An old, tired argument

[Col. Stauffenberg]

First off, I'm not here to deny the existence of tiers in Brawl. (Even though I myself do not believe in them. That's just who I am, respect my opinion if you please. After all, I'm here respecting yours, and giving you the opportunity to prove me wrong.)

At the risk of sounding like a prick, not believing in the existence of tiers is no more valid as an opinion than believing that the sky is green or that gravity doesn't exist.

 

[|RK|]

Sir, by this, you could also say that you don't believe in matchup numbers. But matchup numbers are on paper so it doesn't matter. Anywho, tiers.

Erm... tiers are compiled from matchups (on paper), the tournament evidence that backs it up (this is true data), and the visible potential of each character. While there may be one person who plays a a certain character, all of the matchups seem way different to this person, and the character's potential may not be seen as a lack of representation because of placement on the tier list, this doesn't say that the tier list is wrong. The tier list is merely on paper matchup, tournament placings, and visible potential, again. Whether or not someone has the reflexes and skill to do things that others can't is irrelevant. It is a ranking of the general community's skills and what the average person can do when playing at the highest visible level of competitive skill. That's all. Therefore the tier list is correct.

 

[Syko_Lemming]

PK-ow!, that was one of the best written responces I've seen on the smashboards in quite some time.

Seriously, after that you don't need anything else. /thread.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Um, tier exists. Whether or not they are accurate is one thing, but um. We've made tier lists. They are there, they ****ing exist. It's like saying *insert object here* doesn't exist when it's right in plain ****ing sight. Smash wiki, bam, you see tier lists. IF THEY DONT EXIST HOW THE BLOODY HELL ARE WE SEEING THEM.

Secondly, your ideas of testing and are flawed, and to be more blunt and honest, ****ing ******** and scream of lol noob.

 

[rehab]

Why can't we evolve past the point of getting worked up over people periodically doubting that some characters are better than others and just have some jerks turn it into a 100% joke topic

 

[n88]

Um, tier exists. Whether or not they are accurate is one thing, but um. We've made tier lists. They are there, they ****ing exist. It's like saying *insert object here* doesn't exist when it's right in plain ****ing sight. Smash wiki, bam, you see tier lists. IF THEY DONT EXIST HOW THE BLOODY HELL ARE WE SEEING THEM.

Secondly, your ideas of testing and are flawed, and to be more blunt and honest, ****ing ******** and scream of lol noob.

Didn't he say right off the bat that he wasn't trying to say that tiers don't exist?

CPUs don't play like humans. They can't, because no two humans play exactly alike. The only way your idea would work would be if you had 39 supercomputers, each programmed to play a specific character. Now if we all pitch in about 5 cents...

 

[Falconv1.0]

Didn't he say right off the bat that he wasn't trying to say that tiers don't exist?

But he did state he does not believe in them.

It's not a ****ing belief issue. It's not something you choose to accept, it's just there, like the sky and asian porn stars.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

@Title:

If this topic is old and tired, why wake it up and beat it with a baseball bat? That's cruel.

 

[ssbbFICTION]

This is a stupid argument and the thread should be closed. The creator of the thread has obviously never seen this or any other competitive game at work.

 

[Melomaniacal]

The thing that bugs me is that some people still think tiers are a complete matter of opinion. To some extent they are (as in, who goes where, etc), but in reality, tiers are really not a matter of opinion. Some characters are better than others, this is a fact. Not an opinion. A fact. No fighting game is perfectly balanced.

And as many people have already said, CPUs do not show how good a character is. CPUs play nothing like humans do. They are dumb.

 

[Nixernator]

Ok, I think your opinion is wrong but I'll try to steer clear of insulting you for it.

No.1 Do you know what a tier list is of. That is a tier list is a list in order from worst to best of characters in a video game, in the video games current metagame at the HIGHEST level. (With in our case some potential in characters also judged)
No.2 Accepting that No.1 is what a tier list is, realize that the words METAGAME and HIGHEST, imply that it is about the most effective tactics and the best players. These are what affect a tier list
No.3 Next (if you are fairly competent at this game), go play all the level 9 computers, 3 stock no items blah blah, realize that you won every match.
No.4 Take note of the fact that you are not the best competitive player, so using that logic it means that the computers are not using A) The current metagame B) The best set of skills going around, therefore they can never truely measure a characters potential at the highest level of play in the metagame.
No.5 Research more about smash tournies, realize that the best players in the world (or in the Country) do sometimes get together at tournaments, and thus the highest level of play does exist.
No.6 Realize that these guys debate over the tier list based on their experiences at the highest level of play.
No.7 Also realize that these guys have more knowelege about the characters inherent traits than the computer does, disproving your idea of finding out a tier list by base traits.
I think thats covered it.

 

[Mr.-0]

empirical data can never prove anything, it's a law of science: falsificationism

Something is only a scientific theory if it is possible it can be disproven.

A scientific theory differs from a regular theory in that a scientific theory is generally the accepted model, a hypothesis is theoretical and up for debate (an example is how certain religious debaters refer to evolution as the theory of evolution so it's untrue, but in fact it's the truest and most accepted thing, it's just possible we could wake up tomorrow and prove it wrong)

So if we it apply it to tiers, looking at the evidence we have here it seems evident that tiers exist to an extent (that some characters are much better than others, though it's not set in stone). It's possible tomorrow that C.Falcon could win every tournament and disprove the current tier model, so it functions as a empircal model.

One of the early rules learnt in science or philosophy is that empirical data never proves anything, he can only disprove our existing beliefs or point us towards the right direction...

WEll... C.FAlcon would not win every tourney, even if something like this happens. My tiers exist argument is that if there's 36 characters and they are all diffrent than it will exist. There is no doubt about that. It's like saying 36 kids from diffrent familes will all look identical. Not gonna happen.

 

[Nanaki]

Your intentions were good, and your point isn't inherently flawed (nobody has solid, empirical, entirely objective data proving the tier list to be true). Unfortunately, everything you've said is completely and totally wrong. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just telling you the truth of the matter.

Tier lists are created through a voting process (at least on SWF). The votes are collected, and sorted into the proper order. The voting is performed by the people who are most informed on the information pertinent to the vote (they understand the game at a competitive level). Their votes determine the "winner", and all of the "runner-ups".

Does this sound familiar?

Every election in a democracy follows essentially the same procedure. The data collected (votes) are as meaningful and accurate as any data you can collect. Just because there isn't complete and total objectivity (people are biased), the data isn't any less meaningful. The 'best' candidate wins. We don't take our candidates and have a computer (who is woefully incompetent) pit them against each other, we (hopefully well-informed people) vote on a candidate based on how competent we think they are.

I know the scientist in you wants empirical, objective data, but it doesn't work in this scenario. You have to trust those better informed than you that they're making the proper choice. You're not a communist, are you?

 

[salaboB]

Every election in a democracy follows essentially the same procedure. The data collected (votes) are as meaningful and accurate as any data you can collect. Just because there isn't complete and total objectivity (people are biased), the data isn't any less meaningful. The 'best' candidate wins. We don't take our candidates and have a computer (who is woefully incompetent) pit them against each other, we (hopefully well-informed people) vote on a candidate based on how competent we think they are.

Traditionally the most charismatic candidate wins. Nobody really wants the "best" anyway, they want the one they like the most.

I understand what you're saying, but using as an analogy a popularity contest to explain something based as best people can on their understanding of the facts of the game doesn't work that well.

 

[Nanaki]

Traditionally the most charismatic candidate wins. Nobody really wants the "best" anyway, they want the one they like the most.

I understand what you're saying, but using as an analogy a popularity contest to explain something based as best people can on their understanding of the facts of the game doesn't work that well.

Well, that's kind of the problem with the system (in elections and tier lists both). Ideally, the candidate that the people believe is the most qualified wins. In practice (at least in this country), the candidate that the people attach to the most usually wins. Voters may be voting for the candidate that they believe is the best fit, but they're most likely voting for the candidate that they can identify with the most.

In a tier list discussion/vote, you hope that the voters are voting for the candidate that they believe is the best. However, it may turn out that many of the voters simply vote for MK because he's the easiest to pick up and the 'common knowledge' is that MK is simply the best. It is a popularity contest in a way, too (though to a lesser degree).

I agree though, it's not a perfect analogy. There are certainly more variables in an election than there are in a tier list vote, and less concrete evidence to go off of. I was mostly using the analogy to say that votes are a form of data, whether you agree with the vote or not.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

While I do believe tiers exist and I think the bottom half of the OP's post is terrible, he does make a good point toward the top. The first 18 characters in the current brawl tier list are all tourney viable and each one is going to be carried as far as their representation can take them. I've used the Pit/Japan example 100 times there. Pits place there, and results move them up.

Right now, there are a ton of MK Snake and Dedede players. There aren't as many Pit players in the US, so we don't see very good results from him. Same with ZSS, Lucario (who moved down after Azen quit both on the tier list and in tourney ranks), and a few others probably fall into this category as well. To a certain extent, the tier list is categorizing who's popular right now in the tourney scene, although the character obviously has to be good, too.

 

[Inaphyt]

Computers don't use the characters in the most efficient way, humans have learnt to use their characters to a high level of efficiency and pitting 2 high levels of efficiency together get's you a result, when that result keeps cropping up, and the losing player cannot or rarely defeats another player that character is officially worse.

To distinguish good from bad characters someone has had to go through the characters and find one they believe to be tourny viable, as peoples random choices clash it becomes more obvious of which characters are better, saying pro's only rep good characters is stupid as it's pretty much them that's made them good in the first place.

Hope it made sense

 

[Big Red]

I'm sorry, but I don't respect your opinion.

 

[RP`]

This thread is dumb as ****. First, you must realize what a tier list is. To me, it is a ranking list composed by an enclosed community of who are chosen to be the most intelligent smashers. These people rank each character by their POTENTIAL at the highest level of play. This takes all variables of each character into consideration, whether it be basic characteristics (priority, speed), to intermediate characteristics (CG's, combo-ability), to advanced characteristics (advanced techniques). It is also decided by other variables, such as matchups.

Here are two examples of what I am talking about:
DK: Really, he is a great character (I don't mean to sound biased). He is fast (for his size), has awesome killing potential, and has good range. But his placing got raepd due to D3 being able to stock him with one grab, thus making his tournament viability (especially at the highest level at play) almost eliminated by a simple novice technique.

Pikachu: At first he was mid-ish tier (IIRC) then up to high tier. What has done this is a recently discovered buffered CG that could be used against a lot of the high tiers, which shot up his tournament viability at the highest level of play.

I could ramble on even more about the OP, but I don't want to put in the effort because this thread needs to be closed.

 

[Mota]

The moment you said CPUs...

 

[Nitrix]

1. All characters are controlled by the same level CPU

This is where your train of thought goes off the tracks and into a river . No CPU plays like a human, and no CPU will use the AT's that make some characters so incredible.

Tier lists rate characters on how they are when they're played to their fullest potential. CPU's don't use characters to their fullest potential and thus studies with them are moot.

 

[00000]

If you care to notice the red writing (I knew there was a reason I put it there) I'm not trying to disprove the existence of tiers. I'm simply not believing (like any good scientist should) that such a thing exists until empirical data can be produced to prove it (That tiers exist) or disprove the converse (namely, that tiers don't exist).

For empirical evidence, go to a tournament.

Secondly, the CPU. Probably an oversight on my part, but it remains the closest thing we have to 36 players all of an equal, static skill level to test each character against all others. Come on, anybody can see that its just not possible to get 36-uplets to play the game that many times and still have exactly the same skill level.

No. CPU Snake and CPU MK < CPU Luigi. Something went wrong.

As far as I know (Simple Psychology coming into play here), every effort would have been made by the developers to ensure that every CPU was tailored to the characters abilities in-game. Are we suggesting, for example, that a level 9 Ganondorf isn't designed to be the same skill wise as a level 9 Solid Snake?

Evidently, they failed. Miserably.

As for Metaknight, the amount of tournaments he wins serves only to prove that he wins a lot of tournaments with players controlled by humans.

EDIT BECAUSE I CAN SEE THE FLAW IN HOW I WORDED THAT: My point is that does Metaknight win a lot because he truly is the best, or because he is played by the best players?

The former. It is a minority of the "best players" that mains MK.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Um, tier exists. Whether or not they are accurate is one thing, but um. We've made tier lists. They are there, they ****ing exist. It's like saying *insert object here* doesn't exist when it's right in plain ****ing sight. Smash wiki, bam, you see tier lists. IF THEY DONT EXIST HOW THE BLOODY HELL ARE WE SEEING THEM.

Wait, so the bloody corpse ghosts in my room each night are real?

 

[Kitamerby]

The best players don't main Meta Knight.

They main Sonic.

Don't think so?

Howabout YOU find a better explanation for his tournament results?

 

[Eaode]

Stupid argument is stupid. Why the hell would anyone consider using CPUs for a tier list that is to be used by Human Players? And if you haven't noticed, all character in smash are different. Therefore their AI had to be coded separately. And how the hell would you ever think that a human could program completely consistent and balanced AI when they can't even design a completely consistent and balanced roster?

Tier popularity arguments are also fundamentally flawed. This phenomenon takes place early in the game's lifespan, when players don't know for sure who's good or bad yet, and play whoever they please. Over time, people realize which characters are good (From human competition). The reason so many people play meta knight is because he is considered GOOD, not the other way around.

LOLOL at a potential "tiers don't exist." If you acknowledge that the characters in this game are not perfectly balanced, then you have to acknowledge tiers.

GG, bye

 

[LuLLo]

I don't get why people make a tier war in this little thread, all he asked for was more concrete evidence of the existence of tiers, he didn't attack the existence/non-existence of tiers head on, he asked a question and posted an IDEA about how to create such numbers and evidence (which was a bad idea, and he knows by now). But instead of explaining to him why it is a bad idea and that there is no absolute evidence of tiers, people insult him with useless comments.
After K-Pow's post, this thread should have ended, he explained it with reason, not just another ''you're not right n00b''.
And about his belief that tiers don't exist, bunk that with reasoning too, don't wave him off, enlighten him with your ideas, that's a harder but better path to walk.

 

[Heeded_call]

i just ignore tiers
just because theres a character ranked higher then another on a tier list doesnt mean they are impossible to beat
its all on how u play

 

[gm jack]

i just ignore tiers
just because theres a character ranked higher then another on a tier list doesnt mean they are impossible to beat
its all on how u play

The reason characters are tiered is that they all have their own characteristics. These give them advantages against other characters, which may give them an advantage. Those with the advantage most of the time are going to do better, as at the same level of skill, they are more likely to win.

 

[WhatIsRaizen?]

No tournament experience?

/thread guys.

 

[00000]

i just ignore tiers
just because theres a character ranked higher then another on a tier list doesnt mean they are impossible to beat
its all on how u play

Try playing only ganondorf at a tournament. Then come back and say that again.

 

[Fletch]

Theory fighter time.

Let's take 2 clones, we'll say 2 Melee Fox's. Then we increase the shine range of one of them to reach across the entire stage and be an instant death spike. Along with this, we make his up-smash hit anywhere on the stage and make his blasters stun. There are now 2 choices, with one completely superior to the other. Do tiers not exist in this environment?

Now compare that example to a game where there are around 40 characters with completely different characteristics. Are you honestly saying that all 40 of these characters were made with perfect balance around their different traits? If you are, then I'm sorry, but you are an idiot. Tiers exist in all fighting games no matter how balanced they are (unless it is clones only), that's just the way it is.

 

[mountain_tiger]

Are you honestly saying that all 40 of these characters were made with perfect balance around their different traits? If you are, then I'm sorry, but you are an idiot. Tiers exist in all fighting games no matter how balanced they are (unless it is clones only), that's just the way it is.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! (Well, it's actually 39 characters, but the point still stands....)

 

[pacmansays]

Now compare that example to a game where there are around 40 characters with completely different characteristics. Are you honestly saying that all 40 of these characters were made with perfect balance around their different traits? If you are, then I'm sorry, but you are an idiot. Tiers exist in all fighting games no matter how balanced they are (unless it is clones only), that's just the way it is.

This poster is correct, designers to aim to create a balanced palette of characters but there are so many variables that it is virtually impossible to have 40 balanced players. Plus, with many people 'breaking' the game they've created more imbalance.

Tiers change because it's hard to tell which individual character is better than another ('cept possibly MK) but if we observe then generally characters will linger in their same tiers, powerful evidence for the imbalance between good/bad characters

 

[PK-ow!]

I know the scientist in you wants empirical, objective data, but it doesn't work in this scenario. You have to trust those better informed than you that they're making the proper choice. You're not a communist, are you?

Communism isn't exclusive of the principles behind technocracy.

Just sayin'.

 

[Commander_Beef]

What would you classify as "flaming"? Nobody called you any names, only disagreed with you.

And you don't sound as if you're competitive if you have the whole "tiers r 4 qeuers" mindset.

And as far as CPU's go, they aren't programmed equally. Look at a CPU Luigi or Peach compared to a Ness or Yoshi.

I'll agree with Straked here...
Also, Jigglypuff uses her dash attack more frequently than other CPU's.

 

[Nanaki]

Communism isn't exclusive of the principles behind technocracy.

Just sayin'.

Does anyone who's not totally insane actually think technocracy would be able to effectively lead a nation? People aren't THAT trusting of 'brainy' people.

 

[PK-ow!]

Does anyone who's not totally insane actually think technocracy would be able to effectively lead a nation? People aren't THAT trusting of 'brainy' people.

This discussion is not about technocracy, tyvm.

Actually, what is the debate now? I just see arguing.

 

[Nanaki]

This discussion is not about technocracy, tyvm.

Actually, what is the debate now? I just see arguing.

You opened the door.

There is no debate here. It's everyone pouncing on the OP and telling him just how bad his idea is.

 

[Fletch]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! (Well, it's actually 39 characters, but the point still stands....)

Sorry, I don't play Brawl (or haven't since about 2 weeks since release), that's why I said around 40 characters as I couldn't quite remember. I don't have to play the game though to know tiers exist.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I propose that the same can be said for any character (Including Pichu.)

Of course, that's actually the reason why match-up discussions are generally meant to be deductive, to avoid that issue. Of course, this runs into the problem of the lack of a good theoretical framework, but we're working on that.

The the thing is, tiers exist, because it's impossible for any two things to be exactly the same. The difference may be minor, or the difference may be major, we're just trodding along to find it as best we can.

I guess my biggest question to the tier-ists out there is thus: Has there ever been any research conducted under reasonable experimental conditions to suggest that any one character might prove to be consistently better than all of the others.

Tournament evidence is the best we can do.

1. All characters are controlled by the same level CPU

...

No, CPUs don't abuse the tactics which make the characters good in tournament play. In melee, they almost never wavedash, I've only seen them dash-dance like once, I've never seen them pull off a ton of the combos and they never camp, ever.

Forget SHL.

The same applies for Brawl, when's the last time a cpu chaingrabed you to a dair spike with Falco?

3. There only stage used will be Final Destination, as it is regarded as the most neutral stage.

...

No, FD is actually one of the less neutral stages due to the screwy edges which hurt some recoveries a lot, the ungodly blast zones, and the power it gives to camping.

Using this formula you could accurately discern after repeated trials (I'm talking hundreds of tournaments here) whether or not any one character was better than the others by simply tallying up the results.

Not at all. It would tell us how the game would be if we all reacted like computers and didn't do any ATs.

I would like to use regular tournament play in such a study, but because of the high degree of variables and the large human element to said tournaments, they simply cannot be included in any empirical research.

It's better then simply cutting out most of what makes the tier list.

After its all said and done, I'm on the side of the data. If anybody can show me a study bearing any sort of passing resemblance to the one I have outlined above, I will spin on a dime and proclaim tiers to be true. Until then, I remain unconvinced.

Then I welcome you to the "problem of induction", look it up.

Deduction is the only truly reliable way to obtain a conclusion.