a lower level of play in SF because he has strong, basic tools. At a higher level, those who stick with him need to work harder because he still only relies on the same same style that was advantageous against poorer opponents; higher-skilled opposition know his game-plan going in. Makoto on the other hand... "

I pretty much agree entirely with the article.

" Don't agree, sir. By your logic then, full-screen fireball spam would reign supreme in high level play in Street Fighter or Marvel, which we know isn't the case. "

I think people just need to stop complaining about certain characters being "better" than other ones. If all the characters were equally good, then what would be the point of having different characters in the first place? 

Well the idea of an MvC game being balanced is kinda silly. The point of the game is to have a crazy roster of characters, some might be easier than others, but it makes you feel good that you just beat some dude's cheap-ass team with a bunch of joke characters. Unless this was dramatically changed over MvC2, I haven't played 3 yet really. 

" If all the characters were equally good, then what would be the point of having different characters in the first place?  "

" I think people just need to stop complaining about certain characters being "better" than other ones. If all the characters were equally good, then what would be the point of having different characters in the first place?  "

" @thehuntsmen5434: I've actually gotten back into SSFIV and the number of Shotos playing ranked games has dropped off PRECARIOUSLY and it'll probably happen in MVC3 as well for the same reason: The more people play as certain characters online, the better everyone gets at fighting them. Within two weeks of going online in SSFIV, I beat 75% of the shotos I came up against because only around 25% of them were actually doing well. The others were just Shoto-by-Numbers. It might take longer with MVC3 because of the variations in teams, but eventually people will turn away from "easy" characters because everyone will have the most experience fighting them. "

People, Marvel vs Capcom 3 is so bad that people should get paid to get that game. People need to stop playing that game and get back to Super Street Fighter IV
 

MvC3 is the sex.

" @MooseyMcMan said:

" I think people just need to stop complaining about certain characters being "better" than other ones. If all the characters were equally good, then what would be the point of having different characters in the first place?  "

There's a difference between "these characters are completely different" versus "these characters are so vastly underpowered that they have almost no chance against any other character played with a modicum of skill."  Sure, sometimes this is intentional (see: Dan Hibiki), but poor balance can lower wider interest in a fighting game.  I don't really find it fun or interesting when I watch tournament footage and realize that the majority of the players are all using the same damn characters.  It's what put me off of MvC2 back in the day; the people that played it religiously in the university's game center would always play the same teams against each other with absolutely no variety.  If you have a roster in excess of 50+ characters and everyone is just using three or four on a regular basis, something is fucked up. "

I am a complete Capcom fighter noob, and am having a ton of fun learning this game. I'm also trying to avoid spammy or cheap victories since they won't be any help to me in the long run. I guess it's a good thing for casuals playing local only but I can tell you that relying completely on one-trick-pony tactics will be frustrating when you're good enough to win some, but not good enough to figure out what went wrong when you lost.

Sometimes when I hear Vinny talk about his intense fear of multiplayer games, I cringe and feel bad that he's missing out on some pretty cool game experiences.  There are some mental rewards and stimulants that require human opponents, and you're missing out if you don't give it a shot.
 
And then I read an article like that and have no ethical ability to suggest anyone subject themselves to the snotty attitudes of other people.  How can anyone expect a person to try a game if it requires the kind of degradation that article offers?  Why would anyone care to learn if they're going to be called stupid, dim-witted and moronic for hours upon hours?

"  http://shoryuken.com/content/only-problem-mvc3-you-3694/  Anyone else read this article.  He makes some good points, but I think its a unfair comparison to say that being easy characters in a fighting game is like doing cheap tactics in Starcraft or using a noob-tube in call of duty.  2 completely different things.  If a zerg rush fails your set back, and a noob-tube is just one dimensional, its just a grenade launcher and that's it.  In a fighting game if you find a character that's great on a basic level and considered "cheap" at a beginners level, guaranteed then that character is double as good at a tourny level since the effort to be good in the first place is small.  People pick those characters in the first place because they have obvious advantages over other characters.  The article also mentions that these characters are put in deliberately to make newer players feel like they are actually skilled so that they don't get discouraged.  I don't buy that either, why would you spend years making a great roster only to have more than half of your player base only using 6-7 characters over and over.  In SF4 people usually are Ken, Ryu, and Saget.  Why?  because their easy to play, but their balanced.  And you see those characters climbing Tourny brackets. I can live with people spamming beams and I'll learn to get around that, but I can't live with the idea that I'm forced to play certain characters if I want to have a better % at winning. I don't consider mvc3 to be broken in any way since its difficult to balance such a fast paced and chaotic fighting game, but to say there's nothing wrong with it seems a bit off.  Its questionable if your playing a fighting game where someone can learn a combo that can kill a character at full health, and sometimes (especially in mvc2) even kill all your characters.  The author of the Shoryuken article just seems a bit misguided. "

I don't know man, it looks pretty.

" Sometimes when I hear Vinny talk about his intense fear of multiplayer games, I cringe and feel bad that he's missing out on some pretty cool game experiences.  There are some mental rewards and stimulants that require human opponents, and you're missing out if you don't give it a shot.  And then I read an article like that and have no ethical ability to suggest anyone subject themselves to the snotty attitudes of other people.  How can anyone expect a person to try a game if it requires the kind of degradation that article offers?  Why would anyone care to learn if they're going to be called stupid, dim-witted and moronic for hours upon hours? "

All vs games boil down to using some combo of the same 6 characters....MvC3 is really no different.

" All vs games boil down to using some combo of the same 6 characters....MvC3 is really no different. "

" @sammo21 said:

" All vs games boil down to using some combo of the same 6 characters....MvC3 is really no different. "

What I'm surprised is that most fighting companies don't make slight balance patches nearly monthly to try to work it out over time.  As much as I don't want to play Starcraft, I appreciate that Blizzard does so much testing and tweaking to get the game working so anyone can beat anyone.  With a fighter you have much more factions to balance, but much smaller chunks to change.  I would enjoy if the metagame was constantly changing, where the latest patch cuts a god tier character's priority ever so slightly and buffs some of the bottom tier with better damage potential, but that seems to be more of a yearly thing that you have to pay 40 bucks for.  Maybe that's a Japanese-v-Western thing, considering how little the Japanese understand online, and how difficult it would be to patch a bunch of arcade machines around Tokyo. "

" @Brodehouse said:

" @sammo21 said:

" All vs games boil down to using some combo of the same 6 characters....MvC3 is really no different. "

What I'm surprised is that most fighting companies don't make slight balance patches nearly monthly to try to work it out over time.  As much as I don't want to play Starcraft, I appreciate that Blizzard does so much testing and tweaking to get the game working so anyone can beat anyone.  With a fighter you have much more factions to balance, but much smaller chunks to change.  I would enjoy if the metagame was constantly changing, where the latest patch cuts a god tier character's priority ever so slightly and buffs some of the bottom tier with better damage potential, but that seems to be more of a yearly thing that you have to pay 40 bucks for.  Maybe that's a Japanese-v-Western thing, considering how little the Japanese understand online, and how difficult it would be to patch a bunch of arcade machines around Tokyo. "

Its totally not even about that. I mean take Fei Long from SF4 to the current AE edition. In the beginning, he was reguarded as a throwaway weak character and now he's like god tier according to a poll of top Japanese players. Just from looking at the change log, the changes were very subtle. Just some frame differences here and there, nothing drastic like pump up his damage 20%.   In starcraft, everybody plays one of the three races, so the chance of players finding exploits/really good tactics, is a lot easier then a game where you have 30+ characters, and the popular ones/easy to pick up is what the majority plays, there just isn't enough people to look and discover the others. So no gameplay patch would be required since the less popular characters aren't necessarily worse, they are just less popular.   As the game evolves and core audience gets bored of the same characters/or have found out how to beat all the easy to pick up characters (*coughs, Sentinal!!!!), the rest of the cast would be used. At least thats how the majority of the fighting game community sees it. And yes it doesn't always work out since fighting games like King of Fighters and TVC which had been released in the past two years have just died to the Darwinism of better fighting games out there.   Personally, a game can be a bit too constantly patched, so much that I wouldn't want to try to find the best tactics since all my work in finding it would be wiped out in the next patch.  "

" @StaticFalconar said:

" @Brodehouse said:

" @sammo21 said:

" All vs games boil down to using some combo of the same 6 characters....MvC3 is really no different. "

What I'm surprised is that most fighting companies don't make slight balance patches nearly monthly to try to work it out over time.  As much as I don't want to play Starcraft, I appreciate that Blizzard does so much testing and tweaking to get the game working so anyone can beat anyone.  With a fighter you have much more factions to balance, but much smaller chunks to change.  I would enjoy if the metagame was constantly changing, where the latest patch cuts a god tier character's priority ever so slightly and buffs some of the bottom tier with better damage potential, but that seems to be more of a yearly thing that you have to pay 40 bucks for.  Maybe that's a Japanese-v-Western thing, considering how little the Japanese understand online, and how difficult it would be to patch a bunch of arcade machines around Tokyo. "

Its totally not even about that. I mean take Fei Long from SF4 to the current AE edition. In the beginning, he was reguarded as a throwaway weak character and now he's like god tier according to a poll of top Japanese players. Just from looking at the change log, the changes were very subtle. Just some frame differences here and there, nothing drastic like pump up his damage 20%.   In starcraft, everybody plays one of the three races, so the chance of players finding exploits/really good tactics, is a lot easier then a game where you have 30+ characters, and the popular ones/easy to pick up is what the majority plays, there just isn't enough people to look and discover the others. So no gameplay patch would be required since the less popular characters aren't necessarily worse, they are just less popular.   As the game evolves and core audience gets bored of the same characters/or have found out how to beat all the easy to pick up characters (*coughs, Sentinal!!!!), the rest of the cast would be used. At least thats how the majority of the fighting game community sees it. And yes it doesn't always work out since fighting games like King of Fighters and TVC which had been released in the past two years have just died to the Darwinism of better fighting games out there.   Personally, a game can be a bit too constantly patched, so much that I wouldn't want to try to find the best tactics since all my work in finding it would be wiped out in the next patch.  "

This this this. Also BB has received multiple patches and hasn't even been out for 7 months yet, but those guys are kinda insane anyways (and MAD Japanese).  MvC3 has only been out for... 11 days? No character has proven themselves to be brokenly good or brokenly bad yet. WTF is up with this endless deluge of nerd tears? "

I guarantee, give it a month and all the pros won't be using sentinel with lvl3 xfactor. It's gonna be good. 

Sentinel isn't going anywhere, he has one of the, if not the best assists in the game. 

"MvC3 has a problem with me D'=" (that was my initial reaction).

Nah. Capcom doesn't have to put in cheap characters or broken characters. They're either choosing to do that which is stupid or they're accidentally doing it which means fix it.

Some characters feel obviously unbalanced towards certain characters, but overall its difficult to say because you can choose from 3 characters and use assists.  So even if you feel Sentinel is unfair you have 2 other characters to swap out with.  How could you possibly balance a game where 3 characters are equal to their other 3 opponents.  But getting 1 of those 3 characters to be balanced with 1 of the other 3 characters could be possible to some degree, taken into account each players skill levels.  Its the obvious stuff that doesn't feel right like level 3 X factor doing so much chip damage.  Or when you play someone like Thor who does a ton of damage and has life life, but is slow as hell.  Then you go play Sentinel, and he has the highest life in the game and almost the same damage output as thor, but with more reach, better projectiles, better zoning.  You could just practice against him over and over, but it would help a little because people have different styles of play and a random match of Sentinel could be zoning, a rush-down, or something completely unique.  Ive played tons of Dante's and all of them seem to play differently, I know he has a teleport, but if my opponent isn't abusing it then I have to change up my defense and offense.