Are players who use low tiers better & smarter than players who use mid tier +?

[DoonKoon]

For example, players like Blubba & Deva (for Link), San (for Ike), Rebaz (for Falcon), RayKalm (for Ganon), Gregs (for jiggs, not sure if he uses her in tournaments though), and a bunch of others like Vex (bowser), reflex (pt), xyro (samus) and so on, be better than players who use mid tier + characters even though they place lower than them in tournaments? When I say "better", I mean it generally, as in skill level and their knowledge of the game.

Like, would San's Ike be better than M2k's Metaknight, & Raykalm's Ganon be better than Ally's Snake skillwise, and not character wise?

I've been watching goodd D Tier & below players, and they really seem to impress me, they really amaze me of how they use their respective chars so wisely even after how limited and sucky their chars are. and It's really depressing how they don't get the credit they deserve. What if these players used higher tiers? They seem to have more knowledge than some good higher tier mains, so I don't see how they won't be better once they learn the character.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

I don't think they are.

 

[Vermanubis]

To a degree, yes. Because the low-tier users have to compensate for shortcomings and fight concurrently, whereas higher tiered characters have fewer shortcomings to compensate for. But that's just a very basic analysis.

 

[DoonKoon]

but it really takes skills to win with low tiers

u try using jiggs, or falcon against good Snakes

 

[TheMike]

If those players played with Mid Tier+ characters, they would at least place better in tournaments. They "played" I mean, is the same way they do with Low Tiers when they are training, for example. Especially because Mid Tier+ characters' learn curve is usually shorter than Low Tier's. Besides, Mid Tier+ characters are technically better than Low Tier ones.

 

[Vermanubis]

Falcon actually does fairly well against Snake in comparison to most low-tiers. Not that it diminished the point you're making, but just thought I'd toss that in there.

 

[.Marik]

I like your insight.

While the knowledge and intelligence of the players may be the same, characters that are lower on the tier list show less potential and capabilities compared to the rest of the cast, therefore affecting placement and winning. Low tiers lose a lot, this is something players have to understand.

The characters, especially in a fighter as unorthodox as Smash Bros, affect how players perform, even though the skill level may be the exact same, identical in level even.

As you said, the characters below D Tier are quite limited, due to a lack of easy matchups and overall capabilities to perform in a controlled tournament setting.

So yes, people who use mediocre characters aren't placing as good because the characters hinder them, even though the skill level and understanding of the game may be the same.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

To a degree, yes. Because the low-tier users have to compensate for shortcomings and fight concurrently, whereas higher tiered characters have fewer shortcomings to compensate for. But that's just a very basic analysis.

That's not true. A lot of the top tier characters has their flaws. It's just that better players play high tier than as opposed to low tier mains. If the low tier mains was so good why not pick up a good character and wreck ****?

What I don't get is why low tier mains don't win low tier tournies.

 

[UberMario]

It's kind of hard to compare skill levels with characters that have totally different meta-games. That's like comparing apples and oranges.

There are no set guidlines to who is more "skillful" when it comes to matches that do not involve dittos, after all, each match is different and play styles are (at least somewhat) unique with each player, which makes it near impossible to rank people with totally different mains/secondaries (assuming it's not an extreme example, such as three-stocking someone nearly each time, then it's pretty obvious who's the most skilled).

What I don't get is why low tier mains don't win low tier tournies.

Is that even possible?

Unless you mean that people that typically use high-tier mains enter with low tier characters and win.

 

[DoonKoon]

That's not true. A lot of the top tier characters has their flaws. It's just that better players play high tier than as opposed to low tier mains. If the low tier mains was so good why not pick up a good character and wreck ****?

What I don't get is why low tier mains don't win low tier tournies.

I really dont get that last sentence.

 

[Flayl]

Low tier mains place high but then the top skilled players pick Ike (probably the eaiest character in low tier) and just plain outplay them.

 

[zeldspazz]

I think AL is saying that more people who second low tiers win LTTs than people who main them (idk if thats true but I think thats what hes saying)

 

[GreenFox]

I dont think it really matters the best players could pick a low tier and still get good results they just pick better ones for a better chance to win.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

If the low tier mainers can beat high tiers consistently while the high tier mainers can't then yes. That's not true though.

 

[highfive]

I'd say no. Snake, MK, etc have a higher learning curve then say, Jigglypuff. There is far more depth then a lower tier. You can only do so much with a low tier character when a high tier character has a much larger learning area in different aspects. Snake has his Grenade game, C4 game, air game, ground game, etc while Jigglypuff can only have an air game and an extremely basic ground game since the ground is lava to her.

 

[.Marik]

If the low tier mainers can beat high tiers consistently while the high tier mainers can't then yes. That's not true though.

It honestly has nothing to do with personal skill level, but rather, the limited options of said low tier characters.

I'd say no. Snake, MK, etc have a higher learning curve then say, Jigglypuff. There is far more depth then a lower tier. You can only do so much with a low tier character when a high tier character has a much larger learning area in different aspects. Snake has his Grenade game, C4 game, air game, ground game, etc while Jigglypuff can only have an air game and an extremely basic ground game since the ground is lava to her.

This is subjective.

Yoshi is a very high-learning curve character, same with Samus, yet they are ranked incredibly low on the tier list and are complete garbage due to hard matchups and subpar killing potential.

Snake is high-learning curve also, but I'm pretty sure Meta Knight isn't, due to his advantages and overall techniques and programmed moveset which makes him easy to learn and perform in tournaments with.

I'd say Jigglypuff is a mid-learning curve character, her flaws are apparent and it takes considerable work to overcome against hard counters and disadvantaged matchups, yet at the same time, ranking on the tier list has nothing to do with learning curves beside the notable exception that the farther down the list you go, and the higher the learning curve, the harder it is to pick these characters up and place with them.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

Yoshi is a mid tier character IMO.

 

[DoonKoon]

I'd say no. Snake, MK, etc have a higher learning curve then say, Jigglypuff. There is far more depth then a lower tier. You can only do so much with a low tier character when a high tier character has a much larger learning area in different aspects. Snake has his Grenade game, C4 game, air game, ground game, etc while Jigglypuff can only have an air game and an extremely basic ground game since the ground is lava to her.

I'm gonna have to disagree with this..

The lower the character on the tier list (assuming that the tier list is accurate with the current metagame), the harder it becomes to win with them at tournament level play.

Learning curve is totally irrelevant to the amount of skill it takes for winning matches.

Snake might be harder to learn than Ganon (even though I'm sure Ganon is almost impossible to learn), but that won't mean that Snake's harder to win with, he has much more & much better tools than Ganon could ever dream of, and he could use those tools in more useful ways.

 

[.Marik]

Yoshi is a mid tier character IMO.

He really isn't.

 

[Gadiel_VaStar]

Yoshi is a mid tier character IMO.

His recovery is too poor to be mid tier. Recovery is a BIG factor in this game.

 

[The Nameless Wanderer]

His recovery is too poor to be mid tier. Recovery is a BIG factor in this game.

Alot of things about Yoshi suck, one of them is not his recovery.

 

[Xyro77]

IMO, people who do WELL with low tier are on a level that the others are not. Meaning that they are on a level NOT REQUIRED by the mid/top tiers. its a diff ball game. You really cant compare a top meta main and a top samus main.

 

[DoonKoon]

IMO, people who do WELL with low tier are on a level that the others are not. Meaning that they are on a level NOT REQUIRED by the mid/top tiers. its a diff ball game. You really cant compare a top meta main and a top samus main.

Like yourself? :D

 

[Xyro77]

This is true. Yea i may be able to do AMAZING things with samus but those very same things may not be amazing if a METAKNIGHT or FALCO does it. ya know??


its a big difference and its hard to compare

 

[DoonKoon]

My points exactly. Low tier mains are cool.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

My points exactly. Low tier mains are cool.

I main 1 top tier, and like...3 low tiers 'cause I'm cool like that. (, , and )

I enjoy playing all of these characters but all of the low tiers' options are weak compared to Falco. It stinks: Yoshi has no OoS options, Lucas has no reliable killers, Falcon has little priority. I think I play these characters very well against a lot of characters but I'm at the peak of my game playing Falco.

 

[Mclena45]

Disregarding what everyone else said (too lazy to read rofl):
Tiers don't really matter, its skill, sure your using a low tier char and ur opponent is using a med+ tier char, but maybe its a 50/50 match-up or you have a SLIGHT advantage over ur opponents char.

 

[Nitrix]

Higher tier players are much better than low tier players because they face a higher degree of skill in tournaments. If a good player is using MK, then they will get the most practice at a tourny where they are facing better and better people each round, thus getting more and more practice.

However if a person is using a low tier they will be eliminated, and thus not get the same practice that higher-tier players too. This widens the gap. Thus is a higher-tier player picked to learn a low-tier char they would be much better than the people who ONLY play low tier chars.

Plus alot of higher tier chars have much more depth than lower tiers.

 

[highfive]

I'm gonna have to disagree with this..

The lower the character on the tier list (assuming that the tier list is accurate with the current metagame), the harder it becomes to win with them at tournament level play.

Learning curve is totally irrelevant to the amount of skill it takes for winning matches.

Snake might be harder to learn than Ganon (even though I'm sure Ganon is almost impossible to learn), but that won't mean that Snake's harder to win with, he has much more & much better tools than Ganon could ever dream of, and he could use those tools in more useful ways.

If you can find 15 more AT's for Ganon then Snake I'll agree with you. The deal is that Snake has an easier time winning because he has so many diverse styles.Thus he can adapt and win in many situations. And MK also has a higher learning curve because he has many low lag options that can make him use different attacks at any time.

 

[xoxokev]

Higher tier players are much better than low tier players because they face a higher degree of skill in tournaments. If a good player is using MK, then they will get the most practice at a tourny where they are facing better and better people each round, thus getting more and more practice.

However if a person is using a low tier they will be eliminated, and thus not get the same practice that higher-tier players too. This widens the gap. Thus is a higher-tier player picked to learn a low-tier char they would be much better than the people who ONLY play low tier chars.

Plus alot of higher tier chars have much more depth than lower tiers.

i see... so you're saying that low tier players will always be eliminated earlier than high tier players... gotcha. okay everyone switch to MK now

 

[highfive]

i see... so you're saying that low tier players will always be eliminated earlier than high tier players... gotcha. okay everyone switch to MK now

Your late. Everyone already has.

 

[HelpR]

A low tier main tends to mean more hardships for the same results. For example, someone using ganon or any other low tier character, can usually lose out to any of the top characters, due to the nature of matchup. Ganon, even if he is better then metaknight, will most likely lose as metaknight simply beats his matchup utterly.

What needs to be acknowledged here, is that for the most part, the tier list is a rising list of the characters with the worst recoveries to those with the best, as due to the nature of the game, gimping is emphasized so strongly. Ganon, link, falcon, samus (in terms of horizontal recovery, she's godly, however, her vertical recovery is rather meh) yoshi, ness, mario, and lucas can all be gimped rather easily, and while falcon, link, and ganon are all heavy characters who can DI rather well, they're gimped more often then being killed with a smash.

Falco for example, is a high tier character with a mediocre recovery, however, he makes up for it by having the tools to end a stock of their opponent extremely quickly, and thus the other parameter for being ranked higher is set, can this character kill their potential opponent faster then they can be gimped or killed? Snake for example, has a decent recovery, and has no trouble killing enemies rather early, so he easily grabs the 2nd spot, while diddy, a character with little killing potential, is both extremely difficult to damage, and to gimp, particularly when the diddy is playing to the best of the character's potential. Zelda is often considered to be the top of low tier tourneys (no love for bowser. or more love I guess?) she has massive killing potential, but is rather easy to gimp once she is off stage.

My entire point is that comparing low tier mains in skill to top tier mains is rather difficult, due to the fact that each character has a different set of attributes, it's just a matter of how well the player uses the attributes. metaknight is a character that has little trouble doing damage, and can generally gimp rather early, provided with the right setup. If a low tier main fights a high tier main, and the matchup is 50:50 (or 45:55) then it should come out to a very close match. However, if one character has an advantage over the other, and the one with the disadvantage wins, then the one with the disadvantage could be considered the better of the two even if the match was close.

Also, this is rather pointless to discuss now that I think on it. heh.

tl;dr: skill is rather subjective, a person can be one of the greatest players in the world, but if the matchup is bad enough, skill becomes a non issue.

 

[mars16]

Hey I can destroy a pretty good falco or Snake with Mario
and about that, I have more problems against Ganandorf then I do any high tier character
Accept MK

 

[MarKO X]

ROFL

here's a hint about ganon...
Use your shield, use your fireball, and learn to gimp. Mario should generally destroy ganon if I'm not mistaken.

As for the question in the OP... Players who play lo tier characters arent necessarily better than those who play hi tier characters, as making that switch generally means you have to learn a new character. However, playing a higher tier character with competence means you should lose less.

But ofcourse, that was all said probably. I just wanted to help out the Mario having trouble with Ganon.

 

[PK-ow!]

ROFL

here's a hint about ganon...
Use your shield, use your fireball, and learn to gimp. Mario should generally destroy ganon if I'm not mistaken.

As for the question in the OP... Players who play lo tier characters arent necessarily better than those who play hi tier characters, as making that switch generally means you have to learn a new character. However, playing a higher tier character with competence means you should lose less.

But ofcourse, that was all said probably. I just wanted to help out the Mario having trouble with Ganon.

Mario won't **** the matchup unless his pilot is really good at getting the Ganon offstage.
Then it's ****.

But barring that, Mario doesn't have the tools to mop up Ganon as hard as this suggests. Since his shield grab range is so small... ... and his range is so small... he does have to take risks to hit Ganon.
And that's all Ganon needs to get rolling.

Choke chaining can go on as long as Ganon techreads (not true for all characters), he's got two kill moves guaranteed out of choke (one of them should be fresh), and I don't see Mario safely jumping except for some minor Fireball camping that any Ganon will just PS through and then close Mario to the edge.


But that's off-topic.

To answer the topic:

**** no, they're not better players. When they win it proves just as much as for anyone else, no more, no less. The same goes for when they lose.

 

[Demp]

Here is another way of looking at this: if a person who plays Link places, let's say, 2nd place in a tournament, and a person plays MK in a tournament with the same people (except the Link) who play just as good as they did in the first tournament and he also places 2nd, who would you say is more skilled?

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Here is another way of looking at this: if a person who plays Link places, let's say, 2nd place in a tournament, and a person plays MK in a tournament with the same people (except the Link) who play just as good as they did in the first tournament and he also places 2nd, who would you say is more skilled?

'cause has a lower learning curve and Link's matchups takes longer to learn and apply to one's playstyle to overcome obstacles like his recovery. Metaknight has a lot less things standing in his way. Learning his moves and how to recover is all you need for Metaknight. W/ Link, you need to know everything about him and know what works and what doesn't.

Basically Link has a harder time actually winning a match. Getting 2nd in a tourney w/ him is worth a lot to whom ever uses him.

 

[Dekar173]

Getting second with Link means a lot more about your competition than it does about you.

 

[Nihongo-ookami]

...Whether your Main is low or high tier doesn't really matter.

What IS important, is the skill of the individual players. If the skill is equal or near equal, THEN tiers come into play.

 

[Nitrix]

Getting second with Link means a lot more about your competition than it does about you.

I liek this postttt! Its true lol

....444 O_o