Making the Tier List Official.

[g-regulate]

with M2K's logic, you could say that Mario is up there as well. Pretty much does the same things as doc, only no fair finishers....... but, a longer fsmash, and slightly better recovery (i think?),

 

[HugS™]

Ganons and Samuses rarely show up to the same events, so I don't see why the "Ganons usually place higher" argument is even being brought up.

The most fair thing to do would be to compare Ganon performances with that of a Samus's performances vs his local competition.

Where I face the likes of Lucky, Mango, Zhu, and company on a triweekly basis.
And where IHSB has faced a few southerners, including Darkrain and Wobbles

 

[Mew2King]

i think mario is not bad, but doc is way better because of Bair gimping. I think the difference in their bair (and doc's super sheet is way easier to gimp with) and the down smash and fair power make a fairly big gap (not too large but definitely a gap) between doc and mario though

 

[ArcNatural]

i think Mario is not bad, but doc is way better because of Bair gimping. I think the difference in their bair (and doc's super sheet is way easier to gimp with) and the down smash and fair power make a fairly big gap (not too large but definitely a gap) between Doc and Mario though

The other significant difference between them is fall speed. Mario's fall speed coupled with ok priority give him I think an advantage over Doc in spacing and spacing manipulation options. And having a early nair is better than late (why Doc's late hitbox on nair... he would be significantly better if it was the other way around).

All in all I think the differences between them give them separate advantages. I do think Doc's option of CG and grab to fair kills give him the edge though. Regardless of how difficult it is to grab the fact is that it's not much different than Mario grabbing, and unlike Mario, Doc will have more chances to kill out of his throws.

I think there is no denying that Ganon has had more representation at bigger tournaments. Especially on the East Coast. It's unfortunate given that Ganon, Doc, and Samus are at the least around the same potential. But Ganon is just simply more popular, and that will affect results.

I've always felt that we go by Tourney Results and Metagame in determining placings. And I would place more weight on Tourney Results in tied situations. Simply due to the fact that since more people play the character, it means that that characters metagame should be progressing faster than the others, regardless of that actually making them a better character.

 

[KirbyKaze]

So. About Falco's bad matchups.

Anyone want to shed some light on that one?

 

[SleepyK]

KK i think you should put your idea that you AIM'd me about into effect as soon as possible so we can actually get something done.

 

[Mew2King]

doc is not even comparable to mario. Doc is far better because the traits he is better than are VERY big factors

 

[Marc]

KirbyKaze:

Despite being overrepresented Falco never takes anything and many people would argue he's at a small disadvantage against Peach, Jiggs, Marth and/or Sheik. If it's true for just one of those matchups it makes him worse than Fox and Jiggs, under the assumption it never gets worse than even for those two. People probably aren't playing Falco at 100% of his potential yet, but his metagame is pushed forward constantly because so many high level players use him.

Realistically it's probably never worse than 45-55 and I also doubt it's the case for all four of those matchups, but it's still not quite "never worse than even". I personally think the slight disadvantage holds true for at least Peach.

 

[KirbyKaze]

I don't think he's disadvantaged against any of those characters.

I think they're even matchups.

At any rate, that doesn't answer the more important half of the question. Why is he bad against these characters?

 

[Mew2King]

i think falco beats marth ***** sheik and ***** fox and loses to jiggs cuz of planking, ***** falcon, and idk about jiggs/peach vs falco

 

[unknown522]

why would he beat marth? **** sheik? **** fox?

 

[Deleted member]

i think falco hardcore ****s peach on DL64. Falco can just camp the top platform w/ dair since peach can only get there with slow jumps and crap priority. Upon her taking the top platform somehow, falco can run away and shoot her till she is forced off it, then he can quickly take it back. it's very basic and effective and a great measure to waste one of peach's most common CP choices.

 

[unknown522]

Doc vs Peach is probably Peach' advantage, but I don't think either Mario is really bad against her. Doc's bair works wonders against her and he seems to have a faster downsmash. Range will always be a problem though.

IMO, they're both 55-45 for peach.

 

[Armada]

unknown522: I don´t get that either

 

[Marc]

At any rate, that doesn't answer the more important half of the question. Why is he bad against these characters?

Why do you get so hung up on Amsah's word choice? He's relatively bad at some matchups when compared to the top 2, hence his #3 position in possibly his own tier. There aren't really many other ways to explain this.

i think falco hardcore ****s peach on DL64. Falco can just camp the top platform w/ dair since peach can only get there with slow jumps and crap priority. Upon her taking the top platform somehow, falco can run away and shoot her till she is forced off it, then he can quickly take it back. it's very basic and effective and a great measure to waste one of peach's most common CP choices.

Agreed to a certain extent, but Peach could always strike it. It's not as much of a counterpick for her anymore.

 

[KirbyKaze]

People are listing nonsense like Sheik and Marth. Both space animals are about equally good vs them as far as I'm concerned, and it's certainly not enough for Falco to automatically warrant a tier downgrade. I am aware he's worse vs Puff and Peach, but in turn he's also arguably better against Samus, Ganon, Falcon, Doc (and a bunch of lower tiered characters that nobody cares about).

On a somewhat related note, if we call Puff vs Fox even or close to even, which a bunch of people here are doing, Falco is the same vs her as Fox is.

 

[unknown522]

unknown522: I don´t get that either

we'll wait for the answer.

 

[SwiftBass]

i thnk jiggs falco is 50/50 if anything slightly and i mean SLIGHTLY in falcos favor. I think peach falco is like 55-45 in falcos favor. I do not think that he necessarily has bad matchups, but perhaps a few crucial ones that are close to even.


wow jiggs fox even? I fully disagree with that sentiment. fox has a clear adv. I think people under estimate the amount of work jiggs has to do in that matchup it is really tough for her. HBOX makes it look easier than it is trust me.

 

[KirbyKaze]

wow jiggs fox even? I fully disagree with that sentiment.

I disagree with it too. However, the opinion has surfaced here more than once so it needs to be addressed.

 

[Skler]

I agree with Toothless in disagreeing that Jiggs vs Fox is even.

The Jiggs vs Fox being even argument usually ends up as something like "Fox is hard to play as" and "Mango and Hbox are really ****ing good."

 

[Druggedfox]

Wait, jiggs vs fox is still a debate for being even? I'm confused as to how objectively speaking, its anything but fox's favor. He has the ideal type of kill move (vertical), a nice, fast projectile for camping, can actually combo jiggs to some extent, has the speed to come in and actually punish jiggs for a whiffed aerial... honestly, an ideal character to fight jiggs would just need some range that could combat her bair, and we'd be done designing a reasonable jiggs counter (not to say fox counters her, but that with some range, what more do we really want to beat jiggs?).

 

[Deleted member]

I'd like to think of fox vs jiggs as a one-sided slaughterfest, but apparently that's the "old" logic we're trying to avoid.

 

[SleepyK]

kirbykaze, please put your aim'd idea into effet or i'mma just splurge it into this thread

 

[unknown522]

blargh 10chars

 

[KirbyKaze]

My main issue with the MBR tier lists is that they don't have clear criteria. Other communities typically use match-up charts to derive tier lists, which I believe is a very good approach. However, the Melee match-up charts that have been attempted in the past never reach a satisfactory state because there are many match-ups to discuss and many match-ups are poorly understood, especially those involving bad characters. My proposal is to create a smaller match-up chart involving only the "good" characters and use that to order them, and either the leave the other characters unordered or use a hazier method of ordering them. That this would yield a good order for the viable characters relies on the assumption that the good characters' match-ups against the mediocre/bad ones have little influence on how good they are; e.g. that Fox ***** Kirby harder than Falco does should have little influence on determining which of the space animals is better.

There are issues with determining where we draw the line on which characters we would include in the chart, because there are weird instances of so-so characters arguably doing well against pretty good ones, such as DK against Samus and Luigi against ICs, that may merit representation. Given concerns about chart size and sufficient character representation, I would put 11 and 15 as lower and upper bounds, respectively, on the number of characters the chart would have.

I don’t like how we do our current tier list. I’m not sure exactly how we actually construct it, for one. It seems that the discussions center on a combination of tournament results, character strategy, matchups, and overall potential. While this is not an intrinsically bad method, what is troublesome is that the degree to which people take these elements is really diverse (we haven’t really decided how much each factor should affects the list or character placements), and the varying categories aren’t well defined either.

My suggestion is to create a matchup chart that adequately reflects the character’s standings against one another. At which level of play this chart will reflect can be discussed, since I’ve heard various opinions on how relevant matchups are. Some people have told me their impact is more prevalent in high level play, whereas others have suggested that high level play is less about the characters against one another and more about the competing players.

A working matchup chart of all 26 characters is unrealistic. We simply don't have the information readily available for a lot of the low tiers vs low tiers. And a lot of high tier vs bottom tier is ambiguous and debatable (just how bad *is* Fox for Pichu? Pichu can chain grab! Does Fox still own his soul?!). Therefore, it is my intention to disregard those characters, since they never see tournament play, and we don't have the information on them, and create a matchup chart that accommodates the characters that see significant enough tournament play for us to have actual matchup data on them. From there, we'd construct the list from the results.

We wouldn't have to discard all the work we've done, either, since we already voted the characters into Viable and Non-Viable. We've sort of already decided roughly which characters are "Important". Though it might be worthwhile to add a few stragglers that just missed the cut like Pikachu, Mario, Link, etc. depending on how people feel.

As far as the rest of the cast goes (the characters that wouldn't be accommodated into the chart), we can use our usual method. Or a different method. Or leave them unordered. I don't really care.

Thoughts?

 

[SleepyK]

Thanks, KK. If we had any type of standard to list things by, this will get done much faster.

 

[Druggedfox]

Thanks KK, I like this. I do think we still need to agree, as you said, on a specific "weight" for varying things such as tournament results. In addition, as you said, its debatable how much matchups make a difference at high level play, but that does not change the fact that in order for the tier list to reflect the current metagame it must adequately reflect matchups as perceived currently, as well as tournament results to some degree.

As seen by activity in matchup thread, you know I'm all in for a viable character matchup chart, and I definitely agree with your idea; we should start by addressing how much weight each variable gets though, or we will end up in the same problem you pointed out that:

"While this is not an intrinsically bad method, what is troublesome is that the degree to which people take these elements is really diverse (we haven’t really decided how much each factor should affects the list or character placements), and the varying categories aren’t well defined either."

If we get the above quote part done, I think moving on to a legitimate match up chart is the next step, as you said. Good notion to actually get this going, and I'm behind it for sure.

 

[SleepyK]

I heard from ZoSo who heard HungryBox say that
he always thought that matchup charts were made with the mid level player in mind, and the high level play is player vs player, which i agree with.

the current MU chart attempt is <_<

i like dave and kk, who is also a david

 

[KirbyKaze]

Truthfully, I'd like to do away with tournament results almost entirely for the tier list.

If people are using tools in ways that haven't been considered, and it adds to the character's repertoire of usable tactics and tricks, or if genuinely new things are added, or if the character's style shifts significantly to avoid or attack certain weaknesses, then I think those strategy changes should be the things that are considered when bumping up (or demoting) a character. Not "Hungrybox won APEX, Puff is definitely best character hands down".

 

[Druggedfox]

I'm certainly not saying hungrybox won apex --> jiggs is the best character.

But if the tier list is supposed to accurately reflect the metagame, a matchup chart alone may not be able to represent that... regardless, I think the right place to start is a matchup chart, no disagreement there. I'm certainly ready to present/defend any matchups.

 

[Tero.]

I am entirely in favor of creating a match-up chart and making a clear definition about how important each factor is for a characters placing within the tier list (like 1/3 match-ups 1/3 results 1/3 character potential for example).

We also should consider redoing the whole viable/non-viable vote because a) we have new members (and a few more should get added soon) and b) the general opinion on some characters (namely Mario and Pikachu) might have changed due to recent events/results.

If we're doing everything scrupulously we might also decide which ruleset we're considering for the MU chart (standard MBR ruleset I guess?), as we all know stages/counterpicks are not neglectable for determining the MU ratio.

Altogether it looks like we've got plenty of things to do until we can actually start voting on the tier list, let alone finish it. It should go something like this:

(1. Decide which ruleset we're going to use)
2. Voting on viable/non-viable
3. Create a MU chart using the characters voted as viable
4. Make a clear definition of standards

finally we can actually vote on the upper part and decide what we're going to do with the lower part of the list.

We also might want to apply the results of the voting against a potentially calculated number from the MU chart as well as the findings of the character ranking topic (aka results).

 

[SleepyK]

ungh thanks KK.

someone needs to get that guy to update his tournament character data.

 

[SwiftBass]

I am entirely in favor of creating a match-up chart and making a clear definition about how important each factor is for a characters placing within the tier list (like 1/3 match-ups 1/3 results 1/3 character potential for example).

We also should consider redoing the whole viable/non-viable vote because a) we have new members (and a few more should get added soon) and b) the general opinion on some characters (namely Mario and Pikachu) might have changed due to recent events/results.

If we're doing everything scrupulously we might also decide which ruleset we're considering for the MU chart (standard MBR ruleset I guess?), as we all know stages/counterpicks are not neglectable for determining the MU ratio.

Altogether it looks like we've got plenty of things to do until we can actually start voting on the tier list, let alone finish it. It should go something like this:

(1. Decide which ruleset we're going to use)
2. Voting on viable/non-viable
3. Create a MU chart using the characters voted as viable
4. Make a clear definition of standards

finally we can actually vote on the upper part and decide what we're going to do with the lower part of the list.

We also might want to apply the results of the voting against a potentially calculated number from the MU chart as well as the findings of the character ranking topic (aka results).

agreed


me and kk have talked and i am in full agreement with a matchup chart. weed out the non-viable and go I say.

 

[Druggedfox]

How should we "officially" get this started then? Wait for more people to agree/disagree? Start a new thread with KK's post there, as well as the first matchups to discuss? Go ahead and decide the ruleset and viable/non-viable list here, and then move on? Idk, someone should just take authority of this so we can get moving =D

 

[unknown522]

I hope we can make an organized chart.

smash makes everything complicated.

 

[Tero.]

The thing is: If we're going to discuss every match-up we'll be stuck for ages.
Also I think we should PM some people who aren't in the MBR to get some more feedback on MU's (like Shroomed for Doc).

 

[Deleted member]

I disagree with a MU chart as the basis of tiers for two reasons. The first being that top level play and tournament results aren't necessarily dictated by match-ups. It's becoming fairly apparent to me that our best players have more or less overcome their weakest character matches. The second is that we'd have develop a weighted system because oddly aligned characters are going to have some skewed bias depending where they are. For example, I'm sure Sheik has better matches overall than Marh despite Marth performing better against higher tiered characters.

 

[Tero.]

I disagree with a MU chart as the basis of tiers for two reasons. The first being that top level play and tournament results aren't necessarily dictated by match-ups. It's becoming fairly apparent to me that our best players have more or less overcome their weakest character matches. The second is that we'd have develop a weighted system because oddly aligned characters are going to have some skewed bias depending where they are. For example, I'm sure Sheik has better matches overall than Marh despite Marth performing better against higher tiered characters.

That's why we would only create a MU chart for viable characters, meaning we only consider those match-ups that actually matter.
Also the match-up chart would only be a part of the tier list project (like results would be another part) not the basis.

 

[Skler]

Oooo a matchup chart. Maybe even one where they'll straight up take my advice instead of saying "hey some random came in and said you're wrong without any evidence, we'll have to value both of your opinions equally."

I'm fairly certain that is we use a matchup chart and weight the MUs we'll end up having Fox, Falco, Sheik, Puff, Marth, Others because Sheik has such dirty MUs compared to Puff. I thought Puff was going to sit solidly at third or second in this tier list due to puffs winning every tournament one of the top two puffs attend. It just seems weird if Puff isn't at least third.

 

[Druggedfox]

As Tero pointed out... Match up chart wouldn't be the basis, it would be a part of. We also definitely would need a weighting system as umbreon pointed out.

Either way, sounds like we need a viable character list first... where's the cut off?