2013 Community Tier List

[choknater]

can't we just make 26 tiers?

i mean, this is really the only game i can think of with 26 characters, and there are 26 letters in the alphabet

might it be better that way?

 

[Hax]

regardless of results at recent majors, IC's should be 7th/Falcon 8th. they have significantly better matchups vs the 4 S tiers, while Falcon is significantly better vs the A tiers (and beats IC's). matchups vs the S tiers are the most important thing by a longshot, though. IC's are borderline A tier, borderline B tier IMO.

SSS = Fox Falco
Borderline: Jigglypuff
S = Sheik
A = Marth Peach
Borderline: IC's
B = Falcon
Borderline: Dr. Mario Samus
C and below: Pikachu Luigi Yoshi Ganondorf

 

[BTmoney]

can't we just make 26 tiers?

i mean, this is really the only game i can think of with 26 characters, and there are 26 letters in the alphabet

might it be better that way?

That's actually not a bad idea. and instead of tiers we could just use their numerical values and list them from smallest to largest since that would paint a better picture than 1-26 but it wouldn't be as rigid as dividing characters into tiers

 

[toiletduck]

This list isn't that bad, but how does CF end up in the same tier as the space animals? Fox Falco and maybe sheik should be S, A should be jiggz marth peach IC falcon, in my opinion.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The letters don't just mean whatever you want. When you see Top, middle, lower, and bottom, that implies an even distribution of "goodness" amongst each tier. When you say S, A, B, and F, it sounds like S tier characters are way better than A and B tiers, A and B tier characters are evenly matched, and F tier characters can't compete with A or B tiers at all. That obviously isn't the case, and it wasn't reflected in the poll. There was no magnitude of "goodness" being applied to each tier, so to just slap on your own perceptions of how good each tier is relative to the others is misleading. Melee's cast has a very gradual decline. Characters on the edge of S and F could easily be moved into A and B respectively without there being too much disagreement, but the way the tiers are named implies a huge gap between the two tiers. What is so bad about just naming tiers A, B, C, and D? Adding in random S and F tiers comes with all this baggage and misleading connotations for no benefit.

Idk it makes perfect sense to me. I explained what I meant multiple times, why are you getting so stuck on semantics? This is unlike you

 

[Divinokage]

This list isn't that bad, but how does CF end up in the same tier as the space animals? Fox Falco and maybe sheik should be S, A should be jiggz marth peach IC falcon, in my opinion.

Tournament viability tier.. there you go.

 

[Yobolight]

Apex 2013 Hax outplaced Wobbles by a fair bit (7th v. 17th I do believe)

The devil is in the details with this one.
Wobbles lost to two Peaches (Armada, Vwins)

In a universe where Peach wasn't a character the ICs would have much better tournament results.

 

[Jayk]

But Peach is a character, and her existence makes ICs much worse, and that should definitely be reflected in the list...

 

[MaNg0]

nvm ill just talk about it on the podcast ~

 

[Mew2King]

Hax's list is correct

I still think Fox is solidly overrated. I think Falco and maybe Puff are better for tournament purposes (which includes being able to play those characters at their best with consistent tech skill for example). I think Mango severely outplayed all his opponents at Evo; not because of Fox being broken because I've never seen him as broken. I often feel like Sheik is/can be better too.

Also mewtwo might be better than mario. I'd have to play mango in that matchup to see though (it's hard to tell when you're just a lot better than your opponents). I 3-0d DR Ray really really easily with mewtwo in yesterday's money match, but i 4 stocked him in finals too so it is hard for me to rate mewtwo. I just know mewtwo is better than people think he is.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Mewtwo and Yoshi are probably the two most inaccurately placed characters on this tier list. So overall, not the worst list we could have gotten.

I'd love for us to have a podcast with the top 5 (Hbox, Mango, PP, Armada, M2K) talking about their lists. That'd actually be super dope. Well, as long as they're interesting and don't stop at numbers 5 or 6 like they always do.

I need to know who is worse between Kirby, Pichu, and Bowser, damnit.

 

[Divinokage]

Hax's list is correct

I still think Fox is solidly overrated. I think Falco and maybe Puff are better for tournament purposes (which includes being able to play those characters at their best with consistent tech skill for example). I think Mango severely outplayed all his opponents at Evo; not because of Fox being broken because I've never seen him as broken. I often feel like Sheik is/can be better too.

Also mewtwo might be better than mario. I'd have to play mango in that matchup to see though (it's hard to tell when you're just a lot better than your opponents). I 3-0d DR Ray really really easily with mewtwo in yesterday's money match, but i 4 stocked him in finals too so it is hard for me to rate mewtwo. I just know mewtwo is better than people think he is.

You don't prove matchups by going head to head with someone. >_<

Jayk, I also believe ICs are lucky as hell that there aren't any active good Ganons to stop them either.

 

[thespymachine]

In a universe where Peach wasn't a character the ICs would have much better tournament results.

But Peach is a character, and her existence makes ICs much worse, and that should definitely be reflected in the list...

Jayk, I also believe ICs are lucky as hell that there aren't any active good Ganons to stop them either.

More ICs and Peachs in the community means more happy Falcons too!

 

[john!]

Are you seriously wondering why the "spacies are broken" bandwagon is more common than the "Kirby sucks" bandwagon? No one cares about low tiers on the tier list. What exactly is the more rational explanation for the ridiculous consistency of peoples' tier lists in a game that sees such incredible diversity? You even admit in the second paragraph that you think it's okay to devise your tier list based on other peoples' opinions, so I'm not sure I can take your criticisms seriously.

so you think that an individual can make a tier list, based entirely on their own observations, that's more accurate than a tier list based off of the opinions of lots of great players? or is accuracy not your goal when making a tier list?

 

[Yeroc]

I'm curious what criteria people are using to evaluate character placings. When I first joined the MBR, raw character potential, and explicitly not ease of use or tournament culpability, were the only considerations that mattered. None of this "Marth's only high bcuz Ken is GDLK." The rationale was, Marth is a good character but it wasn't realized until Ken demonstrated what he was capable of. Then around 2007, the emphasis changed. Tournament viability (Falco being easier to play than Fox for long periods of time, for example) became a factor in some people's minds.
As an aside, I wrote my list purely from the standpoint that the characters at the top of the list have the most varied/potent/applicable options and the ones at the bottom simply don't have the tools to bring their strengths to bear on opponnents. In this context, Fox is clearly the best character, regardless of who's playing him. He has far and away more capability than any other character.
How do other people feel about this?

 

[BTmoney]

I'm curious what criteria people are using to evaluate character placings. When I first joined the MBR, raw character potential, and explicitly not ease of use or tournament culpability, were the only considerations that mattered. None of this "Marth's only high bcuz Ken is GDLK." The rationale was, Marth is a good character but it wasn't realized until Ken demonstrated what he was capable of. Then around 2007, the emphasis changed. Tournament viability (Falco being easier to play than Fox for long periods of time, for example) became a factor in some people's minds.
As an aside, I wrote my list purely from the standpoint that the characters at the top of the list have the most varied/potent/applicable options and the ones at the bottom simply don't have the tools to bring their strengths to bear on opponnents. In this context, Fox is clearly the best character, regardless of who's playing him. He has far and away more capability than any other character.
How do other people feel about this?

Well the matter becomes black and white when the only criteria is how well one character can assert or impose themselves over the rest of the cast. So it would not make sense to disagree with you in that light. I personally agree.

However not all people believe it should be that way since we don't have a working definition of a tier list that we all abide to. Depending on whether or not you think a tier list should be based on character potential, tournament results, volatility, and or ease of use character rankings change. That's the difference between Fox and Falco at #1 to some people.

 

[Zelda_Fan_]

Hax's list is correct
Also mewtwo might be better than mario. I'd have to play mango in that matchup to see though (it's hard to tell when you're just a lot better than your opponents). I 3-0d DR Ray really really easily with mewtwo in yesterday's money match, but i 4 stocked him in finals too so it is hard for me to rate mewtwo. I just know mewtwo is better than people think he is.

Thank you. Taj gets 13th at EVO with Mewtwo (and, admittedly, Marth), and no one seems to care.

 

[jayeldeee]

Thank you. Taj gets 13th at EVO with Mewtwo (and, admittedly, Marth), and no one seems to care.

Nah, I found it cool to see that too. It stuck out to me. I think in most cases, a lot of people may just not know the full potential of Mewtwo. But hey, maybe we'll see a bit of Mewtwo players rise after this? No? Eh?

 

[Corona]

I think we need a revote.

 

[Purpletuce]

^I hate you.

 

[Senortesta]

Personally I think these splits work better. I tried my best to split it at points where the difference between characters was the highest to better represent how good the characters are.​

​

A+: Fox, Falco,​

A: Sheik, Marth, Jigglypuff, Peach,​

A-: Captain Falcon, Ice Climbers, Dr. Mario,​

B+: Pikachu, Samus Ganondorf,​

B-: Luigi, Mario​

C+: Young Link, Link, Donkey Kong, Yoshi,​

C-: Zelda, Roy, Mewtwo, Game & Watch​

F: Ness, Boswer, Pichu, Kirby​

 

[BTmoney]

I think we need a revote.

Why is my signature your signature

 

[Divinokage]

Tsk.. stop talking about splits already.. talk about characters at least.

 

[john!]

so you think that an individual can make a tier list, based entirely on their own observations, that's more accurate than a tier list based off of the opinions of lots of great players? or is accuracy not your goal when making a tier list?

any response, bones?

i disapprove of your approach to tier list creation which rejects the experiences and theories of other players in favor of exclusively using your own. in fact, i think it's extremely cocky and ignorant to assume that nobody else's tier list can have insights that yours lacks.

what say you in your defense?

 

[Bones0]

any response, bones?

i disapprove of your approach to tier list creation which rejects the experiences and theories of other players in favor of exclusively using your own. in fact, i think it's extremely cocky and ignorant to assume that nobody else's tier list can have insights that yours lacks.

what say you in your defense?

You consistently misinterpret my arguments so I stopped responding. As an example, above you accuse me of being arrogant by assuming no one else's tier list can have insights that mine lacks. But in fact, that is the exact reason I think everyone should think for themselves when making a tier list. I want people to disagree with me and bring up points and counterpoints about how my list is arranged. As it is now, people are content to copy 99% of their list from the status quo and criticize mine for being different than the majority of lists. I try to point it out as often as I can without sounding like a broken record, but the vast majority of tier lists these days are all essentially derived from the 2006 tier list, with Jiggs being the main exception. The people who dismiss tier lists on the basis of being different are the ones who are too arrogant to think anyone could have insight that the general populous is keen to ignore. The tier list has essentially come to a standstill despite the game changing quite drastically over the years.

Also, as I've said already, the fact that complete noobs with no knowledge or understanding of high level Melee have near identical lists to everyone else makes it quite clear there is a problem. I'd rather have noobs base their lists off their own knowledge and put Link at top tier than just look at the three players' list above them and assume those are mostly right.

Just as a reference point, this is how much the list has changed (or rather how much it has stayed the same) from 2006 to now. According to the list, Melee's metagame hasn't changed much over the past 7 years:

Fox
Falco
Sheik
Marth
Jigglypuff (+5)
Peach (-1)
C.Falcon (-1)
Ice Climbers (-1)
Dr. Mario
Pikachu (+8)
Samus (-3)
Ganondorf
Luigi (+1)
Mario (-3)
Young Link (+2)
Link (-3)
Donkey Kong (-2)
Yoshi (+1)
Zelda (+1)
Roy (-4)
Mewtwo (+5)
Game & Watch (-1)
Ness (-1)
Bowser (-1)
Pichu
Kirby (-2)

 

[john!]

You consistently misinterpret my arguments so I stopped responding. As an example, above you accuse me of being arrogant by assuming no one else's tier list can have insights that mine lacks. But in fact, that is the exact reason I think everyone should think for themselves when making a tier list. I want people to disagree with me and bring up points and counterpoints about how my list is arranged. As it is now, people are content to copy 99% of their list from the status quo and criticize mine for being different than the majority of lists. I try to point it out as often as I can without sounding like a broken record, but the vast majority of tier lists these days are all essentially derived from the 2006 tier list, with Jiggs being the main exception. The people who dismiss tier lists on the basis of being different are the ones who are too arrogant to think anyone could have insight that the general populous is keen to ignore. The tier list has essentially come to a standstill despite the game changing quite drastically over the years.

Also, as I've said already, the fact that complete noobs with no knowledge or understanding of high level Melee have near identical lists to everyone else makes it quite clear there is a problem. I'd rather have noobs base their lists off their own knowledge and put Link at top tier than just look at the three players' list above them and assume those are mostly right.

i haven't read your list in a while, but as long as you have explanations for why your list deviates from the standard list, then that seems perfectly fine.

i called you arrogant because you told me that i shouldn't form my list based on anyone else's opinions (which it seems like you are okay with now, based on your last post).

i'd still like to hear your theory regarding why people supposedly have a groupthink mentality when placing spacies on top (among characters which basically every melee player has tons of experience with and strong opinions about) but not when deciding who to place on the very bottom (where very few people have experience and are more likely to defer to other people's opinions)

 

[Deleted member]

I'm curious what criteria people are using to evaluate character placings. When I first joined the MBR, raw character potential, and explicitly not ease of use or tournament culpability, were the only considerations that mattered. None of this "Marth's only high bcuz Ken is GDLK." The rationale was, Marth is a good character but it wasn't realized until Ken demonstrated what he was capable of. Then around 2007, the emphasis changed. Tournament viability (Falco being easier to play than Fox for long periods of time, for example) became a factor in some people's minds.
As an aside, I wrote my list purely from the standpoint that the characters at the top of the list have the most varied/potent/applicable options and the ones at the bottom simply don't have the tools to bring their strengths to bear on opponnents. In this context, Fox is clearly the best character, regardless of who's playing him. He has far and away more capability than any other character.
How do other people feel about this?

tier lists are essentially "relative goodness for tournament viability lists" in the sense that they can be used to reasonably predict the performance of the characters within a proximate time frame. for example, fox and falco have performed excellently over the past several years to the point where they can reasonably be considered to operate as a separate tier from the other top characters. retrofitting the results of prior lists can then be taken as a prediction of how those characters will perform in the near future. for example, ice climbers may be rated higher after evo. potential has since been largely removed from tier list voting, not because speculation was devalued, but more so because speculation was no longer needed as our sample since of tournaments added legitimacy to our observations and the speculation was no longer needed. this is not to say that potential is no longer up for debate- personally i think marth is horribly underrated. it's more of a question of "does potential belong in the tier list?". at this point i would say no, as we are attempting an objective rating system using subjective and sometimes arbitrary methods of evaluation.

people like us are outdated corey. there's nothing wrong with that, but tier lists have definitely changed just as much as the MBR has.

 

[Bones0]

i called you arrogant because you told me that i shouldn't form my list based on anyone else's opinions (which it seems like you are okay with now, based on your last post).

i'd still like to hear your theory regarding why people supposedly have a groupthink mentality when placing spacies on top (among characters which basically every melee player has tons of experience with and strong opinions about) but not when deciding who to place on the very bottom (where very few people have experience and are more likely to defer to other people's opinions)

No, you shouldn't base your list on other peoples' opinions. That is what their lists are for. I encourage people to discuss their opinions with each other, but at the end of the day you don't both submit the most popular tier list. You should just submit whatever tier list your opinions align with the most. If someone changes your mind through that discussion, then you are still just basing your list off of what you believe, not what others believe.

I don't really have some grand theory as to why spacies are consistently placed so high. It seems more like tradition combined with tons of smaller reasons more than anything. If I had to be specific, I'd attribute spacies and Sheik's consistently high placing with them being such popular and solidly designed characters. They don't have any glaring weaknesses that players have ever had to learn to cover up in order to play at an elementary level. Puff, for example, is extremely slow, and I think it took so long for people to place well with her because she was not only unpopular, but died really early and couldn't play like "normal" characters. So when you look at her at a glance, she just doesn't seem as good as the space animal with decent movement, decent hitboxes, and a cool shine. Unfortunately, this completely ignores all the depth Melee offers such as what happens when players get retardedly good and can death touch spacies because they fall fast? Everyone focuses on perfect play, and for some reason that always comes out in spacies' favor even though you can't have perfect play for both characters. There's always people Theory Bros.'ing about the perfect Fox that never gets hit or grabbed and runs away and lasers perfectly. Those same people ignore the possibility of a perfect Pikachu that gets one hit on a Fox because of a read and 02ds him. I don't think either concept of those characters is a particularly accurate or healthy way of viewing the game, but if you must view it that way, surely there should be perfect Theory Bros. versions of all characters, not just ones with shines.

tier lists are essentially "relative goodness for tournament viability lists" in the sense that they can be used to reasonably predict the performance of the characters within a proximate time frame. for example, fox and falco have performed excellently over the past several years to the point where they can reasonably be considered to operate as a separate tier from the other top characters. retrofitting the results of prior lists can then be taken as a prediction of how those characters will perform in the near future. for example, ice climbers may be rated higher after evo. potential has since been largely removed from tier list voting, not because speculation was devalued, but more so because speculation was no longer needed as our sample since of tournaments added legitimacy to our observations and the speculation was no longer needed. this is not to say that potential is no longer up for debate- personally i think marth is horribly underrated. it's more of a question of "does potential belong in the tier list?". at this point i would say no, as we are attempting an objective rating system using subjective and sometimes arbitrary methods of evaluation.


people like us are outdated corey. there's nothing wrong with that, but tier lists have definitely changed just as much as the MBR has.

I'm surprised you're opposed to including theory into tier lists. If your goal is a mainly objective rating system, surely something akin to SSBPD would be better suited for the task. The reason I don't really like the idea of an objective method is that there simply isn't a big enough pool of players. Characters like Doc, Ganon, and Pikachu are severely underused meaning any objective rating will rank those characters primarily on the 1-2 players who are competent with them. I'd rather base everything off of theory so that we can predict things like Jiggs and Peach players taking the crown as best player before it happens instead of herp-derping when it does happen and having tons of bias determining whether the player or the character is the reason for winning. It seems quite hypocritical that the same community that raised Jiggs to 3rd on the list mostly because of Mango has Peach lower on the list than in 2006 despite what Armada has demonstrated.

 

[NightShadow6]

Isn't a tier list just displaying how a character should perform if 2 equally skilled players fight?

Or played at the utmost level of play. Which is why fox is always at the top, since if he is played at the highest level he his the most ridiculous.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Also, as I've said already, the fact that complete noobs with no knowledge or understanding of high level Melee have near identical lists to everyone else makes it quite clear there is a problem. I'd rather have noobs base their lists off their own knowledge and put Link at top tier than just look at the three players' list above them and assume those are mostly right.

This exactly

 

[AppleAppleAZ]

My possibly controversial list.​

​

S​

Fox​

Falco​

​

A​

Marth (favorable matchups against everyone in S, A, or B minus Sheik/Fox/Falcon?, as well as superior movement)​

Sheik​

Jigglypuff (relies too much on other peoples mistakes at the highest level. Her mobility is worse than everyone but Peach)​

Peach​

​

B​

Falcon (better than ICs)​

Ice Climbers​

​

C​

Dr. Mario​

Pikachu​

Samus​

Ganon​

Luigi​

​

D​

Mario​

Y Link​

Link​

Yoshi​

Dk​

G&W (Offensive game is great, only defensive game is lacking)​

Zelda (Has more defensive tech options now with shield dropping becoming more popular, mobility is still an issue along with dash dance spam)​

Mewtwo​

​

F​

Bowser​

Ness​

Roy (so terrible, literally cannot win against platform camping)​

Pichu​

Kirby​

 

[Bones0]

My possibly controversial list.

S
Fox
Falco

A
Marth (favorable matchups against everyone in S, A, or B minus Sheik/Fox/Falcon?, as well as superior movement)
Sheik
Jigglypuff (relies too much on other peoples mistakes at the highest level. Her mobility is worse than everyone but Peach)
Peach

B
Falcon (better than ICs)
Ice Climbers

C
Dr. Mario
Pikachu
Samus
Ganon
Luigi

D
Mario
Y Link
Link
Yoshi
Dk
G&W (Offensive game is great, only defensive game is lacking)
Zelda (Has more defensive tech options now with shield dropping becoming more popular, mobility is still an issue along with dash dance spam)
Mewtwo

F
Bowser
Ness
Roy (so terrible, literally cannot win against platform camping)
Pichu
Kirby

Possibly controversial? This is your list compared to the current one:

Fox
Falco
Marth (+1)
Sheik (-1)
Jigglypuff
Peach
C.Falcon
Ice Climbers
Dr. Mario
Pikachu
Samus
Ganondorf
Luigi
Mario
Young Link
Link
Yoshi (+1)
Donkey Kong (-1)
Mr. Game & Watch (+3)
Zelda (-1)
Mewtwo (+1)
Bowser (+2)
Ness
Roy (-4)
Pichu
Kirby

 

[Funkmasterblitz]

All these lists are all wrong. This is the real one:

Top
1. Fox/Falco

High
2. Sheik
3. Peach
4. Jiggs
5. Marth

Bottom
6. Everyone else

 

[john!]

No, you shouldn't base your list on other peoples' opinions. That is what their lists are for. I encourage people to discuss their opinions with each other, but at the end of the day you don't both submit the most popular tier list. You should just submit whatever tier list your opinions align with the most. If someone changes your mind through that discussion, then you are still just basing your list off of what you believe, not what others believe.

so you don't think i should defer to the most popular tier list for the areas that i know nothing about? your "top tier link" comment seems to imply that.

if i don't know much about the bottom tier characters, i would argue that it's better for me to just put them in the order that most other people think is best, instead of attempting to order them based on my minimal experience and knowledge. sure, the former adds nothing new, but the latter is just poor information that i wouldn't even be able to defend if someone asked for my reasoning.

"i think yoshi is underrated because vectorman is a good player and he thinks yoshi is underrated" is far more reasonable than "i think yoshi is underrated because he's my favorite character and i can beat all the other kids on my block with him".

believe me, i'm as much of an advocate for "free thinking" as anyone else, but only for people who are informed and intelligent enough (on a given subject) to do it correctly. and there's nothing wrong with someone being uninformed or unintelligent, as long as they realize their limitations and defer to those who are, when necessary.

I don't really have some grand theory as to why spacies are consistently placed so high. It seems more like tradition combined with tons of smaller reasons more than anything. If I had to be specific, I'd attribute spacies and Sheik's consistently high placing with them being such popular and solidly designed characters. They don't have any glaring weaknesses that players have ever had to learn to cover up in order to play at an elementary level. Puff, for example, is extremely slow, and I think it took so long for people to place well with her because she was not only unpopular, but died really early and couldn't play like "normal" characters. So when you look at her at a glance, she just doesn't seem as good as the space animal with decent movement, decent hitboxes, and a cool shine. Unfortunately, this completely ignores all the depth Melee offers such as what happens when players get retardedly good and can death touch spacies because they fall fast? Everyone focuses on perfect play, and for some reason that always comes out in spacies' favor even though you can't have perfect play for both characters. There's always people Theory Bros.'ing about the perfect Fox that never gets hit or grabbed and runs away and lasers perfectly. Those same people ignore the possibility of a perfect Pikachu that gets one hit on a Fox because of a read and 02ds him. I don't think either concept of those characters is a particularly accurate or healthy way of viewing the game, but if you must view it that way, surely there should be perfect Theory Bros. versions of all characters, not just ones with shines.

if people have now gotten good enough to find weaknesses in the spacies, then why do they continue to be so popular at every level of play? if great players can death touch spacies, then why do spacies continue to beat great players? either you're missing the counterplay that spacies must have developed to counter the anti-spacies metagame, or you're talking about bones theory world 2016, where players are someday going to unlock another character's potential to be better than the spacies, but we just haven't seen it yet. either way, i think you are on shaky ground.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

John, if you aren't basing your list off your own experiences and knowledge of the game, then it isn't "your" opinion.

And if someone is not knowledgeable enough to form their own opinion, they shouldn't be sharing someone else's.

 

[Iron Dragon]

To touch more on what Sveet said there, I think character selection by lower level players tends to be what they base their tier list on, which they originally based on someone else.

So popularity of a character on a tier list often times determines character usage, which isn't necessarily objective. It isn't even like it's BONES THEORY WORLD 2016, it's just straight up not objective in terms of what may ACTUALLY determine how good a character is. And to act like theory has no place in a list is dumb too considering that if only by tournament results that Fox was #1 for too long if only determined by results as said.

In either case there are flaws. On that note I just think that top 4 is pretty clear and don't try to rank them because if we're going on what they can all do to each other it'd go on forever.

 

[john!]

John, if you aren't basing your list off your own experiences and knowledge of the game, then it isn't "your" opinion.

And if someone is not knowledgeable enough to form their own opinion, they shouldn't be sharing someone else's.

what if i have tons of experience fighting top/high tier characters, but no experience fighting low/bottom tier characters? should i just not post a list at all, even though i have meaningful opinions about some of the cast? or should i make a list based entirely based off of my own experiences and just fudge the rankings entirely once i get below mid tier?

OR (and this is my preferred option) should i arrange the top/high tiers based on my experiences, and arrange the low/bottom tiers based on the experiences of people who have actually played those matchups? seems to me like that makes the most sense, but you two don't like that for some reason.

 

[Bones0]

so you don't think i should defer to the most popular tier list for the areas that i know nothing about? your "top tier link" comment seems to imply that.

if i don't know much about the bottom tier characters, i would argue that it's better for me to just put them in the order that most other people think is best, instead of attempting to order them based on my minimal experience and knowledge. sure, the former adds nothing new, but the latter is just poor information that i wouldn't even be able to defend if someone asked for my reasoning.

"i think yoshi is underrated because vectorman is a good player and he thinks yoshi is underrated" is far more reasonable than "i think yoshi is underrated because he's my favorite character and i can beat all the other kids on my block with him".

believe me, i'm as much of an advocate for "free thinking" as anyone else, but only for people who are informed and intelligent enough (on a given subject) to do it correctly. and there's nothing wrong with someone being uninformed or unintelligent, as long as they realize their limitations and defer to those who are, when necessary.

If you don't know anything about the bottom tier characters, then don't post an opinion about the bottom tier characters...

if people have now gotten good enough to find weaknesses in the spacies, then why do they continue to be so popular at every level of play? if great players can death touch spacies, then why do spacies continue to beat great players? either you're missing the counterplay that spacies must have developed to counter the anti-spacies metagame, or you're talking about bones theory world 2016, where players are someday going to unlock another character's potential to be better than the spacies, but we just haven't seen it yet. either way, i think you are on shaky ground.

Their popularity doesn't indicate anything about how good they are seeing as how the percentage of players winning is appropriate given the base population of each character. The theory world I depicted isn't the one I subscribe to, that's the theory world almost everyone else lives in. Just read any post of people trying to describe how dominant spacies are in this metagame and you'll find tons of one-sided descriptions of unwinnable situations ("If Fox/Falco does such-and-such tactic, the other character can't do anything!" "Actually, you can do A, B, C." "No, that just means Fox/Falco didn't perform said tactic properly!"). As I already said, this is my opinion of this sort of theory:

I don't think either concept of those characters is a particularly accurate or healthy way of viewing the game, but if you must view it that way, surely there should be perfect Theory Bros. versions of all characters, not just ones with shines.

 

[Archangel]

All these lists are all wrong. This is the real one:

Top
1. Fox/Falco

High
2. Sheik
3. Peach
4. Jiggs
5. Marth

Bottom
6. Everyone else

Honestly, this is probably the best list I've ever seen.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

what if i have tons of experience fighting top/high tier characters, but no experience fighting low/bottom tier characters? should i just not post a list at all, even though i have meaningful opinions about some of the cast? or should i make a list based entirely based off of my own experiences and just fudge the rankings entirely once i get below mid tier?

OR (and this is my preferred option) should i arrange the top/high tiers based on my experiences, and arrange the low/bottom tiers based on the experiences of people who have actually played those matchups? seems to me like that makes the most sense, but you two don't like that for some reason.

If you're having a conversation and you want to use someone else's opinion in your discussion, feel free. But when you are voting, you should vote entirely based on your own ideas. Otherwise you are giving someone else's opinion more sway than it deserves. Let the voting system do it's job, every vote shouldn't look the same.