My Smash Corner: What Is A Tier List?

As of August 29, YouTube content creator for Super Smash Bros for Wii U, My Smash Corner, launched a new video series discussing different competitive smash topics and starts it off by explaining the factors that go into making a tier list.

Throughout the years there have been several controversial tier lists that linger around the internet. But do you sometimes find yourself scratching your head and asking, what actually goes into a tier list? My Smash Corner gives an unbiased opinion and goes into depth of what comprises a solid tier list.

Give it a watch! This video is informative and could help give some insight to new players that are unfamiliar to tier lists and influence current players a different point of view when compiling their own tier lists.

What are your thoughts? The next time you and a group of friends compile a tier list of your own, will you take in mind the important details that it consists of? Subscribe to My Smash Corner on YouTube for more informative videos like this one, guides and game changing tech. Don't forget to follow him on twitter for updates as well @MySmashCorner.

 

I started compiling my own tier list recently, and I can totally relate to the match-ups portion of the video.

At first, I was basing my tier list on general opinions of top players, results, and my own opinions based on personal experience using certain characters. But it dawned on me that I wasn't doing enough research and that I needed to take match-up spreads into account. I figured that I should look up match-ups for my own sake anyway because of wanting to compete in tournaments. I knew that I was in for a handful because of the many, many match-ups out there, but what I didn't expect was how often top players' match-up charts contradicted each other. For example, I recall Mr. R recently thinking that Sheik goes -1 (45-55) against Mario, but I also recall ANTi thinking that Mario has a bad match-up against Sheik.

On top of all of the above, it's been difficult finding match-ups for certain characters for 1.1.6, let alone finding ones that didn't have some disagreements. Plus, the metagame is still evolving. So while I may not entirely agree with the 4BR Wii U Tier List v2.0, or the placements that people like ZeRo have made lately, I can respect them due to how difficult it can be to place characters, and how it's impossible for the competitive community to reach a general consensus. Also, I acknowledge that I still have much more to learn because of how little I know compared to people who play this game at a top level, whether they make a living from it or not.

Edit: Spelling

 

The video pretty much got it right about tier list.
With that said I think Smash4 is probably has the most vague tier list ever in Smash Bros series. In Melee you will always see Fox, Marth, and Shiek. In Brawl, Meta Knight is the most OP character, even the most OP in any fighting game. The conclusion on should people main characters base on tier list? In my perspective, yes…and no. High tier characters will have many advantages, it's also necessary to foster you favorite character's Meta game. Like how M2K mains Cloud and that eventually made Cloud on the top tier (Despite I think Cloud should be lower). So it's safe to say you should at least main one top tier character and then your fav as your secondary. However, if your main is top tier, then you hit the jackpot.
One more thing. The DLC characters are also the characters that are unstable on the tier list. Since they only came out like lesd than a year. So who knows, maybe Bayonetta will return to the Top Tier when another patch comes.

 

Smash 4 is so well balanced that tier lists will no longer be taken as seriously by most competitive players.

We can already see this in current tier lists, almost none of them are consistent with each other and no-one can seem to agree.

Good riddance, IMO.

 

I was thinking of making my own tier list, but it's just too much work. Plus I'm kinda lazy. ;P

 

Smash 4 is so well balanced that tier lists will no longer be taken as seriously by most competitive players.

We can already see this in current tier lists, almost none of them are consistent with each other and no-one can seem to agree.

Good riddance, IMO.

Don't mistake a underdeveloped game for a balanced one.

Sure, there's a lot of variety now, but as time goes on, people will probably learn their mu's, recognize and avoid setups and someone will probably find some easy 02D combo with a top tier (who tend to have good neutral tools to get those conversions into a combo).

And this is assuming there won't be outcry over something that'll be discovered and considered to be "cheap" and "broken" and consequently be patched out (instead of worked around and adapted to, but who needs growth as a player when you have patches, Kappa).

Maybe it will be as balanced as you say it is (as there's a rando mid tier popping up in top 8 every other week now), but I doubt the Smash 4 community has completely developed every character and every MU at this point (which, again, will probably be slowed by patches shaking things up).

What I'm getting at is that because of all these factors, even with two years of meta development, Smash 4's meta is still fairly underdeveloped and new things are being discovered every day (either by lab monsters or via showcasing in tournaments by character specialists). But, eventually, top tiers will be solidified and probably invalidate at least a decent chunk of the cast (you got Rosaluma as a preview for that).

Disclaimer: I don't play Smash 4, just making some points as to why I think Smash 4 tier lists are all over the place.

 

Disclaimer: I don't play Smash 4, just making some points as to why I think Smash 4 tier lists are all over the place.

I hate to sound nasty but... if you're going to say stuff about a game you don't play, then PLEASE don't say anything unless you have the experience to back your argument up. Otherwise you're only making yourself look bad.

 

I hate to sound nasty but... if you're going to say stuff about a game you don't play, then PLEASE don't say anything unless you have the experience to back your argument up. Otherwise you're only making yourself look bad.

See, saying my opinion is worthless isn't really a good counterargument to anything I've said.

Could you debunk my reasoning before you discard my opinion? Thanks!