Tempus
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 30
Now that the Apex 2015 results for Smash 4 are out, I thought I would do a few semi-statistical reviews. The first thing I wanted to do was a character viability chart. I've taken the top 128 players from the Apex 2015 results, and weighted their character use on a scale that varies by their placing. I then assume that while top players at Apex may not play the best character, they will nearly always play a viable character.
Is this a tier list? Maybe. However, it isn't an objective ranking of how good or bad a character may be, but a subjective ranking of which characters that 128 of the best Smash players in the world think are viable enough to compete with. Thus Diddy being at the top does not mean he is the best character, just that he is almost certainly a viable one. Without further ado...
Exceptionally Viable
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Certainly Viable
°°°°°°°
Probably Viable
°°°°°°
Possibly Viable, but in doubt
°°°°
Unlikely to be Viable
°°°
Not Viable
How to read:
Is this a tier list? Maybe. However, it isn't an objective ranking of how good or bad a character may be, but a subjective ranking of which characters that 128 of the best Smash players in the world think are viable enough to compete with. Thus Diddy being at the top does not mean he is the best character, just that he is almost certainly a viable one. Without further ado...
Exceptionally Viable
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°Certainly Viable
°°°°°°°Probably Viable
°°°°°°Possibly Viable, but in doubt
°°°°Unlikely to be Viable
°°°Not Viable
How to read:
Each dot represents a full weighting unit of 1. So Sonic is two points higher than Rosa, who is two points higher than Olimar, who is two points higher than Ness.
Notes:
After playing with many weightings, the weighting scale used between characters is not terribly important, except for DHD and Pacman - both of whom had very few representatives but one placed very highly. In the end I decided to use the following weighting in order to place those two in the middle of the pack, as can be expected from the performances of their representatives at Apex.
Captain Falcon is probably less viable than projected here - he had many players using him, but none who placed particularly well. In this case, I believe it would be safe to say he is more popular than he is viable, skewing the results.
I did not include doubles results in the above - G&W, Villager, Ness, and Luigi became notably more viable in doubles play.
The performance or lack of performance of certain players impacted many characters due to the very small data set of 128 players. Notably: Ness, Megaman, Little Mac, ZSS, and Pikachu may have underperformed. Oddly enough, Rosalina and Olimar are not affected by Dabuz's performance, nor do the placings of Robin, DPit, Pit, or Greninja vary much. Lastly, Fox, Pacman, DHD, and Wario may have overperformed. Over or under performance is defined here as being significant enough to shift more than two placings in either direction.
Characters in the not viable group did not receive any representation in the top 128 that I could discern. Characters with no representation are deemed non-viable by consensus - if they were viable, presumably they would have been mained at least once, as the character average representation should be between 2 and 4 given a perfectly even distribution.
Captain Falcon is probably less viable than projected here - he had many players using him, but none who placed particularly well. In this case, I believe it would be safe to say he is more popular than he is viable, skewing the results.
I did not include doubles results in the above - G&W, Villager, Ness, and Luigi became notably more viable in doubles play.
The performance or lack of performance of certain players impacted many characters due to the very small data set of 128 players. Notably: Ness, Megaman, Little Mac, ZSS, and Pikachu may have underperformed. Oddly enough, Rosalina and Olimar are not affected by Dabuz's performance, nor do the placings of Robin, DPit, Pit, or Greninja vary much. Lastly, Fox, Pacman, DHD, and Wario may have overperformed. Over or under performance is defined here as being significant enough to shift more than two placings in either direction.
Characters in the not viable group did not receive any representation in the top 128 that I could discern. Characters with no representation are deemed non-viable by consensus - if they were viable, presumably they would have been mained at least once, as the character average representation should be between 2 and 4 given a perfectly even distribution.
