The Official SBR-B Brawl Tier List v3.0

[adumbrodeus]

Tournament results mainly.

 

[PKNintendo]

Gotcha. Just Read the previous posts. So learning curves we're keeping him back. Wow, I never thought Sonic break out. Congratulation Sonic mains, I guess their diligence payed off.

 

[ShadowLink84]

The problem with making tier lists based on matchups is that they may not represent a tier position a character deserves. For example, Zangief in Street Fighter 4 beats like half the cast, but the other half he doesn't beat happens to be higher tier guys that you'll be seeing in tournaments.

Matchup based tierlists reflect the tier position accurately.
All the matchups are weighed equally, they aren't given more weight like they would in a metagame tierlist

Making a tier list based solely on matchups, although fair in principle, doesn't really work in practice.

You are quite wrong.
The SF3 community made a tierlist based on matchups and it worked out quite well. IN fact its very accurate.

metagame weighed tierlists are NOT accurate because they are affected by the metagame itself.
So if DDD's bad matchups are showing up suddenly, he will drop.
If they do not show up, he will rise.
Which is not accurate because a character does not change.

The Guilty Gear community also made a tierlist based on matchups. As did the SOul calibur community.

To see what I mean, take a look at the match-up list and see how much both sides of a matchup disagree. For example, with Zelda vs Fox, some people say it's 40:60 Fox's favour, while others say it's the same in Zelda's favour! It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get both sides to agree on all of the matchups.

Then that is an error on the community itself.
If neither of the sides can agree then it means that the matchup should be considered as neutral until the matchup ratio can come to a conclusion.
This does not mean that the usage of a matchup based tierlist is not possible.
It just means that it takes more time to build than a metagame influenced tier list.
'

Matchups should definitely make up part of the tier list, but tournament results, though not flawless, help set a foundation for the list, because in geenral characters with better matchups do better in tournaments.

This is only true for metagame tierlist.
Mtchup based tierlists look at the matchups and only the matchups, they weigh all the matchups equally.

The reason you feel that the metagame influenced tierlist is better is simply because you do not appear to have experience on other fighting game communities.

GG, SF they are communities that make their tierlists based on matchups. If a character rises in the tierlist it is because his matchups have changed. If the tournaments are showing a character thats suddenly doing better that does not mean the character goes up,it means the matchups are re-evaluated.


It is not like a metagame tierlist where a characters like DDD are sharing a tierlist with a character like MK, in spite of their noticeably inferior tierlist.

Unless of course you feel that DDD's matchups overall are comparable to MK.
The only way DDD would be in the same tier is due to his tournament results. Same for a few characters in S tier. Less than a handful can be compared in capability like MK.

Then you also have learning curves which may hold character back. Sure they may be awesome, but if no one realizes that characters potential, they would be doomed to remain low in spite of their awesome capability.

Not to say metagame tierlists are bad, in fact they work quite well in short term, but in long term matchup based tierlists are more accurate.

 

[Nestec]

OK, this is bothering me, quick question: what does GG mean????

And, on-topic---

metagame weighed tierlists are NOT accurate because they are affected by the metagame itself.
So if DDD's bad matchups are showing up suddenly, he will drop.
If they do not show up, he will rise.
Which is not accurate because a character does not change.

I have to agree with this for the most part, but one thing to point out. Metagame tierlists in their own way ARE accurate, that is if their purpose is to evaluate a character's viability in the current metagame. Yeah, the character cannot change. But their PERFORMANCE in the metagame can change. So by using a metagame tierlist, I suppose one could say we're not truly evaluating the characters, but rather the relationship between the characters + top-level players.

If we wanna evaluate the actual characters, then a match-up tier list is definitely the way to go.

My point is, the accuracy of metagame tierlists depend primarily on what we intend for them to reflect.

Then you also have learning curves which may hold character back. Sure they may be awesome, but if no one realizes that characters potential, they would be doomed to remain low in spite of their awesome capability.

This is true, especially when the true experts of that character's potential are people who can't get to any tournaments or just plain can't utilize the character's potential in actual tourney play. It's wrong for problems like that to affect a character's value. And the way the tierlist works now, that's exactly what's happening... >_<

...

TR4Q ^____________^
/kidding

 

[Kinzer]

GG usually means Good Game.

In this case it's actually an acronym for Guilty Gear, another fighting game series, you should try it out sometime it's fun.

 

[ShadowLink84]

OK, this is bothering me, quick question: what does GG mean????

Sorry about that, I meant Guilty Gear the fighting game.

I have to agree with this for the most part, but one thing to point out. Metagame tierlists in their own way ARE accurate, that is if their purpose is to evaluate a character's viability in the current metagame. Yeah, the character cannot change. But their PERFORMANCE in the metagame can change. So by using a metagame tierlist, I suppose one could say we're not truly evaluating the characters, but rather the relationship between the characters + top-level players.

True, but the relationshp between top players and the characters mean little. The players are really changing anything about the character, and the tierlist, by current definition, is meant to evaluate the capability of a character next to the others.

If we wanna evaluate the actual characters, then a match-up tier list is definitely the way to go.

My point is, the accuracy of metagame tierlists depend primarily on what we intend for them to reflect.

orrect, which I do not believe they are reflecting.
People are looking to see how good those characters are compared to others, not necessarily how good they are under a certain ruleset, under so and so variables which easily change.

^_^

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Snake is the best character in the game.

 

[Frown]

Snake is the best character in the game.

OH NO YOU DIDN'T

Spoiler

Ally is the best character in the game.

 

[Kitamerby]

The exact same reason why people argue whether Lucas or Ness is better, even though both of them are low tier.

I haven't seen Oates take out Tyrant recently. Debate over.

Sorry about that, I meant Guilty Gear the fighting game.


True, but the relationshp between top players and the characters mean little. The players are really changing anything about the character, and the tierlist, by current definition, is meant to evaluate the capability of a character next to the others.


orrect, which I do not believe they are reflecting.
People are looking to see how good those characters are compared to others, not necessarily how good they are under a certain ruleset, under so and so variables which easily change.

^_^

We want our tier list to reflect the metagame, and reflect the metagame it shall dammit!

I void your argument by simply saying that you're wrong and that we don't want a tier list based on matchups. I wanna know how likely it'd be for me to earn money if I chose a random character off the tier list and went to a tournament.

I mean seriously, if we wanted a tier list based on matchups, we'd make one, wouldn't we? =D

Also Kinzer, you have Guilty Gear?

 

[Suspect]

Snake is the best character in the game.

This...post...is...good

 

[tocador]

Jiglypuff is the best character in the game.

Fixed for moar accuracy.

 

[Underload]

Do I smell a Metaknight ban?

No, that's just the smell of Ally sh*tting all over the pro-ban community.

 

[tocador]

Do I smell a Metaknight ban?

No, that's just the smell of Ally sh*tting all over the pro-ban community.

Didnt even think, just sigged.

 

[Underload]

Didnt even think, just sigged.

Too awesome.

 

[gm jack]

One match shouldn't factor into the decision at all. MK is not dominating the metagame to where the only viable tactic is to play MK or lose. Ally is just another time where MK has lost to other characters.

 

[Inaphyt]

On another note i don't see warios placing at genesis wario is not 3rd on the tier list once his tricks are worked out wario sucks

 

[Kholdstare]

Nobody cares about tiers, it's just an excuse for sucking.

 

[ShadowLink84]

We want our tier list to reflect the metagame, and reflect the metagame it shall dammit!

Perhaps for you but in general, this is not true. Most people view the tierlist wondering how good the character is in comparison to everyone else. Hence why you often hear moaning and groaning from people maining lower tiered characters because they are not aurately represented by a metagame influenced tierlist.

Captain Falcon above Link. O_o

I void your argument by simply saying that you're wrong and that we don't want a tier list based on matchups. I wanna know how likely it'd be for me to earn money if I chose a random character off the tier list and went to a tournament.

No really, *smacks you in the face with fish*
The arguent is that a matchup tierlist is superior to the metagame based tierlist and would be better off in the long run.
There really was no reason for some characters to be where they are currently, epeially when you consider the matchups.

Falcon is so much worse than Link, why is Link below him? Or even in the same tier as him.
SMH

I mean seriously, if we wanted a tier list based on matchups, we'd make one, wouldn't we? =D

Yep

Also Kinzer, you have Guilty Gear?

I have guilty gear too...

 

[Inaphyt]

Well then why don't you pack up your keyboard and get the **** out of here?

 

[Kholdstare]

Well then why don't you pack up your keyboard and get the **** out of here?

I was already out the door.

Why don't you stop fapping to MK?

 

[Affinity]

Do I smell a Metaknight ban?

No, that's just the smell of Ally sh*tting all over the pro-ban community.

This is win.

 

[mountain_tiger]

I was already out the door.

Why don't you stop fapping to MK?

Anyone care to explain what fapping means? (Sorry for going off-topic)

 

[Noa.]

Lol, I pm you mountain_Tiger.

Internet humor.

 

[demonictoonlink]

Go Underload! *hypes Supercon*

 

[tocador]

This is win.

He is win :B

Gj ****** the brasilian guys in AF affinity U.u

 

[Nestec]

I void your argument by simply saying that you're wrong and that we don't want a tier list based on matchups. I wanna know how likely it'd be for me to earn money if I chose a random character off the tier list and went to a tournament.

Speak for yourself, yo.

I personally would rather know a character's overall ability/value when compared to the others. Tourney-dependent tier lists are far too unstable. Of course, match-up tier lists would change over time as well, but the changes would be a helluva lot more understandable.

 

[Zankoku]

A matchup-based tier list has merit only when there's some general consensus on matchups. People are still arguing over at least half of the matchups in the game.

 

[ShadowLink84]

A matchup-based tier list has merit only when there's some general consensus on matchups. People are still arguing over at least half of the matchups in the game.

Yeah I admitted that issue earlier.
A metagame tierlist would suffice short term, but long term it would be better to use a matchup based tierlist.

Primarily since metagame tierlists are easier to make and can establish a basic outline while a matchup based tierlist takes longer due to the data required for an accurate ratio.

3 more days til OTAKO WOOHOO!

 

[gm jack]

On another note i don't see warios placing at genesis wario is not 3rd on the tier list once his tricks are worked out wario sucks

Wario is an awesome character, and what serious players he does have generally place very well. He also has more than a few tricks, as his aerial mobility means he never really has to commit to anything, so he can bait and camp all day as soon as he gets a lead.

 

[Bizmal]

I think once a match-up tier list comes out snake will go down some.

 

[gm jack]

However, metagame tier lists are more accurate as to who is viable or not. Image two characters, identical, but they each have one counter. For one of them, the counter is one of the worst characters in the game. For the other, it is the best character.

Now better characters turn up in tournaments more often. Hence, the character with a higher tier counter is not as viable as the other, who is unlikely to face their counter. However, both would be the same on a matchup tier list.

 

[adumbrodeus]

However, metagame tier lists are more accurate as to who is viable or not. Image two characters, identical, but they each have one counter. For one of them, the counter is one of the worst characters in the game. For the other, it is the best character.

Now better characters turn up in tournaments more often. Hence, the character with a higher tier counter is not as viable as the other, who is unlikely to face their counter. However, both would be the same on a matchup tier list.

Not if you weigh the match-ups by importance.

Granted, you have to run a few transformations to get it right, but you certainly can do a weighted match-up list.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Does the SBR even do there own match-up discussions?

A matchup-based tier list has merit only when there's some general consensus on matchups. People are still arguing over at least half of the matchups in the game.

But, most of those arguments are mostly for like 5-10 point difference. Those could be settled with an outside opinion that can deliberate the situiation. At the very least people can always come to an accord upon advantage, disadvantage or neutral for the match-up. The problem is deciding how much of an advantage or disadvantage. Since I main Falco/Snake I see 2 arguements with how bad is it for DDDvssnake or falcovskirby. At first many saw it as a hard counter, but now we are reconsidering a lightcounter maybe even. But still advantage to DDD or Kirby. That kind of situation I think will always be agrued and points to another problem with the MU tier list: MUs change over time.

With so many different match-ups to consider that could drasitcally change the positions of a character each time the MU list gets updated.

Primarily since metagame tierlists are easier to make and can establish a basic outline while a matchup based tierlist takes longer due to the data required for an accurate ratio.

I'll agree with that lol Too many boards are still trying to finish off there own match-up list while others are not even done. And it's been ~1.4 years since brawl in NA came out. Really takes a long time to finish this.

 

[Kitamerby]

Not if you weigh the match-ups by importance.

Granted, you have to run a few transformations to get it right, but you certainly can do a weighted match-up list.

But won't that leave you with a metagame tier list?

 

[PhantomX]

Inaphyt is ********.

Of course there are almost no Warios placing at Genesis... almost no one plays him.

 

[<π]

conversely armada did very well with sheik and I think he was the only sheik that entered.

 

[adumbrodeus]

But won't that leave you with a metagame tier list?

No, because you're weighing the match-ups internally, valueing them based on their relationships with themselves. That's what I mean by using transformations, you start with pure match-up, and then based on the positions each character's match-ups on the chart, revalue them, and create a new tier list.

Continue this until you keep getting the same result, congrats you've got a weighed match-up tierlist.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Example: You are hard-countered by MK and no one else. This matters a lot, so you're not #2.

Another character is harder-countered by only Yoshi. Yoshi however is hard-countered by most top tiers (I don't know or care if this is actually true, just an example) so having a bad match-up against Yoshi doesn't matter as much.

A match-up-based list, weighted by the metagame, not the other way around, is the best way to do it, if we can get a match-up list that works.

 

[ShadowLink84]

However, metagame tier lists are more accurate as to who is viable or not. Image two characters, identical, but they each have one counter. For one of them, the counter is one of the worst characters in the game. For the other, it is the best character.

Now better characters turn up in tournaments more often. Hence, the character with a higher tier counter is not as viable as the other, who is unlikely to face their counter. However, both would be the same on a matchup tier list.

Correct, both characters would be to same on a matchup based tierlist because it is measuring the capability of those characters in regards to the others.
Not their viability at hat very point of the metagame.

The viability of the character is due to the metagame which is subject to change. Even a slight shift in the upper tiers in terms of usage can easily knock a character several spots because their bad matchups suddenly became more popular. Which is the issue with how the current tirlists made, the tournament results play a heavy factor at times.

Adumbrodeus said its possibly to make the matchup based tierlist with the matchups being weighed though it sounds kinda unusual @_@

Either way with a metgame based tierlist, characters like DDD will stay withMK even though, well, he's not comparable to the character

 

[adumbrodeus]

Example: You are hard-countered by MK and no one else. This matters a lot, so you're not #2.

Another character is harder-countered by only Yoshi. Yoshi however is hard-countered by most top tiers (I don't know or care if this is actually true, just an example) so having a bad match-up against Yoshi doesn't matter as much.

A match-up-based list, weighted by the metagame, not the other way around, is the best way to do it, if we can get a match-up list that works.

But that would be reflected in a weighted match-up tierlist.

Mk has the best overall match-ups period. Therefore he's number 1. Therefore being hard-countered by him is a much more signifigiant detriment then being hard-countered by yoshi who doesn't have anywhere near as good match-ups.

Therefore, being hard-countered by Mk would move you a lot lower on the weighed match-up tierlist then being hard countered by yoshi.


This should mimic a metagame chart, minus the hills and valleys. If not, the match-ups are wrong or characters are underplayed. Noticing this fact, people could correct this.


In essence, this would predict the metagame, not vice-versa.

Adumbrodeus said its possibly to make the matchup based tierlist with the matchups being weighed though it sounds kinda unusual @_@

Yes it is, but it correctly notes the fact that not all advantages and disadvantages are equal.


Yes, I have a talent for using complicated methodology to illustrate conceptual facts.