OK, you've said it yourself, it's tough and dare I say subjective to determine which attributes are more important. So if measuring frame rates and such statistics can't be effective in a "strengths and weaknesses" teir list, and neither can a matchup chart such as this one, then how can something like this be assembled in such a way that it uses less subjectivity than a tournament viabilty teir list such as the one assembled now? I personally think that there's no way to completely eliminate subjectivity, or even eliminate more than was used in the latest itteration of the teir list. Even if we were to do something such as classify tournaments as large, medium, and small and then give each characters points for placing top 3,5, or 10 or whatever in each type of tournament, there would still be debate such as, "OMG Pittsburgh tournies shouldn't count for that much, they all suck," or whatever. You can't get an online community such as this to aggree on any type of concrete system here because they don't have a very wide range of knowledge on how good each other are in the global scope.Sry I think I wasn't clear enough in my explanations... I always considered that a tier list based on a character's strentgh/weaknesses wouldn't be the same as a tier list based on a character's matchups. Furthermore, a tier list based on tournament viability would be another thing again... what I wanted to point out in my original post is that you could make an infinite amount of tier lists, it's just that you have to choose how you're going to rank the chars.
In my words, a tier list based on a character's strentgh/weakness (or attributes) would rank characters based on the facts that we currently know about their KOing ability, recovery and other stuff that would help them win a matchup.
Exemple: Fox is one of the best characters because he's fast, can deal damage, and has some good KO moves. Peach is a good character, but we could say that Fox is better because he is faster and he has better KO ability... she has better recovery though.
^^The main problem with that kind of list though would be to determine which attributes are more important in order to achieve victory. A list like this should be strickly based on facts though, like frame data and stuff...
On the other hand, a matchup chart like one Phanna made is created by comparing the attributes of 2 chars, and by estimating who should win the matchup if they're controlled by evenly skilled players.
So basically adding the scores up for each char's matchup and ranking the chars accordingly would make a character matchup based tier list, but not an attribute based tier list... even though the outcome of character matchups are estimated with attributes.
Kinda tired of typing... lemme know what you think of this before we discuss about a ''Tournament viability'' type of tier list...
I could be wrong, and feel free to correct me if I am, but objectivity in teir list is nothing more than an ideal that we can only hope to grasp at.
So assuming my correctness there, then how do you differentiate between the multiple teir lists you've proposed? A strengths and weaknesses list would have to be just as subjective as a tournament list, and I really don't see how they could possibly be different. I mean, say shiek is a clear #1 on this strengths weaknesses chart, then why do spacies tend to beat her and just generally do better in tournaments? I don't think such a list makes sense or serves any real purpose. For that matter, I think the importance of debating how the teir list should be put together and whether multiples should exist needs to be put on hold for a second to determine what the purpose of the teir list is.
As far as I'm concerned, a teir list's purpose is to display character's relative power level, and for me, power is directly related to how well the character does in tournaments. I can't see what possible purpose any other type of list would serve. So if tournament viability isn't how you see the purpose of teir lists, what purpose should they serve?