Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2GZhjC4uTk
Bruh the Mewtwins are gonna be great, I can feel it in my bones
I think we about on topic and relevant as all the salt was/is. IDGAF if I get a warning pertaining to my Pokken as that whole complaining section was seriously degenerative.Bruh the Mewtwins are gonna be great, I can feel it in my bones
I think for once I'll be true to my namesake and main
(Shadow) Mewtwo
Oops, kinda off topic
Didn't you say that about Street Fighter V and you're still here? To each his own, defeatists exist in every game though. Reminds me of, "Yeah I won't support this candidate if his supporters keep acting like this." like... wtf? As if that has anything to do with your personal politics. Lame way to control discussion.
Never said he didn't.
Say what? I don't own a PS4 so I'm waiting for PC port. Sorry, I guess I should allow my emotions run rampant and control everything I say instead of using logic and experience to my advantage. My b homie.
I think the only bigbody truly screwed by Bayo is Ganondorf. Bowser has powerful grab options, a crawl, and comparable frame data in neutral featuring intangible limbs. Donkey Kong has mobility, decent frame data, and the Ding Dong. Charizard has up throw, good resistance to vertical KOs. Even Dedede has SOMETHING, like the fact that Gordos cut through uncharged Bullet Arts Climax and being the most vertically resilient in the game.
Well, guess I'll put my money where my mouth is and collect some hard data, to serve as an example.
has a top-level problem, but according to the data and suffer similar fates in the aggregate smash community. Yes, iStudying and Ranai have made their few wins pretty big ones, but the general trend within this period still stands.
and are disproportionately played by people who perform really well with them. ROB is actually just, really strongly performing period. wins relatively rarely for the pool of players that play her; she's more popular with the broader smash community than we (I?) assumed. specifically all have abnormally high character loyalty such that they are played disproportionately by experienced mains only.
and , who may be even more dominant at lower level play than we suspected. is included in this pattern while is not, which is an important lesson about gender identity and assumptions. is king, and a whole boatload of people are both playing and winning with at all levels of play. Looking back historically, this was no February fluke; Mario has been popular (and unlike Falcon, winning) everywhere for a long time.
My shenanigans aside, this is a prime moment to reflect on both how limited the bounds of our own discussion are relative to the broader smash community and how we treat new users who offer us new perspectives. (Even if those new users are just a-hole moderators in thinly-veiled disguise.)
Please discuss anything you think is out of place!
I think we all just got played hard. Shoutouts to Thinkaman, who never fails to make me feel stupid.Well, guess I'll put my money where my mouth is and collect some hard data, to serve as an example.
I.
Let's take a look at the Smashboards tournament ranking results (by character) for events from Feb 1st - Now:
Several interesting things jump out, but let's break it down.
II.
The percentages are the % of players (of that character) who placed at the corresponding levels. In theory, this should be a similar spread for characters of all skill levels, if we assume that that players are themselves automatically filtering for tiers and only playing their best character(s).
In more advanced theory, we'd expect to see a slight tilt for higher-tier characters having higher percentages, merely because the most competitive "spike" mindset players (who win more as a group) will gravitate towards them.
We see important exceptions to this trend:
We all know that
Always just short.
Shockingly (to me),
I've long said that feminine characters (including Jiggs), extreme heavyweights, and
But muh wifu!
I've also suggested in private that this has a radical warping effect on win-rates relative to tier strength--and we see that here. All of those characters exhibit abnormally high Top 16 or Top 8 placement rates relative to the number of players using them--ESPECIALLY
Curiously
III.
Returning to the top of the rankings, we see some surprising results. We can get a general placement score by combining the top 16/8/1 placements, weighted significantly towards the latter. We can see that 5/6ths of the entire cast falls within one standard deviation of the average score, with all the outliers being on the top.
The elephant in the room is that
Zero might not be worried about them, but this is currently the most typical Grand Finals in Smash 4.
What's striking is just how much stronger performing these two characters were over this period, about an entire standard deviation each above the others. In fact, if you were to turn this into a results list, it might look pretty shocking:
TOP LEVEL VIABLE:
SS:
S:
A+:
A-:
B+:
B-:
C+:
NOT TOP LEVEL VIABLE:
C-:
D+:
E+:
E-:
Note: I didn't include the Miis, because we (as a community) don't play with them much. (So there isn't enough data to submit for analysis.)
IV.
Now, I already here you protesting: Results don't automatically equal tiers.
Wait, who said anything about tier lists? I never said tier list. You said tier list!
Results are reality, tiers are theory--an expectation of future reality at a given level of play. The problem is that defining that level of play is hard, and almost everyone ends up overshooting.
We like to say that a tier list is exclusively supposed to measure "top-level play", but what exactly is top level play? Is it just Zero?
THE OFFICIAL TOP LEVEL SMASH 4 TIER LISTWhat if we limit our results data to just the top 500 ranked players? That's a really small pool of the millions of players that play Smash, but it turns out that the overwhelming majority of the results in our rankings already come from those players. In fact, I originally intended to run two separate sets of data (all players and top 500 only), but there was no point since the results were the same. (Since it was the same data!)
Zero Tier:
Not-Zero Tier: Everyone Else.
A tier list may be top-level, but even top-level should be a considerable range.
In other words, the temptation to attribute this list to the mouth-breathing For Glory masses doesn't fly. Smashboards' ranking methodology isn't perfect and the data is often incomplete, but it should be fairly representative for the questions we are asking.
Results indeed aren't the same as tiers, but whenever they are at odds, the burden of explanation always falls on theory rather than reality. Results are never wrong, and can never be truly dismissed.
V.
To anyone who has been around competitive gaming long enough, it shouldn't be a surprise that the reality of which characters are actually winning the most has poor correlation with the echo chamber that is public opinion.
My shenanigans aside, this is a prime moment to reflect on both how limited the bounds of our own discussion are relative to the broader smash community and how we treat new users who offer us new perspectives. (Even if those new users are just a-hole moderators in thinly-veiled disguise.)
Why did a new user posting this information (albeit with minimal context) yield vitriol, reports, and zero likes? Why did the posts like mine poking fun at a new user get a whole bunch of likes?
Why is it that I can sit here typing all this out in advance, knowing with 100% certainty that this is exactly how it's going to go down?
Thanks for the internet points, suckas!
Yes, we're all cool Internet nerds who are great at video games, and God only knows I will take the prize for smug know-it-all who takes his wit too far. But we have got to cultivate a community that is not merely tolerant, but willing to engage with fresh faces (and the often... unconventional ideas they bring to the table).
"Git gud" is not a viable path to the future of Smash, even in the survival-of-the-fittest jungle that is the CCI thread.
Btw, my lawyers want me to remind everyone that alternate accounts are against the Global Rules of Smashboards and are considered major Terms of Service violations and grounds for banning.
VI.
Anyway, where were we? Ah, right:
Please discuss anything you think is out of place!
Well, guess I'll put my money where my mouth is and collect some hard data, to serve as an example.
I.
Let's take a look at the Smashboards tournament ranking results (by character) for events from Feb 1st - Now:
Several interesting things jump out, but let's break it down.
II.
The percentages are the % of players (of that character) who placed at the corresponding levels. In theory, this should be a similar spread for characters of all skill levels, if we assume that that players are themselves automatically filtering for tiers and only playing their best character(s).
In more advanced theory, we'd expect to see a slight tilt for higher-tier characters having higher percentages, merely because the most competitive "spike" mindset players (who win more as a group) will gravitate towards them.
We see important exceptions to this trend:
We all know that
Always just short.
Shockingly (to me),
I've long said that feminine characters (including Jiggs), extreme heavyweights, and
But muh wifu!
I've also suggested in private that this has a radical warping effect on win-rates relative to tier strength--and we see that here. All of those characters exhibit abnormally high Top 16 or Top 8 placement rates relative to the number of players using them--ESPECIALLY
Curiously
III.
Returning to the top of the rankings, we see some surprising results. We can get a general placement score by combining the top 16/8/1 placements, weighted significantly towards the latter. We can see that 5/6ths of the entire cast falls within one standard deviation of the average score, with all the outliers being on the top.
The elephant in the room is that
Zero might not be worried about them, but this is currently the most typical Grand Finals in Smash 4.
What's striking is just how much stronger performing these two characters were over this period, about an entire standard deviation each above the others. In fact, if you were to turn this into a results list, it might look pretty shocking:
TOP LEVEL VIABLE:
SS:
S:
A+:
A-:
B+:
B-:
C+:
NOT TOP LEVEL VIABLE:
C-:
D+:
E+:
E-:
Note: I didn't include the Miis, because we (as a community) don't play with them much. (So there isn't enough data to submit for analysis.)
IV.
Now, I already here you protesting: Results don't automatically equal tiers.
Wait, who said anything about tier lists? I never said tier list. You said tier list!
Results are reality, tiers are theory--an expectation of future reality at a given level of play. The problem is that defining that level of play is hard, and almost everyone ends up overshooting.
We like to say that a tier list is exclusively supposed to measure "top-level play", but what exactly is top level play? Is it just Zero?
THE OFFICIAL TOP LEVEL SMASH 4 TIER LISTWhat if we limit our results data to just the top 500 ranked players? That's a really small pool of the millions of players that play Smash, but it turns out that the overwhelming majority of the results in our rankings already come from those players. In fact, I originally intended to run two separate sets of data (all players and top 500 only), but there was no point since the results were the same. (Since it was the same data!)
Zero Tier:
Not-Zero Tier: Everyone Else.
A tier list may be top-level, but even top-level should be a considerable range.
In other words, the temptation to attribute this list to the mouth-breathing For Glory masses doesn't fly. Smashboards' ranking methodology isn't perfect and the data is often incomplete, but it should be fairly representative for the questions we are asking.
Results indeed aren't the same as tiers, but whenever they are at odds, the burden of explanation always falls on theory rather than reality. Results are never wrong, and can never be truly dismissed.
V.
To anyone who has been around competitive gaming long enough, it shouldn't be a surprise that the reality of which characters are actually winning the most has poor correlation with the echo chamber that is public opinion.
My shenanigans aside, this is a prime moment to reflect on both how limited the bounds of our own discussion are relative to the broader smash community and how we treat new users who offer us new perspectives. (Even if those new users are just a-hole moderators in thinly-veiled disguise.)
Why did a new user posting this information (albeit with minimal context) yield vitriol, reports, and zero likes? Why did the posts like mine poking fun at a new user get a whole bunch of likes?
Why is it that I can sit here typing all this out in advance, knowing with 100% certainty that this is exactly how it's going to go down?
Thanks for the internet points, suckas!
Yes, we're all cool Internet nerds who are great at video games, and God only knows I will take the prize for smug know-it-all who takes his wit too far. But we have got to cultivate a community that is not merely tolerant, but willing to engage with fresh faces (and the often... unconventional ideas they bring to the table).
"Git gud" is not a viable path to the future of Smash, even in the survival-of-the-fittest jungle that is the CCI thread.
Btw, my lawyers want me to remind everyone that alternate accounts are against the Global Rules of Smashboards and are considered major Terms of Service violations and grounds for banning.
VI.
Anyway, where were we? Ah, right:
Please discuss anything you think is out of place!
Everything. kappa please forgive me, lord thinkaman
I feel far more amazed at the ingenuity of this post and the plan that precursored it, than I am shameful for liking that test post.Well, guess I'll put my money where my mouth is and collect some hard data, to serve as an example.
I.
Let's take a look at the Smashboards tournament ranking results (by character) for events from Feb 1st - Now:
Several interesting things jump out, but let's break it down.
II.
The percentages are the % of players (of that character) who placed at the corresponding levels. In theory, this should be a similar spread for characters of all skill levels, if we assume that that players are themselves automatically filtering for tiers and only playing their best character(s).
In more advanced theory, we'd expect to see a slight tilt for higher-tier characters having higher percentages, merely because the most competitive "spike" mindset players (who win more as a group) will gravitate towards them.
We see important exceptions to this trend:
We all know that
Always just short.
Shockingly (to me),
I've long said that feminine characters (including Jiggs), extreme heavyweights, and
But muh wifu!
I've also suggested in private that this has a radical warping effect on win-rates relative to tier strength--and we see that here. All of those characters exhibit abnormally high Top 16 or Top 8 placement rates relative to the number of players using them--ESPECIALLY
Curiously
III.
Returning to the top of the rankings, we see some surprising results. We can get a general placement score by combining the top 16/8/1 placements, weighted significantly towards the latter. We can see that 5/6ths of the entire cast falls within one standard deviation of the average score, with all the outliers being on the top.
The elephant in the room is that
Zero might not be worried about them, but this is currently the most typical Grand Finals in Smash 4.
What's striking is just how much stronger performing these two characters were over this period, about an entire standard deviation each above the others. In fact, if you were to turn this into a results list, it might look pretty shocking:
TOP LEVEL VIABLE:
SS:
S:
A+:
A-:
B+:
B-:
C+:
NOT TOP LEVEL VIABLE:
C-:
D+:
E+:
E-:
Note: I didn't include the Miis, because we (as a community) don't play with them much. (So there isn't enough data to submit for analysis.)
IV.
Now, I already here you protesting: Results don't automatically equal tiers.
Wait, who said anything about tier lists? I never said tier list. You said tier list!
Results are reality, tiers are theory--an expectation of future reality at a given level of play. The problem is that defining that level of play is hard, and almost everyone ends up overshooting.
We like to say that a tier list is exclusively supposed to measure "top-level play", but what exactly is top level play? Is it just Zero?
THE OFFICIAL TOP LEVEL SMASH 4 TIER LISTWhat if we limit our results data to just the top 500 ranked players? That's a really small pool of the millions of players that play Smash, but it turns out that the overwhelming majority of the results in our rankings already come from those players. In fact, I originally intended to run two separate sets of data (all players and top 500 only), but there was no point since the results were the same. (Since it was the same data!)
Zero Tier:
Not-Zero Tier: Everyone Else.
A tier list may be top-level, but even top-level should be a considerable range.
In other words, the temptation to attribute this list to the mouth-breathing For Glory masses doesn't fly. Smashboards' ranking methodology isn't perfect and the data is often incomplete, but it should be fairly representative for the questions we are asking.
Results indeed aren't the same as tiers, but whenever they are at odds, the burden of explanation always falls on theory rather than reality. Results are never wrong, and can never be truly dismissed.
V.
To anyone who has been around competitive gaming long enough, it shouldn't be a surprise that the reality of which characters are actually winning the most has poor correlation with the echo chamber that is public opinion.
My shenanigans aside, this is a prime moment to reflect on both how limited the bounds of our own discussion are relative to the broader smash community and how we treat new users who offer us new perspectives. (Even if those new users are just a-hole moderators in thinly-veiled disguise.)
Why did a new user posting this information (albeit with minimal context) yield vitriol, reports, and zero likes? Why did the posts like mine poking fun at a new user get a whole bunch of likes?
Why is it that I can sit here typing all this out in advance, knowing with 100% certainty that this is exactly how it's going to go down?
Thanks for the internet points, suckas!
Yes, we're all cool Internet nerds who are great at video games, and God only knows I will take the prize for smug know-it-all who takes his wit too far. But we have got to cultivate a community that is not merely tolerant, but willing to engage with fresh faces (and the often... unconventional ideas they bring to the table).
"Git gud" is not a viable path to the future of Smash, even in the survival-of-the-fittest jungle that is the CCI thread.
Btw, my lawyers want me to remind everyone that alternate accounts are against the Global Rules of Smashboards and are considered major Terms of Service violations and grounds for banning.
VI.
Anyway, where were we? Ah, right:
Please discuss anything you think is out of place!
I think the thing that ultimately set people off against "Mister Namakniht" (which in retrospect is so obvious a name it hurts) is not the tier list itself so much as the words surrounding it, namely the idea that a guy discussed it with his friends and made a tier list as a result.
You are a slick oneHey guys, I wanted to share a list my friends and I made based on our experience with the game. (Characters are in order within each group, best to worst)
TOP LEVEL VIABLE:
SS:
S:
A+:
A-:
B+:
B-:
C+:
NOT TOP LEVEL VIABLE:
C-:
D+:
E+:
E-:
Note: I didn't include the Miis, because we don't play with them much.
Please discuss anything you think is out of place!
Thinkaman
Well played Thinkaman, well played. You made a fool out of this whole thread, including me.Well, guess I'll put my money where my mouth is and collect some hard data, to serve as an example.
I.
Let's take a look at the Smashboards tournament ranking results (by character) for events from Feb 1st - Now:
Several interesting things jump out, but let's break it down.
II.
The percentages are the % of players (of that character) who placed at the corresponding levels. In theory, this should be a similar spread for characters of all skill levels, if we assume that that players are themselves automatically filtering for tiers and only playing their best character(s).
In more advanced theory, we'd expect to see a slight tilt for higher-tier characters having higher percentages, merely because the most competitive "spike" mindset players (who win more as a group) will gravitate towards them.
We see important exceptions to this trend:
We all know that
Always just short.
Shockingly (to me),
I've long said that feminine characters (including Jiggs), extreme heavyweights, and
But muh wifu!
I've also suggested in private that this has a radical warping effect on win-rates relative to tier strength--and we see that here. All of those characters exhibit abnormally high Top 16 or Top 8 placement rates relative to the number of players using them--ESPECIALLY
Curiously
III.
Returning to the top of the rankings, we see some surprising results. We can get a general placement score by combining the top 16/8/1 placements, weighted significantly towards the latter. We can see that 5/6ths of the entire cast falls within one standard deviation of the average score, with all the outliers being on the top.
The elephant in the room is that
Zero might not be worried about them, but this is currently the most typical Grand Finals in Smash 4.
What's striking is just how much stronger performing these two characters were over this period, about an entire standard deviation each above the others. In fact, if you were to turn this into a results list, it might look pretty shocking:
TOP LEVEL VIABLE:
SS:
S:
A+:
A-:
B+:
B-:
C+:
NOT TOP LEVEL VIABLE:
C-:
D+:
E+:
E-:
Note: I didn't include the Miis, because we (as a community) don't play with them much. (So there isn't enough data to submit for analysis.)
IV.
Now, I already here you protesting: Results don't automatically equal tiers.
Wait, who said anything about tier lists? I never said tier list. You said tier list!
Results are reality, tiers are theory--an expectation of future reality at a given level of play. The problem is that defining that level of play is hard, and almost everyone ends up overshooting.
We like to say that a tier list is exclusively supposed to measure "top-level play", but what exactly is top level play? Is it just Zero?
THE OFFICIAL TOP LEVEL SMASH 4 TIER LISTWhat if we limit our results data to just the top 500 ranked players? That's a really small pool of the millions of players that play Smash, but it turns out that the overwhelming majority of the results in our rankings already come from those players. In fact, I originally intended to run two separate sets of data (all players and top 500 only), but there was no point since the results were the same. (Since it was the same data!)
Zero Tier:
Not-Zero Tier: Everyone Else.
A tier list may be top-level, but even top-level should be a considerable range.
In other words, the temptation to attribute this list to the mouth-breathing For Glory masses doesn't fly. Smashboards' ranking methodology isn't perfect and the data is often incomplete, but it should be fairly representative for the questions we are asking.
Results indeed aren't the same as tiers, but whenever they are at odds, the burden of explanation always falls on theory rather than reality. Results are never wrong, and can never be truly dismissed.
V.
To anyone who has been around competitive gaming long enough, it shouldn't be a surprise that the reality of which characters are actually winning the most has poor correlation with the echo chamber that is public opinion.
My shenanigans aside, this is a prime moment to reflect on both how limited the bounds of our own discussion are relative to the broader smash community and how we treat new users who offer us new perspectives. (Even if those new users are just a-hole moderators in thinly-veiled disguise.)
Why did a new user posting this information (albeit with minimal context) yield vitriol, reports, and zero likes? Why did the posts like mine poking fun at a new user get a whole bunch of likes?
Why is it that I can sit here typing all this out in advance, knowing with 100% certainty that this is exactly how it's going to go down?
Thanks for the internet points, suckas!
Yes, we're all cool Internet nerds who are great at video games, and God only knows I will take the prize for smug know-it-all who takes his wit too far. But we have got to cultivate a community that is not merely tolerant, but willing to engage with fresh faces (and the often... unconventional ideas they bring to the table).
"Git gud" is not a viable path to the future of Smash, even in the survival-of-the-fittest jungle that is the CCI thread.
Btw, my lawyers want me to remind everyone that alternate accounts are against the Global Rules of Smashboards and are considered major Terms of Service violations and grounds for banning.
VI.
Anyway, where were we? Ah, right:
Please discuss anything you think is out of place!
Honestly, Corrin is pretty strong. I play Ness, Mario, and Corrin. And of the three, I feel as though that Corrin overall has more potential than both of them competitively.Kamui overrated? I see them reaching
Shhhhh...don't fuel the fires of the "Cloud is OP" circlejerkers...
Thinkaman
bravo! Though I'd like to note that your fake account, while using the worst characters possible, was wrong about Smash 64! At this point in time it's actually Luigi who's the worst in that game (very important for the next time you do this...wait...)
Flux0r
that's always been Mario's thing (and Cloud's). They're characters who are very beginner friendly and are, to put it bluntly, very straightforward. Mario will be Mario and do Mario things and while this gets weaker at the top level, it is actually STRONGER the lower you go down because of gameplay things (less refined opponents, more leeway for mistakes, etc.). Cloud does the same thing except he's inherently stronger, but the same idea applies. He doesn't seem to get much weaker in Top Level compared to say, Mario, but he does. Granted, weaker doesn't mean unviable or bad, but it's just a trend I've noticed.
I have a question about your post. Are you trying to argue that the way we think of tier lists is wrong?
we're all scrubs. having 30 likes doesn't mean your post is better than a post with 0 likes, it just means your post is prettier or more people agree.
Way to never tell us that you're Kojima, bruh.Well, guess I'll put my money where my mouth is and collect some hard data, to serve as an example.
I.
Let's take a look at the Smashboards tournament ranking results (by character) for events from Feb 1st - Now:
Several interesting things jump out, but let's break it down.
II.
The percentages are the % of players (of that character) who placed at the corresponding levels. In theory, this should be a similar spread for characters of all skill levels, if we assume that that players are themselves automatically filtering for tiers and only playing their best character(s).
In more advanced theory, we'd expect to see a slight tilt for higher-tier characters having higher percentages, merely because the most competitive "spike" mindset players (who win more as a group) will gravitate towards them.
We see important exceptions to this trend:
We all know that
Always just short.
Shockingly (to me),
I've long said that feminine characters (including Jiggs), extreme heavyweights, and
But muh wifu!
I've also suggested in private that this has a radical warping effect on win-rates relative to tier strength--and we see that here. All of those characters exhibit abnormally high Top 16 or Top 8 placement rates relative to the number of players using them--ESPECIALLY
Curiously
III.
Returning to the top of the rankings, we see some surprising results. We can get a general placement score by combining the top 16/8/1 placements, weighted significantly towards the latter. We can see that 5/6ths of the entire cast falls within one standard deviation of the average score, with all the outliers being on the top.
The elephant in the room is that
Zero might not be worried about them, but this is currently the most typical Grand Finals in Smash 4.
What's striking is just how much stronger performing these two characters were over this period, about an entire standard deviation each above the others. In fact, if you were to turn this into a results list, it might look pretty shocking:
TOP LEVEL VIABLE:
SS:
S:
A+:
A-:
B+:
B-:
C+:
NOT TOP LEVEL VIABLE:
C-:
D+:
E+:
E-:
Note: I didn't include the Miis, because we (as a community) don't play with them much. (So there isn't enough data to submit for analysis.)
IV.
Now, I already here you protesting: Results don't automatically equal tiers.
Wait, who said anything about tier lists? I never said tier list. You said tier list!
Results are reality, tiers are theory--an expectation of future reality at a given level of play. The problem is that defining that level of play is hard, and almost everyone ends up overshooting.
We like to say that a tier list is exclusively supposed to measure "top-level play", but what exactly is top level play? Is it just Zero?
THE OFFICIAL TOP LEVEL SMASH 4 TIER LISTWhat if we limit our results data to just the top 500 ranked players? That's a really small pool of the millions of players that play Smash, but it turns out that the overwhelming majority of the results in our rankings already come from those players. In fact, I originally intended to run two separate sets of data (all players and top 500 only), but there was no point since the results were the same. (Since it was the same data!)
Zero Tier:
Not-Zero Tier: Everyone Else.
A tier list may be top-level, but even top-level should be a considerable range.
In other words, the temptation to attribute this list to the mouth-breathing For Glory masses doesn't fly. Smashboards' ranking methodology isn't perfect and the data is often incomplete, but it should be fairly representative for the questions we are asking.
Results indeed aren't the same as tiers, but whenever they are at odds, the burden of explanation always falls on theory rather than reality. Results are never wrong, and can never be truly dismissed.
V.
To anyone who has been around competitive gaming long enough, it shouldn't be a surprise that the reality of which characters are actually winning the most has poor correlation with the echo chamber that is public opinion.
My shenanigans aside, this is a prime moment to reflect on both how limited the bounds of our own discussion are relative to the broader smash community and how we treat new users who offer us new perspectives. (Even if those new users are just a-hole moderators in thinly-veiled disguise.)
Why did a new user posting this information (albeit with minimal context) yield vitriol, reports, and zero likes? Why did the posts like mine poking fun at a new user get a whole bunch of likes?
Why is it that I can sit here typing all this out in advance, knowing with 100% certainty that this is exactly how it's going to go down?
Thanks for the internet points, suckas!
Yes, we're all cool Internet nerds who are great at video games, and God only knows I will take the prize for smug know-it-all who takes his wit too far. But we have got to cultivate a community that is not merely tolerant, but willing to engage with fresh faces (and the often... unconventional ideas they bring to the table).
"Git gud" is not a viable path to the future of Smash, even in the survival-of-the-fittest jungle that is the CCI thread.
Btw, my lawyers want me to remind everyone that alternate accounts are against the Global Rules of Smashboards and are considered major Terms of Service violations and grounds for banning.
VI.
Anyway, where were we? Ah, right:
Please discuss anything you think is out of place!
No, there's a place for theory. I was just preemptively addressing the (legitimate) point that results != tiers.
So you are saying my viewpoints align with reality? Aww, thanks!
Thinkaman
feelin' himself so hard right now he about to get arrested for public indecency, lol.
