Low Tiers and The Tournament Scene

[Brave Hippo]

There is a reason. I play a low tier character and I play the game as competetively as anyone who plays Meta or Snake, the reason I play a low tier character is because I like playing a low tier character.

A lot of people mistake playing competetively to mean playing solely to win, whilst it is correct to say that playing competetively is playing with the intention of succeeding, succeeding is a subjective word.
Most people would class succeeding as purely winning, but a lot of people have forgotten that they are actually playing for fun.
If you are playing to win, you are doing so because you enjoy it, because its how you like to play. Thats why we create codes to balance the game, turn items off and play 8 minutes 3 stock matches and go to tournaments. Just because you are playing to win doesn't mean your sole objective is not to have fun.

I play Yoshi, why? because he is the only character I enjoy playing as. For me, playing as any other character just isn't as fun. I still try to win, my overall goal is the same as any metaknight main, but succeeding to me isn't just winning, its playing as Yoshi. If I were to use Metaknight, in my eyes, I would be failing.

So I may not win as many matches, place as high in tournaments, but to me and Im sure many other low-tier mains, they are achieveing much more than if they placed higher with a higher tier character. And they are having more fun in doing so, and that is where they are succeeding.


Also, as a low-tier main, our best weapon is the element of suprise. You probably don't have experience against my character, but I can assure you, I probably have experience against yours.

I agree wholeheartedly with this guy. I main Falcon and Jiggs. Too fun.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

There is a reason. I play a low tier character and I play the game as competetively as anyone who plays Meta or Snake, the reason I play a low tier character is because I like playing a low tier character.

You don't really play the game competitively if you feel this way. I'm not saying that you aren't good, but what you are saying contradicts competitive nature. If a character is so counterable that he is not competitive, but you choose to pick him anyway, then it's your own problem.

For many people, it is fun to play competitively, and that means not sparing any sympathy for people who choose to "have fun" in a competitive environment.

If you want to use a lower tier character or a character with a specific disadvantage in a given matchup, more power to you. Don't expect to catch a break, though, that would be asinine.


If you mean you play in a competitive environment to earn respect, then I agree with you

 

[auroreon]

You don't really play the game competitively if you feel this way. I'm not saying that you aren't good, but what you are saying contradicts competitive nature. If a character is so counterable that he is not competitive, but you choose to pick him anyway, then it's your own problem.

For many people, it is fun to play competitively, and that means not sparing any sympathy for people who choose to "have fun" in a competitive environment.

If you want to use a lower tier character or a character with a specific disadvantage in a given matchup, more power to you. Don't expect to catch a break, though, that would be asinine.


If you mean you play in a competitive environment to earn respect, then I agree with you

I think you misunderstand me, did you actually read the rest of my post? For the most part I agree with you.
As you say, it is fun to play competetively, and thats what its all about, playing the game in the way that is most fun to you. Thats why people play competetively, they find it the most enjoyable way to play.
But have you wondered why you find it the most fun way to play? There are 2 reasons.
Firstly, because you enjoy overcoming adversity, challenging yourself and rising to that challenge. What you don't seem to see, is that I play a character who creates even greater challenges for me. My character has no unwinable matchups, it is possible for me to win any match given enough skill and dedication, do not try to argue for this is not just an oppinion, its a fact.
Secondly, you enjoy winning. You play for the satisfaction of defeating others and proving your skill over theirs. Yes, it is harder for me to win, and yes it may happen less often, but consider this... if you beat my Yoshi, do you class that as much of an accomplishment? How satisfied does victory over a low tier char make you?...
Now when you get your *** handed to you by my Yoshi, how good do you think that makes me feel.

As I said before, I play just as competetively as any metaknight main and victory is just as important to me. The only difference is, my victory is sweeter.


Btw, thats a freaking sweet sig.

 

[.Marik]

Now when you get your *** handed to you by my Yoshi, how good do you think that makes me feel.

It's the best feeling in the world.

I agree with Auroreon. Yoshi is just too good. <3

Only reason why I actually play Brawl, to be honest.

 

[Eddie G]

Haha, "planknado." There's a new one I haven't heard before

I like the way that sounds. XD

 

[MoblinMan]

Auroreon is my low-tier hero.

 

[MoonShoes]

I didn't think Yoshi was that Low-tier,
but good point auroreon.
Skill>Tier

 

[|RK|]

Skill + Tier = Viability

Low + Ganondorf = Not Viable

Insane + Ganondorf = Viable (Exactly at, not above)

Insane + Lucario = EXTREMELY Viable

Mathz

 

[Eddie G]

I think you misunderstand me, did you actually read the rest of my post? For the most part I agree with you.
As you say, it is fun to play competetively, and thats what its all about, playing the game in the way that is most fun to you. Thats why people play competetively, they find it the most enjoyable way to play.
But have you wondered why you find it the most fun way to play? There are 2 reasons.
Firstly, because you enjoy overcoming adversity, challenging yourself and rising to that challenge. What you don't seem to see, is that I play a character who creates even greater challenges for me. My character has no unwinable matchups, it is possible for me to win any match given enough skill and dedication, do not try to argue for this is not just an oppinion, its a fact.
Secondly, you enjoy winning. You play for the satisfaction of defeating others and proving your skill over theirs. Yes, it is harder for me to win, and yes it may happen less often, but consider this... if you beat my Yoshi, do you class that as much of an accomplishment? How satisfied does victory over a low tier char make you?...
Now when you get your *** handed to you by my Yoshi, how good do you think that makes me feel.

As I said before, I play just as competetively as any metaknight main and victory is just as important to me. The only difference is, my victory is sweeter.


Btw, thats a freaking sweet sig.

Wow, this is the same way a Roy mainer that I know felt in Melee. He was able to own most other spacies players at tournies, but when it came to the more experienced players who played smart and gimped him at every opportunity possible, he always lost. I agree with you; While it may not necessarily be the smartest decision for positive competitive results, playing competitively with a character doesn't have to be solely about winning. One can play to prove a point, to prove a possibility, or to just contribute to that character in general. For instance, even though Roy is a bad character, he would be even worse off in the hands of players who use him without the contributions and demonstrations made by NEO, Sethlon, etc.

I think that especially in Brawl, contribution to the development of a character whether they are played competitively or not (preferably the former), is very important. Hell...look at how far Peach has progressed, and although she is still pretty low on the tier list, her overall game has become phenomenally expansive and she can hold her own in a good portion of tournament play (in the hands of a skilled player, mind you). Without those players' contributions to the character, where would she be right now?

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Yeah, I get what you mean Auroreon. I play several times a week with a low tier man-- Legan, who mains Link, and he has generally the same mindset as you, which is good. So I do understand what you mean.

I appreciate that you aren't pulling out any low tier johns and whatnot, and that you make valid and applicable points. I think that your position is the correct one to take if you play a low tier character.

As long as you aren't complaining or using it as an excuse, there is nothing wrong with maining a low tier in a competitive environment, and in fact it can be quite respectable if you succeed

I personally play a LOT of Samus, Pokemon Trainer, and Ness-- I enjoy discovering new techniques that could potentially improve lower ranked characters

Also, thanks for the sig props, haha. I do a bit of web design / graphic design haha.

 

[akkon888]

The first list is correct IMO. The majority of people main High Tier characters, thus they are more important. This is not to say that low tier characters should be ignored. The fact is that there are different characters in this game, and it shouldn't overwhelmingly become evident that higher tier characters matter more. But the truth is that they do, and that cannot be changed at all, no matter how much bias is created. You rarely hear "Oh, Lucas should be worse than Samus on the tier list" or "Link is much better than Ike" etc. You hear "GW should be beneath Falco, above DDD" or "Falco and Snake should be S Tier and Marth should be in front of DDD". However you want to believe it, it is the truth.

The second post is...

Not worth a bucket of owl spit. It is just like saying that because Ike appeared strong in the beginning we should influence him with great propaganda and MK who appeared average in the beginning should be influenced with negative propaganda. It doesn't make sense. It is also saying that we should ignore a good 30% of the people on these boards who main low tier characters; not the majority, of course, but definitely a large part of SSBB. When he makes the comment about the full tourney of MKs, he is basically trying to establish a monarchy of high tier characters and treat the others like a piece of garbage. If that happens, this will not be the one thing that all games strive to be: fun, idiot. I honestly think that person is the guy that gives all the high tier characters 15's on the tier list, while giving everyone else 0's. It sickens me.

Look at my sig, both my mains are considered low tier, and one of my secondaries is low tier.

Anyway, thanks for giving us that chunk from SBR.

 

[Kid Nino]

Wow, the posts on the first thread are the biggest loads of B.S. that I have yet to see on these forums.
For one, just because you suck with the lower tier's doesn't mean that they are any less important. I've seen my fair share of kick *** Links and Falcon's. I don't feel that any character is any less important than another simply because you may think that your Meta Knight is great and such but someone else may think they're Gannon is great.

And that bit about R.O.B.
You know, when I play against someone like that poster I want to pause the game and say,"You know, you may think your cool because you can cover up not seeing a nair coming but don't blame your lack of skill on my character."
Thank you very much.

 

[nightwing2024]

Well it's basically like the last tourney I went to. Some people were making bets like "MK vs. the field." Because there was about 50% MK's there. Add about 10% Snakes, 10% D3, 10% Falco and then me and my friends who don't use any of those.

The finals ended up coming down to me and my friend Dr. K. I main Wolf, 2nd DK. He mains C.Falcon, 2nd G.Dorf. All the people there were by no means bad, but could have been better if they hadn't just assumed their character was better. Tires Don Exits.

 

[AvaricePanda]

People seem to be reading things wrongly, I think.

As much as people may not want to admit it, when it comes to the tier list, the better characters are going to have a lot more debate than the lower characters. There's going to be a much larger debate about G@Ws/Falcos/D3s placements than Link's/PT's/Yoshi's placements, because honestly, the former are more used in competitive gameplay, and trying to deny that is just lol.

That being said, no character should really be any more important than another character, especially when important is such a subjective word. Important to what? Match-ups? The tier list? Your character? Your local tournament? That huge national tourney? etc. etc.

The first post wasn't trying to say, "Well I suck with the low tiers, so they aren't as important." He was trying to say, "Since more people use higher tiers, the SBR didn't put as much time with the lower tiers because in that sense, they aren't as important."

I also don't understand the reasoning for saying, "I main a low tier, I should be more respected because I work harder and am better than the MK mainers, etc." Sure, not many people do that, but some do have a tinge of arrogance because they're good with a lower tier. Sayoing that, "Yoshi is low tier, therefore he doesn't matter," is just as bad as, "Meta Knight is top tier, so he takes no skill and shouldn't be respected."

All in all, people put in way too much weight in the tier list. I don't see why people worry about it so much. Like Youko said on the Brawliversary podcast of Show Me Your News, the Tier List isn't definitive, and it's still debated amongst smash members, SBRers or not. Not every place is exactly right, and you can't say clear cut, "ROB is better than Kirby because he's higher!" I could argue that I think ROB should be lower, Wario should be higher, Zelda/Sheik combination needs to be considered because they work well together, etc., but all in all, why does it matter?

It doesn't matter to the metagame of the community. When a character drops or rises 3 spots, he's not suddenly worse or better. He's the same as he always was, gradually improving or stagnating or whatever, it's just there's a list to show it. The Tier List doesn't have to be exact and definitive, and it's fine as it is, really. Knowing a generalization of where your character is in comparison to the rest of the cast is good enough; after that, work on your character and his or her match-ups. THAT's what matters. People don't realize some of the core things when people decide on where to put someone on the tier list: tournament placement and match-ups.

First, people really need to learn match-ups, moreso past the x:x number. Knowing the core basics is not knowing the match-up. Some people will look at, say, the Fox vs. Peach match-up and go, "Peach can CG me to around 30%, gotta watch out for that, turnips are a pain, but I can gimp her, okay I'm fine," and think they're knowledgable in the match-up, when there's a LOT more to it than that.

And then people need to take those match-ups and see how tourney viable they are, and start placing well in tournaments. Some characters have bad match-ups against like 2/3rds of the cast, and sorry, they aren't as tourney viable when they're that easily countered. Some characters like Fox have 60:40 to 40:60 match-ups on a lot of the cast, but has insanely disadvantageous match-ups against Sheik, ICs, Pika, so they need to pick a secondary to be more viable. Now if your goal is just to do as well as you can with a character, that's fine; go ahead and use that character with the horrible match-ups and push through. But if you're really trying to win and have that as a major goal, sorry, but unless you pick a secondary or just a better character, your chances are very unlikely.

tl;dr: People rely on the Tier List too much. Choose a character that you like and go from there. Don't think, "Oh, he's high-tier, I shouldn't use him," or "Oh, he's low-tier, I shouldn't use him." Choose a character you like and have fun with, and see where they're generally at from there. If they're high on the tier list, great, learn their match-ups. Low, great, learn their match-ups and try to make them as viable as possible.

But honestly, if your character gets hard-countered by literally 95% of the cast, you should probably choose a different character. I highly doubt that out of 37 characters, you only have fun with one.

 

[X WaNtEd X]

The tier list changes with tournaments. Lower tiers move up when more people who use them do better in tournaments. The tier list is just stats on how each character does in tournaments. Just because Captain Flacon may suck in tournaments, but your really good with him doesn't make you a bad player. And some of the best players main low tiers. Like Gimpyfish. He mained Bowser in Melee, and Sheik in Brawl, both are on the low side in the tier list.

I agree with AvaricePanda completely.

 

[SOVAman]

Skill + Tier = Viability

I agree, I use Yoshi and I place like around 9th on average and most consider me the best Yoshi in Md/Va (which isn't saying much lol) and they say if I was to put my skill into a better character like falco, D3 and so on I would be placing top 3. But, honestly I suck with top tiers for some reason, and I want to improve Yoshi's meta-game so i stick with Yoshi. I would like Yoshi to improve and prove that he is very tourney viable so that is why I am still sticking all yoshi in tourney. The only way to improve a lower tier character is to use the character and help find techniques and any little thing that can improve the character. Once you have improved a chaacter and made an impact on the community then that character will move up on the tier list. But, until alot of people start picking up low tiers it won't happen. Alot of people refuse to use there low tier characters in tourney because they think they can't win without a top tier character. Which for the most part isn't true they are just not wanting to try low tier characters either because there hard to learn or they think there not good enough. But they can only be good enough if prove they are good enough.

 

[PhoenixAlpha]

I love my low tier main.
Of course there will be people who only use and
only respect high/top tier.

What the SBR says about my character is completely irrelevant. What
they say is not "the facts" but an assessment of the characters.
The spoken word doesn't change who these characters are, but how we
view them.

Not trying to say Lucas deserves a high spot. He doesn't. And I don't
really care about his placing.

I'm trying to be competitive with my character because I want to
be known as "The Best Lucas" and not "Just another MetaKnight."

When people view the tier list, we get 2 main views.

1) People who base their choice of character on the tier list.
They are either in it to place high and win money.

2) The rest; who use whoever because they like them.

The people who would be "sickened" by the view in the OP
are people who have selected their character outside of the
list's influence and shouldn't care anyway.

If you take offense to the tier list, go waste away in a corner
and stop breathing our air.

If you care: pick MK.
If you don't: then keep playing CF and quit johning.