Close, Please, and sticky the official tier list.

[otg]

Does every top level player severely underrate the character they play or is it just me?

Yeah pretty much.

 

[Doc King]

This is what I think it should be

Fox, Sheik, Puff, Falco, Marth

 

[EPsilon933]

This is what I think it should be

Fox, Sheik, Puff, Falco, Marth

This is what I think it should be:

Top tier
Marth/Sheik/Fox/Falco (Any order, I don't care, I'd put them all as a tie)

High-Top tier
Jigglypuff

 

[Bl@ckChris]

ganondorf.

That is all.

 

[Stevo]

Does every top level player severely underrate the character they play or is it just me?

this sounds like you are saying you are a top level player who underrates his character lol

 

[h!tboxexplo!ter]

sheik is at least as good as falco.... and she has two **** matchups against commonly played chars (falcon/marth). i respectfully disagree with her placement

 

[Winston]

Does every top level player severely underrate the character they play or is it just me?

not every top level player... see Hugs, or Wobbles

 

[Teczer0]

sheik is at least as good as falco.... and she has two **** matchups against commonly played chars (falcon/marth). i respectfully disagree with her placement

Honestly, how many marths do you expect to see at a tourney?

I think there are less marths than there are sheiks.

And looking at my region, there are 3 sheiks and 2 marths.

rofl

 

[Nø Ca$h]

Honestly, how many marths do you expect to see at a tourney?

I think there are less marths than there are sheiks.

And looking at my region, there are 3 sheiks and 2 marths.

rofl

who else plays sheik well in tristate other than you and vanz? alu?
i can think of more than 2 good marths in tristate..(hbk, g$, cactuar[inactive/only uses fox in tourny now], niko[decent], ultimascout[decent])

 

[Teczer0]

who else plays sheik well in tristate other than you and vanz? alu?
i can think of more than 2 good marths in tristate..(hbk, g$, cactuar[inactive/only uses fox in tourny now], niko[decent], ultimascout[decent])

I didn't even think of Alu actually.

I put me, Vanz, Reno

And for marth I thought of hbk and Niko. Cactuar plays almost all fox and .. .well I forgot G$ plays marth since all he plays vs me is falco.

I don't really count ultima *shrugs* I haven't seen him in a while and he played falcon last time I saw him but w/e.

 

[Nø Ca$h]

ultima mains marth he just goes falcon for ****s and giggles.

oh and i broke my 8th shield since apex the other day. the victem? cactuars fox. so dont count me out :D

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Questions i seriously want answered:

Should the amount of times a character is played in tournament reflect that character's tier placement?

Should match-ups against frequently played characters be weighed heavier than match-ups against non-frequent characters?

Does it matter if the match-ups are slightly **** or super duper ****? At a high tournament level between two evenly matched players, wouldn't either form of a **** match-up result in a win?

edit- include some sort of logical reasoning, not a random yes/no with no support

 

[Winston]

Should match-ups against frequently played characters be weighed heavier than match-ups against non-frequent characters?

Yes.

I've never seen someone give a comprehensive argument on what the definition of a tier list should be. That said, I think almost all tier list definitions are based on the concept of "how well is this character able to do in top-level tournament play?". In order to evaluate this the matchups definitely have to be weighted by frequency they appear in top-level tournament play.

Does it matter if the match-ups are slightly **** or super duper ****? At a high tournament level between two evenly matched players, wouldn't either form of a **** match-up result in a win?

It shouldn't matter too much, unless your definition of "slightly ****" is like 60-40 or something.

 

[_umbra_]

I like this list

especially the slashes ^_^

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Yes.

I've never seen someone give a comprehensive argument on what the definition of a tier list should be. That said, I think almost all tier list definitions are based on the concept of "how well is this character able to do in top-level tournament play?". In order to evaluate this the matchups definitely have to be weighted by frequency they appear in top-level tournament play.

I dont see the necessary correlation between this and that

One example in my mind is akuma in w/e game he was really broken in. he was soft banned, so the actual tournament play was approaching 0 while the tier ranking was the highest possible.

 

[Winston]

Assuming that nobody played Akuma in high-level tournaments, then the tier positions of the other characters wouldn't be affected by how well they do against Akuma.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I dont see justification for the logical leap from "how well do they do at the top level" to "how often is it actually played".

If akuma had 75-25 matchups vs everyone, the tier list below him wouldnt be effected either way. But if one character had an even matchup or a favorable matchup vs him, shouldn't they have a higher placing on the tier list even if next-to-nobody played akuma in tournament?

 

[bryu_1337]

Should the amount of times a character is played in tournament reflect that character's tier placement?

In my opinion, yes, but only to an extent. If you look at the most played characters, you see fox, falco, jigglypuff, and sheik/marth/falcon, which is generally what the community feels the tier list should look like. However, I think everyone should realize that these are the most played characters in part because the tier list says they are the best. Many people want to play top tier characters because they're considered to be the best.

As an aside, players should note that a tier list does not restrict a characters potential. Axe and Wobbles show that having bad matchups or placement on the tier list does not mean that you can't win with the character. It just means you need to try that much harder.

Should match-ups against frequently played characters be weighed heavier than match-ups against non-frequent characters?

I don't think they should. Regardless of character popularity, a tier list encompasses the entire cast of characters in the game, not just an "elite" few, and as such, all matchups should be weighed in a manner that reflects this. The character at the top of the tier list should be the character with the most matchups in their favor overall, and so on.

Does it matter if the match-ups are slightly **** or super duper ****? At a high tournament level between two evenly matched players, wouldn't either form of a **** match-up result in a win?

I think would only matter if 2 players were 100% equally skilled, as in if they played 100 matches, 1 would win 50 and the other would win 50, if they played the same character. If they played separate characters and were at the exact same skill level, the better character would win the match. This is why the tier list is only reliable to a certain extent. In a world where every player is of a different skill level, the success of the player is not solely contingent upon the rank of their character on a community-led tier list, but is instead largely contingent upon the overall skill of the player.

I hope this helps clear anything up. I'll try to answer questions or arguments/disagreements if I see them.

 

[Winston]

I dont see justification for the logical leap from "how well do they do at the top level" to "how often is it actually played".

If akuma had 75-25 matchups vs everyone, the tier list below him wouldnt be effected either way. But if one character had an even matchup or a favorable matchup vs him, shouldn't they have a higher placing on the tier list even if next-to-nobody played akuma in tournament?

I'm not arguing for "how good the character is" to be the basis of its weight. I used to argue for this but it seems like there will always be factors other than the character's inherent strength that affect its representation. You're right in that regard.

I'm arguing for weight by "how often it is actually played".

Of course the downside to that model is that it will give different results if the metagame shifts, so it'll never feel like some sort of objective truth, but the flip side would be a theoretically "correct" model that feels removed from reality. I mean, Doc could end up being higher than Falcon if you use that approach, given that Doc has a much stronger Jigglypuff matchup than Falcon.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

the fact that ppl think sheik is gay and don't play her buch doesn't make her any worse of a character...

so I don't see how that'd knock her down in the tier list...

 

[Just Sexed]

I didn't even think of Alu actually.

I put me, Vanz, Reno

And for marth I thought of hbk and Niko. Cactuar plays almost all fox and .. .well I forgot G$ plays marth since all he plays vs me is falco.

I don't really count ultima *shrugs* I haven't seen him in a while and he played falcon last time I saw him but w/e.

You forgot me. I tend to not stay active in the scene for awhile though :/

 

[machinegungeek]

I don't think some people understand what Gustav is suggesting (bryu, while I disagree with you, you seem to get it). He's not saying a character will receive a lower tier position because of there use. Use will only affect how much a MU is weighted when considering tier position. For example, let's take hypothetical characters A and B. A and B have all 50-50 MU's, except A get 30-70'd by Fox andd B gets 30-70'd by Roy (wtf?). Clearly, B is a more tourney viable character than A, because who cares how you do against Roy? But if your character get wrecked by Fox/Falco etc, it's going to really hurt that characters viability.

I look at it this way. I believe that a character's "score" is some linear combination of his matchups with coefficients weighting for matchup severity and for who the matchup is against (using that characters tier position and or tourney results and or tourney usage). In this scheme, I would assume a 50-50 MU is zero, a character with all neutral MU's would get score 0. This of course would open up the reality of negative scores. Anyways, what we are consciously or unconsciously arguing about are the weight coefficients. /nerd rant

 

[Scaphist]

I don't think they should. Regardless of character popularity, a tier list encompasses the entire cast of characters in the game, not just an "elite" few, and as such, all matchups should be weighed in a manner that reflects this. The character at the top of the tier list should be the character with the most matchups in their favor overall, and so on.

I disagree with this. Although every matchup has it's weight, certain matchups have more weight. Why? Well it's not a tier list of the game so much as it's a tier list of the metagame. The metagame isn't just pulled from the game, but from players that play the game.

Say I play random midtier #1, who has a 40:60 matchups against fox and random midtier #2. Who am I going to be more afraid of in tournament? Fox, or my midtier brother? Well Fox of course, but only because I'm far more likely to run into him.

 

[Doc King]

I'm just wondering this but shouldn't Link be tied with the rest of the low tier?

 

[bryu_1337]

I disagree with this. Although every matchup has it's weight, certain matchups have more weight. Why? Well it's not a tier list of the game so much as it's a tier list of the metagame. The metagame isn't just pulled from the game, but from players that play the game.

Say I play random midtier #1, who has a 40:60 matchups against fox and random midtier #2. Who am I going to be more afraid of in tournament? Fox, or my midtier brother? Well Fox of course, but only because I'm far more likely to run into him.

It is a tier of the metagame, but every character exists in this metagame. This is what I was talking about where people confuse ranking in the tier list with tournament viability and etc. The occurrence of foxes in a tournament does not directly relate to fox's placement in the tier list other than the fact that more people play him directly because of his placement. A character's placement in the tier list does relate to how developed they are in the metagame, but this is no reason to fear a character in tournament play. The character plays how the player choses, so you should be afraid of the player, and not the character.

 

[The Good Doctor]

Questions i seriously want answered:

Should the amount of times a character is played in tournament reflect that character's tier placement?

Depends on the placing. If Fox always takes 3rd-X place in major tournaments he should be high on the tier list. If a character like Puff, that for the last few years wins every major tournament, she should also be very high.

I just want the list to be the least theorycrafty as possible. Puff wins every national tournament, so she should be #1 for now. Just look at the first few lists, the metagame has changed alot in the past, so if everyone still thinks Fox > Puff at tournament level play you're a ******.

It is a tier of the metagame, but every character exists in this metagame. This is what I was talking about where people confuse ranking in the tier list with tournament viability and etc. The occurrence of foxes in a tournament does not directly relate to fox's placement in the tier list other than the fact that more people play him directly because of his placement. A character's placement in the tier list does relate to how developed they are in the metagame, but this is no reason to fear a character in tournament play. The character plays how the player choses, so you should be afraid of the player, and not the character.

Are you serious?
I really hope not.

 

[Rappster]

It is a tier of the metagame, but every character exists in this metagame. This is what I was talking about where people confuse ranking in the tier list with tournament viability and etc. The occurrence of foxes in a tournament does not directly relate to fox's placement in the tier list other than the fact that more people play him directly because of his placement. A character's placement in the tier list does relate to how developed they are in the metagame, but this is no reason to fear a character in tournament play. The character plays how the player choses, so you should be afraid of the player, and not the character.

this was either super zen or super nonsensical. given your post number, i know which i would guess.

 

[KAOSTAR]

tourney placings take into account popularity if you think in terms of 6 falcons made bracket or final results have falcons placing top ten.

if you start with the MU chart (assuming its accurate lmao) and tweak or make smaller changes based on how well the characters are actually doing you can't go wrong.

the tier list ends up being more realistic and based on what we actually know about the characters and not what we think we know or theory.

there absolutely is no way to be completely accurate unless you are simulating frame perfect matches. or accurate by definition of following tourney placements only.

going off tourney shows us what characters are likely to win based on what we know about the metà right now. peach and falcon have similar MUs. but if peaches are gettin off then put them above falcon.

low tiers are more ranked off tourney since MUs aren't as solidified and they aren't played as often.

there is no die hard solution so just go with what works.

-also if fox ***** everyone except roy (pretend he loses 90-10). the results will show foxes winning because roys are rare. if fox ***** everyone but falcon. you would see less fox at the top because they got eaten by all the falcons.

just post what we know. when it comes to low tiers vs one another then tweak by who is showing the most potential. ie mewtwo> zelda lol.

if pikachu is winning because "people don't know the mu" then he is gonna keep placing high until the community learns how to fight pikachu. also fighting pikachu is different than fighting axe lol.

 

[Cosmo!]

-also if fox ***** everyone except roy (pretend he loses 90-10). the results will show foxes winning because roys are rare.

if roy had a 90-10 vs fox he would be all over the place, and all fox mains would pick up a secondary to keep the roys down

 

[KAOSTAR]

I agree. but that was a hypothetical. nothing changed except roy suddenly ***** fox.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The metagame is based around the best strategies for the characters. For example, fox lasering, hit and running and all around trying to not get hit obviously has a favorable match-up against pikachu who is slower and has less range and a worse projectile. If you think about how the match-up should play out, this is obvious.

But when the matchup is played at the top level, you see axe beating jman. When you look at the skill level, I would say they are both very high level players. They are in the group of players that fight for the placings directly below m2k/armada/hbox. Considering that pikachu has no advantages on fox, except a less gimp-able recovery, the outcome should be surprising. When I watched that set, I saw both characters fighting equally. Why? Because once you recognize your opponent's strengths and accept that there are some situations you won't be successful in, you can avoid them.

Fox can laser all day, but if pikachu calmly approaches without leaving himself vulnerable, fox has nothing to punish to lead into non-laser damage (and to the extreme, will never get a killing blow). Once this happens, the playing field is actually relatively even, and the better player can win.

So when people say "X character got rank Y at tournament Z" that argument is completely invalid as it was almost entirely the work of the player.

I would love to discuss how top level strategies play out in various match-ups, and rank a tier list based on serious discussion.

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

ok so when people talk about the tier list they say its ow good a character is in the current meta-game when being played at top lvl of skill, but when something like axe placing top 5 with a pikachu happens people then say its not the character its the player. But in truth Axe is pikachu being played at the very top of the current meta-game so i dont see how people can ignore what he did and just say its b/c of lack of mu knowledge, or hes to goos but pika is still bad.

honestly right now i want to write a short essay on why its pika in the current meta-game that can compete with top tiers also at the top of the meta-game but its kinda late so i will put it off till some other time

Also mango does not count in the current meta-game b/c he is clearly atm ahead of the meta-game so i say u have to look at the next best (this not only is true but its also to avoided comments such as look what mango did with mario ect)

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

ok so when people talk about the tier list they say its ow good a character is in the current meta-game when being played at top lvl of skill, but when something like axe placing top 5 with a pikachu happens people then say its not the character its the player.

Its not at the top level of skill, per-say, but players using the most refined strategies we know of.

think of it in terms of sc2 (why not ). Recently, thors were decidedly the best counter to mutalisks. If you played terran against zerg and they got mutas, you could stick a thor in your base and it could defend against a good amount of mutalisks alone. After that, someone realized that if you standard move past the thor and then issue the stop command while above it, the mutalisks would spread out and something like 4 mutas could take out a thor.

If you were to discuss the top level of play for sc2, you may cite player X using this strategy to success, but that player's placement has no bearing on the impact of that strategy on the metagame. On the flip, player Y who doesn't use this strategy but happens to place very high, player Y's placement also has no correlation between the strategy and its effect on the metagame.

While its really cool to look at big tournament results and make comparisons to the tier list, you can't actually take the results as direct evidence, because you are really looking at how humans who take risks and follow their gut do under pressure. You have to look much deeper into the actual matches that were played if you want to make any statement on the characters or match-ups.

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

^i dont play sc2 (just saying)

Anyway i am not saying that tourney results should be the only tool used to create a tier list what i am saying is you cant ignore the fact that a pika got top 5 in a major tourney which should never happen if you are to believe the tier list as it is now. I am not saying pika is top or even high tier what i am saying is a 2nd look needs to be given to pika as well as other low and bottom tiers b/c in the current meta-game they might be under rated.

the short essay i want to write which i mentioned before i will just some up real fast b/c i am going to sleep soon so here it goes.

The Meta-Game has evolved to a point were its become precise enough and technical enough that characters that were considered low tier b/c of flaws and weaknesses are not able to use tech skill to hide these weaknesses, this imo is the only way to explain low tiers seemingly becoming more viable ex: Axe (pika), Taj (mewtwo), Casmo (zelda) Vectorman (yoshi). This showing of low tier ability and potential in the current meta-game needs to be taken into consideration when discussing a new tier list, and i believe that mid tier and below should have a shake-up, i also believe that low tiers that have potential might be the next evolution in the melee meta game but thats to be seen (maybe its just ARZ and something in their water) (i know casmo is not from ARZ he is just kinda random maybe he should move there lol)

 

[Dark Hart]

I people in the MBR and they assure me that tourney results are not the only factor they use to make tier lists.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

when ppl say that pikachu isn't low tier, I always wonder where they wanna put him. Is he better than ganon? Better than IC? Better than DK or luigi? I honestly don't think so. Well, maybe DK.

axe is good. Doesn't mean pika is better than ganon or luigi or even mario.

 

[Lordydennek]

To a certain extent it's the player and to a certain extent its that character. Take a step back and see that Axe has taken pika to the highest level pika can go to that we know of. Mango has taken puff to the highest level, m2k has taken marth to the highest level and so on and so forth. thus the tier list and mus need to be redone. things have changed. Pika is obviously not in low tier bcuz you simply dont see chars like g&w placing and winning tournies like Axe has. Pika has been proven to have to tools to beat and play competantly with high and top tier chars. Axe didnt win all his matches of course so pika obviously isnt top tier, but you cant ignore that pika played correctly is NOT a low tier character. its as simple as that.
of course that doesnt rule out that g&w could be brought up too. but it hasnt happened yet so its not on the table. pika has been PROVEN to be good. or at least better than low tier.

 

[ryuu seika]

I've lost track of what's happened lately. What are the views on this:

Top
Fox
Falco
Jigglypuff
Sheik
Marth

High
Peach
Falcon
Ice Climbers


Upper
Ganon
Samus
Doctor Mario

Middle
Pikachu
Luigi
Mario
Link
DK

Low
Mewtwo
Young Link
Zelda
G&W
Yoshi

Bottom
Roy
Bowser
Ness
Pichu
Kirby

Glitch
Master Hand

 

[Stevo]

I still feel there are too many tiers. Middle tier isnt even in the "middle". I think Upper should be removed.

and master hand does not need to be in the tier list.
We get it, he is a glitch character.

Edit: should be

tier 1: characters that almost always win tournaments

tier 2: characters that CAN win tournaments, but not too often

Tier 3: characters that are competitively viable, but cannot win on their own without a big skill gap

Tier 4: Decent characters that just don't have what it takes to win (a tournament). Can be seen used competitively the odd time.

Tier 5: not tournament viable, user discretion is advised

 

[Lordydennek]

ya cut down on some tiers. I think the way to go is fewer tiers. and more chars that are closer in numerical value than they were. you could even do just 3 tiers

High-
fox/falco/jiggs/sheik/marth
falcon/peach/ics
mid-
Samus/ganon/doc/mario/pika/luigi/
link/dk/mewtwo/ylink/zelda
low-
yoshi/g&w/roy/
bowser/ness/pichu/kirby