2013 Community Tier List

[kingPiano]

>lost to a bowser
>the bowser was dj nintendo
>dj nintendo definitely knows the MU way better than most people ever will at high level

i'm not sure how this impacts anybody's credibility at all. as far as this goes to say, nobody here has a right to say anything.

That's true but where is the counter evidence from Sveet?
If there was contrary matches or even word of mouth experience against Bowser then I'd consider it, but so far nothing. So a garbage character beat his top tiers, that's how it stands.

And again Triple R beating ORLY, there are countless other examples of evenly skilled matches where a Kirby beats a high tier. Are there competent Kirbys that ORLY has had no trouble trouncing?

Ad hominem would be if I said "Sveet is a mean person that likes top tiers only therefore he is wrong" or if Sveet said "kingPiano is mean and likes Kirby so what he says about Kirby automatically must be wrong and biased"

It's not ad hominem when you use past examples and proof of lack of knowedge to invalidate someone's opinion. That's called logic.

Or another tactic Sveet seems fond of just quoting things out of context and saying "see that's misinformation" and he never seems to bother with explanations. That is an actual propoganda technique if you want to get into it.

Child molesters really don't have much to do with smash.

Are Bowser and Kirby amongst the worst characters in the game? Yes.
Will better players using them beat worse players using better characters? Sometimes, but there are many variables to consider here

I don't really understand the argument here and it would be nice if the points could be stated without any personal attacks or irrelevant conversation about child molesters and the court of law.

Examples to explain to Sveet how he is using ad hominem incorrectly. Don't be foolish as to take them as direct comparisons, that's getting a bit dramatic.

Not sure how many times it's going to take to nail this point home but Triple R, Malkasaur, Mooninite, and C. Rabbit have all beat same skilled and higher skilled high tier mains. Show me some sets where a Kirby gets destroyed outright by even skilled or lower skilled high tier users?

If we were to reconstruct the tier list based on actual placings and experience? Kirby would be above Pichu, Roy, Ness, Bowser and probably exist in the same sphere as Mewtwo and Zelda.

That wouldn't be logical because of the level or unbalanced misrepresentation for each character.

 

[Comet7]

let's go back to the videos. what do they really mean? what i've seen that's notable here are the sets of m2k vs triple r, orly vs triple r, and dj vs sveet. how close were the matches? all of them were actually really close. i'm not so sure if we can assume the players are equally skilled. i've re-watched the matches of triple r vs mew2king at .25 speed and paused every second or so to think about their options, what each option would cover, and why they chose the options they did, and triple r chose amazing options most of the time. actually, re-watching the set with sveet, especially his sheik, is sort of sad, since it looked like he was choking and nervous. i don't want to assume or even john for sveet too much, but being beat by a bowser on stream is probably not on a person's to-do list regardless of who's playing the bowser.

also i don't think anyone can show you many sets of kirby being destroyed by high tiers since there aren't many videos of low tiers on youtube (for good reasons, too). i think there's a set on vgbootcamp of a falco bodying a kirby though.

i'm still curious about this: what can kirby do out of shield and what are his options from a grab? looking at the frame data, kirby's best option is bair, but that doesn't come out overly fast. for grabs, all i know that's viable is maybe back throw up air and down throw tech chases on some characters.

 

[kingPiano]

let's go back to the videos. what do they really mean? what i've seen that's notable here are the sets of m2k vs triple r, orly vs triple r, and dj vs sveet. how close were the matches? all of them were actually really close. i'm not so sure if we can assume the players are equally skilled. i've re-watched the matches of triple r vs mew2king at .25 speed and paused every second or so to think about their options, what each option would cover, and why they chose the options they did, and triple r chose amazing options most of the time. actually, re-watching the set with sveet, especially his sheik, is sort of sad, since it looked like he was choking and nervous. i don't want to assume or even john for sveet too much, but being beat by a bowser on stream is probably not on a person's to-do list regardless of who's playing the bowser.

Yes the choices where Triple R accidently suicides....solid playing, amazing choices.

Sveet gets a pass though because he was playing DJN....not nearly as nerve-racking as facing Mew2King. No not at all.

And you're TOTALLY right playing against any low-tier automatically invalidates the entire match. You lose to a Bowser or Kirby or Pichu on stream. Don't count.

//////////////////////////////////////

With M2K vs RRR you are missing the whole entire point still. He held his own with Kirby....against M2K's main even with his obvious mistakes. Kirby = not garbage.

If you still don't understand then there is no amount of further explaining that will help.

 

[Comet7]

Yes the choices where Triple R accidently suicides....solid playing, amazing choices.

Sveet gets a pass though because he was playing DJN....not nearly as nerve-racking as facing Mew2King. No not at all.

And you're TOTALLY right playing against any low-tier automatically invalidates the entire match. You lose to a Bowser or Kirby or Pichu on stream. Don't count.

//////////////////////////////////////

With M2K vs RRR you are missing the whole entire point still. He held his own with Kirby....against M2K's main even with his obvious mistakes. Kirby = not garbage.

If you still don't understand then there is no amount of further explaining that will help.

look at the match, he flubbed a lot of important tech and got bodied for it. i'm not trying to take away the credibility of the match, but that shouldn't be ignored either.

i dunno, if you look at what they're doing, they're both playing really conservatively and doing exactly what's right. triple r also got hammered a bit during the second game by m2k's sheik... that can sometimes indicate a lot of footsies going on in the first game, which goes along with the conservative idea. that's just something to consider, though.

i feel like we're getting off the idea of what a tier list is. the idea isn't "kirby isn't complete garbage," it's "who is the most usable." people underrate low tiers a bit, but that doesn't really matter in the tier list much because x character would still deserve to be in y position in comparison to the rest of the cast.

we're also going at this completely wrong since you haven't bothered to address my grab and OoS question or other stuff while we're talking about players and not the characters themselves. we want to know WHY stuff is good with x character with detailed explanations especially in the case of low tiers and how underexposed (note the word choice here) they are compared to others.

 

[kingPiano]

look at the match, he flubbed a lot of important tech and got bodied for it. i'm not trying to take away the credibility of the match, but that shouldn't be ignored either.

i dunno, if you look at what they're doing, they're both playing really conservatively and doing exactly what's right. triple r also got hammered a bit during the second game by m2k's sheik... that can sometimes indicate a lot of footsies going on in the first game, which goes along with the conservative idea. that's just something to consider, though.

i feel like we're getting off the idea of what a tier list is. the idea isn't "kirby isn't complete garbage," it's "who is the most usable." people underrate low tiers a bit, but that doesn't really matter in the tier list much because x character would still deserve to be in y position in comparison to the rest of the cast.

we're also going at this completely wrong since you haven't bothered to address my grab and OoS question or other stuff while we're talking about players and not the characters themselves. we want to know WHY stuff is good with x character with detailed explanations especially in the case of low tiers and how underexposed (note the word choice here) they are compared to others.

I'm comparing to Pichu just for reference.

Kirby has a great down throw grab game against pretty much all the FFers, jab resets and actual tech chases. They don't lead to crazy combos since it's Kirby but then again neither do Pichu's for the most part. Pichu's chain grabs are also not as easy as most of you would like to brag about, although his overall grab game is better than Kirby's obviously. Kirby's B and F throw actually have the interesting property of having the grab stun animation on the opponent. You will commonly see Triple R intentionally use it at low percent, you come out of the animation just before their idle break free animation ends and you can hit with an U/D/F tilt. If they break out later in the throw then you have even more time for to regrab or try a Dsmash/Bair. Also B and F throw will work at mid-high percents and depending on DI they can lead to Bairs and Uairs (like U-throws can as well). U-tilt, weak tip Fsmash/Usmash, and Dash Attack also lead to aerials rather easily on FFers and Floaties (different percents of course)

OoS options he can Bair, it actually has a large hitbox that goes far into his body so it can hit his front as well and it comes out moderately fast (frame 6). Other than that he can WD attack since he actually has a moderate WD unlike Pichu and his roll is rather good. Roll as an option sounds weird but he has fast normals with range that can poke before his vulnerable windows are capitlized on. In general as a Kirby you don't ever really find yourself in a position of sitting in your shield, that's where you made a mistake. Much like Pichu you should always be on the move and throwing out SHFFL aerials, with Kirby you can poke with D-tilt and it's super safe since you have the profile of a pancake. Something effective that most people don't utilize is spot dodge to a fast attack or grab (for Kirby's Dsmash or any tilt). This of course can apply to any character in the fastest category with the most Inv. coverage along with Kirby, I find it works rather well as a mix up. Can't really be consistently read or punished, usually they have committed to a whiffed grab or attack.

Frankly speaking Pichu doesn't have even 0.00000001% the results that Kirby currently has. I've always liked Pichu and I still enjoy playing him but if you want to question sets and matches well Pichu's are non-existent even at a regional level. And the ones I've seen Pichu is getting bopped hard even with a player like M2K behind them (noobs don't count).

 

[Dolla Pills]

So, for clarification purposes, is your main point that Kirby isn't the worst character in the game?

 

[EddyBearr]

why don't you just discuss kirby and not other users? i'm pretty sure that's what this thread is for. how about what kirby can do from grabs, since the issue of kirby's approaches being stuffed by shields came up earlier? this seems like a big problem since on most important characters kirby has to really commit if he wants to tech chase from down throw, and his other throws are pretty underwhelming unless at those weird %s where he can do back throw to up air (i don't even know if this is reliable but that's just me).

Kirby on shield:
-Fair is tricky against shields due to multi-hit alongside grounded hitbox which is very easy to shield poke with, then Kirby can quickly crouch to avoid most OoS options to begin with after the landing lag ends.
-Kirby's bair and dtilt temporarily extends Kirby's hurtbox giving Kirby artificial range, making two of Kirby's core spacing moves far easier to use on shields
-D-tilt is very easy to shield-poke with and has an extremely quick start-up alongside the artificial range, making Kirby basically get a free few percent in alongside some distancing from the opponent to avoid punish.
-Kirby shouldn't be pressuring shields much, though. The correct response to a shield is to grab. If they're shielding on platform, let them drain their own shield and crouch away; I think uair shieldpoke shark is also on option as I think it works with immediate inputs off crouch and is a bit too far to react to well.

Kirby doesn't commit very much to tech-chases tbh. Kirby's grab range is great, and d-tilt is a common tech chase follow-up. Both are great for keeping Kirby a safe bit away from most characters. Kirby iirc cannot cover tech roll away by Fox, so the tech-chase shouldn't even be attempted in those cases.
Kirby's b-throw uair is semi-reliable as it's very difficult to react to (quite a fast throw) and works in a decent range of percents. Kirby has a bit of a DI trap in the middle of 3 platform stages against faster fallers or at lower percents thanks to being in the air for bair/fair/uair after uthrow, and thanks to uair sharking -- Kirby is just fast enough to uair shark on reaction I think.

That's about it for Kirby's grab game. Not much, but I think it's workable.

As for Triple R vs M2K or ORLY, he certainly made plenty of mistakes and sub-par choices, but the more often you play against Triple R, the easier it is recognize Kirby's meta and options -- it was really clear M2K didn't know the matchup, and I think Triple R tried to take advantage of that too hard. I think I play against Kirby better than M2K does, but I'm nowhere near as good as M2K and there's definitely a reason Triple R is ranked above me in MN; if M2K knew the matchup, M2K could have done far better. Kirby plays a bit of a forcefully extended neutral game, though, so I don't think Randall the Kirby Guy could get the David the Bowser Guy treatment [I think even DJ Nintendo, far better than Triple R, could get the David the Bowser Guy treatment by a prepared Sheik.]

So, for clarification purposes, is your main point that Kirby isn't the worst character in the game?

I know I wasn't asked directly, but I definitely argue that Kirby isn't the worst in the game. I'd argue Kirby is only 3rd or 4th worst, above Bowser, Pichu, and perhaps Ness.

 

[kingPiano]

So, for clarification purposes, is your main point that Kirby isn't the worst character in the game?

If people want to think Kirby is the worst character in the game that's up to them. It doesn't make sense considering how well players do with him compared to the others down in the F tier and even some in the B tier, but people will argue to the ends of the Earth with no actual reasoning or proof so it's pointless. He should probably be above Ness, Bowser, and Pichu, but I have not given Ness enough time to say this 100%.

My main point as I have said many times is that Kirby isn't garbage. I know your account is fairly new but I've said that was my point at least twice since you've entered this thread.

Really no character can be considered garbage especially one that has proven itself against high tiers and other competent smashers that main said high tiers. It's even more foolish to talk about characters you've never really even used or played against much, but that is quite a common occurrence on this site (especially considering how many new people there are with little to no actual experience). It's something that I'll never understand but I know I am in the minority there, so I don't bother. There are far less people that actually have used Kirby at locals/regionals/nationals and far more people that might have just joined this site and are quite content in just regurgitating "Kirby Blows" cause they read about it on the internet somewhere.

As for Triple R vs M2K or ORLY, he certainly made plenty of mistakes and sub-par choices, but the more often you play against Triple R, the easier it is recognize Kirby's meta and options -- it was really clear M2K didn't know the matchup, and I think Triple R tried to take advantage of that too hard. I think I play against Kirby better than M2K does, but I'm nowhere near as good as M2K and there's definitely a reason Triple R is ranked above me in MN; if M2K knew the matchup, M2K could have done far better. Kirby plays a bit of a forcefully extended neutral game, though, so I don't think Randall the Kirby Guy could get the David the Bowser Guy treatment.


I know I wasn't asked directly, but I definitely argue that Kirby isn't the worst in the game. I'd argue Kirby is only 3rd or 4th worst, above Bowser, Pichu, and perhaps Ness.

I agree with pretty much everything about Kirby's neutral, but then again I did already say all that a while back in this thread.

I disagree about M2K not knowing the match-up...that's a bit suspect considering he's known for having encyclopedic knowledge on all 26 and he's used him against scrubs on stream and in bracket. Even then I don't think M2K would even use the excuse "I was unfamiliar with the MU" when referencing facing a Kirby, that just sounds like such a cop-out. Again Kirby doesn't have some crazy secrets or tech, Triple R certainly wasn't busting anything unconventional or new out.

I do agree with your tier assessment, pretty much exactly how I'd have them as of now. Ness and Kirby are pretty even in their pros and cons, I need to give Ness more playtime before I decide.

 

[EddyBearr]

If people want to think Kirby is the worst character in the game that's up to them. It doesn't make sense considering how well players do with him compared to the others down in the F tier and even some in the B tier, but people will argue to the ends of the Earth with no actual reasoning or proof so it's pointless. He should probably be above Ness, Bowser, and Pichu, but I have not given Ness enough time to say this 100%.

My main point as I have said many times is that Kirby isn't garbage. I know your account is fairly new but I've said that was my point at least twice since you've entered this thread.

Really no character can be considered garbage especially one that has proven itself against high tiers and other competent smashers that main said high tiers. It's even more foolish to talk about characters you've never really even used or played against much, but that is quite a common occurrence on this site (especially considering how many new people there are with little to no actual experience). It's something that I'll never understand but I know I am in the minority there, so I don't bother. There are far less people that actually have used Kirby at locals/regionals/nationals and far more people that might have just joined this site and are quite content in just regurgitating "Kirby Blows" cause they read about it on the internet somewhere.




I agree with pretty much everything about Kirby's neutral, but then again I did already say all that a while back in this thread.

I disagree about M2K not knowing the match-up...that's a bit suspect considering he's known for having encyclopedic knowledge on all 26 and he's used him against scrubs on stream and in bracket. Even then I don't think M2K would even use the excuse "I was unfamiliar with the MU" when referencing facing a Kirby, that just sounds like such a cop-out. Again Kirby doesn't have some crazy secrets or tech, Triple R certainly wasn't busting anything unconventional or new out.

I do agree with your tier assessment, pretty much exactly how I'd have them as of now. Ness and Kirby are pretty even in their pros and cons, I need to give Ness more playtime before I decide.

Mew2king absolutely did not know the matchup. I will say this with utmost confidence as someone who is forced to know the matchup to ever get better than 3rd at a local. I was very surprised by it too, but yeah, M2K doesn't know about Kirby.

 

[Dolla Pills]

My main point as I have said many times is that Kirby isn't garbage. I know your account is fairly new but I've said that was my point at least twice since you've entered this thread.

I asked because a lot of the focus seemed to be on derailing Sveet/ other players and I thought I might try to refocus the conversation to something more constructive like what EddyBearr posted. Just because my account is new doesn't mean I can't read and think like everyone else.

 

[kingPiano]

Some interesting stuff concerning Kirby from the latest Smash at the Foundry (still streaming now):
Just transcribing what I'm hearing D1, PPU, and Leffen commentating

C. Rabbit (newish Kirby main) just double 3 stocked Crimson Blur's Marth
seems Crimsons Blur is just bad against good Kirbys, was pretty huge when Mooninite barely beat him with Kirby. I've never personally seen a Marth convincingly beat a good Kirby, most Kirby mains think it's a pretty even matchup or 40:60. Kirby's D-tilt destroys Marth Up-B recovery, that definitely helps.
- Leffen then started talking about Kirby and saying he thinks he has the best Kirby in the world currently since he beat Hack in Kirby dittos (Armada also has a Kirby as well since way back in the day didn't say if he dittoed Armada recently)
- Leffen was saying that he thinks Kirby is more viable than Zelda, Bowser and Pichu in high tier matchups. Has more of a chance to win a tournament.
- was discussing Kirby's jump, edge-guarding, and shield game being pretty awesome and defending his options in neutral (since PPU was talking about how limited he seems). Says he really thinks Kirby is still underdeveloped currently and can be frustrating to play against. Was talking about how Pichu is worse because of the very low weight but higher fall speed makes him easier to combo to death.

Sort of a stream of consciousness from the stream, but interesting and relevant

Also might have heard that PPU said he's going to go all Roy at this Foundry (supposedly his secondary) on account of AmSa's tweet about Roy having untapped potential and viability. There's been speculation that AmSa will be using Roy following that tweet, but that could just be lost in translation.

 

[EddyBearr]

Cereal Rabbit should beat Blur. Cereal Rabbit has been around for years a Kirby main as well. Marth is definitely worse than 40:60 (which is like Falcon-Sheik level); Triple R considers Falcon to be Kirby's best top 8 matchup, and Falcon isn't even listed as "close to even" by Triple R.
I think Triple R would beat Hack in Kirby dittos as well, to be honest. Leffen might beat Triple R in Kirby dittos just because he's Leffen, but I think Triple R is definitely the height of the Kirby metagame.

 

[john!]

KP, the problem with your argument is that you're assuming people lose to low tiers only due to a lack of knowledge of the matchup. maybe DJ and RRR win because they are really good at video games, and not necessarily because they know more about the game than their opponents?

 

[kingPiano]

Cereal Rabbit should beat Blur. Cereal Rabbit has been around for years a Kirby main as well. Marth is definitely worse than 40:60 (which is like Falcon-Sheik level); Triple R considers Falcon to be Kirby's best top 8 matchup, and Falcon isn't even listed as "close to even" by Triple R.
I think Triple R would beat Hack in Kirby dittos as well, to be honest. Leffen might beat Triple R in Kirby dittos just because he's Leffen, but I think Triple R is definitely the height of the Kirby metagame.

Well take it up with C. Rabbit I just transcribed what was being said Eddy, he said it was 40:60 and I happen to agree with him mostly. Leffen was saying it was an even matchup until the Marth gets really familiar with playing a Kirby and starts D-tilting and grabbing instead of trying SHFFL aerial approaches. Yes Falcon is probably the easiest matchup, but Triple R is not the be all end all of Kirby knowledge. Hack I still consider the best Kirby much like many still consider Brown Mario to be the best mario. Triple R is doing the most and being the most active but I still think Hack, Armada and Leffen's Kirby's would do better at regionals and nationals since they are more advanced, have faster neutral games and more confident movement. They are also used to playing these top smashers and the gods so they wouldn't mess up on account of nerves and they know the player's tendencies better.

And C.Rabbit has not been an active Kirby main for "years" at a tournament level, if you were to mention his name 95% of people would say "who?" still.... He's been around the scene awhile but you ask anyone like HMW or D1 and they will say only within the last year has actually become active and shown results. Double 3-stock is kind of crazy on a Marth, I doubt you expected that. C. Rabbit is still up and coming but he's not nearly as seasoned as Blur (though he's learning much faster and surpassing his skill it seems)

Again just to reiterate all that I typed there was paraphrased straight from the stream commentary, only opinion I added was the D-tilt destroying Marth's recovery (that has been said by D1 and many others time and time again though). If you want you can argue the points with Leffen or C.Rabbit.

KP, the problem with your argument is that you're assuming people lose to low tiers only due to a lack of knowledge of the matchup. maybe DJ and RRR win because they are really good at video games, and not necessarily because they know more about the game than their opponents?

What are you talking about? That is basically Sveets argument not mine. I don't credit any of Triple R's or DJN's wins only to lack of MU knowledge, that is pretty much the complete opposite of what I said (I give credit to Kirby as a character, saying he's not garbage obviously). That's the first excuse others will use as john for losing to a low tier, a very overused excuse. You might want to go back and read what I said carefully.

Really good at videogames is the reason? what in the? So are you saying that ORLY and Sveet are just bad at videogames so that's the main reason they lose to low tiers? The ultimate johns...

It's pretty hilarious that Sveet liked your post though. Makes no sense, he basically disagreed with himself there.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Guys kingPiano has never played against anyone competitively, it is clear now. I put him on my ignore list, and I recommend you all do the same. Maybe this topic can go back to meaningful discussion.

 

[kingPiano]

Guys kingPiano has never played against anyone competitively, it is clear now. I put him on my ignore list, and I recommend you all do the same. Maybe this topic can go back to meaningful discussion.

Ah the prime example of ad hominem and unfounded assumptions. You sir are a class act, I had brought it back to a meaningful discussion (with the SATF commentary) then you made this post. Guess once again you are exempt from your own advice and hypocrisy :/

 

[Dolla Pills]

The argument between kingPiano and Sveet doesn't have anything to do with constructing a tier list at this point, it's pretty much just them belittling each other and trying to get the last word (which never works on the Internet). I hope everything can be dropped from here on out. If you want to talk about Kirby's viability that's something else, just please let's end the pointless bickering.

Anyway, back to constructive discussion. I believe I have read through this entire thread at some point, and even though it's been open since 2013 I don't think we have really gotten anywhere. We need to start off with something simple like "What kind of tier list are we making?" and then move on from there.

From what I gather, a lot of people have different ideas about how a tier list should work and how it should be compiled. Here are some different ideas:

1) Based off of usage only, this list would reflect popularity of the character in the current meta which also has some reflection on the viability of the character (although clearly it is not a viability ranking)
2) Viability of characters at current top level play
3) Viability of characters at TAS level play (I think this is useless tbh)
4) Competitive viability of characters

The fourth one is my personally preferred method, and I don't believe I named it very well so let me elaborate. Instead of making a numbered list of the characters from 1-26, there would simply be categories of characters such as good, okay, bad. Obviously this would need refining but hopefully it's understandable.

The reason I like this is because I believe a tier list is most helpful for people getting into the game who want to get a general idea of which characters typically do well in competitive play, and this type of tier list would serve this function perfectly without all the pointless deliberation of Zelda's exact number. At least that's what I think.

tl;dr: Can we please focus again?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

It is sloppy of me not to include a definition of a tier list in the OP. I should probably fix that.

#2 is what a tier list is. The other things are misunderstandings about what a tier list is.

#1 is close to what the Character Ranking List is

#3 is useless, i agree. I think Magus made a (joke) TAS tier list a long time ago that was basically Fox > Falco > Bowser > Everyone Else.

#4 is this any different from #2? The general grouping is what I did for this list, for similar reasons that you mentioned. The list is mainly for new(er) players who want to know at a glance how capable each character is. So this list only has 4 tiers: S A B F which generally translates to Amazing, Good, Meh, Bad.

 

[Dolla Pills]

Okay got it, thank you. I guess my main point was attributing a number to every character takes a lot of debating but placing them in a category doesn't really.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I agree, and the grouping is more important than the exact order for the most part.

The only way I could see this working is if we could strictly define the tiers in some way, then we would have a specific number of tiers and criteria for who belongs where. From there it would be simple to average people's votes and compile a list.

The problem with defining tiers is coming to an agreement. Some people want to see the top 8 in 1 tier and others would like to see those split into 2-3 tiers. Furthermore, agreeing on arbitrary definitions ahead of time would introduce an element of bias into the process.

 

[kingPiano]

Ultimately the purest of tier lists would basically reflect current tournament results and how other characters fair against the consistently top placing characters who are played by their respective top players. The current tier list only partially follows that reasoning, the top tiers being where they should but the mid and low tiers seem to be more hypothetical and not based on regional or national results (outdated).

I never personally liked attaching numbers to each characters since in some cases I feel it's near impossible to define a difference in 1 spot and defend your reasoning. I prefer to just group characters together on levels (imagine the numbers not existing but just the tier levels). I know it's a popular method to number each character but really it doesn't serve much of a purpose and the arguments are unproductive.

There are many characters as well that don't get proper representation at tournaments. So, much like in any field of science you can't really say with confidence anything conclusive about them on account of the small sample size.

If you're talking theoretical and hypothetical speculation based on options and rock-paper-scissors in neutral and off stage then you better actually have experience with that character or at least know their meta. Other wise you will be talking out your caboose and your arguments and explanations will be irrelevant. It would actually be wisest to not even include them on your list because of the lack of data/experience/knowledge, but most don't seem to care about silly stuff like that.


What it really boils down to for me is:
1. Overpowered
2. Viable
3. Inconclusive
3. Not Viable

So my tier list in comparison to the current wiki (keep in mind there is bound to be blending between tiers):

1. All the S characters
2. A and B characters - Add in Kirby, move Mewtwo and Zelda to Group 3
3. Ness, Mewtwo, and Zelda - This tier are all I can see going 2 or 4, I don't see enough results or know enough to say conclusively. Zelda gets the most rep of these 3 but still the results never happen which makes her pretty much seem non-viable.
4. Bowser, Pichu

Talking from a national tournament point of view (or even global if there was a universal Melee version):

The reasoning is that Tier 1 is construed based on results since there is ample representation, Tier 2 is about how well those characters fair against Tier 1 on a hypothetical and practical level, Tier 3 can go either way (but leans toward Tier 4), and Tier 4 would have no chance in besting Tier 1 let alone Tier 2.

All is assumed players behind characters are of equal skill, MU & meta known, and preferred that the players themselves have much experience with each other in bracket to root out luck factor.

 

[EddyBearr]

I'm still a strong proponent of my top/high/borderline/viable/niche/low/bottom tier structure.

Top tier wins most and defines the meta
High tier can easily win and is definitely part of the meta, but doesn't define it
Borderline is like a High Tier who can't win a major
Viable is a like Samus or Luigi. They could top 8 a major, but it'd be very tough.
Niche is a character like Yoshi or Young Link, who needs special circumstances to be competitive at high levels (godlike player or counterpicking abilities)
Low is a character who sucks but can top 32 a national and happens sometimes
Bottom is a character who just sucks.


I think a tier list should be about both matchups and results, with more emphasis on matchups.

 

[john!]

What are you talking about? That is basically Sveets argument not mine. I don't credit any of Triple R's or DJN's wins only to lack of MU knowledge, that is pretty much the complete opposite of what I said (I give credit to Kirby as a character, saying he's not garbage obviously). That's the first excuse others will use as john for losing to a low tier, a very overused excuse. You might want to go back and read what I said carefully.

if sveet didn't lose due to lack of matchup knowledge, then his loss to DJN isn't a good reason to ignore his opinion about the matchup.

 

[kingPiano]

if sveet didn't lose due to lack of matchup knowledge, then his loss to DJN isn't a good reason to ignore his opinion about the matchup.

Ok so first that statement doesn't make much sense. You are basically just making up never ending johns for Sveet to the point where even if Sveet himself played Bowser against his own Fox and his Bowser won you'd still be arguing some excuse.

And again you have failed to read what I actually wrote, I only questioned Sveet because he said both Kirby and Bowser were garbage. Yet he and ORLY lost to them, so basically he himself said he lost to garbage using top tiers. And he was saying so many inaccurate things about Kirby, that doesn't help.

It's also extremely sound logic to question his knowledge on the MU or ability to dole out advice if he lost 0-2 to a Bowser using his top tiers. So there was an obvious lack of knowledge and winning experience, not sure how much easier it is to explain. Sveet himself is asking for credentials from others, I was just simply asking the same if he was to pass judgement on these characters.

 

[1MachGO]

And again you have failed to read what I actually wrote, I only questioned Sveet because he said both Kirby and Bowser were garbage. Yet he and ORLY lost to them, so basically he himself said he lost to garbage using top tiers. And he was saying so many inaccurate things about Kirby, that doesn't help.

The premise of your argument is a slippery slope.

 

[kingPiano]

The premise of your argument is a slippery slope.

Well the premise of your argument is non-existent as was Sveet's, so for you there isn't a slope or even a foundation. Unless you'd like to bring something new to the table or tell me or show me something that defends Sveet calling a character he lost to garbage let's just get back to the main point of this thread. We were back on track and you two are now derailing it again which makes me think you are both more interested in being drama queens than actually discussing the tier list and each character.

 

[john!]

Ok so first that statement doesn't make much sense. You are basically just making up never ending johns for Sveet to the point where even if Sveet himself played Bowser against his own Fox and his Bowser won you'd still be arguing some excuse.

And again you have failed to read what I actually wrote, I only questioned Sveet because he said both Kirby and Bowser were garbage. Yet he and ORLY lost to them, so basically he himself said he lost to garbage using top tiers. And he was saying so many inaccurate things about Kirby, that doesn't help.

It's also extremely sound logic to question his knowledge on the MU or ability to dole out advice if he lost 0-2 to a Bowser using his top tiers. So there was an obvious lack of knowledge and winning experience, not sure how much easier it is to explain. Sveet himself is asking for credentials from others, I was just simply asking the same if he was to pass judgement on these characters.

he loses to top players playing garbage characters because those top players are way better than him at melee in general. it has nothing at all to do with his knowledge of the particular matchup. with your logic, the only people that can give an opinion about [character X] is the one who can beat every [character X] in the world.

 

[1MachGO]

Well the premise of your argument is non-existent as was Sveet's, so for you there isn't a slope or even a foundation. Unless you'd like to bring something new to the table or tell me or show me something that defends Sveet calling a character he lost to garbage let's just get back to the main point of this thread. We were back on track and you two are now derailing it again which makes me think you are both more interested in being drama queens than actually discussing the tier list and each character.

You are either trolling or completely delusional.

1. My only "argument" was pointing out that yours was fallacious.

2. Your argument is a slippery slope because you are correlating ideas which aren't necessarily related. Sure, Sveet lost to Bowser. Sure, Sveet said Bowser was garbage. This doesn't magically mean that Sveet is calling himself garbage.

3. Not only is your argument an illogical misdirection, but the entire basis of it relies on discrediting Sveet. Lets pretend, for a moment, that your argument is suddenly logical. What credentials do you have which allows you to discredit him? Can you prove that you have more insight into the game than he does? If you are saying we shouldn't respect his opinion what makes yours so much better?

4. You started the drama so don't try and take the "high road" on this one.

 

[kingPiano]

he loses to top players playing garbage characters because those top players are way better than him at melee in general. it has nothing at all to do with his knowledge of the particular matchup. with your logic, the only people that can give an opinion about [character X] is the one who can beat every [character X] in the world.

Top players?

Triple R doesn't even make it out of state really, regionals? someitimes. nationals? nope.

DJ Nintendo for as awesome as he is doesn't really place that high at nationals consistently even with his top tiers.

Here's some food for thought:

Eikelmann beat M2K's Pichu convincingly....hmm guess that doesn't count since it's not in favor of your biased argument.
Toph Beat M2K's Roy.....woah am i blowing your mind?

With your logic every loss to a low tier automatically doesn't count and is magically ignored.

Go back and read the entire discussion and you will see that your last sentence isn't true (once again you are making assumptions and seem to be missing entire chunks of my argument)

You are either trolling or completely delusional.

1. My only "argument" was pointing out that yours was fallacious.

2. Your argument is a slippery slope because you are correlating ideas which aren't necessarily related. Sure, Sveet lost to Bowser. Sure, Sveet said Bowser was garbage. This doesn't magically mean that Sveet is calling himself garbage.

3. Not only is your argument an illogical misdirection, but the entire basis of it relies on discrediting Sveet. Lets pretend, for a moment, that your argument is suddenly logical. What credentials do you have which allows you to discredit him? Can you prove that you have more insight into the game than he does? If you are saying we shouldn't respect his opinion what makes yours so much better?

4. You started the drama so don't try and take the "high road" on this one.

1MachGO, I highly suggest going back and actually reading the whole discussion. Your 2nd and 3rd point you brought up will crumble and you'll see why it makes no sense. Really don't enjoy repeating myself, so it would appear you are trolling for responses or you didn't read all of it properly.

For the third time let's get back to the topic, but if you are enjoying restarting the drama and want to troll more continue if you'd like. It doesn't matter to me either way.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

John I appreciate it man, but you're arguing with a brick wall. That or hes a troll and is doing it on purpose to get a rise. Either way, its not worth your time.

 

[john!]

i like watching trolls' arguments get dumber and dumber. i wanna see how far the rabbit hole goes. besides, he's putting in a lot of effort for a troll.

Here's some food for thought:

Eikelmann beat M2K's Pichu convincingly....hmm guess that doesn't count since it's not in favor of your biased argument.
Toph Beat M2K's Roy.....woah am i blowing your mind?

probably because the skill gap between them was less than the gap between DJ and sveet.

also, i said that a loss to a garbage character wasn't NECESSARILY because of lack of knowledge of the garbage character. i didn't say that that CAN'T be the reason.

 

[kingPiano]

So it's me that's the troll? Why? Is it because I don't think Kirby is garbage and I actually give explanations and examples unlike all of you? So my opinion and actual willingness to discuss a character and give reasoning makes me a troll? Grab your pitchforks fellow sheep, it's lynching time.

Think you guys need to look up the meaning of the word troll and perhaps see how it applies to yourselves.

Sveet and 1MachGO have each taken shots at me and you and 1machGO have devolved the conversation twice since it was back on track. When you say something about someone and it's inflammatory or borderline flamebait (see Sveet's comment specifically #post-18992132 and the others) that means you are baiting a response. I never resorted to such sad behavior. And it would seem you and 1Mach got a bit bored of seeing relevant discussion about the thread, so you couldn't resist going back. And you keep going back.

Sveet basically came in and spoke a bunch of wrong info about Kirby (which was was corrected by like 3 of us in this thread), then basically said "don't care, don't have to explain myself Kirby is garbage laterz". Don't know how that's not trolling, it certainly isn't productive at all to his own thread the purpose of it.

I brought up a bunch of points and gave pretty solid examples of how it's quite obvious Kirby's not garbage (considering Triple R was able to beat ORLY and many other more skilled high tiers in bracket and hold his own against M2K, placing top 8 at a Midwest regional). Just simply asked for some examples or reasoning showing why you all seem to think Kirby is garbage (and how you are so confident about it with basically no evidence or experience with the character). Still nothing.

I referenced the Bowser match vs Sveet cause well it was about as relevant as a point could get. You call a character garbage and then you lose to that character. The fact that he got so offended and resorted to beating his chest "Money Match me bro" over and over pretty much let's you know he sees some truth in my point and didn't expect to lose that match or at least expected to win 1 game in that set. If he truly didn't think my opinion held any weight he would have never replied and never even had to defend himself. Not only that but what would the money match prove? Absolutely nothing, which shows how pointless and misguided that flame bait was. Just like there was no point calling characters garbage if you don't really have any experience beating them or even have knowledge of their meta or MU.

So hey if you guys want to call ME the troll go for it. That's your opinion, and it's how you choose to represent yourself. It doesn't make much sense, but then again it's the internet and I see a lot of stuff on this site that is hilariously bad or misinformed. IMO it also doesn't make much sense to call character garbage and then get beat by those characters with your OP mains who have a huge advantage. I wouldn't walk up to Triple R and say "Hey that character you use is garbage"...nah there is no point to that.

I would expect this stuff from fairly new members but to have 8,000 posts and 16,000 posts? That's really disappointing.

 

[john!]

i didn't come in here to discuss kirby/bowser's position on the tier list. i didn't read sveet's opinions about kirby. i just noticed an error in your thinking and pointed it out to you. care to respond to my last post?

 

[kingPiano]

i didn't come in here to discuss kirby/bowser's position on the tier list. i didn't read sveet's opinions about kirby. i just noticed an error in your thinking and pointed it out to you. care to respond to my last post?

i like watching trolls' arguments get dumber and dumber. i wanna see how far the rabbit hole goes. besides, he's putting in a lot of effort for a troll.

So you are basically admitting to trolling and are looking to get a reaction and responses from me now. That's pretty sad. This will obviously be wasted on you but I'll actually further explain unlike you all.

What error? So far you've just given the same overused johns about match up ignorance and you equate Triple R and DJN to Top Players (they aren't M2K or Mango or Leffen or PPMD) with skill that so far passes ORLY or Sveet that none of the matches could ever count. Your argument is basically "I win. The End" What you fail to keep understanding is that that wasn't even my main point. The main point is that if these character are garbage and considering the huge MU deficit and tier difference ORLY or Sveet shouldn't have even dropped a game they have been playing this game for a LONG time. Triple R is basically the same skill level, so there are no excuses there. DJN is higher ranked but the MU and tier difference heavily nullify the the skill deficit. So if they still think those characters garbage well that's even more embarrassing to lose to those characters. You bring that upon yourselves.

The gap between Mew2King and Toph is much larger especially considering he was using Roy and character much higher on the tier list. Eikelmann could be argued but the gap is as large or larger since Ganon is much lower on the tier list than Fox/Shiek and M2K's Pichu is actually more practiced than his Roy, also the size and speed of Pichu can make it a weird match-up that actually isn't considered too bad for Pichu. It's funny how biased your reasoning is...Sveet and ORLY get the pass automatically with barely any logical explanation and free johns but the sets I bring up get questioned. This will all be ignored anyways though since you say your trolling.

And what you just said is the main problem. You came into a thread about tier lists and then after we had moved on and were actually discussing the tier list you brought it back to something that had nothing to do with the current discussion or the thread. Pointless and unproductive.

 

[john!]

my point was that there are a variety of factors that go into a win/loss other than knowledge of how good the opponent's character is, and that people's opinions about characters that they lose to can still be valid. also, i believe RRR and DJ are a level above those two. i even believe they're a level above me even though i beat RRR last time i played him.

also, i don't believe you're trolling, because you seem moderately intelligent and only an idiotic troll would put that much time and effort into his posts for such a low payoff.

 

[Dolla Pills]

Forgive me because I'm new here, but is this how this site always works? As soon as we get back to a relevant discussion someone brings it back to the pointless arguing. Seriously, it's not even kingPiano's fault at this point. Let it go people.

 

[EddyBearr]

probably because the skill gap between them was less than the gap between DJ and sveet.

To add to this, the skill gap combined with the mastery of the respective characters resulted in a better matchup for Eikelmann against M2K's Pichu than Sveet against DJN's Bowser. It'd be interesting to see Eikelmann at a WDW.

Forgive me because I'm new here, but is this how this site always works? As soon as we get back to a relevant discussion someone brings it back to the pointless arguing. Seriously, it's not even kingPiano's fault at this point. Let it go people.

It happens a lot in threads of this nature, and in this "Melee discussion" section of the forum. Character specific forums vary (EX: Samus forums are super hostile, Kirby forums are sunshine and butterflies barring trolls).

 

[DeepDish]

Anyway, back to constructive discussion. I believe I have read through this entire thread at some point, and even though it's been open since 2013 I don't think we have really gotten anywhere. We need to start off with something simple like "What kind of tier list are we making?" and then move on from there.

From what I gather, a lot of people have different ideas about how a tier list should work and how it should be compiled. Here are some different ideas:

1) Based off of usage only, this list would reflect popularity of the character in the current meta which also has some reflection on the viability of the character (although clearly it is not a viability ranking)
2) Viability of characters at current top level play
3) Viability of characters at TAS level play (I think this is useless tbh)
4) Competitive viability of characters

It is sloppy of me not to include a definition of a tier list in the OP. I should probably fix that.

#2 is what a tier list is. The other things are misunderstandings about what a tier list is.

#4 is this any different from #2? The general grouping is what I did for this list, for similar reasons that you mentioned. The list is mainly for new(er) players who want to know at a glance how capable each character is. So this list only has 4 tiers: S A B F which generally translates to Amazing, Good, Meh, Bad.

First of all, I think 2 and 4 aren't exactly he same thing. 4 could possibly delve into "untapped potential" while I feel 2 focuses more on the current metagame at the top level.

We've seen potential tapped with Yoshi and aMSa, we've seen it with Kirby and RRR (but not nearly to the same extent as any of these other examples), we've seen it with Pika and Axe when he started to burst onto the scene, and we've even seen it with Taj and Mewtwo. The problem with "untapped potential" is that there's no empirical example until the potential has been "tapped." So whether aMSa was joking or not about Roy having untapped potential shouldn't matter that much if we want to only consider hard evidence.

While I do think the argument for untapped potential is important and should hold some weight from the high-level players, especially if it's agreed upon by most high-level players, then it should significantly impact the ranking. But this is only the case if a MBR type group were doing the tier list again.

If we're doing a community tier list with voting again though, with players of all different skills, then there's not much we can do to stop where players have certain characters ranked. It's from their experience and perspective, and it's their opinion. It's just one of many opinions.

This carries over to another point of mine regarding tier groups.

I agree, and the grouping is more important than the exact order for the most part.

The problem with defining tiers is coming to an agreement. Some people want to see the top 8 in 1 tier and others would like to see those split into 2-3 tiers. Furthermore, agreeing on arbitrary definitions ahead of time would introduce an element of bias into the process.

Couldn't the average vote spread between characters be used as the marker for where tiers should be separated? Look at the most recent tier list:

Look how far Falco is from Sheik. Look how far Peach is from Falcon. Look how far Ganon is from Luigi. Mario from YLink, and so on.

While I don't agree with the groupings in that example (because it's my opinion based in fact that I understand from my own perspective) there's no doubt that the average opinion of the group of players that voted on this tier list has significant gaps in numbers between certain characters. If we're going to make a tier list made from empirical data, then empirical data should be used to separate the tier groups. That or some kind of MBR group of high level players should be used to make the groupings.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Couldn't the average vote spread between characters be used as the marker for where tiers should be separated?

Yes they can be, and this is how it was done in the past. The top 8 are/were virtually unanimous in discussion, and this had been true for years leading up to this list, including the 2010 list. Because I was trying to simplify the list for newer players, I saw this as an obvious tier division. I'm not sure I still agree with the decision to make the top 8 one tier, but it was the decision that was made. Below S tier, the divisions are done based on value difference like you were suggesting (eg. the gap between mario and YL is significant).


And regarding your other point: I see the distinction youre making. However, "potential" should not be considered in my opinion, simply because it is unknowable. Anyone who says X has potential is just speculating until they prove it. I don't necessarily mean winning a tournament, but a certain level of refining has to occur. You have to show that your character has more tools than the characters below them.

 

[DeepDish]

Below S tier, the divisions are done based on value difference like you were suggesting (eg. the gap between mario and YL is significant).

Except for Yoshi to Zelda and Ganondorf to Luigi But yeah, I generally understand why things were grouped the way they were in this list. I just think a heavier emphasis needs to be placed on the margins between average placement for tier groupings. Just my two cents, that's all.