Predictions for Tier List v4 (Includes overview of entire cast)

[adumbrodeus]

I think DMG wanted to actually give you an expanded explanation.

Probably, but like a proper college student I'm lazy, so I cite references to save myself work.



I already gave the keywords, if he wants to take issue with the match-up ratios and cite where Ganondorf has advantages or that jiggs loses, and then we can go more in-depth.


But while individual match-ups may vary from established values, I find it very unlikely that anybody will attempt to prove Ganondorf has better match-ups then jiggs, because while it's something that can be challenged, it's quite obvious to see when you go into the nuts and bolts of match-ups.


So yes, while it may not be a 4000 word essay, it is properly defended until the MUs are challenged, if ever.

 

[Mr. Escalator]

"Metaknight, Snake, Marth, and Diddy, who does he not lose at least 40-60 to?"

He loses 4:6 to MK/Marth/Diddy, and he loses 45:55 to Snake.
Praxis stated G&W loses 65:35 to MK, which is untrue or at least pretty arguable, and he also said he loses BADLY to 4 of the top 7. 4:6 isn't losing badly, nor are all of those 4 even a 4:6 matchup for G&W.

 

[Alphicans]

Agreed. His match-up vs snake is severely overrated, although I agree that GaW gets man handled by MK. Marth is hard, I don't see how diddy could be anything lower than 6:4, maybe even 45:55. He does pretty well vs some of the high/top tier characters as well. To say he is not tournament viable is simply silly.

 

[adumbrodeus]

"Metaknight, Snake, Marth, and Diddy, who does he not lose at least 40-60 to?"

He loses 4:6 to MK/Marth/Diddy, and he loses 45:55 to Snake.
Praxis stated G&W loses 65:35 to MK, which is untrue or at least pretty arguable, and he also said he loses BADLY to 4 of the top 7. 4:6 isn't losing badly, nor are all of those 4 even a 4:6 matchup for G&W.

How does he safely approach snake? Snake safely outranges him.


How does he get through MK's defensive game? That sounds like an agressive MK ratio.


I think you and Praxis have different definitions of "Badly".

 

[DMG]

MK vs G&W is bad. When played properly from both sides, it's around 60:40 at best for G&W, 65:35 at worst for G&W. I think the worst one is more likely for the "correct" matchup, but the 60:40 is what he generally faces in tournament.

 

[adumbrodeus]

MK vs G&W is bad. When played properly from both sides, it's around 60:40 at best for G&W, 65:35 at worst for G&W. I think the worst one is more likely for the "correct" matchup, but the 60:40 is what he generally faces in tournament.

Let me guess, because 90% of MK players PURPOSEFULLY plays the match-up wrong?


Seriously, what's wrong with playing defensively? MKs are spoiled because they got to make that choice and generally be effectively that way.

 

[Clai]

Seriously, what's wrong with playing defensively? MKs are spoiled because they got to make that choice and generally be effectively that way.

I'd say personal preference more than anything. Some people just aren't comfortable with playing defensively, so they pick a character that suits their offensive preferences better. While MK is indeed amazing defensively, he's also more than capable of an offensive playstyle, much more so than about 80% of the cast. That's what drives people to play MK, and if they can't perform as well if they're forced to be defensive, why force them, especially if we're talking about a 60-40 matchup that becomes 65-35 only if they drastically change their playstyle?

 

[DMG]

A lot of MK players play defensive, but don't understand exactly how to do so well or at great lengths.

Others know and are capable of playing defensive, but don't do so for extended periods of time.

Past that, you have the MK's who know, are capable, and actually do so. Those MK's have 65:35 matchups against G&W IMO. Everyone else, whether it's on purpose or not, only has it as 65:35.


It shouldn't be that way, but MK is a character where he's not played as gay as possible, as widespread as possible. Whatever the reason may be, from the player not wanting to do so, to the player unaware/incapable himself of doing so, or any other reason.


The difference between a 60:40 and a 65:35 would be Tyrant vs Zac, compared to Havok vs Zac. Sure, Tyrant may have been better than Havok at the time, but look at what happened. Havok approached the matchup very well and he had it 65:35. Tyrant approached it ok and got a 60:40. Tyrant lost 2-0. Havok won 2-0.


5 points may not seem like a lot, but at the 65:35 mark or past that being able to practically guarantee that the other guy won't beat you if you stay careful is a lot more appealing than "Oh I'll leave myself a bit more open/chase him more/have more fun at the risk of losing".

Not saying that Tyrant was being dumb, but had he taken further measures like Havok did, it would go from somewhat close set he lost to somewhat close set/better that he won. It's like that for a lot of his matchups though.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Previous tier lists mean nothing to us anymore because we are more aware of the what the metagame offers. That's probably where you screwed up. I have complaints but simply saying the tier lists is pretty flawed should be enough.

 

[M@v]

Should probably put this here too:


Here's my opinion about what the next tier list will look like DISCLAIMER: I know several minds put together are better than one, so I'm not having the attitude my tier list is right. Just let me know what you think.

*Unsure about them, they are all on the borderline of S/A tier imo.

S TIER
Meta Knight
Snake
Diddy Kong
Falco
Marth
Ice Climbers*

A TIER
King Dedede*
Wario*
Mr. Game & Watch
Olimar
Pikachu
R.O.B.
Lucario

B TIER
Kirby
Toon Link
Zero Suit Samus
Pit
Donkey Kong
Peach

C TIER
Luigi
Fox
Wolf
Sonic
Sheik

D TIER
Bowser
Ike
Pokémon Trainer
Zelda


E TIER
Ness
Mario
Yoshi
Lucas
Samus


F TIER
Link
Jigglypuff
Captain Falcon
Ganondorf
​

 

[Xebenkeck]

^^^ really nice list
the only problems i have with it are that Olimar > Pikachu and DDD > Wario.
Other then those i like yours a lot. IMO its accurate

 

[Mr. Escalator]

Snake is really not that difficult of a matchup, definitely not as difficult as Diddy/Marth/MK. Also, my ratios account for the most optimal play against G&W. Even when MK plays it "the right way" it's at most a 6:4 advantage for him. All of G&W's matchups are dramatically worse when you don't approach it with the correct mentality and playstyle, Snake is the most clear example of this; he wrecks any and all G&W's who don't know the matchup, but when you do it's really not that difficult to win.

Regardless, the main point I should actually be addressing is that of these hard matchups. Should a character be considered BAD if he loses 6:4 or less to a few of the top characters while he goes even to ***** the rest? I really doubt this. Ice Climbers APPARENTLY get hard countered by Snake according to the matchup chart thread and loses to MK, Wario, Diddy, and G&W but is still considered among the very best characters. I think ICs are in fact among the top characters (as an aside I think G&W actually fits in among the top 7 easily), and a few bad yet winnable matchups doesnt change this fact. I mean, they get a lot of help from the current rulesets in a lot of regions, but still.

G&W isn't a bad character by any stretch of the imagination. He's not top 5 sure, but it's not like the gap between him and the top 5 is big. I think the gaps between most of the viable characters isnt that big, with the exception of the top two to three compared to the low B's.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'd say personal preference more than anything. Some people just aren't comfortable with playing defensively, so they pick a character that suits their offensive preferences better. While MK is indeed amazing defensively, he's also more than capable of an offensive playstyle, much more so than about 80% of the cast. That's what drives people to play MK, and if they can't perform as well if they're forced to be defensive, why force them, especially if we're talking about a 60-40 matchup that becomes 65-35 only if they drastically change their playstyle?

My main issue with that is when people base match-ups on it.


Also, it really does grate on my nerves when people look down on people who play defensively, especially with MK because that's the optimal way to play the character 99% of the time.


Especially because it screws with the match-ups when you consider him with a non-optimal playstyle.

Snake is really not that difficult of a matchup, definitely not as difficult as Diddy/Marth/MK. Also, my ratios account for the most optimal play against G&W. Even when MK plays it "the right way" it's at most a 6:4 advantage for him. All of G&W's matchups are dramatically worse when you don't approach it with the correct mentality and playstyle, Snake is the most clear example of this; he wrecks any and all G&W's who don't know the matchup, but when you do it's really not that difficult to win.

Regardless, the main point I should actually be addressing is that of these hard matchups. Should a character be considered BAD if he loses 6:4 or less to a few of the top characters while he goes even to ***** the rest? I really doubt this. Ice Climbers APPARENTLY get hard countered by Snake according to the matchup chart thread and loses to MK, Wario, Diddy, and G&W but is still considered among the very best characters. I think ICs are in fact among the top characters (as an aside I think G&W actually fits in among the top 7 easily), and a few bad yet winnable matchups doesnt change this fact. I mean, they get a lot of help from the current rulesets in a lot of regions, but still.

G&W isn't a bad character by any stretch of the imagination. He's not top 5 sure, but it's not like the gap between him and the top 5 is big. I think the gaps between most of the viable characters isnt that big, with the exception of the top two to three compared to the low B's.

But why?

G&W has a great deal of trouble getting in on snake and MK, especially killing either of them because of their spacing and zoning games, but also their respective defensive games (I'm aware they're related, but still distinct), and both have strong abilities to extradite themselves when you get inside (frame 1 grenades, oh god frame 1 grenades).




As for "good", good is a very ambiguous term unfortunately (I hate English, it's a horribly ambiguous language), but from context, compare it to where he was originally.

ICs on the other hand, compare to where they were originally, even if they're below G&W, they're still good relative to where they were.


Also as far as the match-ups, it REALLY depends on who you ask. A number of IC players will tell you that MK alone goes even and everyone else loses.


But for all intents and purposes, my understanding is the consensus is MK goes even with them (which I disagree with but whatever), Snake beats them badly, and they beat G&W. Diddy has no consensus yet, and neither does wario (at least as far as I understand).

That said, a major part of their influence is that they destroy important characters like DDD and falco.

But... they've got a lower standard to be considered "good".

A lot of MK players play defensive, but don't understand exactly how to do so well or at great lengths.

Others know and are capable of playing defensive, but don't do so for extended periods of time.

Past that, you have the MK's who know, are capable, and actually do so. Those MK's have 65:35 matchups against G&W IMO. Everyone else, whether it's on purpose or not, only has it as 65:35.


It shouldn't be that way, but MK is a character where he's not played as gay as possible, as widespread as possible. Whatever the reason may be, from the player not wanting to do so, to the player unaware/incapable himself of doing so, or any other reason.


The difference between a 60:40 and a 65:35 would be Tyrant vs Zac, compared to Havok vs Zac. Sure, Tyrant may have been better than Havok at the time, but look at what happened. Havok approached the matchup very well and he had it 65:35. Tyrant approached it ok and got a 60:40. Tyrant lost 2-0. Havok won 2-0.


5 points may not seem like a lot, but at the 65:35 mark or past that being able to practically guarantee that the other guy won't beat you if you stay careful is a lot more appealing than "Oh I'll leave myself a bit more open/chase him more/have more fun at the risk of losing".

Not saying that Tyrant was being dumb, but had he taken further measures like Havok did, it would go from somewhat close set he lost to somewhat close set/better that he won. It's like that for a lot of his matchups though.

I'll accept that I guess, but I meant truly defensively, what good is playing defensively if you abandon it before getting an advantage? I don't really consider that playing defensively, I consider it randomly breaking up aggression.

 

[DMG]

Honestly that's what a lot of people fail to realize, or fail to incorporate to heart in game. That it's not only possible to play "gay" for extended periods of time, but that usually it favors you matchup wise to continue doing so, provided you are the one winning of course.

If you have not only played defensive for a short duration of the match, but gained and retained the advantage from it, why would you switch styles/how you play mid fight if what you are currently doing is probably the strongest thing to do period? I see people camp with characters galore and then say after a minute of being ahead they quit for whatever reason, even when they were doing very good. It's like people have an natural tendency to draw themselves away from that even if it is being successful for them.

I've heard arguments from "Well it's boring" to "Well it works and it's not boring, but I can win other ways" and even "Well I can just fall back on this if that doesn't work at first".

 

[DanGR]

A lot of MK players play defensive, but don't understand exactly how to do so well or at great lengths.

And thus... http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=257175

The difference between a 60:40 and a 65:35 would be Tyrant vs Zac, compared to Havok vs Zac.

Were these recorded, per chance? I looked for them on youtube in vain.

 

[Kitamerby]

Honestly that's what a lot of people fail to realize, or fail to incorporate to heart in game. That it's not only possible to play "gay" for extended periods of time, but that usually it favors you matchup wise to continue doing so, provided you are the one winning of course.

If you have not only played defensive for a short duration of the match, but gained and retained the advantage from it, why would you switch styles/how you play mid fight if what you are currently doing is probably the strongest thing to do period? I see people camp with characters galore and then say after a minute of being ahead they quit for whatever reason, even when they were doing very good. It's like people have an natural tendency to draw themselves away from that even if it is being successful for them.

I've heard arguments from "Well it's boring" to "Well it works and it's not boring, but I can win other ways" and even "Well I can just fall back on this if that doesn't work at first".

I think people have a hard time with it mentally. They don't know whether to go for what might be an opening and go back to normal "fighting" or use it as a chance to get even farther away.

Imo, it takes just as much skill to camp properly than it does to play proper aggression. You really need practice and a good mindset.

 

[Johnny Citrus]

lol I really disagree with Snake being 4th and Diddy being 2nd...too tired to argue thoroughly though XD

 

[demonictoonlink]

Nobody celebrated page 100

 

[DMG]

DanGR they were recorded actually. ZAC posted them on Smashboards sometime ago, IDK if they are still on Smashboards but they should still be on youtube. I will check in a moment.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

I imagine a lot of people might have a problem with this list, but personally, mine would have less tiers overall and be something roughly like this:

S TIER

Meta Knight
Snake
Ice Climbers
Wario
Marth
Falco
Diddy Kong
Pikachu


A TIER

King Dedede
Mr. Game & Watch
R.O.B.
Olimar
Kirby


B TIER

Lucario
Peach
Donkey Kong
Toon Link
Pit
Zero Suit Samus
Luigi


C TIER

Fox
Wolf
Yoshi
Ness
Lucas
Pokémon Trainer
Sonic
Ike
Sheik
Mario


D TIER

Zelda
Bowser
Samus
Link
Jigglypuff


E TIER

Captain Falcon
Ganondorf​

 

[M@v]

uhhhhhhh.......
no comment?

 

[-Mars-]

I imagine a lot of people might have a problem with this list, but personally, mine would have less tiers overall and be something roughly like this:

S TIER

Meta Knight
Snake
Ice Climbers
Wario
Marth
Falco
Diddy Kong
Pikachu


A TIER

King Dedede
Mr. Game & Watch
R.O.B.
Olimar
Kirby


B TIER

Lucario
Peach
Donkey Kong
Toon Link
Pit
Zero Suit Samus
Luigi


C TIER

Fox
Wolf
Yoshi
Ness
Lucas
Pokémon Trainer
Sonic
Ike
Sheik
Mario


D TIER

Zelda
Bowser
Samus
Link
Jigglypuff


E TIER

Captain Falcon
Ganondorf​

Your list is terrible.

 

[phi1ny3]

Diddy's really stupid low.
lol sheik.
Yoshi 2 gewd.
A lot of the list imo is wacky.

 

[FunkMaster]

it has metaknight on top and ganon at the very bottom, so it's fine. Meeheehee!

 

[Nic64]

If you have not only played defensive for a short duration of the match, but gained and retained the advantage from it, why would you switch styles/how you play mid fight if what you are currently doing is probably the strongest thing to do period? I see people camp with characters galore and then say after a minute of being ahead they quit for whatever reason, even when they were doing very good. It's like people have an natural tendency to draw themselves away from that even if it is being successful for them.

I think a lot of people get bored with it especially with characters like MK or Wario, it's a little easier to play completely defensively for characters like Snake or Falco who have projectiles because it's a lot more active, a lot of times I'm playing MK my best option in some situations is just to basically do nothing for extended periods of time, playing that style is mentally grating for most people as opposed to running around shooting lasers and throwing grenades.

I also think people second guess themselves and think that they need to mix up their style or they'll start getting predicted, when it's so OP and gives you an advantage in reading people anyway.

On GAW I think it's really more like a 10 point difference between aggressive/defensive, I really don't think it's that bad if MK is aggressive, I've never seen what other people do in him there...defensive MK is gay as ****, horrible matchup for GAW. It's also really stupid that the difference needs to be noted but most people don't have the patience to wait someone out for 8 minutes, 2 to 5 times, so a lot of people think their matchup with MK is closer than it is from their experiences.

 

[Katakiri]

I have no idea why anyone would think Ice Climbers would be in S tier. I've never had any trouble with them, but that's probably because Ivysaur and Charizard out-range and camp them so horridly. Razor Leaf cuts through both Ice Blocks and Blizzard and keeps going and Charizard has ridiculous range on the ground in general.

But, I do secondary Kirby (who the Kirby boards seem to think is one of ICs easiest MUs) so I do see how they are a bit nerve wracking to fight. But even then, IMO, it's a 50-50 completely stage dependent match-up. Crazy, right?

The Blizzard Wall seems to play a larger part in their placings as it should. Characters without a projectile to stop it do seem to get shut down by it, but in reality, most characters do have something to stop it. Whether it's a bomb, laser, fire breath, or good old fashion timing and range.

Ice Blocks are a joke of a projectile. A lot of characters can just jab them away, leaving Ice Climbers with a Kirby complex. They can play defense fairly well, but when their Ice Blocks are useless, they don't have many (if any, depending on the MU) safe approaching options.

Oh and if you keep in mind just how stupid Ice Climbers approaching options are, you shouldn't get grabbed as long as you keep your whits about you.
____________

I would probably start ranting about the misunderstandings and general lack of knowledge surrounding PT & Kirby at this point, but it would start to sound like biased horse crap to most of you.

Charizard can camp Diddy?
Ivysaur runs even or better vs Snake?
Kirby laughs at ICs?
Snake kills Ganondorf?!

Yea, you wouldn't believe me.

 

[Nic64]

Ice Climbers are definitely a top 5 character IMO, they are...really stupid. Whether or not that constitutes S tier is another matter, personally I think S tier should just be MK and maybe Snake/Diddy

(I'm also of the persuasion that Snake is overrated but obviously at this point in time he would have to be #2 on any kind of *official* list)

 

[MetalMusicMan]

About the reaction I was expecting

Like I said, it's a rough list that I approximated in the wee hours of last night. I think it's a fairly accurate sketch but it's not like I'm trying to say that I feel that those are the absolutely correct positions for any of those.

I do think that there should be a more populated S / A / B tier than there currently is in the official list, though, and I do think that Marth, Pikachu, and ICs should be S Tier, but where they should be in it is obviously really debatable.

DeDeDe should definitely be no higher than the absolute bottom of S Tier... but I think that Marth is definitely better than D3 and generally a lot better than he gets credit for... which I think a lot of people might disagree with, but meh.

Yeah... I definitely put Diddy way too low. I always say that he's better than Falco, so I'm not sure why I placed him below Falco ...

Specifically regarding ICs, I think that a lot of people severely underestimate the zoning capabilities that simply having the chaingrab as a threat opens up. A good IC will be able to rack plenty of damage with Up Airs, Blizzard, etc. because of their ability to zone based on the fact that their opponent must avoid the grab. Because of this, they don't have to grab you to win, they just need the threat of that grab to be present so that it limits your options against them.

As for "lawl Shiek and lawl Yoshi"... Admittedly, I spent the least time organizing my C tier in that list of all tiers and am guilty of sort of lumping those characters together haphazardly.

 

[Jupz]

Dedede worse then Pikachu?

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Dedede worse then Pikachu?

To explain my thoughts...

Pikachu can beat Falco and can contend against ICs, two of DeDeDe's worst matchups. Pika also does better against Snake and MK, two fairly difficult albeit close to even matchups for DeDeDe. Pikachu's chaingrabs are much better against the high tiers especially than D3's are. His only problem really is Marth... but D3 isn't good against Marth either. Not to mention that Pikachu does really really well against DeDeDe.

DeDeDe "*****" but most of the characters that he ***** aren't very good... I mean, I think everyone that I listed as above DeDeDe in my list beats him for sure. I just think that DeDeDe is really over rated most of the time. He's definitely amazing and should not be lower than A tier... but I hardly think he should even be S tier anymore. As the metagame evolves, he just keeps dropping farther behind and I don't see that changing.

So, yes, I definitely think that Pikachu is better than DeDeDe... I main Falco / DeDeDe / MK just as a reference.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

....

I'm not even going to dignify that tier list with a response. It's horrible. Seriously. >_>

Anyways:

ICs are not a top 5 character. MK, Snake, Diddy Kong, Wario, Falco: those five are without a doubt better. D3 and Marth are most likely better. 8th I can see easily.

 

[Shaya]

To explain my thoughts...

Pikachu can beat Falco and can contend against ICs, two of DeDeDe's worst matchups. Pika also does better against Snake and MK,

Dedede has the advantage in the match up. Pikachu is mostly considered even. Dedede against MK is probably of similar difficulty to Pika vs MK.

Pikachu's chaingrabs are much better against the high tiers especially than D3's are.

D3 chain grabbing his way into beating Snake, Marth and continually providing Wario troubles. Whilst having an amazing tech chasing game with the others.

His only problem really is Marth... but D3 isn't good against Marth either. Not to mention that Pikachu does really really well against DeDeDe.

Dedede is even at WORST with Marth. There is no way in hell Marth -BEATS- d3. The god **** thing doesn't have better versions of his options like MK, he just outright COUNTERS many of Marth's options. Pika/Dedede isn't too bad, it's winnable; "really really well" seems an exaggeration when Pika can struggle to kill the thing.

 

[phi1ny3]

The only time Marth beats D3 imo is when D3 is offstage.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The only time Marth beats D3 imo is when D3 is offstage.

If only he didn't have a ridiculous number of jumps and couldn't flat-out avoid marth off-stage....

 

[rathy Aro]

There's nothing rediculous about his number of jumps.

Above tier list is just absurd. Replace sheik with pikachu and it almost makes sense.

 

[DanGR]

Let me grace the Smash populace with my thoughts on the tier list.
Perhaps one day everyone will understand.

Spoiler

/sarcasm xD

S Tier: Meta Knight, Snake, Diddy, Falco, Wario
A Tier: Marth, IC, Dedede, Pikachu
B Tier: Olimar, ZSS, Lucario/Rob/Toon Link, Peach, DK

C Tier: Pit, G&W, Wolf
D Tier: Sheik & Zelda, Sonic, PT, Fox, Kirby, Luigi, Bowser, Yoshi
E Tier: Ness, Mario, Lucas, Ike
F Tier: Falcon, Jigglypuff, Samus, Link
G[anondorf] Tier: Ganondorf

A few notes:

Marth- perhaps in S Tier. I think it can be justified either way. It depends how you view his matchups with... very plainly put, the top tier characters. For example, his matchup with MK has been argued intelligently anywhere from 40:60 to 35:65. For Snake- 55:45 to 40:60 is the vibe I'm getting. Etc.

Olimar- I feel he's too inconsistent to be a huge threat at national tournaments. One slip up from a bad desynch... you manage to pluck the wrong pikmin at bad times... the tragedy that is his recovery... and more. He may be an A Tier character. It can go either way, imo.

Donkey Kong- I feel his placement in my list can justified assuming the infinite is BANNED. I'm not getting into a debate about that topic.

Pit- Secretly, I think he's a really good character... He may move to B Tier later on. At the moment though, no.

G&W- Horrible matchups with the most common tournament characters? =will never get past regionals.

PT- I'm bias.

Yoshi, Ness, and Mario- I'm not too sure about them. ;/

Ike- I kept bumping him lower and lower... He doesn't seem like a bottom 6 character to me, but the others just seem... better. *expression of sadness*

Overall- D, E, and the second half of B Tier was a little fuzzy to me. C and D Tier could be lumped together. I felt a separation was necessary though.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Let me grace the Smash populace with my thoughts on the tier list.
Perhaps one day everyone will understand.

Spoiler

/sarcasm xD

S Tier: Meta Knight, Snake, Diddy, Falco, Wario
A Tier: Marth, IC, Dedede, Pikachu
B Tier: Olimar, ZSS, Lucario/Rob/Toon Link, Peach, DK

C Tier: Pit, G&W, Wolf
D Tier: Sheik & Zelda, Sonic, PT, Fox, Kirby, Luigi, Bowser, Yoshi
E Tier: Ness, Mario, Lucas, Ike
F Tier: Falcon, Jigglypuff, Samus, Link
G[anondorf] Tier: Ganondorf

I really like your tier setup, with exception to Game & Watch being way too low and Kirby being WAAAYYYY too low and Falcon being too high (shouldn't be over Jiggs / Samus / Link). I think I would maybe put IC or Marth a bit higher but it looks pretty good to me.

That's a good list though, I like it.

 

[Merce]

S Tier: Meta Knight, Snake, Diddy, Falco, Wario
A Tier: Marth, IC, Dedede, Pikachu
B Tier: Olimar, ZSS, Lucario/Rob/Toon Link, Peach, DK

C Tier: Pit, G&W, Wolf
D Tier: Sheik & Zelda, Sonic, PT, Fox, Kirby, Luigi, Bowser, Yoshi
E Tier: Ness, Mario, Lucas, Ike
F Tier: Falcon, Jigglypuff, Samus, Link
G[anondorf] Tier: Ganondorf

Completely agree except for your F-tier.

Jiggs, Samus, Link, Falcon...

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Yoshi, Ness, Mario, and Lucas have done nothing to prove they are better then Ike.

None of their metagames have really changed that much, but Ike has more tournament results then all of them. There is no logical reason to put Ike lower. At all.

And as usual: lol at PT's constant rising placement.

And do you honestly think THAT many characters should be in low tier tournaments? It's D tier and down after all. Sheik, Fox, Kirby (what the flip is he doing this low?), and Luigi would be dominating left and right.

 

[Kofu]

Game & Watch is not on the same level with Pit and Wolf.
Sorry, he may have bad match-ups with the top-tier characters but that doesn't warrant a placing that low.