Ganon

[-ACE-]

Wait.... who got rested?

 

[Gerbil]

@ Gerbil's really long post: I'm not sure there's any real credibility in saying that fox isn't the best character in the game or that he has trouble with any of those characters. ICs? Peach? Luigi??? I suppose a fox player who is not as good as their opponent can certainly get into trouble with and of those characters because he is easily comboed but he's got a pretty clear advantage against all of them. Can't he waveshine bowser off the stage and double shinespike him at any percent just by connecting once with a move that comes out in 1 frame?

Also he has a lot of options off stage. Not every character can just jump down and hit him while he's about to firefox like marth or sheik can. Covering all the options is just not possible for a lot of characters, and that's why they're lower on the tier list.

I've thought a lot about this post.

Generally, I'd agree. However, I am trying to steer away from anything being decisive based on the players themselves. I did state that I was looking at the character only, and not the ability of which someone controls them. That's what makes my argument about other characters such as Luigi and Bowser credible. The community in general is basing too much of the tier on player ability alone, and not enough on the characters themselves. This is why a lot of the low tiers get bad reputation. Jigglypuff is an example of this. It was only recently (recently being the past year or so) that jiggs really started to snatch some attention. Up until that point, it was all about PC's Falco and Ken's Marth and then how M2K started buttcraping all of these tournies as Marth too. Then Mango came and showed us a different angle on Jiggs, and suddenly the community's mindset is completely changed.

I'm not saying you don't have valid points, indeed everyone here has valid points, but I am putting it out there that as a whole, we should be looking at new angles and mix it up a bit, because the rate we're going, we'll end up killing ourselves (ourselves = community).

@Gordito - No, I know very well how much skill it takes to play Fox (I main Fox, and trust me if I'm not at a high enough skill against someone, I am getting rocked lol). No, my point is merely what I stated above. I was not going for the viewpoint of how well the player does, but on how good the character actually is and where they should stand on the tier list based on an overall judgement of them, and not just "well... Fox can beat Marth if it's done THIS way!"

I'll elaborate more later. I'm pretty tired lol. *tired johns*

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

Gerbil, win.

But overall, you can't put Fox lower on the list because he can get gimped and that alone. I'm not basing my tier list opinion on M2K or Wolf or DaShizWiz or Eggz or any Fox player. I'm basing it off of metagame. Fox has an infinite amount of options. Opponent at mid high %? Up smash. Opponent off the stage? Shine their ***. Opponent is far away? Whip out your gun. And just because you're up against someone like Marth comes and he gimps you out of the stage, doesn't mean everyone can. But although Marth can do that to Fox's death, doesn't put him lower on the tier list. You need to look at Marth and Sheik's flaws, too.

I just read over this and saw that you MAIN FOX. YOU MAIN ****ING FOX, AND YOU WANT HIM LOWER ON THE TIER LIST? I think I understand now. You don't want to be the one that mains that guy on the top of the list. I was in that same position, buddy. In melee, I played as ICs 24/7 when the game came out, and I loved every second of it. But when the ninth tier list came out as him being number 8, I got overcocky and sucked. So I said screw it, I'm playing someone else, and now I play a mean Luigi.

 

[Gerbil]

It has absolutely nothing to do with maining fox and not wanting him top. Check my join date lol. When I registered, we were still flying by the 2005 Tier list with Fox at #2, and honestly, I firmly believe Fox should remain at number 2 or 3 or maybe even lower *shrugs* it depends where the rest of the char analysis takes me.

Right now I'm eating breakfast (homemade donuts ftw, but being alone ftl) but I'll get back to Marth's/Sheik's flaws and etc soon enough, and I will try to argue my point on why Marth, overall (and of course this is strictly my opinion now, but maybe I'll convince some of you guys) should be #1.

 

[Blatt Blvd]

Yeah, for the most part, imo, all of what gerbil said is approved by the me.

I do think Fox is in "TOP TIER", however, not above/the same as marth and(though I have no evidence/stats/data/rep to back it up) sheik.

I am a firm believer that, when fighting against another person/robot at the highest level of play(the absolute top, no getting better, like playing tic tac toe with yourself), any character can beat any character, unless its a complete shutdown, usually meaning, but not limited to, a massive tier gap(Everyone/Kirby, most of shiek and marth matchups).

Also, no one will ever be able to play Fox to his "true" potential, so shove it. Fox is losing to Jigglypuff now, he's not as good as he was a year ago.

that being said, who gives marth or shiek even slight problems? besides characters within their own(current) tier?

 

[Laijin]

Sheik should be top.
\thread

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

Sheik is nothing compared to Fox and Marth. What about instead of staying back and letting us give good backup as to why characters should be where, what about u give input? I want to see and laugh at what you is a viable reason as to sheik being top tier. Because as of right now I don't think there is one.

 

[Pi]

What has this thread turned into?
Isn't a tier list just a ranking of characters based on TOURNAMENT DATA?
There's no variables when it comes down to TOURNAMENT DATA


if you guys want to add and argue and contribute to ranking characters based on their movesets and ability to interact with the stage/other characters on it then please
Take it to the already in progress

Melee Match-Up Chart (NTSC)

 

[Finch]

Who's beating foxes with Jiggs? Hungrybox and colin go even, darc loses to PC, and last time I heard anything about the midwest sliq got ***** by kels. Chu beats like every fox he plays against with Ice climbers but that doesn't change the fact that fox beats ICs. You guys are basing too much argument on players. I'm pretty sure that fox is the best character in the game, followed closely by sheik and then marth. Fox just has more options in any situation, and is all around a more efficient killer.

I also want to mention that marth and sometimes sheik can get owned by crouch canceling in some situations, but a fox that shines after his aerials will never have this problem, which gives him a pretty big advantage over characters like peach whose game is based largely around ccing.

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

Mango in Revival of Melee.

Mango went against Mew2King in the Winners Finals as Jiggz, and went through his series 3-1. I'm currently too lazy to see the grand finals, because M2K beat Shiz in Losers, if I'm not mistaken.

And knihT, the fact that the list is based on tourney data is my point. I hate it, and I think it should be based on the character in and of itself, and when we find new things with characters, we can change the list. Although Gerbil (this is what I see out of him) is basing the tier list solely on matchups, it's better than what person with true ability happens to play as a character, and wins with that character often, exposing their ability more. And if they do base it on tourney data, then wtf about the low bottom part of the list? You rarely see those...

 

[Pi]

Mango in Revival of Melee.

Mango went against Mew2King in the Winners Finals as Jiggz, and went through his series 3-1. I'm currently too lazy to see the grand finals, because M2K beat Shiz in Losers, if I'm not mistaken.

And knihT, the fact that the list is based on tourney data is my point. I hate it, and I think it should be based on the character in and of itself, and when we find new things with characters, we can change the list. Although Gerbil (this is what I see out of him) is basing the tier list solely on matchups, it's better than what person with true ability happens to play as a character, and wins with that character often, exposing their ability more. And if they do base it on tourney data, then wtf about the low bottom part of the list? You rarely see those...

I always hated the tier list as well, because people continually misinterpreted it as a character ranking list.

I always wanted a list that would rank the characters on how good they are, theoretically, now how good they have been proven to be in the hands of top level players (no offense)

But what are you looking for? A tournament viable tier list?

If that's what you wanted you could probably disect the match up chart and remove non tourney viable characters data from it.

 

[Frames]

uh i thought the tier list was a ranking of each character's metagame and that it measured the potential of the character based on all known strategies but that it wasn't directly supported by tournament results

 

[Gerbil]

uh i thought the tier list was a ranking of each character's metagame and that it measured the potential of the character based on all known strategies but that it wasn't directly supported by tournament results

This.

To address the points on "tournament data" and "player ability," the short answer is: no, tier list is NOT directly affected by those. It does have some influence, because the whole reason why a metagame of a specific character evolves is due to how the players approach them.

This is that exact barrier I am trying to point out. I have come to find that the community is walking into a wall using the same formula over and over.

To put it best, I have a Batman quote... actually, it's the Joker's quote:

"Introduce a little anarchy, and the world changes"

Of course, I'm not talking about blowing crap up, I'm talking about an introduction of a new form of thinking outside the box and looking at EVERYTHING, especially including factors that have never been glanced at before.

If I would never have met Reflex and played him constantly Fox vs Bowser, I would never have thought that Bowser stood any chance in hell. However, Reflex totally proved me wrong on several occasions with multiple matchups. If it hadn't been for my experience of coming to test out new stuff that is abstract and off the wall compared to the norm, I don't think I would've even evolved to this level of thinking.

All I am asking is, why NOT take a look at EVERY TINY LITTLE FACTOR and see who REALLY deserves whatever spot? And of course, as we continue to play the game and look at matches and play characters with a new line of thought, new walls will be torn down, and new methods of approach and evolution of metagame will happen.

It happens with every competitive game. It needs to happen to us again.

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

Gerbil, of course you're talking about blowing crap up XD.

But I think you're 100% right on the potential of some characters, like how ADHD proved to me that Mewtwo is playable. Without him, I'd not care to change the low-bottom on my made tier list.

And the only thing you've really said to back up the fact that Fox doesn't deserve top tier is that itty bitty thing of him getting gimp'd by Marth-Sheik. But aside from that, unlike them, no matter where he is, he has infinite opprotunities to do whatever he wants whenever he wants.

I hope that melee, kind of like SSB64, never dies. The game will always have people who want to venture into the competitive side of it, and few will come on top. And although it's been 8, 9 years, the game is still growing. And you don't find that in many games.

Oh, and Frames ftw.