Japan already has a Tier list

[Shulkasaurus]

But are you really feeling it

Yes, yes, YES, I feel the power. Him being low tier just inspires me to get really good with him

 

[mini paincakes]

I thought there was already a Japan tier list thread?

But, yeah this list is pretty trash. Way to early for any sort of decent tier list to be made. No way Palutena and Shulk are at the bottom. I also have a hard time seeing jigglypuff so low. I've played as her a lot and she doesn't have that many disadvantageous matchups, easily B Tier imo.

I also don't think the final tier list should/will dip all the the way to E tier. The cast seems really balanced this time around, and don't think there will be a huge gap between #1 and #51 (at least not nearly as big as Fox vs Kirby/Pichu or Meta Knight vs Ganondorf).

Assuming the roster is as balanced as I think it is, I think the final tier list should/will look more like:
S. 2-5 cast members
A. 6-10 characters
B. 7-12 characters
C. Most of the rest of the cast
D. 0-3 characters, any characters that turn out to be awful, if there are any (possibly Ike)

 

[Raijinken]

Regional playstyles differ, they're entitled to their opinions.

Also, most of that is based on tournament outcomes.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

Do note that the character tiers here are based on the Umebura tournament series's rule set: 3DS version, 1-on-1, no items, Final Destination version of stages only, 2 stocks, 7-minute time limit.
To create this list, each member of SHI-Gaming was asked to first assign a rating -- from A to E -- for each character individually.
The ratings were then converted into a point system, with A being worth 10 points, B at 8 points, C at 7, D at 6, and E at 5. Those points were then tabulated, and divided by the number of votes to derive at a final score.
Each character is then assigned a tier ranking based on that final score. Anything above a 9 is an A. Characters rated between 8 and 9 points are B-tier; between 7 and 8 points are C-tier, between 6 and 7 points are D-tier; and anything below that is E-tier.
SHI-Gaming also mentions that they believe that the game's tiers are quite close this time around, and that any character from the A to C tiers could potentially take the winning spot in a tournament. They also said that even a D-tier character could take down a B-tier character.
Finally, SHI-Gaming mentions that there are no S-tier characters included in this list this time around, as there isn't any one character in Super Smash Bros. 3DS that can be seen as a class above the rest. To better clarify their classication of what an S-tier character might be, SHI-Gaming raised the examples of SSBM's Fox and SSBB's Meta Knight.

Useful links:
SSBwiki page for Umebura 8, contains top 8 results
Top 64 bracket for Umebura 8
Umebura 8 video playlist

Now the tier list might make a little more sense to anyone who's flustered as to why certain characters were placed where they were.

 

[Rakurai]

I honestly don't think there's a big enough divide between the characters for there to be more then three tiers this time around.

 

[L9999]

I honestly don't think there's a big enough divide between the characters for there to be more then three tiers this time around.

So it will be like Smash 64 then? The good ones, the meh ones and the trash ones? Or the very good ones, the good ones and then the meh ones?

 

[Drexel]

Yeah, this tier list is wrong wrong and wrong. While I do think Sheik, Rosalina and Yoshi should be up there, Dr. Mario is no way a low tier character and Mario isn't a mid-tier, they both are high tier in my opinion, Mario is quick and very well balanced and Dr. Mario, he's a combo god with his great aerials. Plus, Kirby is far from the worst character, he's gotten buffed since Brawl.

 

[Rakurai]

So it will be like Smash 64 then? The good ones, the meh ones and the trash ones? Or the very good ones, the good ones and then the meh ones?

The latter, IMO.

 

[PGH_Chrispy]

If you believe the lower-placing characters now still have potential, Shulk is the perfect example. He's a very complex character who has yet to be really understood; once stances and stance changes begin to be mastered and understood across the community, I expect him, at least, to rise.

The question when someone rises, of course, is who will fall...

 

[Drexel]

If you believe the lower-placing characters now still have potential, Shulk is the perfect example. He's a very complex character who has yet to be really understood; once stances and stance changes begin to be mastered and understood across the community, I expect him, at least, to rise.

The question when someone rises, of course, is who will fall...

This. I like Shulk's chances, definitely one of the most adaptable characters on the roster I think. He should move up quite a few spots.

 

[B!squick]

Bowser main checking in. This list appears fine, IMHO.

 

[Hoser]

I don't usually play into Tier List nonsense, but I have to agree with the placement of the top tiers. After B tier though, I think it's all nonsense.

 

[Jaedrik]

I refuse to take any tier list seriously until at least a year after the game has been released.

Arbitrary dates are irrational.

I'm not convinced. Even though the game has been out for over month in Japan, I still feel like it is too soon to make such a list.

Your intuition is lacking. It is easy to grasp the fundamental power of a character by mere observation barring any radical metagame changes.

I don't believe these early tier lists, obviously they just went with past tier lists considering Kirby is low, he was improved lots in this game.

A past tier list? Care to elaborate? Their conclusions might not be as far-fetched as you think.

'Dorf isn't low tier at all, so that immediately discredits it. I've also met some ridiculous Luigi players for him to be that low

Why say you so? How does that discredit it, merely because you say so? Ganondorf's neutral is extremely laggy, and he has no safe options on the utterly ridiculous shield of Smash 4.

I can agree with Sheik, Yoshi, and Rosalina being top tier but I'm not sure about the others.
I mean placing someone like Marth that low? I understand he's not as amazing as he was in melee/brawl but that's a huge change.

You must view each game in isolation to remove the conception of Marth being an inherently good and well designed character. He just might not be in Smash 4.

Highly disagree. Samus isn't the best, but not nearly that bad. Ah well, early tier lists are always laughably inaccurate. Remember how high Zelda used to be in SSBM? Smash games need a good year or two for the tier list to become accurate.

Why so? Personally, I may agree with you, but your analysis is lacking. Also, you fall into the same error as Shen above. The intellect is capable, with the requisite conditioning from distinguishing like things and observation, to have an intuitive sense of which characters maybe good or bad. Question yourself. Historicism is lacking as well, in that it does not analyze the why of Zelda being so high in early SSBM tier lists, nor does it analyze the metagame's progression or the characteristics of the game itself, it merely takes an event and draws a silly conclusion about it based on 'trend'.

That is an inaccurate list. Kirby is way better than the bottom tier. He is not close to being the top but he for sure is not near the bottom.

Why? Just as many above you, your analysis is lacking. Please elaborate.

I barely trust tier lists. Personally I'd choose a character, then look at the tier list, just to see where my character ranks. I wouldn't base my character selection off of the tier list.

This is a far more honest response to the tier list. This one makes no pretense as to suggest that tier lists aren't valid, just that they do not affect his opinion of things.

There'll be great players for each character, even if the character is trash. I don't think that's a strong argument for placement.

That said, this list is a bunch of crap. Way too premature for it to be taken seriously.

Why is it premature? Because it is set before some vague time you have in mind? When you personally feel that it is mature enough to be evaluated? Surely there are many more, as shown by this tier list, which trust that they know the course of its maturation well enough to deliver an early tier list as such. Just as well, thank you for acknowledging that anecdotal evidence of seeing good characters does not constitute a worthy point.

...huh? Pac Man got second in that one tourney though... and Yoshi isn't top tier imo.
this is all based around FD too, I assume?

As of now, we don't know the disposition or reasoning of the Japanese people as to their placements in general. Personally, I will vouch for Yoshi in that he has excellent aerial mobility, little landing lag, strong range and great combo ability. Additionally, he has a projectile and has a fast jab which comboes into up-smash. His pressure is unreal, and almost all of his options are safe to execute at nearly any time. Save his grab being the only major flaw, which is a large detriment in this shield heavy game, but the safeness of his attacks in general and ease of following up with a d-tilt or some such for a shield poke makes it matter not as much.

Obviously this list isn't absolute and it is far too early to take it seriously. With that being said, I will play the heck out of Wii Fit Trainer and Palutena, regardless of there "tier". If anything, this made me more determined to show their worth. I know they're good. I wish more people were willing to try them out, though.

You are right in one sense. It's not an 'absolute' representation of their maximal power. Such is not the purpose of a tier list anyways. If it was geared towards a Tool Assisted Superplay or some such, then it might be trying to do that, but even then matters of 'taste' and the style of the person doing the TAS and what the goal is supposed to be in a TAS. Again, as above, why is it too early? If you just 'feel' as if it's too early, you have to acknowledge that there are some who do not. It is good that you have determination, though, but do not be stubborn to the point where you might refuse to accept their inferiority if it turns out that way.

>Pac-Man and Falcon are C-tier, Ness is near the bottom, triple D is in D-tier, Kirby is bottom
I'm having a hard time believing that this is anywhere near accurate.

Why? Please review the above.

I laugh at the very thought of my three mains, and as being low tier characters. I've dominated SO many online matches with all three characters against those supposed "top tier" characters like Bowser, Greninja and Sheik. Not to mention it is still WAY too early for a proper tier list to be complied given that they take months, if not years to be finalized and created. Besides, even if this tier list was accurate, I'd still continue to use my three mains regardless of where they stand in any tier list.

Anecdotal evidence means little. One must analyze and cast doubt upon their own initial conclusions. Surely, what you have done is intuitive reasoning, yet you must see that you might be as far from the mark as they, since you yourself have implicitly formed an ordinal ranking of who is better or who is worse. Once again, it is good that you have this determination, but do not let it blind you if it turns out said characters truly are bad.

Shulk and Robin should be at the top...
Kirby E?! HAHAHHAA!

Why? You can review the above to anticipate my response to your response if you so choose.

Ganondorf being so low must be a kneejerk reaction of him not being Melee 'dorf...because I've seen people do insane stuff with him. And I think Megaman could be much higher, I recently saw a match that turned around all my previous perceptions on Megaman's viability, and the reason so many people are saying he's bad must be because they're thinking he's a long-range character...he's actually a medium range character.

This is. . . very honest of you, D-idara. Thank you.

Ha, Luigi.
I would like to kick the crap out of who ever made this with Luigi.
I was also surprisingly good with Falco and Mega Man.

This is bull****.

You have absolutely no frame of reference for their skill. Your 'logic' boils down to 'this person's analysis differs from mine, therefore this person is a scrub and they are dumb', which is full of errors. Elaborate.

Falcon seems low to my (biased) eyes. He's got solid 15%+ combos on the majority of the cast with dthrow into uair.

Thank you for being honest and actually providing analysis. :D

I've been doing very well with Palutena and Zelda. It's too early to come up with a legitimate tier list.

Again, we see the same error as above so many times. I won't repeat myself, since I trust that you will know what I mean if you read the other stuff in my post.

Dk and link so low? They must not have played a good one at all (yep both mains) I agree with rosalina and that yoshi Bruh

bruh
youre just a scroob il rekt u 1v1 me irl

Kirby deserves higher too. "Oh noes, he's not just like 64 Kirby! He must be as bad as his Melee incarnation!" Lolnope.

This is quite the assumption. It ignores many other possible arguments implicit to the tier's reasoning.

Palutena does seem weak. I'm surprised that Lucina is placed as a tier below Marth, but I haven't played them enough yet to tell much of a difference other than Lucina's lack of a sword tip buff.

This is another type of response I like. The tone implies the admission there may be some merit to the tier list instead of just a blank denial and ridicule.

I lol'd for realz. This list is horrible.

This list makes no sense at all.

it is still too early.

WHY

The game is still very much new, I feel like tier lists should be taken with a grain of salt.

Also that Ganon bottom 2 does not make any sense to me whatsoever.. I wonder what kind of meta they have going on over there right now.

And of course these are 3DS tier lists, when the Wii U version lands there could be a completely diff. tier list for that version as well.

This is many of the above responses with some good qualifications. First, it casts a healthy dose of caution on all rankings. Then, it says that some thing doesn't make sense to the writer, rather than making no sense to anyone.

I thought there was already a Japan tier list thread?

But, yeah this list is pretty trash. Way to early for any sort of decent tier list to be made. No way Palutena and Shulk are at the bottom. I also have a hard time seeing jigglypuff so low. I've played as her a lot and she doesn't have that many disadvantageous matchups, easily B Tier imo.

I also don't think the final tier list should/will dip all the the way to E tier. The cast seems really balanced this time around, and don't think there will be a huge gap between #1 and #51 (at least not nearly as big as Fox vs Kirby/Pichu or Meta Knight vs Ganondorf).

Assuming the roster is as balanced as I think it is, I think the final tier list should/will look more like:
S. 2-5 cast members
A. 6-10 characters
B. 7-12 characters
C. Most of the rest of the cast
D. 0-3 characters, any characters that turn out to be awful, if there are any (possibly Ike)

It got moderated because the thread title was sensationalist and emotional, along with a lot of the responses. Again, as the many others above, WHY is it too early? There is nothing you propose beyond your intuitive feeling that it is too early, which could be horribly misguided. One IMO doesn't satisfy the rest of blank pronouncements made. You have an internal, implicit tier list, yet you do not acknowledge that yours could be the less accurate in the general sense.

Yeah, this tier list is wrong wrong and wrong. While I do think Sheik, Rosalina and Yoshi should be up there, Dr. Mario is no way a low tier character and Mario isn't a mid-tier, they both are high tier in my opinion, Mario is quick and very well balanced and Dr. Mario, he's a combo god with his great aerials. Plus, Kirby is far from the worst character, he's gotten buffed since Brawl.

Bruh. Try to reason it out. Why do you think that they think these things? Give them the benefit of the doubt.

If you believe the lower-placing characters now still have potential, Shulk is the perfect example. He's a very complex character who has yet to be really understood; once stances and stance changes begin to be mastered and understood across the community, I expect him, at least, to rise.

The question when someone rises, of course, is who will fall...

No, he's 'understood' in the sense we know how much each stance affects what stat. But, he is complex, as you say, in that the application of said stances is difficult at present since nobody has advanced the use to a point where people can clearly see how more effectively to use them.






Alright, everyone, here's the deal. Every single person in this thread has an implied tier list. It can be called 'subconsciously made', or whatever, but in the very fact that anyone says that 'this character is better than that', they rank one above the other. And it is NECESSARY by definition of a 'tier list' that it is merely another one of these lists or rankings. Grant that it may be a more 'valid' one in that those with greater knowledge of the game may have collaborated to form this.

 

[mangamusicfan]

Dorf is much better lol

 

[Deleted member]

Why? Please review the above.

There just seems like there's something off about the list. A lot of characters still have tons of untapped potential (the aforementioned Pac-Man for example), many of the veterans are like entirely new characters with the way they play now (Triple D, Pit, etc.), and a lot of them are just straight up better (Ganon, Falcon, etc.)
I know you might think that the "IT'S STILL TOO EARLY RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE" argument is rubbish, but it has ground. Even now people are discovering new techniques for characters and not everyone knows how to play everyone that well yet, and I don't think many people will until we get a proper controller. People just aren't giving characters enough time or attention to give them proper rankings.

 

[EliteGrimm1]

There just seems like there's something off about the list. A lot of characters still have tons of untapped potential (the aforementioned Pac-Man for example), many of the veterans are like entirely new characters with the way they play now (Triple D, Pit, etc.), and a lot of them are just straight up better (Ganon, Falcon, etc.)
I know you might think that the "IT'S STILL TOO EARLY RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE" argument is rubbish, but it has ground. Even now people are discovering new techniques for characters and not everyone knows how to play everyone that well yet, and I don't think many people will until we get a proper controller. People just aren't giving characters enough time or attention to give them proper rankings.

This list isnt set in stone. It will change and grow as the game does. For right now with what we know and can do this is a decent tier list. Its based on how the game is played right now. Next month hopefully we see a better one.

 

[LoveGame]

Arbitrary dates are irrational.Your intuition is lacking. It is easy to grasp the fundamental power of a character by mere observation barring any radical metagame changes.
A past tier list? Care to elaborate? Their conclusions might not be as far-fetched as you think.Why say you so? How does that discredit it, merely because you say so? Ganondorf's neutral is extremely laggy, and he has no safe options on the utterly ridiculous shield of Smash 4.You must view each game in isolation to remove the conception of Marth being an inherently good and well designed character. He just might not be in Smash 4.Why so? Personally, I may agree with you, but your analysis is lacking. Also, you fall into the same error as Shen above. The intellect is capable, with the requisite conditioning from distinguishing like things and observation, to have an intuitive sense of which characters maybe good or bad. Question yourself. Historicism is lacking as well, in that it does not analyze the why of Zelda being so high in early SSBM tier lists, nor does it analyze the metagame's progression or the characteristics of the game itself, it merely takes an event and draws a silly conclusion about it based on 'trend'.
Why? Just as many above you, your analysis is lacking. Please elaborate.This is a far more honest response to the tier list. This one makes no pretense as to suggest that tier lists aren't valid, just that they do not affect his opinion of things.Why is it premature? Because it is set before some vague time you have in mind? When you personally feel that it is mature enough to be evaluated? Surely there are many more, as shown by this tier list, which trust that they know the course of its maturation well enough to deliver an early tier list as such. Just as well, thank you for acknowledging that anecdotal evidence of seeing good characters does not constitute a worthy point.As of now, we don't know the disposition or reasoning of the Japanese people as to their placements in general. Personally, I will vouch for Yoshi in that he has excellent aerial mobility, little landing lag, strong range and great combo ability. Additionally, he has a projectile and has a fast jab which comboes into up-smash. His pressure is unreal, and almost all of his options are safe to execute at nearly any time. Save his grab being the only major flaw, which is a large detriment in this shield heavy game, but the safeness of his attacks in general and ease of following up with a d-tilt or some such for a shield poke makes it matter not as much.
You are right in one sense. It's not an 'absolute' representation of their maximal power. Such is not the purpose of a tier list anyways. If it was geared towards a Tool Assisted Superplay or some such, then it might be trying to do that, but even then matters of 'taste' and the style of the person doing the TAS and what the goal is supposed to be in a TAS. Again, as above, why is it too early? If you just 'feel' as if it's too early, you have to acknowledge that there are some who do not. It is good that you have determination, though, but do not be stubborn to the point where you might refuse to accept their inferiority if it turns out that way.
Why? Please review the above.
Anecdotal evidence means little. One must analyze and cast doubt upon their own initial conclusions. Surely, what you have done is intuitive reasoning, yet you must see that you might be as far from the mark as they, since you yourself have implicitly formed an ordinal ranking of who is better or who is worse. Once again, it is good that you have this determination, but do not let it blind you if it turns out said characters truly are bad.
Why? You can review the above to anticipate my response to your response if you so choose.
This is. . . very honest of you, D-idara. Thank you.
You have absolutely no frame of reference for their skill. Your 'logic' boils down to 'this person's analysis differs from mine, therefore this person is a scrub and they are dumb', which is full of errors. Elaborate.
Thank you for being honest and actually providing analysis. :D
Again, we see the same error as above so many times. I won't repeat myself, since I trust that you will know what I mean if you read the other stuff in my post.
bruh
youre just a scroob il rekt u 1v1 me irl
This is quite the assumption. It ignores many other possible arguments implicit to the tier's reasoning.This is another type of response I like. The tone implies the admission there may be some merit to the tier list instead of just a blank denial and ridicule.



WHY

This is many of the above responses with some good qualifications. First, it casts a healthy dose of caution on all rankings. Then, it says that some thing doesn't make sense to the writer, rather than making no sense to anyone.
It got moderated because the thread title was sensationalist and emotional, along with a lot of the responses. Again, as the many others above, WHY is it too early? There is nothing you propose beyond your intuitive feeling that it is too early, which could be horribly misguided. One IMO doesn't satisfy the rest of blank pronouncements made. You have an internal, implicit tier list, yet you do not acknowledge that yours could be the less accurate in the general sense.
Bruh. Try to reason it out. Why do you think that they think these things? Give them the benefit of the doubt.
No, he's 'understood' in the sense we know how much each stance affects what stat. But, he is complex, as you say, in that the application of said stances is difficult at present since nobody has advanced the use to a point where people can clearly see how more effectively to use them.






Alright, everyone, here's the deal. Every single person in this thread has an implied tier list. It can be called 'subconsciously made', or whatever, but in the very fact that anyone says that 'this character is better than that', they rank one above the other. And it is NECESSARY by definition of a 'tier list' that it is merely another one of these lists or rankings. Grant that it may be a more 'valid' one in that those with greater knowledge of the game may have collaborated to form this.

Your post game is strong, and with that I'm going to assume that you're great at doing the combos. Either way, I have very valid reasons for my two posts that you quoted. I honestly just didn't feel like posting an entire detailed analysis. Believe me, I could. When I get to writing my walls of text, I don't stop til every detail of my thoughts are there. I figured that people would take my general statements and infer something of their own from there. However, history has a way of repeating itself. Early tier lists in fighting games have been consistently inaccurate over the years. Not only are more techniques discovered, but the metagame is ever-changing. I wasn't aware I had to explain the why of Zelda's high placement, because it's either common knowledge within the competitive scene, or a quick read on the SmashWiki. An early tier last HAS to exist so later ones can evolve from it. But seriously, how does Samus pop a nooch like that? It's insaaaane!

 

[MasterOfKnees]

Ganondorf, Shulk, Samus, Jigglypuff and Dedede need to be way higher. ZSS needs to be lower.

 

[Ryu_Ken]

I've never seen a legit Link vs. ToonLink match, but if we were to rank them by buffs and nerfs, Link would be placed way higher than ToonLink. Also, this list seems fishy overall because some of these characters and match-ups (mainly those in the low-tier) are underplayed.

 

[HyrulesLegend]

@ Jaedrik Kirby has been low tier in every game since melee, maybe he's not top tier in this game, but he's for sure not at the bottom, if you've played with him at all.

 

[Moon Monkey]

I'm not convinced. Even though the game has been out for over month in Japan, I still feel like it is too soon to make such a list.

I'm with this man!

 

[Pierce7d]

One of my favaorite things in the entire world is when a tier list gets released, and then everyone in the world flocks to the thread to post anecdotal and useless evidence, with no one posting a single constructive comment. It's actually adorable that after years and years, this practice hasn't gotten stale. I miss you so much Smashboards.

Of course, I myself have nothing constructive to add, since the game came out this week, and hence I will not try to credit or discredit the list.

I MEAN, HERP DERP, I PLAY MAC AND BEAT ALL MY FRIENDS AND HAVE 98% WIN RATE FOR GLORY SO HE MUST BE THE BEST RIGHT?

 

[Shulkasaurus]

@ Jaedrik Kirby has been low tier in every game since melee, maybe he's not top tier in this game, but he's for sure not at the bottom, if you've played with him at all.

You know, I've figured out some gimpy stuff with sm4sh Kirby. It all started in melee though. Simply suck them up off stage, wait for them to struggle out then they die and you fly back up. For extra salt taunt when back on stage

 

[Jaedrik]

There just seems like there's something off about the list. A lot of characters still have tons of untapped potential (the aforementioned Pac-Man for example), many of the veterans are like entirely new characters with the way they play now (Triple D, Pit, etc.), and a lot of them are just straight up better (Ganon, Falcon, etc.)
I know you might think that the "IT'S STILL TOO EARLY RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE" argument is rubbish, but it has ground. Even now people are discovering new techniques for characters and not everyone knows how to play everyone that well yet, and I don't think many people will until we get a proper controller. People just aren't giving characters enough time or attention to give them proper rankings.

Then what is this tier list? Surely you must acknowledge that no character's potential can ever be truly reached? Then also you see that we can know, more or less, to what degree we have a proper estimate of a character's full potential, again barring radical metagame changes? The claim of this tier list is either that the makers assert they know, or that they don't know and are just making this up. It is clear that they think the former, for a tier list of the latter is useless musing. No, it is rubbish. All that the claim is is an appeal to skepticism, with absolutely no rational backing. What I want from people here is the why of which character being superior or worse than another. I want statements such as "Falcon's dash-grab is one of the best in the game, and somesuch character on the tier list has a worse one, as well as similar nature in other areas, therefore Falcon should be above them since his dash-grab gives him enough utility to outweigh the rest of what we can differentiate the two with" (which is simplified, but you get the point), since those are rational claims. And also what @ E EliteGrimm1 said. :D

Your post game is strong, and with that I'm going to assume that you're great at doing the combos. Either way, I have very valid reasons for my two posts that you quoted. I honestly just didn't feel like posting an entire detailed analysis. Believe me, I could. When I get to writing my walls of text, I don't stop til every detail of my thoughts are there. I figured that people would take my general statements and infer something of their own from there. However, history has a way of repeating itself. Early tier lists in fighting games have been consistently inaccurate over the years. Not only are more techniques discovered, but the metagame is ever-changing. I wasn't aware I had to explain the why of Zelda's high placement, because it's either common knowledge within the competitive scene, or a quick read on the SmashWiki. An early tier last HAS to exist so later ones can evolve from it. But seriously, how does Samus pop a nooch like that? It's insaaaane!

I believe you. THEN DO IT I DARE YOU. You didn't have to explain why Zelda was high, but the way you worded that claim and the other stuff in your post had the implication that history shows the invariability of error in a tier list, which, as I have shown, is an utterly ridiculous thing to say, since error is not an inherent or intrinsic quality of a tier list, however common a quality it may be. Therefore, you must prove why this one is in error.

@ Jaedrik Kirby has been low tier in every game since melee, maybe he's not top tier in this game, but he's for sure not at the bottom, if you've played with him at all.

Oh, I agree, but you are, again, missing the point. The point is that everyone keeps saying things without actually proving them or offering any real reason as to why. The purpose of discussion of these things is to further our knowledge about the game, its characters and its matchups, which this statement certainly does not. It is just a bland denial and a suggestion about me, a suggestion which is wrong since I have played Kirby quite a bit.

I'm with this man!

Omw Moon Monkey pls y u do dis

 

[Chileno4Live]

How the heck is palutena so low? Her up smash is ridiculously good and has solid moves in general. Spammy projectile is also very annoying.

 

[WinterShorts]

Arbitrary dates are irrational.Your intuition is lacking. It is easy to grasp the fundamental power of a character by mere observation barring any radical metagame changes.
A past tier list? Care to elaborate? Their conclusions might not be as far-fetched as you think.Why say you so? How does that discredit it, merely because you say so? Ganondorf's neutral is extremely laggy, and he has no safe options on the utterly ridiculous shield of Smash 4.You must view each game in isolation to remove the conception of Marth being an inherently good and well designed character. He just might not be in Smash 4.Why so? Personally, I may agree with you, but your analysis is lacking. Also, you fall into the same error as Shen above. The intellect is capable, with the requisite conditioning from distinguishing like things and observation, to have an intuitive sense of which characters maybe good or bad. Question yourself. Historicism is lacking as well, in that it does not analyze the why of Zelda being so high in early SSBM tier lists, nor does it analyze the metagame's progression or the characteristics of the game itself, it merely takes an event and draws a silly conclusion about it based on 'trend'.
Why? Just as many above you, your analysis is lacking. Please elaborate.This is a far more honest response to the tier list. This one makes no pretense as to suggest that tier lists aren't valid, just that they do not affect his opinion of things.Why is it premature? Because it is set before some vague time you have in mind? When you personally feel that it is mature enough to be evaluated? Surely there are many more, as shown by this tier list, which trust that they know the course of its maturation well enough to deliver an early tier list as such. Just as well, thank you for acknowledging that anecdotal evidence of seeing good characters does not constitute a worthy point.As of now, we don't know the disposition or reasoning of the Japanese people as to their placements in general. Personally, I will vouch for Yoshi in that he has excellent aerial mobility, little landing lag, strong range and great combo ability. Additionally, he has a projectile and has a fast jab which comboes into up-smash. His pressure is unreal, and almost all of his options are safe to execute at nearly any time. Save his grab being the only major flaw, which is a large detriment in this shield heavy game, but the safeness of his attacks in general and ease of following up with a d-tilt or some such for a shield poke makes it matter not as much.
You are right in one sense. It's not an 'absolute' representation of their maximal power. Such is not the purpose of a tier list anyways. If it was geared towards a Tool Assisted Superplay or some such, then it might be trying to do that, but even then matters of 'taste' and the style of the person doing the TAS and what the goal is supposed to be in a TAS. Again, as above, why is it too early? If you just 'feel' as if it's too early, you have to acknowledge that there are some who do not. It is good that you have determination, though, but do not be stubborn to the point where you might refuse to accept their inferiority if it turns out that way.
Why? Please review the above.
Anecdotal evidence means little. One must analyze and cast doubt upon their own initial conclusions. Surely, what you have done is intuitive reasoning, yet you must see that you might be as far from the mark as they, since you yourself have implicitly formed an ordinal ranking of who is better or who is worse. Once again, it is good that you have this determination, but do not let it blind you if it turns out said characters truly are bad.
Why? You can review the above to anticipate my response to your response if you so choose.
This is. . . very honest of you, D-idara. Thank you.
You have absolutely no frame of reference for their skill. Your 'logic' boils down to 'this person's analysis differs from mine, therefore this person is a scrub and they are dumb', which is full of errors. Elaborate.
Thank you for being honest and actually providing analysis. :D
Again, we see the same error as above so many times. I won't repeat myself, since I trust that you will know what I mean if you read the other stuff in my post.
bruh
youre just a scroob il rekt u 1v1 me irl
This is quite the assumption. It ignores many other possible arguments implicit to the tier's reasoning.This is another type of response I like. The tone implies the admission there may be some merit to the tier list instead of just a blank denial and ridicule.



WHY

This is many of the above responses with some good qualifications. First, it casts a healthy dose of caution on all rankings. Then, it says that some thing doesn't make sense to the writer, rather than making no sense to anyone.
It got moderated because the thread title was sensationalist and emotional, along with a lot of the responses. Again, as the many others above, WHY is it too early? There is nothing you propose beyond your intuitive feeling that it is too early, which could be horribly misguided. One IMO doesn't satisfy the rest of blank pronouncements made. You have an internal, implicit tier list, yet you do not acknowledge that yours could be the less accurate in the general sense.
Bruh. Try to reason it out. Why do you think that they think these things? Give them the benefit of the doubt.
No, he's 'understood' in the sense we know how much each stance affects what stat. But, he is complex, as you say, in that the application of said stances is difficult at present since nobody has advanced the use to a point where people can clearly see how more effectively to use them.






Alright, everyone, here's the deal. Every single person in this thread has an implied tier list. It can be called 'subconsciously made', or whatever, but in the very fact that anyone says that 'this character is better than that', they rank one above the other. And it is NECESSARY by definition of a 'tier list' that it is merely another one of these lists or rankings. Grant that it may be a more 'valid' one in that those with greater knowledge of the game may have collaborated to form this.

That is one hell of a long post.

 

[djKun]

I don't care what anyone says, Samus ain't that ****.

 

[AbbiDood]

I'm not convinced. Even though the game has been out for over month in Japan, I still feel like it is too soon to make such a list.

No, at some point people have to start making lists. HOWEVER, thinking that this is 100% is stupid. Having early tier lists is great for just seeing peoples EARLY opinions on the game, no need to take any of this too seriously.

 

[smashbroskilla]

...huh? Pac Man got second in that one tourney though... and Yoshi isn't top tier imo.
this is all based around FD too, I assume?

If this list is based on for glory FD stages little mac should be higher on the list for sure. He's a noob spamming character but more powerful in the hands of a good player even more so.

 

[Luigi#1]

Wall of text.

Did this tier list save your mother's life or something? You really seem intent on it.
I only barely believe in tier lists, and only after it's been awhile. The reason it's way too early is because we haven't gathered nearly enough data to really determine the tier list. What if we find an exploitable technique that only certant characters have? Luigi would be **** on the Melee tier list without wavedashing. What if this is only a singular guy's tier list, with no input from others? Yes, we all kinda have tier lists of our own. But we should know even what WE think could easily be false.
Ganondorf has been almost nothing but buffed, and went up... one space.
Kirby has been fixed up in multiple ways, and he's
...
Still low tier.
There is more.
If chain grabbing wasn't discovered, would Ice Climbers be top tier?
No.
Would Luigi be mid in Melee if there was no wavedashing?
No.
Is it rather early to make a tier list?
Yes.

 

[Terotrous]

My thoughts:

A tier:

It seems pretty clear that Shiek is #1. Greninja, ZSS, and Rosalina aren't bad picks for near top. I don't think Yoshi is quite that high. If their ruleset is "FD only", then Little Mac should probably be here too.


B tier:

Seems mostly reasonable, though Pac-Man and Mario should probably be here.


C / D tier:

I'd move around a lot of the characters here.


E tier:

No way is Samus E tier, she's probably B or C tier. Kirby, Shulk, and Ike are also definitely not that bad either. IMO, both Donkey Kong and Dedede should be here rather than D tier.


Anyway, as early tier lists go it's not inordinately terrible, but expect things to change a lot.

 

[Einyuri]

Also is this tier list going off of For Glory only?

I'm not entirely sure if this Tier List has some tournament play/placements backing it, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Like I've stated, it's just too early. Let all versions come out and we'll see where the game settles.

Although it'll be hilarious to come back a year or two later and reflect on how different our mind state/mentality on the game as well as it's tier list was.

 

[TomoYoMomo]

Falco should be lower lol

 

[Jaedrik]

Did this tier list save your mother's life or something? You really seem intent on it.
I only barely believe in tier lists, and only after it's been awhile. The reason it's way too early is because we haven't gathered nearly enough data to really determine the tier list. What if we find an exploitable technique that only certant characters have? Luigi would be **** on the Melee tier list without wavedashing. What if this is only a singular guy's tier list, with no input from others? Yes, we all kinda have tier lists of our own. But we should know even what WE think could easily be false.
Ganondorf has been almost nothing but buffed, and went up... one space.
Kirby has been fixed up in multiple ways, and he's
...
Still low tier.
There is more.
If chain grabbing wasn't discovered, would Ice Climbers be top tier?
No.
Would Luigi be mid in Melee if there was no wavedashing?
No.
Is it rather early to make a tier list?
Yes.

No, I merely value the truth and intellectual honesty.
How does one 'barely believe' in a tier list? Either one thinks they are valid or thinks they are not valid estimates of real character power. Which one say you?
Again, what arbitrary or vague threshold do you have for adequate 'data' gathered? Perhaps they have more 'data' than you expect? What is the nature of this data? Surely, as I have proven, it is not a function of time. To suggest so is false causation. You seem to merely be finding reasons to discredit it because you do not agree with it, rather than actually trying to prove how it's wrong.
I have also said 'barring radical metagame changes', and wavedashing falls under this category. Your point about Luigi raises no concern with me.
Yes, we have no source nor idea where this tier list came from, but I fail to see how that changes anything I said. I have also said that we could easily be false in our own tier lists, again your point is of no concern to me.
Ganondorf has been nothing but buffed? I agree. Let us say how, then. Do not forget that such a fighting game is comprised of matchups, and that a change to one character is not done in isolation and static meta, therefore it is silly to take changes 'all else being equal', since all else is not equal.
Lastly, you again ignore my points. It is not too early to make a tier list for reasons I have criticized others' posts with already.

 

[MrGameandBalls]

I can agree with Sheik, Yoshi, and Rosalina being top tier but I'm not sure about the others.
I mean placing someone like Marth that low? I understand he's not as amazing as he was in melee/brawl but that's a huge change.

Maybe it's because of the new ledge mechanics..?

 

[Deleted member]

I think making a tier list now is very premature. We need several months or maybe even a year to truly determine how the tier list is placed. By then, we would learn more about the physics of the game, how each character preforms with these physics, and learning the intricacies of the characters.

That being said, I don't agree with Shulk's low tier placement. He's a very complex character with 5 Monado Arts that boost some stats and lowers others. I think that he will preform well once people get the hang of him and know how to use him. That and he has some decent range; I think he can take advantage of that range in competitive play. It will take a while to learn him and know how to use him.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

I dont see anything wrong with making a tier list now, because it creates a skeleton for discussion of where those characters positions are.

You dont agree with Shulks placement...well shulk doesnt have a placement until a list exists. It doesnt have to be correct, who would expect it to be, but it creates something you can argue to explore indepth.

On top my own thoughts.
I really enjoy Yoshi, but I dont believe he fits in that slot. egg roll is still grab bait, his range is decent but he does get outranged, and his projectile gamp isn't very potent compared to his contemporaries.
Lucario however, has tremendous range, and becomes essentially ungimpable except ofor mayble FLUDD and Hydropump, jury is still out. However I've back-aired a greninja at what 56% for the ko? Aura+Rage is a significant boost to his K.O potential, the man hits hard and because of his recoveries boost, he will live to see his potential.

Bowser isn't that potent. To make a blunt comparison "What does the above tier have over Bowser?" as there are other characters with that *same* benefit. Fox is very fast, potent ground, grab and air game. His projectiles lack knockback to gimp but his overall performance out of that is very potent.

If I were to interject my immediate impressions onto their list.
A: Sheik,Lucario, Rosalina
A2. ZSS, Greninja, Yoshi

Bowser would probably fall to C. Falcon, Pits, Marios,R.OB would likely be in better standing.
Mario has a respectable ground and aerial game, Cape is very strong this time around, down right scary in some respects. FLUDD like Greninjas hydro pump may be one of the only real ways to gimp some of these stronger recoveries this time around. He has a couple low % combo's put a powerful meteor, and just an overall strong edgeguard.

Shulk is hard to position at this current moment in his meta.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

For those asking "Is it FD only?", as I posted earlier, the ruleset this tier list is based on is Omega stages only, 2 stocks, 7 minutes. So basically For Glory with a bigger time limit.

For the guy who said "But Pacman got 2nd! How is he C tier? SHI Gaming said they believe anyone in the A-C tiers could be tournament-winning characters.

For all of the people saying Kirby was low tier in Brawl, he was mid tier, the top of the mid tier in fact.

------------------------------------------

Anyway, so the issue here is that no-one is posting why they disagree/agree with the list right? Well here's my thoughts.

Agree:

• I feel that Sheik is a very powerful character. Has many true combos, a great killer in her up aerial (that functions as a nice frametrap for airdodges and midair jumps to boot), high speed across the board and useful projectiles. Maybe not number 1, but with what I know about the roster as is, I'm fine with her being in the A tier.
• I think Yoshi could be a bit lower, but he does seem like a high-tier character to me, at least as of right now lol. His pressure and damage racking abilities in this game are very good, his Egg Throw is good at zoning (especially in an Omega-only stages environment), his new dash attack is great at catching opponents who are landing or moving away and his bait-and-punishing abilities appear higher than a lot of the other characters. That recovery is still pretty bad and is one of the reasons I think he shouldn't be #2.
• ZSS is for the same reasons as Sheik (good KO moves, lot of combos, very fast, a good projectile).
• Lucario is an absolute monster. Very low landing lag, fast attacks, crazy power with Aura + Rage, Aura also gives him crazy range + recovery, etc. He just seems solid all around and is probably the hardest character to make a comeback against if they get the lead, especially in a 2-stock ruleset.
• Duck Hunt Duo's projectiles are like the Links' in that on they're own they're good, but in combination they're highly potent and create strong mindgames. His smash attacks have good disjoint and power and like Megaman's Fsmash, grow in size when they're charged. He seems like a character that is very good at keeping opponents at bay, but still packs enough punch if said opponent isn't careful about their approach.

Disgaree:

• I think Shulk should be at least higher than Ike. The two are similar in that they generally have more range than everyone's favourite swordsman Marth and are generally stronger. So what about them is different? Well Shulk's range is usually if not always even bigger than Ike's, which is good for a character with rather laggy attacks. Ike's Side Special, Quick Draw, is a good way to quickly get in and/or punish opponents but Shulk can just increase his own movement speed with the Speed Art. With Speed up, Shulk doesn't need to commit to a single move (Quick Draw) either and is free to do whatever the situation calls for. Vision I believe has more active frames than Counter as well. By utilising the Smash Art Shulk can make his attacks very strong, if not stronger than Ike's. Jump also helps with recovery and chasing opponents through the air and Shield is useful to make comebacks harder in the event you get the lead. As a note, I'm pretty confident this list was formed before the Monado Art landing-lag-cancelling/reducing technique that allows Shulk to perform true combos that he normally couldn't was discovered.
  TL;DR - All in all, I feel that Shulk's Monado Arts separate him from Ike as they allow him to offset his inherent weaknesses whilst Ike doesn't get that luxury.
• I just don't see how Palutena is considered to be the tied worst character in the game. She has one of the fastest running speeds, a good meteor, an easy-to-use projectile that racks up good damage and has nice range, her Reflect halts and pushes back people near her making it somewhat difficult for even melee-oriented characters to deal with, a good juggler in her up aerial and her up smash is just as strong as it is huge. Her grab game seems pretty poor, however. I think Palutena's boons are enough compared to her rather slow attacks that she shouldn't be at the very bottom.

Other observations:

• I'm noticing that a good portion of the C tier involves characters who have at least some emphasis on stage control; Diddy (Bananas), Bowser Jr (Mecha Koopas), Pacman (Hydrant) and Villager (everything about him lol). You could also argue that Little Mac's great ground game also gives him good stage-controlling abilities, considering the ruleset.

 

[Geoffrey Druyts]

C Tier:

(Bottom) ..., Mario, ...

D Tier:

..., Dr. Mario, ...

Nice one Japan.

 

[BriefCasey795]

For those asking "Is it FD only?", as I posted earlier, the ruleset this tier list is based on is Omega stages only, 2 stocks, 7 minutes. So basically For Glory with a bigger time limit.

For the guy who said "But Pacman got 2nd! How is he C tier? SHI Gaming said they believe anyone in the A-C tiers could be tournament-winning characters.

For all of the people saying Kirby was low tier in Brawl, he was mid tier, the top of the mid tier in fact.

------------------------------------------

Anyway, so the issue here is that no-one is posting why they disagree/agree with the list right? Well here's my thoughts.

Agree:

• I feel that Sheik is a very powerful character. Has many true combos, a great killer in her up aerial (that functions as a nice frametrap for airdodges and midair jumps to boot), high speed across the board and useful projectiles. Maybe not number 1, but with what I know about the roster as is, I'm fine with her being in the A tier.
• I think Yoshi could be a bit lower, but he does seem like a high-tier character to me, at least as of right now lol. His pressure and damage racking abilities in this game are very good, his Egg Throw is good at zoning (especially in an Omega-only stages environment), his new dash attack is great at catching opponents who are landing or moving away and his bait-and-punishing abilities appear higher than a lot of the other characters. That recovery is still pretty bad and is one of the reasons I think he shouldn't be #2.
• ZSS is for the same reasons as Sheik (good KO moves, lot of combos, very fast, a good projectile).
• Lucario is an absolute monster. Very low landing lag, fast attacks, crazy power with Aura + Rage, Aura also gives him crazy range + recovery, etc. He just seems solid all around and is probably the hardest character to make a comeback against if they get the lead, especially in a 2-stock ruleset.
• Duck Hunt Duo's projectiles are like the Links' in that on they're own they're good, but in combination they're highly potent and create strong mindgames. His smash attacks have good disjoint and power and like Megaman's Fsmash, grow in size when they're charged. He seems like a character that is very good at keeping opponents at bay, but still packs enough punch if said opponent isn't careful about their approach.

Disgaree:

• I think Shulk should be at least higher than Ike. The two are similar in that they generally have more range than everyone's favourite swordsman Marth and are generally stronger. So what about them is different? Well Shulk's range is usually if not always even bigger than Ike's, which is good for a character with rather laggy attacks. Ike's Side Special, Quick Draw, is a good way to quickly get in and/or punish opponents but Shulk can just increase his own movement speed with the Speed Art. With Speed up, Shulk doesn't need to commit to a single move (Quick Draw) either and is free to do whatever the situation calls for. Vision I believe has more active frames than Counter as well. By utilising the Smash Art Shulk can make his attacks very strong, if not stronger than Ike's. Jump also helps with recovery and chasing opponents through the air and Shield is useful to make comebacks harder in the event you get the lead. As a note, I'm pretty confident this list was formed before the Monado Art landing-lag-cancelling/reducing technique that allows Shulk to perform true combos was discovered.
  TL;DR - All in all, I feel that Shulk's Monado Arts separate him from Ike as they allow him to offset his inherent weaknesses whilst Ike doesn't get that luxury.
• I just don't see how Palutena is considered to be the tied worst character in the game. She has one of the fastest running speeds, a good meteor, an easy-to-use projectile that racks up good damage and has nice range, her Reflect halts and pushes back people near her making it somewhat difficult for even melee-oriented characters to deal with, a good juggler in her up aerial and her up smash is just as strong as it is huge. Her grab game seems pretty poor, however. I think Palutena's boons are enough compared to her rather slow attacks that she shouldn't be at the very bottom.

Other observations:

• I'm noticing that a good portion of the C tier involves characters who have at least some emphasis on stage control; Diddy (Bananas), Bowser Jr (Mecha Koopas), Pacman (Hydrant) and Villager (everything about him lol). You could also argue that Little Mac's great ground game also gives him good stage-controlling abilities, considering the ruleset.

I agree a lot.

I also call BS on Kirby being bottom tier. As someone who mained him in Brawl, he feels much more powerful with Hammer flip, and his down air has a better meteor. Plus, some of his air attacks seem to hit harder. He sounds like he could be on the C tier for me.