2013 Community Tier List

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

So Yoshi is the best TAS character now?

Cool. I like Dinosaurs.

 

[1MachGO]

1MachGO, that isn't a paradox. Powershielding a shine gets you nowhere: if you try to act out of your powershield you will be hit by the next shine. On the other hand, if fox powershields any of marth's attacks, he can act out of the powershield with a shine: even if that misses, he can wavedash and shine again before marth leaves landing lag.

Hax is right when he says the TAS tier list would be 1) fox 2) falco 3)everyone else. Though Magus used to say Bowser would be 3rd best because of invincibility on his upb and fortress canceling or something like that.

Its a paradox because two players can't simultaneously be making the best decision. It would require the other to make a wrong decision so its conflicting.

Also, you are wrong about Marth being punishable. A Marth fair/uair that hits tipped on a powershield (powershield doesn't negate shieldstun or hitlag) is zero on block + the additional distance that separates him from his opponent. It would literally reset it to neutral. Marth could run away in the 14 frame period of time it would take Fox to wd and shine.

As for powershield vs. shine, it would reset to neutral. The pushback from PSing would put you out of range of multishine (and if it didn't, TAS level shield DI would). The only character that might be able to punish Fox would actually be Marth since grab might be able to reach out without intersecting with shine hitbox at max range (not 100% sure though, or if PS pushback is significant enough to create this distance). If this is case, Fox can't multi-shine since grab would overlap the invincible frame and grab him. It would then become a 50-50 mix up where Fox would either multi-shine to parry an attack or wavedash out of shine to avoid the grab (which Marth could possible punish with ftilt/dtilt OoPS. This is all very hypothetical though so I could be talking out of my ***

@Hax I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

 

[Bones0]

This just in: Hax now mains Yoshi and is practicing parrying in his room with the lights off.

 

[EthereaL]

Leffen predicted it years ago. Yoshi will one day be top tier.

 

[strawhats]

This just in: Hax now mains Yoshi and is practicing parrying in his room with the lights off.

lmfaooaoaoaoaoaoa!!!!!! Yoshi OP? but seriously though, that's some crazy **** (parrying multishines)

 

[Flippy Flippersen]

@ The discussion on perfect tas level. Aren't Ics capable of beating ps on behalf of being able to like be 2 characters. Even though tas should wreck nana pretty hard doesn't it leave popo capable of doing something?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Its a paradox because two players can't simultaneously be making the best decision. It would require the other to make a wrong decision so its conflicting.

That isn't a paradox. Both players can make the best choices they have available, but the game is what determines who wins. Thats why there is a tier list. Fox and Falco are higher on this TAS list because they beat anyone else in mutually "perfect" play. There is no paradox here.

I didn't mean to get involved with your TAS discussion, because honestly I think its completely pointless. I just wanted to point out your incorrect use of paradox.

 

[Bones0]

That isn't a paradox. Both players can make the best choices they have available, but the game is what determines who wins. Thats why there is a tier list. Fox and Falco are higher on this TAS list because they beat anyone else in mutually "perfect" play. There is no paradox here.

I didn't mean to get involved with your TAS discussion, because honestly I think its completely pointless. I just wanted to point out your incorrect use of paradox.

You're assuming there isn't some sort of RPS situation though. If two players were to play frame by frame, it's totally possible that the metagame would consist of a single RPS scenario in which there is no best decision.

 

[AlphaQHard]

Where was Peach on the tier list before Armada came onto the scene?

 

[1MachGO]

Armada's first appearance in the US was 2009, but Peach had already been considered a high tier character prior to his arrival so it didn't really affect her tier placing.

 

[AlphaQHard]

Thanks^^ i was wondering because he is so dominant.

I think Falco has the edge over fox because Falco can get the kill quicker. But theyre 1a and 1b

 

[SmashtasticFraud]

poor pichu e_e

 

[Juggleguy]

We need a new tier list to kick off 2015. Even this one looks outdated now.

 

[Circa]

It does. I feel there are at least a few spots that need switched around. Plus, Yoshi.

 

[YouDontSlay]

Credentials: None
1. Captain Falcon
2. Fox
3. Falco
4. Sheik
5. Marth
6. Peach
7. Jigglypuff
8. Samus
9. Ice climbers
10. Dr. Mario
11. Pikachu
12. Ganondorf
13. Luigi
14. Mario
15. Yoshi
16. Young Link
17. Link
18. DK
19. Roy
20. Zelda
21. Mewtwo
22. Mr. Game & Watch
23. Ness
24. Bowser
25. Pichu
26. Kirby

 

[Bones0]

We need a new tier list to kick off 2015. Even this one looks outdated now.

Probably because it's the same one from 2006.

Fox
Falco
Sheik
Marth
Jigglypuff (+5)
Peach (-1)
Captain Falcon (-1)
Ice Climbers (-1)
Dr. Mario

 

[MTL Kyle]

I think having a new tier list, image with a grid like this (http://media.eventhubs.com/images/2014/06/17_aliounetier01.jpg) and specially having an explanation of what is tournament viability and what are the criteria to separate decent characters from garbage would be really good.


A lot of P:M players or players that will meet the Smash community because of Sm4sh and eventually Melee kinda dislike the "only the top 8 is viable" thing.

 

[herbmaster%]

I'd like to ask about Pichu's placement. Low weight makes him hella easy to kill, but considering he has usable aerials, existent KO moves, and decent/strong gimping game, i'd say he's not wholly unviable. The combo's and edge guard game are there.

 

[knightpraetor]

(no ordering between tiers)
S tier:
fox/falco/peach
A tier: jiggs/marth/IC
B tier: sheik/pikachu/falcon/yoshi

my opinion on the tiers has mainly changed in that i have a bit more respect for fox now and think that pikachu and yoshi are on par with sheik. Sometimes i think sheik should be higher, but ICs and jiggs do so well vs her, while i don't really find marth/peach vs sheik as hard as i used to.

 

[Pistallion]

What is the x axis mean in that street fighter list mean

 

[MTL Kyle]

What is the x axis mean in that street fighter list mean

Characters that don't have options against some stuff (like E.Honda or Hugo trouble against Fireballs) go to the left (HAS FLAWS), since they have polarized matchups.

Characters with more options and with more stable matchups (like E.Ryu) go to the right.

___________________________________

IMO, Peach would be to the left, since she loses a lot of match-ups, but it stays high up because she is pretty solid.

Fox would be to the right cuz... Fox.

Marth would be a center character, but more to the right.

etc.

 

[Bones0]

Characters that don't have options against some stuff (like E.Honda or Hugo trouble against Fireballs) go to the left (HAS FLAWS), since they have polarized matchups.

Characters with more options and with more stable matchups (like E.Ryu) go to the right.

___________________________________

IMO, Peach would be to the left, since she loses a lot of match-ups, but it stays high up because she is pretty solid.

Fox would be to the right cuz... Fox.

Marth would be a center character, but more to the right.

etc.

It's funny you say that. I would have put Peach on the right as she is a very solid character overall whereas Fox is a glass cannon and has flaws up the wazoo (horrible combo weight, gimpable gravity, low priority) that are only compensated by amazing movement and accessible KO options (usmash/uair).

It's an interesting idea, but I don't really see much utility in the x-axis. Do your character's flaws really matter at the end of the day if it's still ranked at the top? The whole idea of what constitutes a flaw in the first place seems kind of redundant in Melee because flaws are largely what determines a character's viability. I could see how that'd be different in SF where flaws are more matchup specific and less overarching, but you'd be hard pressed to find a flaw for one matchup that isn't at least somewhat prevalent in others.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

How are Yoshi and DK worse than Link? LOL Show me how Link's punish game even compares.

 

[Circle_Breaker]

(no ordering between tiers)
S tier:
fox/falco/peach
A tier: jiggs/marth/IC
B tier: sheik/pikachu/falcon/yoshi

my opinion on the tiers has mainly changed in that i have a bit more respect for fox now and think that pikachu and yoshi are on par with sheik. Sometimes i think sheik should be higher, but ICs and jiggs do so well vs her, while i don't really find marth/peach vs sheik as hard as i used to.

... u srs?

 

[1MachGO]

If we are going by 2014 results, the tier list would probably be like:

S < Can get top 5 w/ little or no CPing
1-2. Fox/Falco
3-4. Marth/Peach
5-6. Sheik/Puff

A < Can get top 8 w/ little or no CPing
7. Pikachu
8-9. Ice Climbers/Falcon
10. Samus

B < Can get top 32 w/ little or no CPing
11. Yoshi
12-13. Doc/Luigi
14. Ganon

Honorable mentions tier:
Young Link (Armada)
Mario (Don't know A Rookie's results off the top of my head)
G&W (I think QERB got 25th at CEO or some other big tournament)

 

[Strong Badam]

So I don't have much issue with the order of the tier list (it is after all an aggregation and my personal nitpicks are irrelevant as a result), but the tier separations are extremely misleading and dishonest about the disparity in strength of the characters. I think it'd be much better if we didn't kid ourselves and put the entire top 8 in a single tier, among other issues.

Suggested tier separation (based primarily on numerical gaps in OP):
[collapse=list]
S Tier:
Fox
Falco

A Tier:
Sheik
Marth
Jigglypuff
Peach

B+ Tier:
Captain Falcon
Ice Climbers

B tier:
Dr. Mario
Pikachu
Samus
Ganondorf

C+ Tier:
Luigi
Mario

C Tier:
Young Link
Link
Donkey Kong
Yoshi

D Tier:
Zelda
Roy
Mewtwo
Mr. Game & Watch

E Tier:
Ness
Bowser
Pichu
Kirby[/collapse]

 

[Circle_Breaker]

Is the A+ tier supposed to be A- tier, or is the A tier supposed to be S- tier?

 

[Strong Badam]

Oops, fixed.

 

[Deleted member 212841]

gcyftftdtfyxycyvj

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I think a simplistic viable / non viable division would be best. You could even throw in a semi-viable one if you want to encourage folks to use guys like fox / marth without necessarily dismissing pikachu or whatever. The reasons being that tier lists are the most useful to new players. What is helpful to new players is knowing which are the good characters and which are the bad ones so they don't waste their time / effort with the latter. (even then you could argue testing the cast and playing with the one that "feels right" is the best way to go about picking your character) The more divisions you add, the less value each division has and the more confusing it is for the newer player to know where that key cutoff is at.

Well, the Tier List is about how the characters stack up at the highest level of perfect play, not about what characters a new player should pick to instantly improve their placings. Otherwise, the list would probably look like: Sheik, Peach, Marth, Falco ...

For the record, I don't think there's anything wrong with dividing up the characters into Viable - Semiviable - Nonviable, because there are large gaps that separate the cast into such broad groups, but there still ought to be subdivisions within them. Like Strong Bad says, we're fooling ourselves if we pretend there isn't a gap behind Fox/Falco or ahead of Falcon/ICs relative to the rest of the top 8. So I think using the +/- system for small gaps and different letters for large gaps would be a good thing to do.

Based on numerical gaps:
[collapse=list]
VIABLE

S Tier:
Fox
Falco

A+ Tier:
Sheik
Marth
Puff
Peach

A Tier:
Falcon

A- Tier:
ICs

SEMIVIABLE

B+ Tier:
Doc

B Tier:
Pikachu
Samus
Ganon

B- Tier:
Luigi
Mario

NONVIABLE

C+ Tier:
YLink
Link
DK

C Tier:
Yoshi

C- Tier:
Zelda
Roy
M2
G&W

TERRIBLE

F Tier:
Ness
Bowser
Pichu
Kirby[/collapse]

 

[1MachGO]

Honestly, our tier lists should be based on contemporary tourney results.

Jigglypuff, Pikachu, and Yoshi are all perfect examples of how speculation has failed in the past. We should stop asserting the potential viability of characters we have limited information on and just let the facts speak for themselves.

As for ordering, the mock tier list I put like 6 posts up is how we should organize it. A character's highest average placing at major tournaments will determine their respective rank and grouping.

 

[victra♥]

I'm a big fan of Hax's tier list.

 

[Tagxy]

I understand why initially a result based tier list appeals to people. And taking results into consideration while making a tier list is one thing, but a result based tier list is pointless once you draw out the full implications of such a list. If I wanted a result based tier list Id shut down this thread and commission the creation of a good algorithm and start archiving all tournament results for input. Smashboards already does something like this as well as some regions.

Its true we might miss a "yoshi upset" here or "falcon having uses in MUs we didnt think of" there, but results arent going to catch it any sooner than people would. Additionally, its why we say a tier list is representative of the current meta-game. That is, the summation of all current knowledge and analysis were capable of. If something undiscovered or that were unaware of comes up later obviously that will change things, but that doesnt change the fact that the list made was an accurate picture of the meta-game at the time.

Also a fan of Hax's list. Heres how I would do some separations assuming top level play.

SS
Fox
S
Falco
A
Marth
Peach
B
Jigglypuff
Sheik
Ice Climbers
C
Samus
Pikachu
Captain Falcon
Luigi
Yoshi

Alternatively

Top
Fox
Falco

High
Marth
Peach

Mid
Jigglypuff
Sheik
Ice Climbers

Low
Samus
Pikachu
C. Falcon
Luigi
Yoshi (may have more potential)

A few caveats here and there but its a starting point.

 

[1MachGO]

I understand why initially a result based tier list appeals to people. And taking results into consideration while making a tier list is one thing, but a result based tier list is pointless once you draw out the full implications of such a list. If I wanted a result based tier list Id shut down this thread and commission the creation of a good algorithm and start archiving all tournament results for input. Smashboards already does something like this as well as some regions.

Its true we might miss a "yoshi upset" here or "falcon having uses in MUs we didnt think of" there, but results arent going to catch it any sooner than people would. Additionally, its why we say a tier list is representative of the current meta-game. That is, the summation of all current knowledge and analysis were capable of. If something undiscovered or that were unaware of comes up later obviously that will change things, but that doesnt change the fact that the list made was an accurate picture of the meta-game at the time.

I feel like speculating a character's rank in the context of viability is toxic, though. We shouldn't arbitrarily label character X as non-viable when less than 1% of the community plays them and an even smaller percentage is actually able to offer empirical insight into that character's potential.

We should only make judgments on characters we actually have high level competitive data on. New players are impressionable. Any information we intend to propagate should be information we can prove.

 

[victra♥]

SS
Fox
S
Falco
A
Marth
Peach
B
Jigglypuff
Sheik
Ice Climbers
C
Samus
Pikachu
Captain Falcon
Luigi
Yoshi

And the rest of the characters being more or less irrelevant.

One thing in particular that I really liked was the fact that Hax based his list on the fact that both the spacies are the superior characters, and that having a strong or above average match up against spacies is more significant than any other match up advantage.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Honestly, our tier lists should be based on contemporary tourney results.

Jigglypuff, Pikachu, and Yoshi are all perfect examples of how speculation has failed in the past. We should stop asserting the potential viability of characters we have limited information on and just let the facts speak for themselves.

As for ordering, the mock tier list I put like 6 posts up is how we should organize it. A character's highest average placing at major tournaments will determine their respective rank and grouping.

The problem with this is that facts do not speak for themselves.

For example, I think it's pretty widely accepted that Axe is head and shoulders (heh) above any other Pikachu main. Should only his results be considered for Pikachu's placement? Then you have equated Axe's skill with Pikachu's viability. Should he be averaged with all the other Pikachu mains? Then Pikachu's viability will be hurt by the lack of Pikachu mains---he'll place last/very low at any tournament that isn't attended by one of only a few talented Pikachu mains.

There is a similar, if less severe, problem with Peach and Puff. If you only use Peach/Puff's highest placing in major tournaments, you are basically only considering Armada and HBox. Clearly, they are outliers. But placings do not reveal whether the gap between Armada/HBox and other Peach/Puff mains is due to them being exceptionally good with characters that otherwise couldn't compete at the highest level, or Peach/Puff mains being more spread out because they are less common. The truth is likely somewhere in between, but the data can't tell you that.

TL;DR There is more behind a character's placement than just the viability of the character, so that shouldn't be used as an infallible metric.

 

[1MachGO]

The problem with this is that facts do not speak for themselves.

For example, I think it's pretty widely accepted that Axe is head and shoulders (heh) above any other Pikachu main. Should only his results be considered for Pikachu's placement? Then you have equated Axe's skill with Pikachu's viability. Should he be averaged with all the other Pikachu mains? Then Pikachu's viability will be hurt by the lack of Pikachu mains---he'll place last/very low at any tournament that isn't attended by one of only a few talented Pikachu mains.

There is a similar, if less severe, problem with Peach and Puff. If you only use Peach/Puff's highest placing in major tournaments, you are basically only considering Armada and HBox. Clearly, they are outliers. But placings do not reveal whether the gap between Armada/HBox and other Peach/Puff mains is due to them being exceptionally good with characters that otherwise couldn't compete at the highest level, or Peach/Puff mains being more spread out because they are less common. The truth is likely somewhere in between, but the data can't tell you that.

TL;DR There is more behind a character's placement than just the viability of the character, so that shouldn't be used as an infallible metric.

Well by highest average placing, I specifically mean highest placing of that character at national/international/global level tournaments averaged with the highest placings of that character from other national/international/global level tournaments.

So yes, this would typically pertain to the "outliers" for a respective character (5 gods, Axe, Plup, aMSa, S2J, etc.). Averaging the highest placing with lower ones would only produce insignificant data; if the tier list is supposed to demonstrate the order of character viability, then all we really care about are the highest level placings.

IMO, there is nothing wrong with equating a single player with character viability because popularity isn't (directly) what makes a character good. Characters will be good or bad regardless; all popularity does is increase the odds that a talented/dedicated player will pick them up and demonstrate what that character is capable of at top level.

 

[Tagxy]

@Ferrish Character placement is a fine metric, but its better done with computers and data. Heres the one smashboards has in regards to usage. While the data is perhaps not perfect, it can still be useful in some ways and worth discussing.

Spoiler

Fox
2519

Marth
1965

Falco
1894

Sheik
1628

Captain Falcon
1142

Peach
929

Jigglypuff
659

Samus
549

Ice Climbers
393

Ganondorf
373

Luigi
338

Dr. Mario
300

Link
180

Mario
126

Pikachu
108

Yoshi
91

Donkey Kong
81

Young Link
73

Zelda
70

Mr. Game & Watch
67

Roy
62

Bowser
47

Kirby
46

Ness
35

Mewtwo
23

Pichu
14

I feel like speculating a character's rank in the context of viability is toxic, though. We shouldn't arbitrarily label character X as non-viable when less than 1% of the community plays them and an even smaller percentage is actually able to offer empirical insight into that character's potential.

We should only make judgments on characters we actually have high level competitive data on. New players are impressionable. Any information we intend to propagate should be information we can prove.

If you want to cater to an audience and have a "feel good" tier list in a sense so new players dont get upset we could just keep the one we have now or something very similar in style. I feel its a bit dishonest, but as a noobie I certainly remember coming to smashboards, looking at pikachu's tier placement, and didnt play competitive melee again until axe came around.

When we talk about a tier list reflecting the current meta-game, were acknowledging that we dont have perfect data or info. However its not arbitrary, its the summation of over a decade of knowledge and analysis put into a tier list. As cognizant competitive players theres an implied understanding (that we could make explicit for those unaware) that potential gaps may exist either because we missed something or felt it not worth exploring, which is why we'd say its accurate with the qualifier of "to the best of our knowledge". We think its right, but theres a chance we missed something, which is whats meant when we refer to the current meta-game. Science works similarly.

And the rest of the characters being more or less irrelevant.

One thing in particular that I really liked was the fact that Hax based his list on the fact that both the spacies are the superior characters, and that having a strong or above average match up against spacies is more significant than any other match up advantage.

Yes, I feel some other games work similarly. Dominant play and counter-play. I think there might be more theoretical research on this somewhere but I cant remember it much. For instance if fox were banned we'd probably see jigglypuff move up and peach move down (even if she loses the MU anyways).

 

[1MachGO]

If you want to cater to an audience and have a "feel good" tier list in a sense so new players dont get upset we could just keep the one we have now or something very similar in style. I feel its a bit dishonest, but as a noobie I certainly remember coming to smashboards, looking at pikachu's tier placement, and didnt play competitive melee again until axe came around.

When we talk about a tier list reflecting the current meta-game, were acknowledging that we dont have perfect data or info. However its not arbitrary, its the summation of over a decade of knowledge and analysis put into a tier list. As cognizant competitive players theres an implied understanding (that we could make explicit for those unaware) that potential gaps may exist either because we missed something or felt it not worth exploring, which is why we'd say its accurate with the qualifier of "to the best of our knowledge". We think its right, but theres a chance we missed something, which is whats meant when we refer to the current meta-game. Science works similarly.

I don't understand what you mean when you are saying we're being dishonest. How are we being dishonest when we are admitting we don't know how X character stacks up because no top level players have tried to use them in a tournament in the past year?

Furthermore, if we are acknowledging that we don't have perfect data, why is it productive to pass questionable data as definitive fact?

The only benefit to ranking characters we have 0 top level data is that we can "look back" and "see how different opinions were". Honestly, its indulgent, traditional, and pointless behavior. Certain characters were ranked low by someone who stopped playing 5 years ago and all the modern/remaining players are doing is perpetuating the practice.

A character should only be ranked if we can justify their ranking with evidence. This doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss other characters, it just means that we shouldn't try to extend our reach and indulge ourselves with the belief that we can realistically compare the viability of Mewtwo with Fox.

 

[Tagxy]

@ 1 1MachGO

Its dishonest in the sense that the list would not reflect the full understanding we've gained from characters. Just because M2K didnt spend the last 2 years entering tournaments with Mewtwo doesnt mean we can't use our understanding of the character and analysis to shape a fairly accurate depiction of his viability, and as it compares to Fox.

Obviously we dont want the poor analysis to shape this depiction in the way you described, but you seem to imply no one besides yourself is capable of recognizing that opinions become old and our understanding of characters needs to be updated, which we can do as we improve our knowledge of the game, its mechanics, and its characters. There is plenty of data, information, and analysis to work with without having to commit top level players to entering tournaments with a string of unviable characters.

Lastly, acknowledging we didnt explore things thus far not deemed worth exploring should imply there is no definitive fact. Definitive fact wont ever exist so its not worth considering, which again is why tier lists are said to be based on the current meta-game, not the definitive meta-game.

In any case, you seem to want a tier list that reflects results instead of a character's value. In which case Ill state again, youre better off creating an algorithm and inputting data. We dont need people for that.