How different would a 4 Player FFA Tier List (Time+Items), Look?

[Scrub255]

Newb here, just wondering if characters that are considered very low tier in 1v1 (Game and Watch, Donkey Kong, Charizard, Game and Watch, Bowser, Gdorf, Dr.Mario etc would be considered better in 4 Player FFA with items on (Time, not stock for kingmaker reasons).

Are their any high tier characters that would be considered objectively bad for 4 player or see less play?

Overall, how different do you guys think the tier list would be?

Do you think the gap between the best and worst characters would be less then it is in 1v1?
Wii u version if that isn't clear, but this applies to every smash game in general.

Also, on a different note, how different would the tier list for 1v1 (and FFA 4p) look with customs for every character allowed? Do you think the gap between characters would be as great as it is now?

 

[ZephyrZ]

Well, it's too early to put too much faith in any tier list at the moment, but I do think heavy characters would really benefit from it.

Attention is more divided in FFA then it is in 1vs1, meaning attacks like Charizard's Flare Blitz will be easier to land.
Wracking up damage will be of less importance, since you've got 3 other characters all ready do that to each other for you. This will benefit characters who have good kill moves but a harder time racking up damage and combing.

In the end, I really think it'd benefit slower characters. That does make sense; speedsters dominate 1vs1 simply because the game isn't balanced for 1vs1. It's balanced for FFA. However, this doesn't make FFA better competitively, of course. All of the chaos and randomness removes the point of playing competitively anyway.

 

[Altea77]

There really wouldn't be a tier list. Tier lists are based on how good a character is when they are played with only skill. 4 player smash with items involves mostly luck, which would essentially invalidate tier lists.

However I would say characters with strong smash attacks are at an advantage because they can KO easier, and don't need to rack up damage first like they would have to do in 1v1. But that's really not enough to qualify a tier list.

 

[CrazyPerson]

I should disclaim that I have always preferred stock to time... the strategy of surviving without becoming the main target is more fun than just focusing on killing blows.

With competitive play, I think the rule sets are made with the goal of removing the randomness that comes with items. It also minimizes fighting against the stage in a lot of cases. It does it's best to make it a test of skill by eliminating the possibility of double teams knocking out the best player.

With that said... I think in a lot of ways those things make smash so freaking much fun to play. I am trying to learn competitive tactics... but when playing with friends the rushing for the good item, the frequently shifting fragile alliances, and the all bets are off now that a smash ball spawned leads to some memorable moments. When I am with friends, we make our rule set's to make that crazyness happen. Part of the reason I like this series so much is that unlike 1 vs 1 fighting games there are ways for a better player to be overwhelmed. Makes it a much more fun party game. But the rules I play to have fun with my friends would be terrible for figuring out who the best in the world is, so it won't be studied enough to ever rank them.

But sense we are dealing with hypothetical. I think that final smashes would platy a big role. The characters that have a good shot at getting multiple kills with theirs could be higher than they currently are. This applies to stock mataches, but can win or lose a time battle. 2 -3 point swings in a matter of 15ish seconds is huge. Also got to consider how easy the final smash it to dodge... and the characters who can fire it as soon as they get it could bump up a few spots over those who have to line it up and risk losing it during that set up.

I also think that ability to hit multiple targets with specials would play a large factor. Pikachu's thunder can be infuriating on certain levels. On on one I think it is punishable... but when a player can drop that when attention isn't on him for even a moment it is a good move. If all levels are allowed instead of just the current tournament legal ones things like that could shift the list around. (I know that it wasn't specified, but With that said the move has been nerfed... but i think the concept applies.

There really wouldn't be a tier list. Tier lists are based on how good a character is when they are played with only skill. 4 player smash with items involves mostly luck, which would essentially invalidate tier lists.

However I would say characters with strong smash attacks are at an advantage because they can KO easier, and don't need to rack up damage first like they would have to do in 1v1. But that's really not enough to qualify a tier list.

I wouldn't call it mostly luck. Yes, there is a lot of luck involved... and it is annoying to have 3 starmen spawn right next to a foe during a match.

But knowing how to use those items is a skill in itself. I am sure it isn't as hard to learn as advanced tactics, but it is a skill. Ability to win races for items, and knock everyone away quickly would factor in to this list.

In time battles I see where power characters would be higher. At the same time, dealing damage is important to make sure the right person goes down. Power characters can win the opportunistic game, but that isn't always an option.

In stock battles (sorry thread starter if you didn't want this if you would prefer I will edit this out) speed is still really important.... and with items that can KO that can offset the low power. So I could see some of the high tournament tier lists renaming high.

 

[Altea77]

I wouldn't call it mostly luck. Yes, there is a lot of luck involved... and it is annoying to have 3 starmen spawn right next to a foe during a match.

But knowing how to use those items is a skill in itself. I am sure it isn't as hard to learn as advanced tactics, but it is a skill. Ability to win races for items, and knock everyone away quickly would factor in to this list.

In time battles I see where power characters would be higher. At the same time, dealing damage is important to make sure the right person goes down. Power characters can win the opportunistic game, but that isn't always an option.

In stock battles (sorry thread starter if you didn't want this if you would prefer I will edit this out) speed is still really important.... and with items that can KO that can offset the low power. So I could see some of the high tournament tier lists renaming high.

A lot of luck is enough to invalidate tier lists. There can't be a top level of play if luck plays a big factor in the game. No top level play = no tier list. Sure, heavy characters might be good for time games, and speedy characters might have a slight advantage in stock games, but these advantages aren't nearly enough to seperate characters into tiers.

Also, using items really isn't a skill. Running to grab items is just a mindset or playstyle and is mostly based on luck. Some characters might be better at getting them because they are faster, but it really doesn't make that much of a difference. Knowing how to use items is something you learn in your first few matches, and if a skill at all, is a player skill not a character skill. Player skill doesn't matter here for tier lists because all characters use items the same.

Tier lists only exist at top level play, where there is no luck involved. This only exists in 1v1 or 2v2 matches with no items on non hazardous stages. There is a reason that items are banned from tournaments and the main two match types are 1v1 and 2v2, and not 4 player FFA. Making a tier list for 4 player FFA would be like making a tier list for any low level 1v1s or 2v2s. There is no point because at low levels, tiers don't matter, and as I stated earlier, 4 player FFA can't have top levels because of the luck involved.

 

[DunnoBro]

Nah luck doesn't invalidate tier lists, tier lists are largely based on results. If a character became dominant enough in results, they would definitely be considered top. You're only arguing why something would be taken less seriously, not why it wouldn't/shouldn't exist.

Also top level play does include luck. It includes minimum amounts, but no competitive environment is completely divorced from it... Especially not smash. (See: Peach, GnW, etc)

On Topic: Objectively, Villager would be top tier.

Reasons:

1: Pocket makes getting items easier, more potent when he gets them since he essentially can hold 2 items(1 item without locking out attacks), and the opponent using them harder.

2: Is a character very capable of stalling. Not just with his camping ability, but his ridiculous upb. (He can avoid some final smashes like olimars by flying up with him)

3: Has absurdly powerful kill-steal attacks. Fsmash, and the tree become very consistent in FFAs.

 

[Altea77]

tier lists are largely based on results. If a character became dominant enough in results, they would definitely be considered top.

You've got it backwards. Results are a based on tier lists. If a character is getting good results, it's because they are high tier. If a character is getting good results at top level play, and they aren't top tier, it's because the meta is young and people just haven't explored that character enough yet. Tier lists are determined by a characters abilities at the highest level of play. Imagine two smash robots, who play every character perfectly, and they are fighting with say, Mario, and Luigi. If Mario wins that match, Mario is objectively better, and he will always win. But in this scenario (4P FFA) the highest level of play isn't high enough to validate tiers, because of the amount of luck involved like items, stage hazards, and 4 people all fighting for themselves.

You're only arguing why something would be taken less seriously, not why it wouldn't/shouldn't exist.

They can't exist. Let me explain. Obviously there cannot be perfect balance in anything, but tier lists are when they are significant differences in balance. Imagine the two smash robots again. Mario will win on 1v1 every single time, since he is objectively better. In 4P FFA however, he will NOT win every time. Someone different will win each time because of the amount of luck involved. Therefore, tier lists are invalidated because the differences in character balance are not enough to consistently make an impact. While characters with good camping/ smash attacks, do have an advantage, they don't have enough of an advantage to qualify a tier list. Basically if they don't win every single time in perfect play, there shouldn't be a tier list.

Also top level play does include luck. It includes minimum amounts, but no competitive environment is completely divorced from it... Especially not smash. (See: Peach, GnW, etc)

Minimum amounts, yes. So minimum it practically doesn't exist. 4P FFA w/ items includes maximum amounts.

 

[ZephyrZ]

You're talking as if there isn't any skill involved at all in four player free for all. There is. It's heavily clouded by luck, but there is skill involved. Sure, tiers in FFA would be less defined then the ones in competitive Smash, but they'd still be there, because a character can still have traits that prove to be an advantage.

I'll bet if I were to take Mew2King or some other Smash celebrity on in an item match, I'd still get my rear kicked, regardless of luck.

 

[CrazyPerson]

You're talking as if there isn't any skill involved at all in four player free for all. There is. It's heavily clouded by luck, but there is skill involved. Sure, tiers in FFA would be less defined then the ones in competitive Smash, but they'd still be there, because a character can still have traits that prove to be an advantage.

I'll bet if I were to take Mew2King or some other Smash celebrity on in an item match, I'd still get my rear kicked, regardless of luck.

If the 4player free for all scene existed things would be figured out. Game would be very different... but I suspect that over time certain characters would win more than others. Luck would play a part yes.. but if a tier list is a measure of a character's potential there is no way it is truly balanced.

This will never be explored enough to say for sure what would happen.

 

[Altea77]

You're talking as if there isn't any skill involved at all in four player free for all. There is. It's heavily clouded by luck, but there is skill involved. Sure, tiers in FFA would be less defined then the ones in competitive Smash, but they'd still be there, because a character can still have traits that prove to be an advantage.

I'll bet if I were to take Mew2King or some other Smash celebrity on in an item match, I'd still get my rear kicked, regardless of luck.

I'm saying there isn't enough skill involved where slight character advantages would make a consistant difference, not that there is no skill involved at all. Character differences only make a consistant difference at the highest level of play, which is the only place tier lists matter or essentially exist at all.

 

[DunnoBro]

You've got it backwards. Results are based on tier lists. If a character is getting good results, it's because they are high tier.

The quantification of how good a character is does not directly effect the characters, that's just silly.

A tier "list" and the perceived "tier" of a character are different. One is theory and the other is absolute.
We can never truly know the actual most accurate tier list (especially as it's dependent on meta) but there are absolute tiers, and those do effect results. But us making a list about what we THINK those tiers to be do not effect the results beyond actual player choice.

 

[Altea77]

A tier "list" and the perceived "tier" of a character are different. One is theory and the other is absolute.
We can never truly know the actual most accurate tier list (especially as it's dependent on meta) but there are absolute tiers, and those do effect results. But us making a list about what we THINK those tiers to be do not effect the results beyond actual player choice.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. As far as I know there is only one tier list and that one tier list is a representation of how good each character is based on research done on each character. Tournament results are influenced by the tier list because better characters tend to get better results. It doesn't work the other way around. Someone doing well with a character in a tournament doesn't make that character good/top tier, it just means the player is really good. Once again, tiers are based on research.

Basically, tiers have nothing to do with results, but results have something to do with tiers just because better characters usually equals better results.

 

[Diddy Kong]

would all be a lot better.

 

[RESET Vao]

Newb here, just wondering if characters that are considered very low tier in 1v1 (Game and Watch, Donkey Kong

I just wanna stop right there and say that DK is pretty good in this game. Being snarky aside, I'd say Falcon would look a lot better on this list lol.

 

[Sleek Media]

If you want to be competitive with FFA, the best format is actually COIN. It offers the best incentive for being active, and also discourages camping the most.

That said, tiers would go flying out the window. Everything else equal, you may have a slight advantage if you are fast and able to gather coins effectively, but in practice, the collective habits of the PLAYERS would determine the outcome of the match rather than CHARACTERS. This is more "competitive" than what we have now, but it's also much harder to follow. Don't expect the smash community to divorce battlefield/no items anytime soon, no matter how good the reasons are for an alternative.