Judge Judy
Smash Lord
- Joined
- May 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,638
Ok, I know this should be in Tactical discussion or General Discussion blah, blah, blah...but I decided that the Mario board needs this the most right now. Basically my insight on the tier list regarding underrated and underused characters and stuff that I posted in the tier list discussion thread, this was all one post mind you.
Now here's where things get kind of complicated...
Characters who do poorly in tourneys might do poorly for a variety of reasons: they might just be a bad character, they might have a specifically bad match-up against a character often used in tourneys, or they might be underplayed and/or underused in tourneys.
Most people assume a character that does poorly in tournaments is a "bad" character, which is a fair assumption, but isn't always true. Now assuming that a character is not just "bad", we can start looking at other reasons they might not be doing well in tourneys.
If a character has a specifically bad match-up against a character often used in tourneys, that will most likely limit that character's abilities to place well in tourneys, which will also cause that character to be less used in tourneys. A classic example of this in Brawl would be Fox VS Pikachu or any of the 5 infinited characters; these specific match-ups are disastrous to these specific characters and will most likely limit their use in tourneys because of such. Now, a character can overcome a terrible match-up with a high amount of skill but it's still clearly an uphill battle, but the simple solution is to just have a secondary.
You may have noticed a small paradox in what I've just explained, that a character that has a bad match-up will be underused yet the problem can be remedied by simply having a good secondary. Well, the reason some people don't like using secondaries is one of two things: fear that secondaries will become their main or that they no longer are "purely" representing or maining their character. However, this should not greatly affect that character's rep in tourney because most players can accept having a secondary, but this still is a point against that character's "popularity" since it makes them less attractive in the competitive scene, especially if that character does not have any particularly great strengths. This leads us to our next topic of underused/underplayed characters.
Characters may just be underrepresented in tourneys, which can limit their ability to display victories at a larger scale in tourney. An argument against the relevance of this, is that if these characters are "good" they should have mostly wins, which is fair but slightly one-sided; with a low amount of tourney data it is difficult to make accurate predictions on well a character can do in tourneys, assuming these characters are underused in tourneys. However, poor tournament rankings add another point against these characters' "popularity" and partly cause a vicious cycle of under representation in tourneys.
Characters might be underplayed for what I will call "popularity". Now popularity can mean a great deal of things but I will simply define it as "reason or reasons of why a character is used in tourneys". Now you might want to read back a bit now to get a better understanding of what I meant by the term "popularity", Ima trickster arent I?
Characters can become popular for of a variety of reasons: tourney results, match-ups, and/or people just might like them for reasons other than their actual metagame
Time for some complicated but less complicated than before stuff…
Characters who well in tourneys will be most likely be more often in tourneys, logical, simple, and obvious, right?
Characters who have great match-ups will most likely be used more often used in tourneys. So, if character has great match-ups and is known do well in tourneys, they'll most likely be more often used in tourneys. However, characters with good match-ups may not be often used which leads us to "things outside the metagame to fill in the gap in popularity".
Things outside the metagame that affect a character's "popularity" might be: that people just like how that character looks, a character's character (try saying that five times fast), a character's background, a player's background, and/or that the character is "popular" which can dissolve into nothing more than a vicious cycle. Basically, someone might just like Ike or Snake because they're "badasses", but disregard Yoshi or Mario because they're "childish" or "unattractive". Alternatively, a certain playstyle preference might affect people's decisions, such as some with power=Ike, Ganondorf, Snake, etc., yet stay away from things like balance=Mario. People also might just choose a character because they heard that that character is "good" for whatever reason which can dissolve into a vicious cycle as people tell other people. People might just use a character because everyone else is using them, and it becomes a trend that can dissolve into a vicious cycle.
If character is not "popular" it is because they are lacking what makes a character "popular".
In conclusion, I think match-ups are more important than tourney results. I still think tourneys results are a factor, but they need to be very carefully considered before going off on raw data. Same could be said of match-ups, but I think that match-ups are much more important on their own to progressing the metagame than just tourney result, even though tourney results and match-ups can go hand-in-hand at times; tourney results can occur from a character's match-ups, but it's the match-ups that truly define the character, not the tourney results themselves. Match-ups need to be carefully considered too but not in the same sense that tourney results do; things need to be carefully considered in order to come up with accurate enough raw data to go off of for that character.
If I missed anything, tell me.
Now that you've read, which you better have, how do you think this applies to Mario?
That's a gross oversimplification, but in some ways that can be true. People want to win tourneys so naturally they go for characters winning tourneys, makes sense so far, right? Characters who win tourneys clearly are good characters who deserve higher placings, but characters who don't win tourneys aren't necessarily worse characters who deserve lower placings.
Now here's where things get kind of complicated...
Characters who do poorly in tourneys might do poorly for a variety of reasons: they might just be a bad character, they might have a specifically bad match-up against a character often used in tourneys, or they might be underplayed and/or underused in tourneys.
Most people assume a character that does poorly in tournaments is a "bad" character, which is a fair assumption, but isn't always true. Now assuming that a character is not just "bad", we can start looking at other reasons they might not be doing well in tourneys.
If a character has a specifically bad match-up against a character often used in tourneys, that will most likely limit that character's abilities to place well in tourneys, which will also cause that character to be less used in tourneys. A classic example of this in Brawl would be Fox VS Pikachu or any of the 5 infinited characters; these specific match-ups are disastrous to these specific characters and will most likely limit their use in tourneys because of such. Now, a character can overcome a terrible match-up with a high amount of skill but it's still clearly an uphill battle, but the simple solution is to just have a secondary.
You may have noticed a small paradox in what I've just explained, that a character that has a bad match-up will be underused yet the problem can be remedied by simply having a good secondary. Well, the reason some people don't like using secondaries is one of two things: fear that secondaries will become their main or that they no longer are "purely" representing or maining their character. However, this should not greatly affect that character's rep in tourney because most players can accept having a secondary, but this still is a point against that character's "popularity" since it makes them less attractive in the competitive scene, especially if that character does not have any particularly great strengths. This leads us to our next topic of underused/underplayed characters.
Characters may just be underrepresented in tourneys, which can limit their ability to display victories at a larger scale in tourney. An argument against the relevance of this, is that if these characters are "good" they should have mostly wins, which is fair but slightly one-sided; with a low amount of tourney data it is difficult to make accurate predictions on well a character can do in tourneys, assuming these characters are underused in tourneys. However, poor tournament rankings add another point against these characters' "popularity" and partly cause a vicious cycle of under representation in tourneys.
Characters might be underplayed for what I will call "popularity". Now popularity can mean a great deal of things but I will simply define it as "reason or reasons of why a character is used in tourneys". Now you might want to read back a bit now to get a better understanding of what I meant by the term "popularity", Ima trickster arent I?
Characters can become popular for of a variety of reasons: tourney results, match-ups, and/or people just might like them for reasons other than their actual metagame
Time for some complicated but less complicated than before stuff…
Characters who well in tourneys will be most likely be more often in tourneys, logical, simple, and obvious, right?
Characters who have great match-ups will most likely be used more often used in tourneys. So, if character has great match-ups and is known do well in tourneys, they'll most likely be more often used in tourneys. However, characters with good match-ups may not be often used which leads us to "things outside the metagame to fill in the gap in popularity".
Things outside the metagame that affect a character's "popularity" might be: that people just like how that character looks, a character's character (try saying that five times fast), a character's background, a player's background, and/or that the character is "popular" which can dissolve into nothing more than a vicious cycle. Basically, someone might just like Ike or Snake because they're "badasses", but disregard Yoshi or Mario because they're "childish" or "unattractive". Alternatively, a certain playstyle preference might affect people's decisions, such as some with power=Ike, Ganondorf, Snake, etc., yet stay away from things like balance=Mario. People also might just choose a character because they heard that that character is "good" for whatever reason which can dissolve into a vicious cycle as people tell other people. People might just use a character because everyone else is using them, and it becomes a trend that can dissolve into a vicious cycle.
If character is not "popular" it is because they are lacking what makes a character "popular".
In conclusion, I think match-ups are more important than tourney results. I still think tourneys results are a factor, but they need to be very carefully considered before going off on raw data. Same could be said of match-ups, but I think that match-ups are much more important on their own to progressing the metagame than just tourney result, even though tourney results and match-ups can go hand-in-hand at times; tourney results can occur from a character's match-ups, but it's the match-ups that truly define the character, not the tourney results themselves. Match-ups need to be carefully considered too but not in the same sense that tourney results do; things need to be carefully considered in order to come up with accurate enough raw data to go off of for that character.
If I missed anything, tell me.
Now that you've read, which you better have, how do you think this applies to Mario?
