Official Viability Ratings v2 | Competitive Impressions

[Antonykun]

If you think that's bad then you should see how they talk about Mewtwo lol

(Seriously, though, guys, stop going to SmashWiki for evidence; anyone can edit the page.)

Oh, I am aware that buffs can only bring someone from complete trash to "less" trash, but I was just kind of under the impression that no one was in their own league of "bad" in SSB4 pre-release. XD

(Also, side question, how good is Swordfighter's B-Air? I always thought it was one of his better moves, thanks to its quick start-up, damage, and relatively low landing lag).

Swordfighter's Back air is good in a vacuum (lol we just had a talk about that phrase) for the reasons you mentioned. It's a lot worse once you realize it's stuck to someone with low jump height, a Frame 7 jumpsquat, a Frame 3/5 Landing lag, and terrible Air mobility. If Swordfighter's attributes allowed him to actually not be a sitting duck in the air the B-air wouldn't be just an OK move

 

[Kaladin]

Mmm, I have contributed to said thread-spiraling, admittedly. Regardless of what we decide to do, I'll be more careful in the future.

 

[Vipermoon]

If you think that's bad then you should see how they talk about Mewtwo lol

(Seriously, though, guys, stop going to SmashWiki for evidence; anyone can edit the page.)

Oh, I am aware that buffs can only bring someone from complete trash to "less" trash, but I was just kind of under the impression that no one was in their own league of "bad" in SSB4 pre-release. XD

(Also, side question, how good is Swordfighter's B-Air? I always thought it was one of his better moves, thanks to its quick start-up, damage, and relatively low landing lag).

People completely ignore Sword's Bair. There are two other characters with similar Bairs for which we can compare:

Mars
Active 7-11, 9 or 12%, 40 base and 85 or 94 growth, 39 total frames, 1-2 and ≥32 autocancel window, 17 frame landing lag. Sakurai angle.
- Permanently turns around during start-up
- Good active frames, coverage and range

OurBoyRoy
Active 8-10, 9 or 12%, 10 or 30 base and 100 growth, 35 total frames, 1-2 and ≥32 autocancel window, 19 frame landing lag. Sakurai angle.
- Also turns around
- Same horizontal range but less active frames (which means less area coverage)

Sword
Active 8-9, 14% and no sourspot, 10 base and 100 growth, 37 total frames, ≥29 autocancel window, 15 frame landing lag. Sakurai angle.
- Less range and even less active frames (less area coverage)

But like Antonykun said, with bad aerial mobility and the dumb jumpsquat the Bair is contained (but the jump height isn't an issue as this can also be a good thing). It would be broken if some other characters had their hands on it and is still a wonderful Bair on this character. To not have a sourspot while being that strong and that safe (both in damage and landing lag) is pretty awesome.

 

[Trifroze]

Petition to make Trifroze 's list the official tier list. Because that one was right on the money.

I've actually changed it quite a bit since the last time I posted it, but most changes are only by 1-2 spots. Greninja, Roy and Mewtwo are noticeably up though. Yoshi and Luigi are considerably down but I'm not sure if I'll keep them there. Ness is also down by a few spots.

 

[Yikarur]

Swordfighter is a good character. About Mid Tier. Everyone who is still stuck in the "worst character" day1-blabla should try to rearrange their thoughts, because this is massively outdated. He probably wasn't even the worst character pre-patch, but people just didn't know anything about him. This stigma has to go.

 

[meleebrawler]

I've actually changed it quite a bit since the last time I posted it, but most changes are only by 1-2 spots. Greninja, Roy and Mewtwo are noticeably up though. Yoshi and Luigi are considerably down but I'm not sure if I'll keep them there. Ness is also down by a few spots.

I'm curious and I'd like to know what changed your perceptions about Mewtwo (if it was something like that)?

 

[bc1910]

I'd also be interested in seeing an update. The last version was nearly there and those changes all sound promising.

I'm curious and I'd like to know what changed your perceptions about Mewtwo (if it was something like that)?

Where do you think Mewtwo stands on the tier list?

I really don't think Mewtwo is that bad. Certainly not bottom 5. I can easily think of ~10 characters I'd rather fight than Mewtwo. He has some decent placings in Japan too.

 

[Zannabluke]

seriously, who even plays mewtwo in japan and what "decent placings" did he get with him?

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

Where do you think Mewtwo stands on the tier list?

I really don't think Mewtwo is that bad. Certainly not bottom 5. I can easily think of ~10 characters I'd rather fight than Mewtwo. He has some decent placings in Japan too.

IMO, I think Mewtwo's probably somewhere in low-mid, myself. The flaws that Mewtwo has are far too damaging to make him solidly mid-tier, but he has options to deal with most playstyles; and his grab combos can be vicious when they connect.

He's pretty decent with a secondary, and as a secondary he can get work done, but Mewtwo doesn't seem to be solo-viable as a tournament winner. The death of the HOO-HAA also helped Mewtwo's placement, IMO; that was particularly effective on him because he's so floaty and light. He's a great counterpick to projectile-based characters like Mega Man and Pac-Man.

 

[meleebrawler]

I'd also be interested in seeing an update. The last version was nearly there and those changes all sound promising.



Where do you think Mewtwo stands on the tier list?

I really don't think Mewtwo is that bad. Certainly not bottom 5. I can easily think of ~10 characters I'd rather fight than Mewtwo. He has some decent placings in Japan too.

Well, I like to think of him being on a similar level to Dr. Mario, low-mid due to some poor attributes but possessing tools that make still make him quite a threat in the right hands.

 

[Y2Kay]

Explains in great detail why charizard isn't bad.

Puts him in low tier anyway.

I crei everytiem T_T

Pray for

 

[Trifroze]

I'm curious and I'd like to know what changed your perceptions about Mewtwo (if it was something like that)?

I realized that a character with such good mobility, two potent kill throws and several top grade moves like shadow ball, fair, nair, dsmash, usmash, dtilt and jab can't be that close to bottom 5 despite also having considerable drawbacks. He might even be closer to mid than bottom, and if he was midweight and his dthrow comboed he'd probably be viable. Sadly he's featherweight, he doesn't have much grab reward before kill percents since his pummel is bad and you can SDI out of fthrow in the middle of it, and he can't really land with his aerials or retreat with them due to his clumsiness in the air.

 

[NachoOfCheese]

Explains in great detail why charizard isn't bad.

Puts him in low tier anyway.

I crei everytiem T_T

Pray for

You say that as if people are obligated to agree with you.

 

[Zelder]

Explains in great detail why charizard isn't bad.

Puts him in low tier anyway.

I crei everytiem T_T

Pray for

Naw you just listed a bunch of advantages & disadvantages in a vacuum and didn't compare it to anything.

 

[Routa]

Btw is good grab game a must have for a character to be in high tier? I mean as far as I know Yoshi has pretty bad grab game, but he is still placed in high tier.

Edit: and I know Yoshi is outside his grab game amazing character so no need to point that out.

 

[Y2Kay]

Naw you just listed a bunch of advantages & disadvantages in a vacuum and didn't compare it to anything.

I was gonna change it but my phone is being hard headed right now.

 

[Wintropy]

Btw is good grab game a must have for a character to be in high tier? I mean as far as I know Yoshi has pretty bad grab game, but he is still placed in high tier.

Edit: and I know Yoshi is outside his grab game amazing character so no need to point that out.

I don't think it's an objective necessity, but it helps. You're at a pretty big disadvantage if you don't have a good grab and / or grab followups in this game.

You've got some more diverse cases, for example ZSS (her grab's kinda naff, but the reward is insane and she is definitively top-tier with no small thanks to it) and Palutena (pretty good grab and followups, but the rest of her is so unimpressive that she's low or bottom-tier), but I think overall it's important to have good grabs. Grabbing is pretty big in the meta.

 

[NachoOfCheese]

I don't think it's an objective necessity, but it helps. You're at a pretty big disadvantage if you don't have a good grab and / or grab followups in this game.

You've got some more diverse cases, for example ZSS (her grab's kinda naff, but the reward is insane and she is definitively top-tier with no small thanks to it) and Palutena (pretty good grab and followups, but the rest of her is so unimpressive that she's low or bottom-tier), but I think overall it's important to have good grabs. Grabbing is pretty big in the meta.

Don't forget about Fox. Almost universally accepted as high or top tier, his throw game is total ass after like 10%, but he's still really good.

 

[Trifroze]

Btw is good grab game a must have for a character to be in high tier? I mean as far as I know Yoshi has pretty bad grab game, but he is still placed in high tier.

Edit: and I know Yoshi is outside his grab game amazing character so no need to point that out.

Despite being amazing outside of his grab game Yoshi still struggles to do well, and I for one think he's among the lower ranks of viability at this point (around 17th-24th). Luigi probably fell an entire tier with his grab nerf, while Ike and Robin skyrocketed up after getting dthrow buffs, although Japan still doesn't seem as convinced as SWF is.

A good grab game is really important but it's not a necessity if you're completely overtuned otherwise like Ryu and Fox.

 

[webbedspace]

Larry Lurr's DK defeats K9sbruce's Sheik. That bracket reset tho...

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Swordfighter is a good character. About Mid Tier. Everyone who is still stuck in the "worst character" day1-blabla should try to rearrange their thoughts, because this is massively outdated. He probably wasn't even the worst character pre-patch, but people just didn't know anything about him. This stigma has to go.

Problem is that except for pretty much Zelda, Samus, and Jigglypuff, every character has people claiming "you're all just uneducated, so-and-so is mid tier". Even then you'll get the occasional person arguing that those three aren't the worst three. @_@

Low tier has to exist guys. And its not those three mentioned above, they're bottom tier. And seeing as how almost every character has shown up in SOME way, just going "look, so-and-so got X placement at a mid sized tournament once!" or "so-and-so used Y character as a secondary at this really large tournament during top 8!" doesn't magically throw a character into mid tier. Because a very large portion of characters can claim one of those two things.

Swordfighter is low tier. Charizard is low tier. Dr.Mario is low tier. Palutena is low tier if not bottom tier with the other three. Wii Fit Trainer is low tier. Lucas is low tier most likely, he gets a tad more wiggle room because DLC and therefor less time to figure him out compared to the rest of the cast. Kirby is low tier. I could continue.

This just happens to be a game where even low tiers can do work, even to a semi-consistent level. Its only bottom tiers that are close to helpless, and even then you get the odd Samus popping up once in a blue moon.

 

[bc1910]

I... Don't even think Samus is bottom 3 lol. Nowhere close. Customless Palutena is far worse.

So yeah, you'll get people disagreeing on who's actually low tier, bottom tier and all the rest of it. But yes, the lower tiers do have to exist. And at the end of the day all that matters is that the character is in that "unviable" group. It really doesn't matter if they're mid tier, low tier, bottom tier, lower mid of bottom tier, whatever.

In this game, "unviable" is just a convenient buzz word to describe a group of characters. No-one is unviable or invalidated to the extent that Melee or Brawl low tiers are.

In terms of pure groupings you pretty much have three groups: viable (Sheik and co), semi-viable (Pits and co) and unviable (everyone else). The order within groups, particularly unviable which is the largest and least understood group, is nowhere near as important as which group you belong to.

 

[Routa]

Yes there has to be a low tier, but what is the definition of Low Tier? Depending from definition character can be by definition X in Low tier but by definition Y in Mid Tier. Also how big can a tier be? Also should we order characters? Also when making tier lists should we use Guest 1111, Guest XXXX or Any size XXXX? Depending which one we use Brawler will jump from lower part of the cast to higher part of the cast. In my opinion we should decide definition of each tier and which Mii system we use when we talk about their placing.

 

[KirbySquad101]

How do we draw the line between mid and low tiers, though? There's basically 15 great characters, about 10 good, then after that there is just a giant cluster of around 30 characters we don't even know how to rank properly, even the so-called bottom 3. All we know is that they're not very good in comparison. I really don't think there's such a thing as mid-tier in this game, probably just low tier honestly, which sums up the lower end of the cast.

 

[Project Quarantine]

Imo for this thread to be worth a lot more, we need to stop talking about who is bottom X or why samus is worse than zelda. I'd like to suggest:

Solo main viable - can win nationals alone Example: Sheik

Viable with secondary - mainable character to win nationals if paired with 1-2 more for bad matchups. Ex: Ness paired with Wario to cover Rosa

Secondary (aka "niche") - characters that are ok to use as secondary to cover some matchups to help win a national. Ex: Bowser Jr

Unviable - characters that, if you want to win a national using 3 or less characters, probably should be ignored Ex: Zelda

I'm open for critisism if anyone feels like their way of organizing things is more effective c:

But, unfortunately, since humans naturally love their "lists" of characters and using letters to describe tiers, this is likely never going to occur. I'm just saying that the afrementioned list is best for this game where there are so many characters and so few distinct best/worst examples.

Edit: once we have formed a baseline in this list, we can start focusing on matchups and specific optimization of the game (something a player like reflex or void is already doing) imo

 

[Y2Kay]

The definition of low tier is never really defined? Is it a character that only has slight use in tournaments? Is it a character suitable for tournaments but need a secondary? It's different every where I see it. If you are defining low tier as "a character that is dependent on a secondary to win at tournaments more so than high tiers" than I agree with you. But if you're defining it as unusable then no, I don't think so. And just because a character doesn't have a lot of results, doesn't mean you can write them off so soon. Results are definitely important, but don't invest so much stock into it, because there are over 50 characters in the game. That number could grow to possibly sixty in the near future. Not to mention the game is young. Some characters such as hit the jackpot and have mains that show their potential, but characters such as aren't no where near as blessed as they are. But no one would say these characters are bad though.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

Yeah, we need to stabilize what the rankings are for ratings to really by good. Here's my own proposed system;

Solo-Viable: Characters who can be mained without the need of a secondary to cover any particularly disadvantageous matchups. Common character tropes that can land here include rushdown and puppet fighters.
EX: , , ,

Paired-Viable: Characters who can be mained, but will probably need a secondary to cover any particularly disadvantageous matchups. Heavy hitters with reliable combos and characters that are generally good but aren't quite good enough to be solo-viable tend to be in this category.
EX: , ,,

Niche-Viable: Characters who require a secondary to perform in tournaments due to some critical flaws making for some poor matchups against a number of the higher-tier characters. Fighters here tend to have crippling flaws that can heavily damage their performance, such as poor range, problems in certain parts of the meta or poor recovery options.
EX: , , ,

Unviable: Characters who cannot do exceptionally well in tournaments, no matter how hard you try, because of some massive flaws crippling them, even despite of their potential advantages. Fighters here are generally just not as good as a choice as other characters due to some severe problems, like poor range, poor performance, laggy moves, light weight and poor recovery.
EX: , , ,

 

[Zelder]

I literally laughed out loud at putting Charizard in the same category as Ness & Diddy for paired-viable. That is...certainly...a generous way to describe Charizard.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

I literally laughed out loud at putting Charizard in the same category as Ness & Diddy for paired-viable. That is...certainly...a generous way to describe Charizard.

Charizard's been getting underrated a lot, and there's absolutely a lot of untapped potential in Charizard; look at how bengalZ does in tournaments with Charizard for an example of how good Charizard can be. Sure, you'll need a secondary to cover some of Charizard's worse MU's, but he's definitely viable.

 

[Wintropy]

Imo for this thread to be worth a lot more, we need to stop talking about who is bottom X or why samus is worse than zelda. I'd like to suggest:

Solo main viable - can win nationals alone Example: Sheik

Viable with secondary - mainable character to win nationals if paired with 1-2 more for bad matchups. Ex: Ness paired with Wario to cover Rosa

Secondary (aka "niche") - characters that are ok to use as secondary to cover some matchups to help win a national. Ex: Bowser Jr

Unviable - characters that, if you want to win a national using 3 or less characters, probably should be ignored Ex: Zelda

I'm open for critisism if anyone feels like their way of organizing things is more effective c:

But, unfortunately, since humans naturally love their "lists" of characters and using letters to describe tiers, this is likely never going to occur. I'm just saying that the afrementioned list is best for this game where there are so many characters and so few distinct best/worst examples.

Edit: once we have formed a baseline in this list, we can start focusing on matchups and specific optimization of the game (something a player like reflex or void is already doing) imo

What about characters like Pit that can technically beat anybody (no unwinnable / hard counter matchups), but don't necessarily have the tools to do it well? That is, you can win every matchup with this character, but it might require more effort than other, better characters.

I mean, if you want to tell me Pit is solo viable, go for it. I'm quite happy to have praise dished onto my main. I don't even think you're wrong, in fact I think what you say has merit, but I think the word "viable" has become a platitude at this stage. Even bc1910 dropped "semi-viable" into his dissection of viability (not knockin' you, dear, your post was great, I just want to demonstrate that there's different "categories" of viability to some folk). I don't think we can even progress with these discussions in any meaningful way until we can define beyond rebuttal exactly what "viable" means.

You say "viable", I say, "How viable?" Is viability a fixed state of being (binary opposition of "viable / not viable"), or subject to gradation (relative definition, "X is more viable than Y")? Some say it's one, some say it's the other. Nobody is agreed. Human nature sticks its foot in the door, even when we don't want it to.

Or maybe it's just that there is a definitive meaning inherent in "viable", but people obfuscate and examine it without needing to. Even if it's written in the OP in big bold type to say, "THIS IS HOW VIABILITY IS DEFINED, NO OTHER INTERPRETATION IS OKAY", you will still have people who ask, "Yeah but why is that the definition? Isn't there a better / simpler / more efficient / more controversial way of defining it?"

I don't have an issue with the word "viability", I know what the concept itself means; the real tricky bit here is how we define "viable" and what and where exactly distinguishes between viable and not viable. I don't know. Just something I want to say.

...cannot do exceptionally well in tournaments, no matter how hard you try...

That's just flat-out wrong.

Just because it's exponentially more difficult doesn't mean it's physically impossible, and I think you do a great disservice to everybody that plays the characters mentioned.

Incidentally, the word "tournament" is incredibly vague and open-ended.

Most recent tournament I went to, a Palutena got to Grand Finals. It was a very small local tournament, but by your broad categorisation, I can cite it as evidence to refute your statement.

 

[Zelder]

Oh I'm sure that Charizard is better than I think he is, it's just funny to put him in that category. I've seen prominent Diddy mains and Ness mains (MVD, Shaky) show up in top 8 of national tournaments, which makes me question if they truly need to be put in paired viable (well, Ness ain't getting around that Rosaline matchup) and Charizard has done...?

 

[Trifroze]

I thought Samus' bottom trash stigma was long gone?

She should never be mentioned among characters like Jigglypuff, Zelda, Mac, Lucina, Shulk, Palutena and all the non-DK superheavies who are in a much more desperate situation. Most of them would actually require ridiculous buffs or a rework, like a very easy and reliable rest setup for Puff, an actual neutral game for Zelda, an overtuned kill confirm for Palutena, a good recovery for Mac, all-around mobility for the superheavies and several frames off from the startup and endlag of just about every single move Shulk has. The only thing Samus would arguably require to be viable is an Ike treatment (a slight buff to many things and the rework of a move or two). This way she falls into the same cast with the likes of Marth, Falco and Kirby, although Samus' tools are already stronger than any of them, she just has more trouble resetting to neutral from disadvantage, but strengthening her a little bit overall would increase the reward enough to make up for this.

For example Samus would probably become viable only with a few modifications, like more damage to a few of her crucial moves (zair, nair, uair, up b), down tilt being a kill move at ~120% or having less endlag so it's safe, and something done to missiles and/or bombs.

Marth would become viable with a low knockback, low hitstun combo throw that can set up into fsmash at certain ranges, dancing blade working properly and dolphin slash getting a small damage (and knockback) increase.

I don't know enough about Falco and Kirby, only that they're low mobility CQC fighters with no glaring flaws, but bigger reward for landing hits and maybe better lasers for Falco and E3 uthrow for Kirby would do it.

Not suggesting buffs here really, rather just using them to paint the picture of what kind of a state the characters really are in.

EDIT: upon re-reading this I do realize that the buff I'm suggesting for Marth is also an "overtuned kill confirm" but honestly he'd become good even with a combo throw that doesn't do anything like that plus the other things I mentioned

 

[Dee-SmashinBoss]

.......sometimes I soooo wish there was a dislike button......
Let's be real, some problems aren't really things that should be used to hold a character back/make them bad.
Weight for instance, there is always a good and bad thing about being light or heavy right?
If a character is light, that should never be a true reason why they are low, Rosa is light, Pika is light, apparently sheik is too? Fox is also light, yet they all do great anyways.
Range is also debatable, we all know Pika is very relevant in that area, fox is......sorta there as well, and in a way Mario too, and ness in general.

Core problems are the real thing to look at.
Take a look at Kirby,
He's quite slow, and has a very poor approach and neutral. 1.5 Dash speed is merely average, but a 0.8 air speed(4th slowest) is just painful.
He has no true projectile, so he can't really force approaches while some characters with even a somewhat decent projectile can make him approach.

He has range and weight issues, but those aren't really something to complain about, I mean he generally always had those issues.

But he does have
Great combos
Good recovery
Pretty good offstage game
Very low crouch
Powerful attacks(not great confirms though)
And somewhat quick-low lag attacks.

Take a look at his flaws, weight, speed, range are almost out of the question for being fixed, he won't get a projectile naturally, he really doesn't have a reliable kill confirm.

Basically the only reasonable one I see getting fixed is giving him a kill throw to fill in his lack of good kill confirms.
So yea, mostly his core problems won't get fixed, so he needs some......like....trying to put this in the best way....uhh....some buffs that kinda make it not so bad, but ones that are reasonable?
So like if Final Cutter were slightly faster and have less end lag and harder to punish, it wouldn't be a bad tool in neutral right?

 

[Jamble]

I can't help but be baffled by people thinking Bowser is bad. I play with customs (namely Dash Slash in Bowser's case) so I'm basing my post partially on that too.

I want to preface this with an acknowledgement that most people in the thread here have much more experience and knowledge of the game than I do, and that I'm throwing out my thoughts after one day of experimenting with and having fun with Bowser (including some For Glory matches though I feel he suffers without customs). I'm hoping to have some more savvy people share their input on this.

Bowser Pros:
-Very mobile, despite what you'd think. His run speed is comfortably within the top half of the cast, and Dash Slash adds mobility in droves, thanks to tricks like waveslashing, and the fact that if, from midair, you land just as the claw animation comes out, it seems to cancel both the endlag of the attack (not sure about this) and the landing lag(I am sure about this), which can immediately lead into another attack or option. This allows him to threaten large areas of the stage and punish mistakes easier than his fellow heavyweights.
-He hits like a sack full of bricks. His tilts are amazing, and very few attacks of his actually don't have some capacity to kill. That puts the pressure on hard when your opponent can be winning handily percentage-wise, and you can still take their stock off before they can take yours. A lead over Bowser in percentage is incredibly deceiving.
-Even characters with good kill potential struggle to knock Bowser off the edge and make him actually stay dead. He is a super heavyweight through and through, and I find that people have a harder time gimping my recovery as Bowser (I feel like it snaps him to the ledge pretty easily compared to others and tends to just pass right through most edgeguarders)
-His attacks have some of the best reach outside the swordsman characters with their disjoints
-Good grab range and solid throws all around.

Cons:
-Bigger and heavier than ever before, he is pure combo and juggle bait. Also makes him struggle against disjoints
-Bad aerial speed really holds back his movement and approach options despite his run speed and aerial dash claw options
-Approach options are really limited. He gets stuck in a weird place where he both can't give an opponent too much room and often lacks the tools to approach reliably. ON THE OTHER HAND, I keep hammering on dash claw, but the fact that it can cancel landing lag and immediately launch into other attacks like whirling fortress might help him out here too.
-His neutral special and down specials seem largely useless, taking up moveslots (and potential options) on largely unusable attacks

But idk, he still seems pretty solid, he has enough strengths that I think he's got loads of potential in the right hands because of his power, surprisingly good speed and ability to threaten decently large parts of the stage

 

[Wintropy]

Weight for instance, there is always a good and bad thing about being light or heavy right?

I know there's more keeping him back than just his weight, but you can't deny it's a heavy cross to bear on his tiny fragile shoulders.

 

[meleebrawler]

I realized that a character with such good mobility, two potent kill throws and several top grade moves like shadow ball, fair, nair, dsmash, usmash, dtilt and jab can't be that close to bottom 5 despite also having considerable drawbacks. He might even be closer to mid than bottom, and if he was midweight and his dthrow comboed he'd probably be viable. Sadly he's featherweight, he doesn't have much grab reward before kill percents since his pummel is bad and you can SDI out of fthrow in the middle of it, and he can't really land with his aerials or retreat with them due to his clumsiness in the air.

When you say people can SDI out, how many balls do they dodge in the process and how consistently? So far I've only seen Yoshi escape taking minimal damage thanks to his jump. Besides, even if fthrow doesn't end up doing much damage, I think getting time to prep a shadow ball or set up edgeguards is it's own reward...

The trouble with landing with Mewtwo's aerials lies more in the moves themselves rather than Mewtwo's physics. After all, Ryu has even worse deceleration but has relatively little trouble landing or spacing his aerials on the defensive. Nair doesn't have much range and trades very poorly, dair is dair, bair's hitbox placement doesn't lend itself well for attacking grounded opponents and fair is decent when retreating but still rather short. With things like Confusion and b-reversing charges Mewtwo's inertia generally becomes less of a problem.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

Oh I'm sure that Charizard is better than I think he is, it's just funny to put him in that category. I've seen prominent Diddy mains and Ness mains (MVD, Shaky) show up in top 8 of national tournaments, which makes me question if they truly need to be put in paired viable (well, Ness ain't getting around that Rosaline matchup) and Charizard has done...?

The reason Charizard isn't prominent is exactly because people keep putting him in the same boat as Ganondorf and thus not many want to use him in tournaments. Again, Bengalz provides a good look into how Charizard can preform in the meta; and he does pretty well against characters that other lower-tier characters struggle with. Charizard's problem isn't that he's bad, it's that he's underrepresented, so we don't have a real solid confirmation about how he performs in tournaments. IIRC, though, Charizards tend to place pretty decently in tournaments, certainly better than most of the other heavies.

It's not like he's, say, Jigglypuff, who has no real chance at being considered viable in this game. Charizard's meta has been explored, and all of his players and even Zer0 agree that Charizard is mid-tier. The only glaring issues with Charizard is that he has some issues with juggling and rushdown characters.

 

[Wintropy]

The reason Charizard isn't prominent is exactly because people keep putting him in the same boat as Ganondorf and thus not many want to use him in tournaments. Again, Bengalz provides a good look into how Charizard can preform in the meta; and he does pretty well against characters that other lower-tier characters struggle with. Charizard's problem isn't that he's bad, it's that he's underrepresented, so we don't have a real solid confirmation about how he performs in tournaments. IIRC, though, Charizards tend to place pretty decently in tournaments, certainly better than most of the other heavies.

It's not like he's, say, Jigglypuff, who has no real chance at being considered viable in this game. Charizard's meta has been explored, and all of his players and even Zer0 agree that Charizard is mid-tier. The only glaring issues with Charizard is that he has some issues with juggling and rushdown characters.

Pit doesn't get much tournament representation (outside of Japan, thank you based Earth-senpai~), yet we as a community have, based on popular response, agreed he is high-tier. I agree that Charizard not having representation diminishes how well we understand his competitive potential, but there has to be more to than "we just don't understand him". One (very good) player doesn't really demonstrate how good a character can perform in the meta, in the same way that Pikachu isn't necessarily top-tier just because ESAM kicks backside with him.

I agree that Charizard isn't bottom-tier trash and he probably does have more potential than he is often given credit for, but if he really had untapped potential to be a relevant force in the meta, I think we'd have discovered it by now; especially considering your statement that "his meta has been explored".

Incidentally, please don't cite ZeRo's opinion as evidence. He makes quite a few outlandish statements that haven't been proven to have empirical basis in fact.

EDIT: I don't mean to pick on you today, I'm just in a debating mood and I think your post is worth responding to.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

Pit doesn't get much tournament representation (outside of Japan, thank you based Earth-senpai~), yet we as a community have, based on popular response, agreed he is high-tier. I agree that Charizard not having representation diminishes how well we understand his competitive potential, but there has to be more to than "we just don't understand him". One (very good) player doesn't really demonstrate how good a character can perform in the meta, in the same way that Pikachu isn't necessarily top-tier just because ESAM kicks backside with him.

I agree that Charizard isn't bottom-tier trash and he probably does have more potential than he is often given credit for, but if he really had untapped potential to be a relevant force in the meta, I think we'd have discovered it by now; especially considering your statement that "his meta has been explored".

Incidentally, please don't cite ZeRo's opinion as evidence. He makes quite a few outlandish statements that haven't been proven to have empirical basis in fact.

EDIT: I don't mean to pick on you today, I'm just in a debating mood and I think your post is worth responding to.

It's fine, I like having these sorts of debates.

ZeR0's opinion just happens to line up with that the Charizard boards have; that Charizard isn't explored quite fully just yet, even with our current understanding. Bengalz seems to have explored Charizard a bit more thouroughly then most people have, which might explain why he's so good at Charizard rather than him just being really good (which he is, but it's also that he's explored Zard quite thoroughly). Charizard's aerials are fast, he has a good grab game and he's overall pretty good, but again the dominance of Shiek in the meta currently diminishes Charizard's reputation since, while he does decently against most of the cast, he really struggles with the Shiek MU.

Charizard has plenty of potential, but the fact that he's derided as a low-tier character contributes to his low use. He's not exceptional against high-tiers, but he is, at least as far as his mains are concerned, far better than being low tier. The only really bad MU he has is against Shiek, everything else is about even or in his favor.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Trifroze Thanks for providing an example of what I was talking about when it come to every character having people trying to defend them?

Not to pick on just you buuuuut....

Saying so and so "just needs the Ike treatment to be viable" isn't exactly a good thing: before patches Ike was bottom 5 easy. If somebody needs the Ike treatment they are a bottom tier character like he was before his treatment started. To say your character needs the Ike treatment is to admit they are trash. Seriously, Ike had no combos, awkward hitboxes on a few key moves, and bad knockback on several other key moves. And more landing lag. And a jab combo that didn't work. He was garbo, which made Ryuga winning that 3DS tournament with Ike absolutely mind boggling. He even beat a Greninja to do it!

People keep looking at one particular character in a vacuum, ignoring the others around them tier wise, and go "look X can do such and such and such they are clearly better than what you think!". Thing is you can do that for literally every character in the game. I've seen freaking Zelda get that treatment in this topic.

No really. Every single character in this game you can make seem like at least a high low tier/bottom mid tier character by overemphasizing their strengths and overemphasizing the weaknesses of other characters. You think Little Mac is worse than Samus because of his recovery? Give it an hour, somebody will pop up talking how Little Mac's strengths are better than Samus and how Samus needs a lot more than he does to be good. Zelda? "She has such great kill power on her moves and has the elevator to use to punish whiffs, a recovery that's particularly hard to gimp and a reflector. Really all she needs is a a combo throw and a rework of her Down B then she'd be mid tier. She's much better off than Samus who's trying to be a mid range character with awkward combo bits thrown in and the inability to kill."

Guys. Accept that your character is bad. Bad doesn't mean nearly as much in this game as it did in Melee or Brawl.