ESAM - Let's Talk: Tier Lists

Tier lists. A subject that causes much debate over where characters should be placed, if one should exist at all, how they should be formed, and much else. Many efforts to devise tier lists have been made from EventHubs to the /r/smashbros monthly voted tier list with each project having various levels of success and failure. But just how important are they in the long run and how should we approach using them to select characters?

Pikachu main and Smash 4 player ESAM discusses just this with his latest Let's Talk video. He gives his professional opinions all about tier lists and discusses the different motivations for playing characters either who are the best or worse. Give it a watch and leave personal thoughts in the comments below.

 

Playing only to win ruins the fun. Who wants to go to a tournament where the entire thing consists of only Shieks and Rosalinas?

Except you literally don't have to worry about that with Rosalina. While I think she could be the best in the game, she will always end up underrated on tier lists for the sole reason that nobody wants to use her, as she's a more complex character, while most competitive Smash players just want to hit things without having to think about it much.

And the players who do play as her only play her in a defensive style exclusively, rather than adapting their playstyle to the situation on the fly. Which causes her to lose matches because of these players, bringing down her tier rating.

As for Sheik...wait for a patch I guess.

 

Why is Duck Hunt so low? Tier lists are nothing but superstition. Any character can beat any other character if the player skills is good enough. Characters do not make skill or victory. Players do.

To this day, I wonder where people get this idea.

 

To this day, I wonder where people get this idea.

What? That characters aren't the biggest factor in a win?

 

What? That characters aren't the biggest factor in a win?

What?

 

To this day, I wonder where people get this idea.

Which idea are you referring to?

 

Which idea are you referring to?

The idea that all characters are somehow equal in power. Is that even feasible for a game with as many characters as smash?

 

But these fufill what he just said. Most of the top 20 are the "clearly viable" characters and the bottom 11 are the "clearly unviable" characters.
Still baffled why ESAM says Samus is in the "kinda viable" area and not the "unviable" area.

I posted those because he said there is no tier list, but previously he stated his personal tier list. As for Samus, I'm not sure why he thinks she is viable at all. Maybe if she was tweaked and fine tuned to where some of her attacks didn't whiff, had a faster projectile game, and was able to wall out a lot of the characters like most zoners, then I'd agree. But she's got problems.

 

For what it's worth, I've never considered someone a tier ***** just because they main a top tier character. I only start throwing that term around if someone jumps straight toward whichever character seems to be the best at any given moment and acts superior for doing so. So for example, if next week's patch nerfs Sheik, Rosalina, Luigi, and Pikachu, and barely touches Zero Suit Samus, the would-be tier whores would be the people immediately jumping from Sheik to ZSS--even if Sheik still ends up high tier--and then acting as if anyone who doesn't do the same is beneath them.

EDIT: Removed a comma and italicized a word, to better avoid any more misunderstandings.

 

I posted those because he said there is no tier list, but previously he stated his personal tier list. As for Samus, I'm not sure why he thinks she is viable at all. Maybe if she was tweaked and fine tuned to where some of her attacks didn't whiff, had a faster projectile game, and was able to wall out a lot of the characters like most zoners, then I'd agree. But she's got problems.

She would love to be able to aim at least one of her projectiles, like Megaman's sawblade, or like she does in LITERALLY ALL OF HER GAMES. I want to be able to move and also shoot up diagonally (even though that would be ridiculous). Surely there could be some middle ground?

 

For what it's worth, I've never considered someone a tier ***** just because they main a top tier character. I only start throwing that term around if someone jumps straight toward whichever character seems to be the best at any given moment, and acts superior for doing so. So for example, if next week's patch nerfs Sheik, Rosalina, Luigi, and Pikachu, and barely touches Zero Suit Samus, the would-be tier whores would be the people immediately jumping from Sheik to ZSS--even if Sheik still ends up high tier--and then acting as if anyone who doesn't do the same is beneath them.

Yeah people who are pretentious like that do fit that description pretty well. Although I wouldn't fault them for switching characters if they can do better with another one. It's all about their attitude really.

 

Whoops, ignore this I misread what you said. Yeah people who are pretentious like that do fit that description pretty well. Although I wouldn't fault them for switching characters if they think they can do better with another one. It's all about their attitude really.

That's not what I said. Notice that key second part? The part about how I only see them as a tier ***** if they act as if they're inherently superior to anyone who doesn't do the same thing?

EDIT: Oh, lol, you edited your post while I was in the process of replying. Yeah, it's the "I am inherently superior to you and I can harass you all I want because of it" mentality that I can't stand.

 

This tier list in the picture is awful lmao

 

That's not what I said. Notice that key second part? The part about how I only see them as a tier ***** if they act as if they're inherently superior to anyone who doesn't do the same thing?

EDIT: Oh, lol, you edited your post while I was in the process of replying. Yeah, it's the "I am inherently superior to you and I can harass you all I want because of it" mentality that I can't stand.

Yeah I somehow didn't see that last part. Guess I was just too prepared for dumb opinions when you have a discussion even remotely related to tier lists. My B.

Although speaking of tier lists, I feel like a lot of the "tires don exits" comes from people just not knowing what tier lists are. Tier lists do NOT determine winners, do NOT mean lower tier characters can never be played, and most importantly DO NOT TELL YOU WHAT CHARACTER TO PLAY. Just because Fox might be the best character in Melee doesn't mean you should play him. For some people even mid or even lower tiered characters are the proper choice because they just have the proper synergy with the character to make them work. aMSa probably being the best example of this.

Tier lists are simply the culmination of knowledge that is out there on, assuming all other factors are equal, how each character stacks up. They provide a base of knowledge that without would make talking about characters in terms of how good they are much harder. It would be much harder to discuss something like how good Luigi is in Melee without a tier list because there would be no common understanding of how good Luigi is, just fractured opinions.

 

Then why is there a debate about who is where. Someone should compile the data and figure it out. If it is derivrd from, then it is flawed as they are equal. If its derived from stats then its useless. I am not debating this any further. Have a nice day.

You don't seem to know a thing about fighting games or the competitive community.... so I don't see why you're so upset over all of this. None of this affects you.

Again, tiers lists are based off which character is winning the most tournaments. End of story. Tiers lists are based on facts, not opinions... the mid/low tiers are debatable, sure, but the S tiers and A tiers are not. They are based off tournament data, specifically who wins.

Why are you so mad?

 

Exactly why I play Lucina Kirby and Mario mostly (occasional doc switch when I'm feeling it....) Go esam

 

Tiers just exist whether anyone likes it or not - it's about exploring the characters, which is what everyone wants presumably?

 

Tier List? Did I hear tier list?

Eh, tier lists aren't really that good for this game. The game's constantly changing with DLC characters and updates, so a tier list is virtually impossible until a final patch update is released, which could literally be years or by the end of the game's cycle.

And there are heavy problems with tier lists, too much to even list. I'm very saddened that some characters with high representation and wins are considered bottom tiered (Ganondorf), and those with lower representation and wins are considered high tiered.

Lastly, there'd have to be more than just a Smash Bros. 4 tier list. There has to be separate tier lists for Smash Bros. for Wii U and 3DS, since both games are completely different competitively (different stages, certain techniques can't be used, etc.).

 

Tiers are so dumb.

 

I'm sorry, that ain't Bowser.

 

Honestly, I'd divide it into five categories, two of which, if the dev team knows what they're doing, shouldn't even exist outside of pre-release playtest builds.

Tier 0: God tier. So good that its very existence makes anyone below this tier no longer viable. Their matchups against everything else are so one-sided that skill is much less of a factor than in other matchups. Should be nerfed to Tier 1 during playtesting. If you want a game that's bat**** insane, bump things up to here (See: Brawl Minus)
Tier 1: Very viable. You probably won't need a secondary.
Tier 2: Viable, but you might need a secondary to cover your bad matchups
Tier 3: Not very viable in tournament play. You will definitely need a secondary to cover bad matchups, but they might shine in alternate rulesets.
Tier 4: Utter garbage. Unless you're a top professional, you're not even going to win in casual play with this character. Much like Tier 0, their matchups are so one-sided that skill is barely a factor, but the matchups are one-sided against them as opposed to in their favor. Should be buffed up to at least Tier 3, I'd even say up to Tier 2, during playtesting.

Stuff like Brawl's tier list is what happens when you fail to rework anything that ends up falling into Tier 0 or Tier 4. If these tiers are present in the final release, then it means that the dev team has either failed to adequately playtest and balance accordingly, or that they were unable to make the balance fixes necessary before they reached their deadline. I'd even go as far as to say that a dev team should work to at least minimize the number of Tier 3 characters, and devs like David Sirlin even suggest skewing the roster towards Tier 1 for one-on-one fighters.

 

aaaaaaaaaa

 

The video was interesting, but then the whole Lucina hate train started up again, which was rather cringey.

 

People say that Duck Hunt is terrible due to having only one kill move and thinking down b is bad. I think he is highly underrated and should probably be higher in the tier list when an official one does come (that down b move will be your final days if used right, trust me I know).

 

i know this is slightly off topic, but I hope there's a patch with the Mario maker dlc on sep 30 that buffs some of the meh characters in this game. (buff marth)

 

There's no question that Roy is the best character.

 

I just say that you should play who ever you want to play tbh. I mained Dr. Mario in smash 4 and won 3 50+ tournaments with him. 2 of them being singles and 1 from doubles. You should play characters that you like and not really to win. You want to have fun with who you main and not some other character you dont enjoy playing, and I see that a lot in my locals. You just need to remember to have fun, you know. I never see myself playing any high tiers cause I dont belive their fun. I play low tiers for fun and somehow win with them, and ever since then i've been getting so much respect from other smashers, and getting positive feedback from them.

To put it short: Just play who you want to play, cause no one is going to stop you. Just remember to have some fun and not worry about bieng the best in your local/region, if you choose to.

 

Playing only to win ruins the fun. Who wants to go to a tournament where the entire thing consists of only Shieks and Rosalinas?

Exactly, playing top tiers may ruin the game for some people. just play who you like and not to win, in my opinion.

 

I don't know about you, but I've never been to a tourney that solely consisted of Sheiks and Rosas. On top of that, the whole fighting for fun vs fighting to win argument is completely up to opinion. A lot of people go to a tourney to win. And said people have fun playing to win. So yeah. Your opinion is kind of silly.

While that is true for tournaments, it isn't in For Glory. In a For Glory setting, playing to win is a toxic habit for both the "pro" who will generally learn nothing/get meaningless practice and the casual who will generally learn nothing/have no fun. But that's off topic now.

 

A. Zelda is as good as Shiek, they are just different.

A while ago, I once said that I had heard everything. I retract my former statement. NOW, I've heard everything.

 

What really maters are match ups

 

Can I just say how ****ing happy I am that Smash 4 isn't dominated by tiers anywhere near the level of the other Smash games? Sure there are still top tiers winning tournaments and bottom tiers not winning anything, but Smash 4 has so many more viable high and even mid tiered characters. No yellow rat back throws or giant red feet of doom. No animals from space blip, blip, blipping. And no... Well everything about Brawl really. It's a far cry from Melee and Brawl, where people playing non top tier characters is a rare occurrence and the "mid tier" really means "low tier".

 

You don't seem to know a thing about fighting games or the competitive community.... so I don't see why you're so upset over all of this. None of this affects you.

Again, tiers lists are based off which character is winning the most tournaments. End of story. Tiers lists are based on facts, not opinions... the mid/low tiers are debatable, sure, but the S tiers and A tiers are not. They are based off tournament data, specifically who wins.

Why are you so mad?

Not really anymore, a lot of people base it also on things like potential and agreements on who is strong.

This works for Melee, since it is farther established and more or less follows this.

It doesn't work for Project M or Smash 4.

Ryu has awful results but a lot of people think he is a solid character with players like 9B thinking he is second best despite his lack of results since he was DLC.

Rosalina is a contender for #2, her results aren't even in the top 10.

Tier list gives a general idea of power of best to worst, but it's not really based on pure results.

Street Fighter for example does it solely off Match-ups.

 

A while ago, I once said that I had heard everything. I retract my former statement. NOW, I've heard everything.

I play both Zelda and Sheik with elite skill. Trust me, I know that are equal but different.

 

Playing only to win ruins the fun. Who wants to go to a tournament where the entire thing consists of only Shieks and Rosalinas?

tournaments are a way to measure skill. why wouldn't you play the best you can by playing characters you believe are the best.

 

Playing only to win ruins the fun. Who wants to go to a tournament where the entire thing consists of only Shieks and Rosalinas?

In this mythical place where there is only shiek and rosa in tournament, there is lots of room for fun and playing to win. Since everyone only knows the shiek and rosa MUs, you just have to learn those MU's with a secret char and then go sweep the tournament as no one knows how to fight a character they don't see often.

If shiek and rosa truly win everything regardless of your skill, it isn't the players fault, its a bad game. Fortunately in the case of rosa, there are many MUs she loses and many more you can outplay her. Shiek is harder, but they are clearly trying to find a good balance with her. I think she'd be fine with laggier needles.

 

Mention tier list in a place full of Smash 4 players and all will go wild. Why do people even bother talking about it? It's always this 2 parties:
"Every character is good and you can win with anyone blah blah blah"
"Tournamentz! [insert unpopular character(s) here] is/are garbage"

 

Mention tier list in a place full of Smash 4 players and all will go wild. Why do people even bother talking about it? It's always this 2 parties:
"Every character is good and you can win with anyone blah blah blah"
"Tournamentz! [insert unpopular character(s) here] is/are garbage"

That is definitely, 100%, assuredly, NOT a smash 4 exclusive phenomenon. Smash is tough for some people because they think their dominance over their friends means they have a viable character, and being told otherwise is understandably tough.

 

I play both Zelda and Sheik with elite skill. Trust me, I know that are equal but different.

Please show some examples of how your "elite skill" validates your claim. Or we could just compare the landslide of tournament results and overwhelming consensus from literally every top player that Shiek is absurdly better than Zelda. But I'm sure your "elite skill" gives you more knowledge then someone like ZeRo or Cosmo, who would both tell you you're wrong.

 

I play both Zelda and Sheik with elite skill. Trust me, I know that are equal but different.

I don't know if you're just being cocky, if you're joking, or if you really don't know what you're talking about. Judging from the name, I'll go with the former.
Until I see Zelda win matches by press jump and forward, I think I'll respectfully disagree.

 

Mention tier list in a place full of Smash 4 players and all will go wild. Why do people even bother talking about it? It's always this 2 parties:
"Every character is good and you can win with anyone blah blah blah"
"Tournamentz! [insert unpopular character(s) here] is/are garbage"

This is true. I fall into the "every character is good" category, but I feel like some characters have better chance at winning than others. This doesn't necessarily mean one character is bad and one is good.