2013 Community Tier List

[Fortress | Sveet]

I feel it's largely in part of their high popularity while you seem to believe it's because they are inherently better characters.

You really don't think fox and falco are better characters than pikachu? I guess we agree to disagree then.

 

[Illuvial]

Don't really agree with Pichu being as low as he is as I'd put him 3 or 4 spaces up just based on what I've seen, but I'm not a Melee player so I wouldn't really know it was well as a lot of you guys

 

[1MachGO]

You really don't think fox and falco are better characters than pikachu? I guess we agree to disagree then.

The real question is do you think metagame development has been skewed in Fox/Falco's favor? Whether you want to contest the exact reason as to WHY they are popular, there is no denying that popularity will make your character better. There is just so many factors that are a result of popularity, such as:

>Larger playerbase = larger pool of players pushing the meta (i.e. top players)
>More data = more tourney results, more vods, more MU info, more research support, etc. (more reason to believe in their placement)
>Smaller opposing playerbase = their meta is going to have to form around yours (good spacie MUs improve your character because spacies are so popular)

I don't think you understand that list, then. It only gives points to top8 placings, and the amount of points it gives is directly related to the size of the tournament. Puff is 2nd because Mango won the largest tournament (by a very large margin) using Puff and Falco. If you take that single data point out, puff would've had less than half of her points. The list also takes into account all the small locals and regionals and everything in between.

Spoiler

Using Ankoku's method:
The math behind the list is as follows:
Base values are
1 for top eight
4 for top four
7 for second
10 for first

Base values are then multiplied by number of entrants and entry fee, then divided by 160. This helps account for larger tournaments being more relevant than smaller ones. If two characters are listed, both gain half the points. On that note, PLEASE ONLY PROVIDE MAINS. I don't care if you randomly picked Pichu for a random game in your first round if you spent the rest of the tournament as Fox.

I am not advocating the list type to be the "best" tier list method, just citing data unlike what Bones does.

The weighting doesn't matter because you aren't controlling your number of datapoints. You are accepting an indefinite volume of submissions so the most popular characters will muscle their way to the top (Fox).

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Metagame only matters so much. You might be able to predict every action the opponent does, but not have any solution to their option.

Pikachu isn't as good as Fox. He can't challenge any of Fox's attacks, all of his moves have more lag than Fox's, he is slower than fox, and he struggles to even stand his ground. He has a single throw->KO option that works against 3 characters on 1 stage.

None of these things can be overcome by advancing the metagame, they are limitations of the character. Play the character all day, but that won't magically level him up to Fox's tier.

 

[1MachGO]

Metagame only matters so much. You might be able to predict every action the opponent does, but not have any solution to their option.

Pikachu isn't as good as Fox. He can't challenge any of Fox's attacks, all of his moves have more lag than Fox's, he is slower than fox, and he struggles to even stand his ground. He has a single throw->KO option that works against 3 characters on 1 stage.

None of these things can be overcome by advancing the metagame, they are limitations of the character. Play the character all day, but that won't magically level him up to Fox's tier.

Metagame will trump objectivity/theory 90+% of the time because humans are ultimately playing this game. If you are not going to observe the impact of social trends in its ability to change our perceptions of the game and viability of certain characters then you are only demonstrating its effects.

Since I have joined this game, I have noticed how easy it is for people to bandwagon. Mango/Hbox prominence in the post-brawl era made people say Puff was OP. Armada era to pre Apex 2014 had people saying Marth couldn't compete at top level. Now we got this "20XX is around the corner", Puff doesn't have a prayer vs. Fox, and Marth is great again.

Top players might as well shape the perceptions of the community on a whim based on who they pick. There is a strong positive correlation with dedicated top level players and the most frequently picked character in the game. Mango proved at BH4 that he can beat Hax with "joke" characters because he is just on another level.

Your understanding of Pikachu, while not necessarily inaccurate, is almost exclusively shaped by the accomplishments of 1.5 players (maybe you factor in Pikachad, idk). Is it impossible to conceive there might be more to Pikachu, or any other viable character not named Fox/Falco, than that meets the eye?

I articulate this much better in an older post of mine.

Spoiler

Fox and Falco are the most popular characters in the game. This gives them an advantage in resources over the other characters (that advantage being population) and as a result, they have a stronger pool of players who are developing their strategies and representing said strategies at the highest level of competition (aka the forefront of the metagame)

So while Marth and Sheik have approximately 3 reps each and Pikachu/Peach/Puff have approximately 1 to 2 each, Fox and Falco are consistently being represented by 8+ reps (Mango, PP, M2K, Leffen, Hax, Westballz, Fiction, Lucky, Colbol, SFAT, etc.).

This isn't to say that higher representation inherently means higher metagame development, but this appears to be the case since different strategies are being utilized. Mango, Leffen, and Hax are capable of representing the same character with noticeably different styles while still performing at a similar level of play. The same can be said for Mango, PPMD, and Westballz in regards to Falco. What this means is that there are more winning formulas on display, and thus, more information available to players who are trying to understand Fox or Falco in relation to the metagame.

Compare that to Marth, Peach, Puff, etc. who have fewer reps utilizing strategies at non-similar levels of play. Do we really understand these characters as well as Fox and Falco? I can clearly recall many players doubting the capabilities of Marth until 2013, and which definitively changed in 2014 when PPMD brought Marth back into "top level" so to speak. Prior to that, we had up-and-coming PPU and M2K's "FD counterpick Marth" which practically hadn't progressed since 2010.

Of course, I will admit the possibility that many characters could be linear enough to the point that the sole players who are representing x character at top level are representing the only working strategy they are capable of, but I would like to think that most of these characters are like Marth and that the main thing holding them back is the players (or lack there of) using them.

TL;DR/Conclusion Fox and Falco are more developed and better players are utilizing them. Theoretical placement don't mean **** if this is the case.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Mostly, all of those (incorrect) assumptions were made by people who didn't know any better. Plenty of people were saying puff was overrated (particularly Mango and Hbox) but a lot of people just saw the results and didn't actually experience the gameplay.

And no, my understanding of Pikachu is from my own experiences with the game. Understanding the game better will never change the fact that his nair doesn't have the priority to challenge any hitbox from Fox or Falco. The only thing understanding will improve is what situations the players choose, never how good those situations are.

Edit- And keep in mind that the VAST majority of the players for a character aren't improving the metagame at all. They are playing catch-up to what the top players have already accomplished. Occasionally a new technique is discovered, but as time goes on the chances of that occurring gets slimmer and slimmer.

 

[TheDuckChris]

If top players are on another level, maybe we can look to the level just underneath, to get a sense of character placings within a wider field of similarly skilled players. For example, within the high but not top level players, we have people like Lucky, Hax, Axe, Amsa i guess, Wobbles, S2J, Shroomed etc, of which: Foxes tend to place higher, Ice Climbers are pretty solid, Axe wins if they dont know the matchup, same with Amsa, Falcon tends to place lower than the other top tier characters, Marth can compete and Puff generally places like falcon.

While obviously not a great metric due to underrepresentation of certain characters at high level (sheik for some reason, 1 yoshi, 1 pikachu, not that much puff besides S0ft and hbox if you wanna consider him not top but I do), but still interesting. If we had more players at top level we could rank the theoretical potential of characters more accurately. I feel yoshi is vastly underrated in ways Puff used to be, while Puff now is a bit overrated? Maybe? idk

 

[Bones0]

He can't challenge any of Fox's attacks

Not true.

all of his moves have more lag than Fox's

Not true.

he is slower than fox

Not by much on the ground, and there are plenty of edgeguarding scenarios where Fox is too slow to jump out and intercept but Pikachu can easily.

He has a single throw->KO option that works against 3 characters on 1 stage.

Bthrowing off stage to setup for gimps and edgeguards works vs. almost the whole cast though.

None of these things can be overcome by advancing the metagame, they are limitations of the character. Play the character all day, but that won't magically level him up to Fox's tier.

All of these things are examples of disadvantages that characters overcome all the time. Marth in the past (and still largely) has struggles KOing many characters, but recent utilization of pivot fsmashes and tipper dsmashes are ways Marth players are finding ways around this problem. Idk how you can claim such overgeneralizing statements as fact when so little study has been done to find ways around these problems (many of which I believe are blown out of proportion in the first place).

 

[john!]

joe, it's a bad idea to pretend you know that one character is better than another because of theorycrafting. you can't say "fox is better than pikachu because his moves are better than pikachu's moves" because you're comparing apples and oranges. every character does something better than another given character. the only way to reliably determine character strength is to let the metagame develop naturally.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

John, its a bad idea to pretend you know how or what i know about anything. Pikachu has been a relatively popular character for years, his metagame has evolved.

You guys pretend like people only play tournament characters in friendlies. Many people have put time into these characters, but do not use them in tournament for a reason.

 

[1MachGO]

Mostly, all of those (incorrect) assumptions were made by people who didn't know any better. Plenty of people were saying puff was overrated (particularly Mango and Hbox) but a lot of people just saw the results and didn't actually experience the gameplay.

And no, my understanding of Pikachu is from my own experiences with the game. Understanding the game better will never change the fact that his nair doesn't have the priority to challenge any hitbox from Fox or Falco. The only thing understanding will improve is what situations the players choose, never how good those situations are.

Is your personal experience with Pikachu empirical? Are you a top level player?

Honestly, I find Pikachu irrelevant to this conversation. We can pick Sheik or Peach if it makes you understand it easier. The point is that theoretical capabilities are secondary and in reaction to metagame development. Fox can be as amazing-tier as he wants to be in a vacuum but if every top fox player picked a different main his development would stagnate and he would become relatively worse.

So while those assumptions were incorrect in hindsight, they represented the meta more accurately than the tier list did. Play and counterplay is constantly evolving. If said evolution is grossly in favor of character x over character y, we should expect character x to be superior at that given time. Likewise, we should be aware of the fact that our understanding is skewed and can change.

 

[victra♥]

the only melee tier list that matters inspired by the 100% accurate magikarp pm tier list

i want to win tournaments and money for a nintendo game cube game at the risk of early adult on-set arthritis tier:
star blaster mccloud flip

not sure if I like styling or winning more tier:
intimate soul searching moments of wishing they played fox after losing tournament sets
intimate soul searching moments of wishing they played a spacie after losing tournament sets

tech-skillless tier:
i will time you out in a tournament setting
i will shamelessly chaingrab a low tier player while feeling no guilt
i think I do cool things like armada but all i really do is down smash

press the purple button:
http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Sociopath

does ok against spacies tier:
galaga minigame
walgreens drake

plays for fun tier:
jerks it to bizzarro flame gifs
everyone's main in friendlies

delusional tier:
tournament falcon

woo hoo tier:
nair out of everything
shroomed mained him once
#freescorpionmaster

everyone tried after watching amsa but gave up midway through a friendly tier:
but amsa

that one local player who thinks he can make him work tier:
links you a gif of green ranger
he can be good guys i swear

I saw someone do good so i can too tier:
but armada
did you see that mofo vs hax match
but qerb
but dj nintendo
but taj
but sethlon
but cosmo

pichu is not the worst character kirby is tier:


kirby is not the worst character pichu is tier:

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I would vote for that list as official 2014 list right now


edit--

Is your personal experience with Pikachu empirical? Are you a top level player?

I was virtually guanteed 7th at UFGTX but didnt return after day 1, 41st at Super SWEET, top 200 at EVO even tho I played like trash, and I was top 100 at BH4 even though I had no sleep and chose to captain 2 rounds of pools instead of practice/relax/eat food.

Am I a top player? By no means at all. But I have played this game in and out, not simply talked about it.

Honestly, I find Pikachu irrelevant to this conversation. We can pick Sheik or Peach if it makes you understand it easier.

Sheik and Peach are not equivalent to Pikachu in this conversation. Idk if this is a slippery slope argument or just a strawman.

The point is that theoretical capabilities are secondary and in reaction to metagame development. Fox can be as amazing-tier as he wants to be in a vacuum but if every top fox player picked a different main his development would stagnate and he would become relatively worse.

The properties of the character remain the same at all times. The theoretical capabilities of the game have been well known since the early days (eg. Perfect Control). The capabilities of people to execute is what has gradually improved over time.

So while those assumptions were incorrect in hindsight, they represented the meta more accurately than the tier list did. Play and counterplay is constantly evolving. If said evolution is grossly in favor of character x over character y, we should expect character x to be superior at that given time. Likewise, we should be aware of the fact that our understanding is skewed and can change.

So what are you advocating? If we make a tier list that accounts for these unimaginable situations, then we aren't making a tier list that describes the tournament metagame, we are describing fantasy.

 

[john!]

John, its a bad idea to pretend you know how or what i know about anything. Pikachu has been a relatively popular character for years, his metagame has evolved.

You guys pretend like people only play tournament characters in friendlies. Many people have put time into these characters, but do not use them in tournament for a reason.

well let's take, for example, fox and sheik. how could you explain to someone that fox is better than sheik without citing tournament results? (hint: matchup scores don't count because those too are based on tournament results)

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

well let's take, for example, fox and sheik. how could you explain to someone that fox is better than sheik without citing tournament results? (hint: matchup scores don't count because those too are based on tournament results)

People describe the techniques that character can do. If a new player asked me, I would say something like:

"Fox is better than Sheik because he is the fastest character with a useful projectile, incredibly fast moves, extremely low risk attack strings and hard counters the majority of the cast. Sheik is almost as good as Fox, she also counters a lot of characters, but she has a few hard match-ups."​

I have never heard someone explain it to a new player by saying, "Look, Fox won X out of Y tournaments this year so hes obviously #1 on the tier list. Sheik only won Z tournaments so she is 4th."

 

[john!]

"Fox is better than Sheik because he is the fastest character with a useful projectile, incredibly fast moves, extremely low risk attack strings..."​

this is all true of sheik as well. she may not be as fast as fox, but she's a better edgeguarder and has more chaingrabs. how is theory going to tell you which one is better?​

"[Fox] hard counters the majority of the cast. Sheik is almost as good as Fox, she also counters a lot of characters, but she has a few hard match-ups."​

​

you only know all of this because of top sheik players; sometimes the reason for things are only "obvious" to us after other people explain or demonstrate them. this applies to a lot of things (lightning and gravity are good examples). what you're doing here is telling me what's already been demonstrated, and assuming that nothing significant will be demonstrated in the future.

 

[1MachGO]

People describe the techniques that character can do. If a new player asked me, I would say something like:

"Fox is better than Sheik because he is the fastest character with a useful projectile, incredibly fast moves, extremely low risk attack strings and hard counters the majority of the cast. Sheik is almost as good as Fox, she also counters a lot of characters, but she has a few hard match-ups."​

I have never heard someone explain it to a new player by saying, "Look, Fox won X out of Y tournaments this year so hes obviously #1 on the tier list. Sheik only won Z tournaments so she is 4th."

Your ability to answer that question is ultimately determined by examples found in the current meta (even if you aren't directly citing them). If some Sheik player demonstrates that a losing MU is even or in Sheik's favor, your answer would change. Perceptions of the Marth/Sheik MU is a good example of that.

Furthermore, it is probably more likely that Sheik's overall MU spread averages higher than Fox's. As high tier characters, they obviously have their fair share of hard counters against low tiers, but Sheik has some MUs that are outright unwinnable for certain characters and she performs significantly better against mid tiers than Fox does.

Again, it goes back to relevancy and the metagame. If player distribution was more equal across the cast, Sheik would likely be the best pick in the game since she has the best overall MU spread. If ICs suddenly got super popular, Sheik would probably suffer and Peach would excel, etc.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

@ john! After 13 years I would reasonably expect no mystery trick to still exist. All that remains is further optimization of currently known techniques. I could be proven wrong, but its doubtful.

Your ability to answer that question is ultimately determined by examples found in the current meta (even if you aren't directly citing them). If some Sheik player demonstrates that a losing MU is even or in Sheik's favor, your answer would change. Perceptions of the Marth/Sheik MU is a good example of that.

How would Sheik demonstrate it isn't a losing match-up? Winning doesn't prove anything; people win bad match-ups all the time. Sheik would need to come up with an unknown strategy that happens to be better than what we know, not simply execute what we know to a better degree. Eg, if it was discovered that Sheik has a 0-death chaingrab on fox.

Furthermore, it is probably more likely that Sheik's overall MU spread averages higher than Fox's. As high tier characters, they obviously have their fair share of hard counters against low tiers, but Sheik has some MUs that are outright unwinnable for certain characters and she performs significantly better against mid tiers than Fox does.

Again, it goes back to relevancy and the metagame. If player distribution was more equal across the cast, Sheik would likely be the best pick in the game since she has the best overall MU spread. If ICs suddenly got super popular, Sheik would probably suffer and Peach would excel, etc.

Imagine the distribution of players started evenly. The people who were playing Pichu, Bowser and Kirby got tired of losing so they either quit or changed characters. Now the distribution is skewed towards the better characters. This skewing will always go towards the top, because tournament is about winning. Most people do not choose their character arbitrarily, and those that do usually don't go far in bracket.

 

[Bones0]

@ john! After 13 years I would reasonably expect no mystery trick to still exist.

All that remains is further optimization of currently known techniques.

Sheik would need to come up with an unknown strategy that happens to be better than what we know, not simply execute what we know to a better degree.

The way you talk about the metagame seems very flawed. You act like there are set strategies or flowcharts the top players use and everyone else simply executes the strategies in a suboptimal manner. In reality, there are tons of variables that cannot all be accounted for. There are risks and rewards to be balanced, habits to be picked up on, and plenty of other strategic edges that give top players huge advantages over others.

Imagine the distribution of players started evenly. The people who were playing Pichu, Bowser and Kirby got tired of losing so they either quit or changed characters. Now the distribution is skewed towards the better characters. This skewing will always go towards the top, because tournament is about winning. Most people do not choose their character arbitrarily, and those that do usually don't go far in bracket.

Except distribution didn't start evenly. Characters that seemed fun, seemed good or actually were good for a 2001 meta are the characters that started off as the most popular. Not many people played Bowser even at their first tournament because he's super slow and most people figured he wouldn't be that good. Obviously they were right, but we have no idea to what extent because he never developed the same as other characters.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

You act like there are set strategies or flowcharts the top players use and everyone else simply executes the strategies in a suboptimal manner.

Yes that is mostly true. This is particularly obvious with Falco. Laser from a safe distance to force a response, react to their choice. Of course there will always be plenty of mix-up opportunities; whoever plays the best that day wins.

Except distribution didn't start evenly. Characters that seemed fun, seemed good or actually were good for a 2001 meta are the characters that started off as the most popular. Not many people played Bowser even at their first tournament because he's super slow and most people figured he wouldn't be that good.

Bowser Challenge was (and still is to an extent) extremely popular, people play him in friendlies often enough, and there were plenty of people who played him in tournament (Luke, 5150, Gimpyfish, DJN). He wasn't as good as other characters by observation, but that doesn't deter everyone from trying it anyways.

Obviously they were right, but we have no idea to what extent because he never developed the same as other characters.

The character's properties never changed in 13 years. Playing him more doesn't change that.

 

[1MachGO]

Sheik and Peach are not equivalent to Pikachu in this conversation. Idk if this is a slippery slope argument or just a strawman.

Lol its neither, Bones0 is the one who brought up Pikachu, not me. I see the basis of this argument being that our perceptions of Fox/Falco are skewed since the metagame developed in their favor. Any viable character is relevant to the context of this conversation since they have less developed metas. This doesn't mean Peach = Pikachu in terms of character strength if thats what believe I was implying.

The properties of the character remain the same at all times. The theoretical capabilities of the game have been well known since the early days (eg. Perfect Control). The capabilities of people to execute is what has gradually improved over time.

Ah yes, much like we really pegged the theoretical capabilities of Yoshi, Puff, ICs, Falcon, Pikachu, etc. or any other character that saw significant tier list gains.

So what are you advocating? If we make a tier list that accounts for these unimaginable situations, then we aren't making a tier list that describes the tournament metagame, we are describing fantasy.

I fail to understand what you are saying. A result based tier list that mitigates popularity as much as possible would paint a VERY accurate depiction of the contemporary metagame and at the very least inform players of which characters WE know could place well at top level.

How would Sheik demonstrate it isn't a losing match-up? Winning doesn't prove anything; people win bad match-ups all the time. Sheik would need to come up with an unknown strategy that happens to be better than what we know, not simply execute what we know to a better degree. Eg, if it was discovered that Sheik has a 0-death chaingrab on fox.

You must be feigning ignorance. Top players develop strategies that change MUs all the time. PP has changed how Marth plays vs. floaties in 2014, people have gone back in forth on who wins the Fox/Falco MU for 3 years now, every high level Fox replicates Mango's fox/puff strat, etc.

Imagine the distribution of players started evenly. The people who were playing Pichu, Bowser and Kirby got tired of losing so they either quit or changed characters. Now the distribution is skewed towards the better characters. This skewing will always go towards the top, because tournament is about winning. Most people do not choose their character arbitrarily, and those that do usually don't go far in bracket.

You missed the point entirely. I was illustrating how theory is subjugated by metagame/social trends. Fox/Falco being popular well before they saw the consistent success is an example of this.

 

[MTL Kyle]

Pikachu has been a relatively popular character for years

lolno.

Eg, if it was discovered that Sheik has a 0-death chaingrab on fox.

Peach has a really good chaingrab on Fox and it still doesn't make the match-up less ****ty because you can't get a grab out of the blue.
This is a terrible example.

 

[Tagxy]

God I am so upset at this thread. Already gotta ignore all the pikachu stuff so I dont get heated.

First of all yes of course popularity affects results. Being the best character in the game also affects results. Both things have an effect on results, and they feed into each other into a never ending loop until we reach 20XX. At this point the chicken and the egg question has no relevance, fact is this is where we are.

Secondly is it possible that mew2king picks up pichu and in 2 years figures out hes secretly the best character in the game? Yes. Is it possible that wobbles finds a super secret fox technique that breaks the character and renders the rest of the cast usless? Yes. But the most important question is who cares? These kinds of speculation are not helpful and completely pointless, and regardless of whether our opinions and understanding of the game might change in a year or two what important now is the current metagame and our understanding of it. Using fox as an example, maybe in 10 years we figure something out and fox turns out to not be the best character, but right now we know fox has the best results, by analysis hes also in his own class, and hes the most popular. Maybe Ness will shoot up 10 placings later in melees life, but right now we know no one uses him, on paper he looks bad, and his results are bad when people do use him. We use what we know to make a tier list and everything.

Also @ 1 1MachGO I can now pinpoint our difference. I put "theoretical" in quotes out of convenience. But I dont mean TAS nonsense, I mean applying analysis and judgements which are inherently theoretical. In the end we're both attempting to use analysis, but youre attempting to limit its scope in a way that you perceive won't "taint" results.

And thats what I think isnt useful. If we dont want to taint results then create a list thats purely untainted. If we want to incorporate theory and analysis then lets use the full scope of our powerful reasoning abilities with analysis, data, knowledge, etc. to accurately reflect the current metagame. Otherwise, its arbitrary to determine that its ok if we cut off results past top 32, but cant analyze character tools. And that its ok to put emphasis on top players results, but ignore their understanding of bottom tier characters. Manipulating results at its heart is analysis and theory. I imagine your response will be that this is fine since it has a foundation in results, to which my response is if analysis and theory are so bad why not ignore it entirely when it isn't necessary in the first place?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I fail to understand what you are saying. A result based tier list that mitigates popularity as much as possible would paint a VERY accurate depiction of the contemporary metagame and at the very least inform players of which characters WE know could place well at top level.

This list is made of votes from top players based on who they thought performed best in tournament, so it is a list of "characters we know could place well at top level".

You must be feigning ignorance. Top players develop strategies that change MUs all the time. PP has changed how Marth plays vs. floaties in 2014, people have gone back in forth on who wins the Fox/Falco MU for 3 years now, every high level Fox replicates Mango's fox/puff strat, etc.

He has refined the match-ups sure, but changed very little. Maybe because you joined the community in 2013, you missed the previous 10-12 years of Marth metagame.

Those are all examples of the execution being refined, not anything new being discovered.

You missed the point entirely. I was illustrating how theory is subjugated by metagame/social trends. Fox/Falco being popular well before they saw the consistent success is an example of this.

How do you pretend to know fox/falco were "popular well before they saw consistent success"? Stop talking out your ass.

 

[EddyBearr]

Top Tier: These are the best characters in the game. They pretty much lack bad matchups, and they dominant tournaments.
High Tier: These characters are great characters with some bad matchups. They top&win events and can compete with top tier.
Borderline Tier: Captain Falcon seems like he should be a high tier character, but there's something missing..
Viable Tier: These characters are viable, but they're limited compared to ascending tiers. They'll frequently top large events.
Niche Tier: These characters probably shouldn't be good but have Niche uses in competitive play.
Low Tier: These characters are bad, but they have some options and can sometimes do things. Some famous mains.
Bottom Tier: These characters are bad, and only very rarely have been played at a high level.

Example(s) of each tier:
1. Fox
2. Jigglypuff
3. Captain Falcon
4a. Samus
--4b. Luigi
5a. Pikachu (success only really seen with an exceptional player or two)
--5b. Young Link (matchups)
--5c. Ganondorf (can you read your opponent? If so, you can win. If not, probably not.)
6a. Link
--6b. Mewtwo
7. Ness

 

[1MachGO]

This list is made of votes from top players based on who they thought performed best in tournament, so it is a list of "characters we know could place well at top level".

At some point they are speculating. They can't use the same methods for ranking Fox as they can Pichu.

He has refined the match-ups sure, but changed very little. Maybe because you joined the community in 2013, you missed the previous 10-12 years of Marth metagame.

Those are all examples of the execution being refined, not anything new being discovered.

*sigh* another join date remark. I have been playing this game for over 4+ years (my smashmods account is early 2011 IIRC). It took me a while to join SWF but that doesn't mean I haven't been playing this game or following the community.

Marth's stagnation actually seemed to parallel the time I joined so I don't think I am in the dark on this one. M2K seemed to be using Marth less and less, Taj's performance at Genesis 2 must have been one of the last times a non-M2K Marth got top 8, a lot of people were saying Marth was overrated, there wasn't great advice in floaty MUs, etc.

IMO, PP's approach is not a refinement because that is suggesting he is taking a previous approach and improving on it. I can say with certainty that no one was talking about non-committal aggression or not doing anything to win with Marth a few years ago. PP's style seemed to be a legit change up in the formula.

Also, please check out Kadano's thread in the Marth forums if you still don't believe anything "new" is being discovered.

How do you pretend to know fox/falco were "popular well before they saw consistent success"? Stop talking out your ***.

Like Bones0 said, there isn't a lot of concrete data on character usage, but there is plenty of evidence which suggests they have always been the most popular characters. Your 2010 rankings is a great example of how their popularity came well before their 2013-14 top level dominance.

Manipulating results at its heart is analysis and theory. I imagine your response will be that this is fine since it has a foundation in results, to which my response is if analysis and theory are so bad why not ignore it entirely when it isn't necessary in the first place?

What are you getting at? I never said theory and analysis is inherently bad, I am simply pointing out that we shouldn't rank characters solely based on theory/speculation. Tournament results create a clear divide between characters we have concrete, high level information on and those we don't. Saying Pichu is worse than Bowser, or that Bowser is better than Kirby, or that Zelda is better than Roy but worse than G&W, etc. all sounds contrived to me because its suggesting there is a competitive context for these characters when it doesn't presently exist.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I can say with certainty that no one was talking about non-committal aggression or not doing anything to win with Marth a few years ago. PP's style seemed to be a legit change up in the formula.

Safe aggression is a fundamental mechanic everyone should do with every character. This isn't something PP invented. Go look up Cactuar's Marth from the MLG era.

Your 2010 rankings is a great example of how their popularity came well before their 2013-14 top level dominance.

You would have to go back to 2002 in order to make some claim like that. 2010 is already 8-9 years of tournament play.

 

[1MachGO]

Safe aggression is a fundamental mechanic everyone should do with every character. This isn't something PP invented. Go look up Cactuar's Marth from the MLG era.

Safe aggression isn't (necessarily) the same as non-committal aggression. Lets say your opponent has their back to the ledge and you're Marth. The "safe" option could be to do a dtilt poke; it has little lag, safe on shield at the right distance, and keeps your opponent on the defensive. The "non-committal" option would be to just stand there and let the threat of dtilt accomplish the same thing.

IIRC, Cactuar always spoke of positional advantage and baiting but these techniques are fighting games 101 like you've implied. The actual power of non-committal aggression was a concept PP was a big proponent of circa 2013 and successfully demonstrated in 2014.

You would have to go back to 2002 in order to make some claim like that. 2010 is already 8-9 years of tournament play.

By "consistent success" I hope you realize I am referring to player(s) which are consistently taking top level tournaments with character x. I am referring to scenarios such as Ken with Marth, M2K with Marth/Sheik, Mango with Puff, Armada with Peach, etc. While you could argue there were some very short glimpses of Falco dominance with PC Chris and pre-2013 Dr. PeePee, both of these players weren't particularly consistent at the time. And IIRC, a Fox hadn't taken an international until 2012 or 2013.

So given this criteria, character usage of 2002 and prior is an arbitrary parameter. Its also impossible for us to disprove the other given that there isn't a lot of records for that time period. However, Fox/Falco comprised 30% of the top 24 at MLG DC 2005 if that's any indication that the characters were popular prior to any break out success (at least in that region).

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Dude, the game has progressively gotten more refined over the years. Something new being discovered is like in 2006 when the light shield edgehog was discovered. Someone using dtilt or bluffing that they are going to use dtilt isn't a new technique. Good on you for reading Dr. PeePee's posts about the subject, but people have been playing mindgames like that for years. PP is a very cerebral person, and hes the only top 5 player that writes his thoughts and theories on the boards. I can understand why you may have thought he was the first to do it, but even if he was, it isnt a new technique.

By "consistent success" I hope you realize I am referring to player(s) which are consistently taking top level tournaments with character x. I am referring to scenarios such as Ken with Marth, M2K with Marth/Sheik, Mango with Puff, Armada with Peach, etc. While you could argue there were some very short glimpses of Falco dominance with PC Chris and pre-2013 Dr. PeePee, both of these players weren't particularly consistent at the time.

So PC Chris beating Ken and taking ~3 MLG titles in a row away from him, not to mention the MLG Vegas Championship and a $10,000 first prize isn't consistent?

And IIRC, a Fox hadn't taken an international until 2012 or 2013.

Depends on what you define as "International". USA was the best region in the world uncontested until Armada appeared at Genesis. Does it matter if there was multinational representation when the top ~25 players in the world were all American?

But I do seem to recall PC Chris winning 0c3 with Fox, which the japanese (particularly, bombsoldier) attended.

So given this criteria, character usage of 2002 and prior is an arbitrary parameter. Its also impossible for us to disprove the other given that there isn't a lot of records for that time period. However, Fox/Falco comprised 30% of the top 24 at MLG DC 2005 if that's any indication that the characters were popular prior to any break out success (at least in that region).

I just think its funny that you think Fox/Falco hadn't seen any success before 2005. By that time, Ken was already seconding Fox because his Marth was dropping sets.

 

[Yeroc]

Even before 2005 we knew that the spacies were the theoretical best characters, but prominent tournament results were simply accurate reflections of the metagame given the relative currently-attainable skill level.

I want to comment on how I personally still think Sheik is better than most people here believe, but I don't have time to start a new discussion and defend my assertions right now. :/

 

[1MachGO]

Dude, the game has progressively gotten more refined over the years. Something new being discovered is like in 2006 when the light shield edgehog was discovered. Someone using dtilt or bluffing that they are going to use dtilt isn't a new technique. Good on you for reading Dr. PeePee's posts about the subject, but people have been playing mindgames like that for years. PP is a very cerebral person, and hes the only top 5 player that writes his thoughts and theories on the boards. I can understand why you may have thought he was the first to do it, but even if he was, it isnt a new technique.

Then why was the general consensus on Marth's viability so negative for several years? You are really just resorting to hindsight bias without providing any concrete facts.

Regardless, this whole refinement vs. innovation/re-approach is pointless nit-picking at best. My original point has been that MUs and approaches to MUs change over time.

For instance, the Marth/Puff MU was said to be in Puff's favor in 2010. Now that we know Marth has powerful throw follow ups and should approach the MU with a neutral centric/non-committal style (PP) as opposed to a spacing heavy/mixup oriented style (M2K) its generally agreed to be the other way around. The Fox/Falco MU has also changed a lot over the past three years.

So PC Chris beating Ken and taking ~3 MLG titles in a row away from him, not to mention the MLG Vegas Championship and a $10,000 first prize isn't consistent?

PC never won consecutive MLGs IIRC. And Vegas, while a major accomplishment, isn't the same as winning a large scale tournament through a bracket of players (especially in those days when consistency seemed to be a bigger problem among pros)

Depends on what you define as "International". USA was the best region in the world uncontested until Armada appeared at Genesis. Does it matter if there was multinational representation when the top ~25 players in the world were all American?

But I do seem to recall PC Chris winning 0c3 with Fox, which the japanese (particularly, bombsoldier) attended.

By "international" I mean huge tournaments that go beyond the standards of a national in regards to scope, attendance, and prize pool (thus drawing international talent). Genesis, Apex, MLG, etc. would be examples of that. I am not specifically referring to tournaments with international talent present.

I just think its funny that you think Fox/Falco hadn't seen any success before 2005. By that time, Ken was already seconding Fox because his Marth was dropping sets.

This is a strawman. I made it clear as to what I meant by "consistent success".

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Your claims about the history of the community are wrong more than they are right. The overall strategies we use today aren't much different from the ones that were used in the MLG era. Some new techniques have been discovered, and a lot of refinement has occurred, but otherwise its the same. Watch PC vs KDJ and you'll see that it looks mostly the same as Fox dittos of today, particularly in the neutral and at the edge.

I'm not going to argue with you any further.

 

[1MachGO]

I'm not going to argue with you any further.

I won't waste my breath then

 

[Bones0]

Your claims about the history of the community are wrong more than they are right. The overall strategies we use today aren't much different from the ones that were used in the MLG era. Some new techniques have been discovered, and a lot of refinement has occurred, but otherwise its the same. Watch PC vs KDJ and you'll see that it looks mostly the same as Fox dittos of today, particularly in the neutral and at the edge.

I'm not going to argue with you any further.

Dude, did you even WATCH the video you linked? PC and KDJ are both doing tons of immediate FH aerials. No one who's any good plays like that anymore, and that's not just a subtle refinement. That is a major discrepancy in strategy from today vs. 2006.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Bones you come across as someone who wants to create an argument where there is none, simply because you have nothing better to do. I do have better things to do, which is why I have tried to end my discussion. Please respect that.

 

[1MachGO]

Dude, did you even WATCH the video you linked? PC and KDJ are both doing tons of immediate FH aerials. No one who's any good plays like that anymore, and that's not just a subtle refinement. That is a major discrepancy in strategy from today vs. 2006.

Yeah, I felt like linking him the match where Leffen essentially SHDL camps Hax to death at MLG, but if he isn't going to respond it isn't worth it.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The specifics change, especially person to person. The big picture stays the same.

 

[1MachGO]

The specifics change, especially person to person. The big picture stays the same.

This is simply countered by the fact person to person interactions can define the big picture. So if specifics change, so does the big picture. (e.g. the viability of Puff, Yoshi, Pikachu, etc.)

Ya know, for someone who goes out stating they don't wish to argue any further, you aren't exactly doing a good job.

 

[Bones0]

Bones you come across as someone who wants to create an argument where there is none, simply because you have nothing better to do. I do have better things to do, which is why I have tried to end my discussion. Please respect that.

Idk how I'm creating an argument when I responded directly to a video you linked, and kept it to a whopping 4 sentences... My post was as much for everyone else who follows this thread as it was for you.

 

[Tagxy]

What are you getting at? I never said theory and analysis is inherently bad, I am simply pointing out that we shouldn't rank characters solely based on theory/speculation. Tournament results create a clear divide between characters we have concrete, high level information on and those we don't. Saying Pichu is worse than Bowser, or that Bowser is better than Kirby, or that Zelda is better than Roy but worse than G&W, etc. all sounds contrived to me because its suggesting there is a competitive context for these characters when it doesn't presently exist.

The issue is that seemingly to you anything that isnt tournament results is theory/speculation. I find this sentiment to be incorrect. Additionally tournament results present their own set of problems.