Counterpicks vs. Tier list. With almost 50 characters will the "tier" be outdated?

[WabbitSeason]

Right now a lot of people are referring to characters as "top 10" or "A tier." A description of how well they place on the game overall. But I'm going to have to disagree with this notion considering how expansive this roster is. There are simply too many diverse movesets and cutomizations to pinpoint how "high" exactly a character is in Smash 4.

In Melee you obviously could do so. Characters in the top end were pretty much able to hold their own against most of the cast. Barring say Jiggs vs. Armada's Young Link. Brawl was like this to less of an extent. But Smash 4 has a lot of characters who are powerful, but can't dominate the whole cast. A one trick pony player will probably get his tail handed to him if a counter is used.

You've simply got so many options. Projectile games like DH, Link, YL, etc. Big characters like D3 or Bowser. Fast little guys like MK. And so on. Not to mention the unique movesets like Rosalina or Villager.

In reality, there's a counter to virtually every character. And since there are so many, a "top 10" tier would be near impossible to make because of how many counters are available.

 

[Shaya]

You really don't know about the game balance on day one. We already see characters who are just generally stronger / more apt at getting hits, combos and getting kills than others. While things look like an even playing field now, this will change drastically over time.

Counterpick characters were always meant to be a "thing" in Smash Bros. As the game developed there were always a dominant force that shaped general viability and otherwise, but those characters often still had hard match ups or weaknesses.

Either way, a tier list will always exist, maybe the gaps and divisions will be small, but nonetheless, one will exist; guaranteed.
It's just as naive to say there is a "top 10" or an "A tier" (or otherwise) in this game right now as it is to say the game is fairly balanced and that we won't have a need for one.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

In reality, there's a counter to virtually every character.

That remains to be seen.

But I'm inclined to agree with the basic idea. The bigger the roster is, the harder it becoes to accurately evaluate the majority of characters. Even Brawl the top 3 of the tier list has never actually been conistent. Only about a year ago or so the fact that ICs are the second best character in Brawl has really started to establish itself. And even then you won't find any agreement on who the 3rd best character is. So it should be clear that a tier list that covers more than 45 characters can never be more than an approximation.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I think custom moves are a bigger deal for the tier list than character counters.

We are using custom moves right? Because if not I'm going to start a riot.

 

[AlMasterX]

I think custom moves are a bigger deal for the tier list than character counters.

We are using custom moves right? Because if not I'm going to start a riot.

I'd actually be so pissed if custom moves weren't implemented into competitive play.

 

[Shaya]

Well we don't have a good idea yet, but in the cases of special moves there are likely just better/superior choices, and if we're allowing them, there will probably be "sets" that are most optimal majority of the time.

Why do I think that?
Just from the general fact that most special variations seem to have a faster, longer range but less damage (or less something else) to compensate. But those compensations seem to all be scaled less than the benefits.
Things would probably be more complicated in doubles.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I think custom moves are a bigger deal for the tier list than character counters.

We are using custom moves right? Because if not I'm going to start a riot.

From what I have gathered so far, a huge majority of people seems to be in favor of allowing custom moves in competitive play. I'm curious though why you'd think that they have a bigger impact than counter characters?

 

[Xinc]

I honestly believe that some tournies wouldn't allow them (I'm sure there's a thread about that somewhere, like 3ds yes, wii u no), and some would host both.

They have a bigger impact mainly because they do have some viability in changing the matchup, even if slightly, Like Marth's shield breaker would slide him forward, making a good approach option... or retreat.

EDIT: To answer OP's question, tiers probably wouldn't be outdated, but get bigger. Some characters will naturally be better than others and seen more in competitive play. A large cast doesn't mean the balance is necessarily perfect.

 

[AlMasterX]

Well we don't have a good idea yet, but in the cases of special moves there are likely just better/superior choices, and if we're allowing them, there will probably be "sets" that are most optimal majority of the time.

Why do I think that?
Just from the general fact that most special variations seem to have a faster, longer range but less damage (or less something else) to compensate. But those compensations seem to all be scaled less than the benefits.
Things would probably be more complicated in doubles.

Agreed. Sets will most likely be a thing to accommodate play styles that players are more comfortable with. Honestly, I think that would be sick because it would add more of a surprise factor and add some more uniqueness

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Well we don't have a good idea yet, but in the cases of special moves there are likely just better/superior choices, and if we're allowing them, there will probably be "sets" that are most optimal majority of the time.

I agree but I don't see a problem with that necessarily.

From what I have gathered so far, a huge majority of people seems to be in favor of allowing custom moves in competitive play. I'm curious though why you'd think that they have a bigger impact than counter characters?

I started typign a reply to you and then realized how dumb it sounds. We'd obviously assume players are using the best set for each match-up rather than ranking every possible combination. I'm dumb.

 

[Rich Homie Quan]

For standard specials, there is definitely going to be a tier list.

With customs, I'd say each character gets assigned a range, essentially a floor and a ceiling to their possible placement. All combinations of custom moves for that character fall into that range.

Say, ganondorf is super low on this. Let's make him #47. But he has some custom move combinations that, on average, make him slightly better aganst every other character and combination. The moves provide a credible mechanism for an improved performance overall, so we determine a range for ganondorf for all of his custom move combinations: 47-36, 47-40, 48-46, any range is possible as long as it's appropriate.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

For standard specials, there is definitely going to be a tier list.

With customs, I'd say each character gets assigned a range, essentially a floor and a ceiling to their possible placement. All combinations of custom moves for that character fall into that range.

Say, ganondorf is super low on this. Let's make him #47. But he has some custom move combinations that, on average, make him slightly better aganst every other character and combination. The moves provide a credible mechanism for an improved performance overall, so we determine a range for ganondorf for all of his custom move combinations: 47-36, 47-40, 48-46, any range is possible as long as it's appropriate.

I find it more likely that tier placement will assume the optimum custom moves have been selected for any given matchup, for the metagame's current definition of "optimum custom moves." (This means that if someone experiments and finds a better combination, the character will likely get bumped up a bit. This is a good thing IMO.) Street Figher IV Arcade Super Ultra Plus Edition or whatever version they're on now doesn't put everyone in a range based on what Ultra they choose, I don't see why this should be any different.

 

[Tristan_win]

Well we don't have a good idea yet, but in the cases of special moves there are likely just better/superior choices, and if we're allowing them, there will probably be "sets" that are most optimal majority of the time.

Why do I think that?
Just from the general fact that most special variations seem to have a faster, longer range but less damage (or less something else) to compensate. But those compensations seem to all be scaled less than the benefits.
Things would probably be more complicated in doubles.

I think it's too soon to even think that. Although admitting I haven't seen too many costume specials but the one's I have seen give me hope that they wont just be a faster longer range version of X attack but greatly enhance a lesser property of the attack or even add a new property all together.

This video give me a lot of hope as DHD neutral B was already a great move and each of it's alterations are just as good but for very different reasons. His up B has a excellent change, from normal control undamaged recovery to short range muti hitting attack to a stall then burst. Down B is also fantastic between quick shot and buffy gunman. I think only his side B has the poor selection of choices and there will obviously be a best pick.

If more characters have a selection like this then I think personal preference is going to play a noteworthy part.

 

[ミスティック Speed]

I believe there will be an A, B and C group this time around. There won't be any "bad" characters. Just....ones that are "slightly" better.
No character you play will be ridiculed this time around- that's what I think.

 

[Rich Homie Quan]

I find it more likely that tier placement will assume the optimum custom moves have been selected for any given matchup, for the metagame's current definition of "optimum custom moves." (This means that if someone experiments and finds a better combination, the character will likely get bumped up a bit. This is a good thing IMO.) Street Figher IV Arcade Super Ultra Plus Edition or whatever version they're on now doesn't put everyone in a range based on what Ultra they choose, I don't see why this should be any different.

Yeah, I feel what you're saying. Makes sense to me, tbh I'm all for it.

I believe there will be an A, B and C group this time around. There won't be any "bad" characters. Just....ones that are "slightly" better.
No character you play will be ridiculed this time around- that's what I think.

I certainly hope that's the case.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I think it's too soon to even think that. Although admitting I haven't seen too many costume specials but the one's I have seen give me hope that they wont just be a faster longer range version of X attack but greatly enhance a lesser property of the attack or even add a new property all together.

This video give me a lot of hope as DHD neutral B was already a great move and each of it's alterations are just as good but for very different reasons. His up B has a excellent change, from normal control undamaged recovery to short range muti hitting attack to a stall then burst. Down B is also fantastic between quick shot and buffy gunman. I think only his side B has the poor selection of choices and there will obviously be a best pick.

If more characters have a selection like this then I think personal preference is going to play a noteworthy part.

I'm also super excited to see balanced choices that enable players to develop their signature style. Knowing, say, the Marth matchup is one thing, but a specific player may be known for a Marth that breaks from the mold and requires slightly different strategy. Should make mirror matches a lot more interesting at any rate.

 

[L9999]

I'm also super excited to see balanced choices that enable players to develop their signature style. Knowing, say, the Marth matchup is one thing, but a specific player may be known for a Marth that breaks from the mold and requires slightly different strategy. Should make mirror matches a lot more interesting at any rate.

Well, the Dashing Shield Breaker is a blessing for Marth because he was nerfed and his recovery still sucks.

 

[Halfhead]

No character you play will be ridiculed this time around- that's what I think.

There will be at least one. Probably as many as four or five. In Melee, if you showed up using Pichu or Kirby, you'd get laughed out of your tournament unless you really REALLY kick butt. In Brawl, it was Jiggs or basically any Zelda character except Tink. It seems to me that the greater number of characters there are, the less focused the high end of the tier list is and the more defined the bottom section is.

You see this fairly clearly with Project M. Who's the best in the game? No one really knows. Maybe it's Fox, Falco, Mario, Pit, Zelda, or Mewtwo, but no one really knows. People will generally tell you that Zero Suit Samus and Ness are probably touching the bottom, though.

Smash 64 is really the only instance in the serieswhere the bottom is hazy and the top is defined. Pikachu is clearly the best, Kirby is second, and Fox is third. On the bottom, however, Luigi, Jiggs, Samus, and Link are all both capable and lacking. No one would laugh you out of a tournament for using any of them, but they probably wouldn't expect a whole lot from a noob who uses one of those.

 

[Gunla]

Tiers are still going to exist.

As many said before me, it's still very fresh, and the lists will be bigger.

 

[ミスティック Speed]

There will be at least one. Probably as many as four or five. In Melee, if you showed up using Pichu or Kirby, you'd get laughed out of your tournament unless you really REALLY kick butt. In Brawl, it was Jiggs or basically any Zelda character except Tink. It seems to me that the greater number of characters there are, the less focused the high end of the tier list is and the more defined the bottom section is.

You see this fairly clearly with Project M. Who's the best in the game? No one really knows. Maybe it's Fox, Falco, Mario, Pit, Zelda, or Mewtwo, but no one really knows. People will generally tell you that Zero Suit Samus and Ness are probably touching the bottom, though.

Smash 64 is really the only instance in the serieswhere the bottom is hazy and the top is defined. Pikachu is clearly the best, Kirby is second, and Fox is third. On the bottom, however, Luigi, Jiggs, Samus, and Link are all both capable and lacking. No one would laugh you out of a tournament for using any of them, but they probably wouldn't expect a whole lot from a noob who uses one of those.

Its depressing to hear that, you know? What if someone's favorite character ends up being terrible?
Do you think there will be balance patches?

 

[ECHOnce]

You see this fairly clearly with Project M. Who's the best in the game? No one really knows. Maybe it's Fox, Falco, Mario, Pit, Zelda, or Mewtwo, but no one really knows. People will generally tell you that Zero Suit Samus and Ness are probably touching the bottom, though.

Smash 64 is really the only instance in the serieswhere the bottom is hazy and the top is defined. Pikachu is clearly the best, Kirby is second, and Fox is third. On the bottom, however, Luigi, Jiggs, Samus, and Link are all both capable and lacking. No one would laugh you out of a tournament for using any of them, but they probably wouldn't expect a whole lot from a noob who uses one of those.

Bit off topic, but for the sake of not spreading misinfo, PM 3.02 chars that some top players seem to believe are the six top tiers (for now; will prob get nerfs in 3.5 lol) are M2, Pit, Link, Lucas, Diddy, and Sonic. High-ish tiers include (as you mentioned) Zelda, Mario, spacies (Wolf > Falco > Fox), and others. ZSS and Ness are rare picks, but they're def not low-tier; just underused. Jiggs, Olimar, and ICs are prob bottom tier - you can still win tournies with them because the diffs are small and every char has better/worse MUs, but the PM environment just generally doesn't favor them (Jiggs' WoP is much harder due to currently strong recoveries, Olimar is a campy Brawl top-tier in a non-campy game, and iirc IC's desynchs and recoveries got weird and messed up from Melee --> PM).

On topic now, there's def been a lot of 64-SSB4 comparisons (not a bad thing lol), so hopefully this will ring true and remain fairly balanced - at least to an extent, after SSB4's potential balancing updated later down the road. But there have already been low/low-mid tier chars surfacing: Zelda is generally agreed by most top players who've tried hr out to be Triforce tier gain, and Lil' Mac is definitely in the low-ish tiers. Others I'm not sure about; many of Brawl's low-tier's seen buffed, so it's a matter of letting the early meta develop and seeing which chars do well in the competitive enviro, and which don't.

 

[Kef]

Tiers are always going to be present, even with the large amount of characters. Games like CVS2, MVC2, UMVC3, and even Ultra Street Fighter 4 have colossal rosters and their respective communities did not have much trouble coming up with tier lists.

Also, I think I saw mentioned that costume movesets will make tier lists impossible because of the amount of variables. I've heard people say that "characters with different special moves would be different characters themselves, making them impossible to rank because of the high amount of customization". In my opinion, that is a horrible way to go about Smash4 tier lists (if custom moves become a thing, which is likely).

The games I've mentioned above all have one thing in common, and that is there is A LOT of variability between characters. Street Fighter 4 has 3 Ultra options (Ultra1, Ultra2, Double-Ultra), Capcom vs. SNK 2 has grooves (A, C, N, etc.) with completely different properties, and the Marvel games have assists to take into account. When ranking a character on a tier list, you just take into account all of their options, including variables.

 

[Raijinken]

I always preferred Dota's tier system, where it's literally determined by which heroes are picked (or banned) most in professional games. This will naturally tend towards the characters perceived as "strongest", and doesn't leave any room for opinion, guessing or speculation.

And if that's not enough, just weight it by success of each character picked. As people learn and more tournaments are held, that sort of system would prove more reliably (and dynamic) than just periodically having a poll amongst players considered to be "experts" in the game.

 

[Pazzo.]

It'll probably take a while to compile, but tiers will still be a thing. How much variation in the placing of the characters, however, could be small.

 

[Chiroz]

I always preferred Dota's tier system, where it's literally determined by which heroes are picked (or banned) most in professional games. This will naturally tend towards the characters perceived as "strongest", and doesn't leave any room for opinion, guessing or speculation.

And if that's not enough, just weight it by success of each character picked. As people learn and more tournaments are held, that sort of system would prove more reliably (and dynamic) than just periodically having a poll amongst players considered to be "experts" in the game.

This is exactly how tier lists are done. They are based on tournament attendance compared against tournament wins for a single character.

It's how it's always been done.

Match ups are the ones that are calculated based on expert opinion. But those are also done like that in DotA and LoL.

 

[Kef]

This is exactly how tier lists are done. They are based on tournament attendance compared against tournament wins for a single character.

It's how it's always been done.

Match ups are the ones that are calculated based on expert opinion. But those are also done like that in DotA and LoL.

To respectfully disagree, that's not how tier lists are created (at least in the different fighting game communities).

Tier Lists are just a summation of the overall understanding of a character's strengths in a game and how they match up against the rest of the cast. This subjective ranking is a combination of combined player theory and tournament results (used somewhat as validation of theory). Match-up charts are created based on player/expert feedback, but in most cases act as the foundation of a tier list. Here's an example of a community driven tier list: http://forums.shoryuken.com/discussion/173987/ssf4-ae-2012-tier-list-thread-op-last-updated-may-2014

Here's also a quote from this same thread:
" A tier list is a method of ranking and grouping characters based on who has the most/least advantaged matches. Historically, this has been done through a matchup chart where, given two players of equal skill, each character plays every other character in a set of 10 games, and see who wins most. So in a "6-4" matchup, one character would win 6 games, and the other would win 4.

Tier lists are subjective and evolve over time. The point of this thread is to discuss this information. "

What you are describing on your post could be simply categorized as a character's tournament winnings vs. his/her/it's usage. How well a character does in tournament & and it's usage it's mostly used to keep in check what the majority of the community could consider as "over the top theories", but it does not dictate character placements in tier lists directly.

 

[Chiroz]

To respectfully disagree, that's not how tier lists are created (at least in the different fighting game communities).

Tier Lists are just a summation of the overall understanding of a character's strengths in a game and how they match up against the rest of the cast. This subjective ranking is a combination of combined player theory and tournament results (used somewhat as validation of theory). Match-up charts are created based on player/expert feedback, but in most cases act as the foundation of a tier list. Here's an example of a community driven tier list: http://forums.shoryuken.com/discussion/173987/ssf4-ae-2012-tier-list-thread-op-last-updated-may-2014

Here's also a quote from this same thread:
" A tier list is a method of ranking and grouping characters based on who has the most/least advantaged matches. Historically, this has been done through a matchup chart where, given two players of equal skill, each character plays every other character in a set of 10 games, and see who wins most. So in a "6-4" matchup, one character would win 6 games, and the other would win 4.

Tier lists are subjective and evolve over time. The point of this thread is to discuss this information. "

What you are describing on your post could be simply categorized as a character's tournament winnings vs. his/her/it's usage. How well a character does in tournament & and it's usage it's mostly used to keep in check what the majority of the community could consider as "over the top theories", but it does not dictate character placements in tier lists directly.

Jigglypuff wasn't top of Melee until HBox started winning tournaments consistently. Neither was Peach until Armada.

Sonic was bottom tier at the very start of Brawl and only raised to mid tier in the first 3-4 months because of one Sonic player who was placing top 8 in some tournaments, no other reason but that. I understand that tournament placings don't dictate 100% placement on tier lists, but it also doesn't in games like DotA or LoL.

I haven't been part of the community for about 4 years, but back when I played IC's were about 8th in the tier list and as everyone was saying: "That's just because of Lain, if he didn't play in tournaments they would be much lower!" This lead me to believe that tournament placing was directly proportional to Tier List placement.

Fast forward 4 years and now most people play IC, even though their obvious strengths and weaknesses are still exactly the same, but now they are number 2 because they constantly win at tournaments.

You can certainly argue that you can't gauge a character's strength/matchups if the character in question is not being played enough, but then that would just mean that perceived strength is relative to how many people are playing it at the moment and winning their matches, which is exactly what I was saying in the first place since Tier Lists are basically a classification of "perceived strengths".

 

[Tristan_win]

In a fighting game it's impossible to make everyone who has different move set to have equal potential, no matter how balance a game is there always going to be that one character that wont be as good as the majority. However that doesn't mean we can't have a balance game, if there's no god tier, a top/high tier of good size a decently big mid tier with only a few characters in low tier then you got yourself a great game. One way to accomplish this is by counter picks, if the 'best character' has 2-3 bad match ups then suddenly those 2-3 characters are now better. If those characters that counter the best have 2-3 bad match up's then those characters that counter them also become better.

The reason melee top/high tier game was so good is because of how magical it was that everyone had a counter, brawl sadly broke this system with meta knight and while brawl was a good game if you ignore meta knight you couldn't avoid him in tournaments.

 

[Hitzel]

I'd like to see Smash adopt tier lists that are based exclusively on a matchup chart like this one instead of being a list of "how good characters are." A matchup chart is a much less subjective solution to the question.

You look at each 1v1 character matchup and ask "does one character have an advantage? If so, how much?" You answer by saying something like "Out of 10 matches, character X would beat character Y 6-4" or 5-5 or 7-3 or whatever. You then add up the amount of wins that each character has in their favor, and the characters are listed in order by their total matchups.

I understand that stage selection makes this a murkier topic in Smash, but a matchup chart is much less subjective than how smash does tier lists, and it's actually USEFUL to new players because they can gaze at a tier list and get a general understanding of how their character's matchups tend to be.

 

[Kef]

Jigglypuff wasn't top of Melee until HBox started winning tournaments consistently. Neither was Peach until Armada.

I haven't been part of the community for about 4 years, but back when I played IC's were about 8th in the tier list and as everyone was saying: "That's just because of Lain, if he didn't play in tournaments they would be much lower!" This lead me to believe that tournament placing was directly proportional to Tier List placement.

Tier lists are subjective and evolve over time.

This is nothing out of the ordinary, but I prefer if you focus on the innovation factor more than the results. Armada showcasing what Peach can really do is similar to lab monster on an online forum discovering a potent technique with a character. Both just add more to the possible discussions and debate when coming up with tier lists, just brought up with different methods (and with a subjective influence on the tier list). Neither of these mentioned methods immediately affect the "official" placings, but both could affect player's views and the overall consensus on the character.

ChrisG playing Morrigan, Duc playing Spiral, FAB playing Potempkin, Armada playing Peach, Amsa playing Yoshi, Buktooth playing Morrigan (Cvs2), ALL affect tier lists, but in no way guarantee a change in attitude towards the characters. This is what I meant with validity, tournament placings just reinforce players' thoughts on the different characters, but not directly affect their placements, even as highly influential as they can be (like the above examples were influential). See Firebrand example inside spoiler below for a better explanation.

You can certainly argue that you can't gauge a character's strength/matchups if the character in question is not being played enough, but then that would just mean that perceived strength is relative to how many people are playing it at the moment and winning their matches, which is exactly what I was saying in the first place since Tier Lists are basically a classification of "perceived strengths".

This is not what I mentioned, in fact, I meant the opposite. A character's strenghts CAN be judged even if they are not on the modern spotlight of streams/videos or even if they have low representation at tournaments. This is where the whole "theory" part of a tier list comes into place. If you only take tournament results, or even if you mostly base your tier lists on tournament results, you will end up with problems like the following:

Spoiler: Examples - Boring zzzZzzzZz ResidentSleeper

- Zero was a character that was heavily discussed for the entirety of MVC3 and early UMVC3. Everyone that had a good understanding of the game knew the character had great strengths with very weaknesses, so the consensus ended up being that Zero was the best (or close to) character in the game (UMVC3). Zero just won a single major during MVC3's lifetime and took a long time to win it's first on UMVC3. If tournaments were used as a highly infleuntial after the community transitioned to UMVC3, Zero would've been considered perhaps a mid-tier character. Is this truly how strong Zero was/is? This same situation happened with Sagat in vanilla Street Fighter 4.

- Firebrand was theorized for ages to be among the top characters UMVC3. A handful of players discovered that he had a loop that basically guaranteed a win after getting the first hit on a character due to his unblockable move (apart from great neutral game etc.). Firebrand was virtually nonexistent for years in tournament play until a player by the name of Apologyman started winning tournaments with him, using this same strategy.

There where no absolutely no results to back up this claims, so where they in the wrong by placing him high? What if they would've based their discussion purely on results and tech/discussion would've not sparked from this?

- She-Hulk is an example on the opposite side of the scale. She-Hulk was popularized by representation with top players (IIRC, players like NerdJosh, Jwong, Ricky Ortiz, and Floe were all using her and placing greatly her) which increased her overall usage in the community. I wish I could provide actual tournament statistics, but She-Hulk ended up being among the characters with the highest tournament wins at the end of MVC3. Would this directly give She-Hulk a spot as the best character? Not in the slightest. She had "decent" tools compared to some near broken characters sitting at the top, like Phoenix, Magneto, Dante, Wesker, C.Viper, Wolverine, and Zero.

TL;DR: A tier list is a method of ranking and grouping characters based on who has the most/least advantaged matches. Tier lists of course are influenced by tournament results, but basing character placements explicitly from results conflict with the true usefulness of the list in the first place.