no longer angry :), tier discussion

[Purple]

booya h

 

[Purple]

oh, and for the people that think jigglypuff should be higher. Jiggs hasn't changed for years, just the people have. A perfect fox,falco,marth,sheik, etc. all beat jiggs the same way it's been for years.

So what mango and hbox and dominating in tournaments. That doesn't change jigg's metagame, and it doesn't change the tier lists.

Look at justin wong, he specialized with rufus in street fighter iv, just because he dominates, doesn't mean you see people itching to make rufus higher in the new tier list. Textbook wise, everything is for the most part the same. Why do we have to change things. Gaaah tier liststssts


Oh, and low tier boards are biased to their character, making them better than they truly are.

 

[Rayku]

I asked you several times why you were going to embark on such an endeavor, but I suppose you did it anyway. It's like self-infliction, honestly.

 

[Mike G]

U mad?

Hey jamaal.

Welcome to the smash community. Here take a seat. and shhh. you already missed the previews.

 

[Purple]

Mike You're a silly person.

 

[Nihongo-ookami]

LOL Tiers.

The higher Kirby is, the happier I am. Either way, I'm still using Kirby.

At least, that's how I veiw Tiers.

I really don't see the point of the Tier list. Is it to make someone feel special? Should a MK Main feel special because MK is at the top? Should a Falcon main be sad ecause Falcon is bottom?

Bottom line: Do they REALLY matter to anyone at all? Will they have an effect on gameplay? Doubtful.

I just don't see the point of them.

 

[Umby]

LOL Tiers.

The higher Kirby is, the happier I am. Either way, I'm still using Kirby.

At least, that's how I veiw Tiers.

I really don't see the point of the Tier list. Is it to make someone feel special? Should a MK Main feel special because MK is at the top? Should a Falcon main be sad ecause Falcon is bottom?

Bottom line: Do they REALLY matter to anyone at all? Will they have an effect on gameplay? Doubtful.

I just don't see the point of them.

People are going to ask the question "Which characters are good?" or "Is X better than Y?"
With a tier list organized and archived, we can point them in that direction instead of giving them a biased/uninformed opinion.

Also, I view it as good archiving practice. Fighting games archive a ton of information on their current metagame. Wouldn't it then be proper to create an accurate list of which characters are winning most of their matchups as well as doing well in tournament?

People should be influenced to use the characters they like/most comfortable with, but I think it's also important to be aware of the gap between your lower tier character and that top tier character, just so you understand how much harder you'll have to work to go anywhere in tournaments where the top tier is dominating. If that really influences someone to trade up for a better character, then quite obviously they have their sights setting on winning more matches, and there's nothing wrong with that. Most of the people complaining about tiers are just annoyed of seeing characters like MK all the time. They need to wipe out that scrub mentality and realize that they're playing within a metagame, and continuing to play in it will require them to deal with it.

i.e., I play 5 MKs in a row with Marth. I understand the fact that a vast number of MKs exist. I'm not going to complain. I'm just going to learn/practice the matchup.

 

[Dark Sonic]

A perfect fox,falco,marth,sheik, etc. all beat jiggs the same way it's been for years.

Why does Marth **** Jiggs again?

They have near equal range but Jiggs has a large mobility advantage, and both of their longest ranged aerials are safe on block. However, Marth's aerials are only safe when done on the way down from his SH, meaning he has to reach the peak of his SH before even attacking if he wants to remain safe. This means that overall Jiggs will be BETTER AT POKING than Marth.

Jiggs has safer methods of killing Marth. Marth can either throw out a f-smash and hop to god it tips while Jiggs weaves in and out, or he can get Jiggs to 200% and try to land a uair. Jiggs gets Marth to about 80% so that a bair will knock him off stage (or at least to the ledge, which is a terrible position for him) and then she edgeguards him to death.

So if Jiggs pokes better, and Jiggs edgeguards better, and neither character can really combo each other past 40%, then how does Marth beat Jiggs?

The theory no longer stands. It's not just that HBox and Mango are ****, it's that our perceptions of these matchups were partially wrong (in addition to them being ****). Marth's 70:30 matchup on Jiggs was based on him grabbing her all over the place and having free kills with f-throw->f-smash. Marth lived forever because Jiggs players voluntarily floated straight at him with their edgeguards and just got beat by fair (now you just take a chance baiting the fair and hit him after it. Fail and you eat a fair. Succeed and Marth dies <_<). Edgehog->ledgehop rest significantly shortens Marth's former lifespan as well.

And this is just one example of a matchup theory based on misconceptions. Matchups can change as players become more accustomed to what each character can do and the available (at low levels, Marth still ***** Jiggs. Like 70:30 no chance of winning bad <_<). Normally they stabilize on their after a while, but sometimes it takes one or two really good players to show everybody that THEY WERE DOING IT WRONG (not that it took Mango or Hungrybox to make me believe that Marth didn't **** Jiggs. I've been telling people how to DI out of Marth's throw combos for years <_<)

Admittedly Hungrybox shifted my opinion a little bit. I thought that Marth just held a slight advantage over Jiggs, but playing that kid lately makes me feel like it's not even that (yeah he's better than me, but I'm not talking about the reads. I'm talking about the situations that Marth really has no answer for, like edgehog->rest, or trying to get on the stage from the ledge when he's just out of fair range).

M2K thinks it's in Jiggs favor, but I think he likes to exaggerate a little bit <_<.


But yes, I agree that the tier list should be based more on theory and matchups than tournament results. But for that we'd have to actually agree on matchups and theories. Tournament results are static, so they're easier to work with.

 

[Ocean]

tier lists aren't based off perfect players because perfect players don't exist.

 

[PolMex23]

tier lists aren't based off perfect players because perfect players don't exist.

Isai...

says your wrong...

If we would've tried always, that statement would be false.

You know...you know its true

 

[Ocean]

Isai...

says your wrong...

If we would've tried always, that statement would be false.

You know...you know its true

isai doesn't count. hes too perfect to be accounted for.

see: why falcon isn't top tier.

 

[Purple]

But yes, I agree that the tier list should be based more on theory and matchups than tournament results. But for that we'd have to actually agree on matchups and theories. Tournament results are static, so they're easier to work with.

Doesn't marth's nair outspace jiggs?

So you're telling me we're just going to use tournaments results because it's easy?

smash broooooooos

when i say perfect,i mean if a fox takes every theoretical opportunity he has to do damage against another character would they succeed.

 

[Ocean]

So you're telling me we're just going to use tournaments results because it's easy?

we're using tournament placings because its the most accurate. how do you judge a perfect player, if that perfect player doesn't exist? you can't. not to mention the metagame of lower tier characters is less developed, so we don't know what a perfect character would play like.

 

[Purple]

you just by frame data ocean.

Tournament placings have flaws (brackets, who plays who, skill levels, etc.)

 

[Ocean]

you just by frame data ocean.

Tournament placings have flaws (brackets, who plays who, skill levels, etc.)

frame data doesn't take into account mindset, mindgames, ect. it has more flaws then measuring by tournaments.

I think you're missing the part where no one is a perfect player. there is absolutely no reason to judge something for people who are perfect if no one is perfect.

 

[ZIO]

Clearly, you've never heard of M2K.

 

[Purple]

frame data doesn't take into account mindset, mindgames, ect. it has more flaws then measuring by tournaments.

I think you're missing the part where no one is a perfect player. there is absolutely no reason to judge something for people who are perfect if no one is perfect.

that's not the point, it's by technical data, and that's it. Tier lists will constantly change if it's based off tournaments, which means the metagame will fully develop.

 

[Ocean]

that's not the point, it's by technical data, and that's it. Tier lists will constantly change if it's based off tournaments, which means the metagame will fully develop.

tier lists are suppose to change. notice how we have had multiple ones?

 

[Caleb Wolfbrand]

Jigglypuff was always top-tier material IMO, he just never had the right players on him. It's like if the Ice Climbers never had Chu Dat.

I prefer tiers based on results instead of saying "well theoretically, x has advantage over z" because for some reason, especially in Smash Bros games, that **** doesn't always add up right.

 

[Purple]

tier lists are suppose to change. notice how we have had multiple ones?

no they aren't. The only time they would change if there's a technical reason as to why it should change.

You guys keep telling me that these characters are better because a certain person plays them? People will constantly be better or worse than one another, so with that being known, we will almost never know how the matchup will work with two evenly skilled players.
Assuming mango is the best in the world, he is more skilled that m2k, if mango's jiggs is playing m2k's fox, there's a flaw in matchup data there, one of them is more skilled than the other. The information is null in void.

That's why it should be made off of theoretical matchups not tournaments.

What if there's a good random neutral for jiggs? a good neutral for fox? there are a lot of things to account for that don't happen in EVERY match in tournament.

 

[Umby]

no they aren't. The only time they would change if there's a technical reason as to why it should change.

You guys keep telling me that these characters are better because a certain person plays them? People will constantly be better or worse than one another, so with that being known, we will almost never know how the matchup will work with two evenly skilled players.
Assuming mango is the best in the world, he is more skilled that m2k, if mango's jiggs is playing m2k's fox, there's a flaw in matchup data there, one of them is more skilled than the other. The information is null in void.

That's why it should be made off of theoretical matchups not tournaments.

What if there's a good random neutral for jiggs? a good neutral for fox? there are a lot of things to account for that don't happen in EVERY match in tournament.

Tier lists are definitely supposed to change. They reflect the CURRENT metagame, after all, which is undeniably often changing. That's your technical reasoning for changing.

As far as Jiggs in Melee, I think the point being made is that even when there's a difference in skill level, with as high level play as M2K vs Mango, you're still going to see the potential cap in each character they play. That's not necessarily grounds for changing the tier list until you factor in something Dark Sonic's post. pretty much sums it up to "X character ***** Y character because everyone's been doing it wrong. This guy, however, even if he's just a better player than everyone, shows everyone how you SHOULD do it." Now Jiggs vs Marth is just one matchup. But if an analysis of Mango's Jiggs shows that she has even further advantages on more matchups and they outweigh her overall disadvantages, then no doubt that would be grounds for giving her a boost up the tiers.

Theoretical matchups and tournament results should be factored in proportionately. Maybe about a 65/35 ratio when given consideration. Yes, having better MUs are what make most top/high tiers top/high tier, but with any given character, if you can't see how they're doing in high level play, you're not going to get an accurate depiction on where they should be in the tier list. That's why there's always so much controversy amongst the placings of low tiers. When you take results from large/major tournaments, you get matchups between a wider variety of good players, and it gives you an idea of just how much harder some characters have to work to get anywhere in tournament.

That last part of your post is pretty much just part of a matchup characteristic. <Meta Knight>Unless a character is just so dominant that he/she's highly likely to win the first match, counterpicked and loses the second match, then can counterpick on a wide variety of stages and have a guaranteed high advantage, then stages don't factor in too much when considering tiers. Most matchup analyses are based on what it would look like on solid ground and clear skies/a few platforms anyway.

 

[Criosphinx]

This conversation is stupid as hell.

If we are basing this on "frame data" which I assume you mean to suggest playing at the frame perfect level. This is irrelevant, and quite honestly really dumb. If you want to talk about absolutely flawless gameplay, then you'll have Fox SHDL, then use shine to clash any approaching move, into whatever zero to death is possible because at the epitome of potential, it's not a game, it's just numbers.

The tier lists aren't based off of direct tournament placement (unless Brawl did something like that and it wouldn't surprise me), they're based off the current meta weighed against the potential that a character has. Jigglypuff has all right and reason to rise in the ranks. The people defining the term "best" right now are using her in ways that make 2005-6 Jiggs look archaic. Not to disrespect King, he played a pivotal role in the definition of Jigglypuff as a character. Similarly, Marth's complete under representation in tournaments is causing him to stagnate honestly, as M2K tries wistfully to adapt a character almost single handedly, and is stumbling in the process.

I blame brawl for that.

I really thought that anyone with an at least middle school thinking capacity could look at a tier list and not get so utterly confused.

 

[The Alpha Gundam]

A tier list is one in which we can determine how good a character is - not how good the majority of the people who play the character are.

I mean if you want to go of a tier list based on tourney results then I guess you should call it a "player results tier list" and that doesn't really answer the question of which character is actually better.

@Umby: so a tier list should change with the metagame. With that if M2K phased out of Melee that means by your logic that Marth should drop some spots on the tier list even though we know full well that does not change his match ups at all.

 

[Gerbil]

I can imagine SRK coming here

"LOL silly smash scrubs can't even do a tier list right"

I support Alpha's post in the fullest.

 

[Umby]

A tier list is one in which we can determine how good a character is - not how good the majority of the people who play the character are.

I mean if you want to go of a tier list based on tourney results then I guess you should call it a "player results tier list" and that doesn't really answer the question of which character is actually better.

@Umby: so a tier list should change with the metagame. With that if M2K phased out of Melee that means by your logic that Marth should drop some spots on the tier list even though we know full well that does not change his match ups at all.

M2K dropping out of Melee =/= changing the metagame. It might alter Marth's tournament results a bit, but the metagame is more in tie with matchups and discovered character ability. That might look silly when I say that tournament results should factor in, but they don't weigh in on tiers as much as matchups.

A "change in the metagame" would refer more to people learning they can actually deal with some of the previously higher tiered characters (see why Game and Watch dropped in Brawl) or when a character's game advance due to new strategy or AT (see why ICs rise in both games).

And I think I have to emphasize a fact, since some people seem to be missing it - the current tier lists aren't made up solely off of tournament results. Together those and matchups are and should be taken into consideration when creating the lists.

 

[The Alpha Gundam]

M2K dropping out of Melee =/= changing the metagame. It might alter Marth's tournament results a bit, but the metagame is more in tie with matchups and discovered character ability. That might look silly when I say that tournament results should factor in, but they don't weigh in on tiers as much as matchups.

A "change in the metagame" would refer more to people learning they can actually deal with some of the previously higher tiered characters (see why Game and Watch dropped in Brawl) or when a character's game advance due to new strategy or AT (see why ICs rise in both games).

And I think I have to emphasize a fact, since some people seem to be missing it - the current tier lists aren't made up solely off of tournament results. Together those and matchups are and should be taken into consideration when creating the lists.

I can see why you would want to bring in Tourney results but there are some major flaws with using those results. One example is Fox and Sheik *Sheik was higher tier than Fox at one point* and why Fox got place higher on the tier list than sheik. Most matchup guides will show you that Sheik on average tends to be the harder matchup when comparing to Fox. Examples would be like Marth Ganon Samus and just about any low tier character lol. So why did Sheik go down the tier list as oppose to Fox going up? Tourney Results. There are simply more Fox players running around Upsmashing everyone then there are sheiks Chaingrabbing you to death. With that Fox has a greater chance of placing higher in tournament than sheik and thus we come to the Smash tier list lol.

 

[Umby]

I can see why you would want to bring in Tourney results but there are some major flaws with using those results. One example is Fox and Sheik *Sheik was higher tier than Fox at one point* and why Fox got place higher on the tier list than sheik. Most matchup guides will show you that Sheik on average tends to be the harder matchup when comparing to Fox. Examples would be like Marth Ganon Samus and just about any low tier character lol. So why did Sheik go down the tier list as oppose to Fox going up? Tourney Results. There are simply more Fox players running around Upsmashing everyone then there are sheiks Chaingrabbing you to death. With that Fox has a greater chance of placing higher in tournament than sheik and thus we come to the Smash tier list lol.

I'm not denying that being a flaw in factoring in tourney results, but you can't deny that said factor isn't relevant. It's just people have been weighing it in too much when creating the list.

 

[ph00tbag]

Tires don exits.

 

[Umby]

ph00t your avatar is amazing.

 

[XIF]

everyone in this thread has it wrong.

I am smarter than everyone here.

/thread

 

[Purple]

This conversation is stupid as hell.

If we are basing this on "frame data" which I assume you mean to suggest playing at the frame perfect level. This is irrelevant, and quite honestly really dumb. If you want to talk about absolutely flawless gameplay, then you'll have Fox SHDL, then use shine to clash any approaching move, into whatever zero to death is possible because at the epitome of potential, it's not a game, it's just numbers.

.

In that sense of play tat would make fox always and forever the best correct?

Sooounds about right.


Anyways, i talked to sleepy about it and he steered me in the right direction, let's discuss this post.

Tournament result based tier lists are never accurate, and more than likely never will be, considered how players will like i said before, will be at different skill levels than one another. However, like umby and dark sonic both said, this does show that "hey, player A is playing the matchup differently, we should implement this". It shows that the matchup might need to be looked at again, but doesn't exactly change the matchup. For the time being, in the Jiggs example, Fox wlil probably have a worse matchup against jiggs (nothing tier drop worthy, but just a drop in that specific matchup). Eventually, i'm sure a skilled Fox player will be over to overcome Jiggs spacing and the tier lists will change all over again.

Crisophinx to an extent they are based of tournament results, whenever a high tier character wins at a tournament, they find new ats for that character to justify them being moved up IMO, there is less bias towards the character. Which is perfectly fine, but it leaves low tiers with no real research, which i have a problem with.

 

[Criosphinx]

That's because low tiers aren't relevant in a competitive setting.

It's not Brawl, it's not melee. It's competitive nature that causes the definition of tier lists. The weaker characters always suffer underrepresentation.

 

[Purple]

Does that mean that it shouldn't be researched? We're one of the few communities that do low tier tournaments.

 

[AlphaZealot]

no they aren't. The only time they would change if there's a technical reason as to why it should change.

Every fighting game community has an evolving tier list. It is physically impossible to predict a characters potential except by using the knowledge you have built up to that point in time. I don't know what you mean by "technical reason" but I'm assuming in you mean some new discovery. Guess what? There are ALWAYS new discoveries, that is why the tier list changes to much. Melee has been around for a long, long time now. Yet even with Melee it is possible that we didn't really understand everything, and then one day we may see a player do something (Armada) that up to that point we didn't realize that character was capable of.

Now, Armada's play in itself doesn't mean anything because he is an outlier. However, if other Peach's copy what he did, see what he did, and change their playstyles and find similar success, then we should give Peach a boost in the tier list to go along with it because it reflects that we now know more about the character and what it was capable of then a week ago, and more importantly, we confirmed this hypothesis by seeing other players do it.

You guys keep telling me that these characters are better because a certain person plays them? People will constantly be better or worse than one another, so with that being known, we will almost never know how the matchup will work with two evenly skilled players.

1) Tier lists aren't made for incompetent people. They are made for people that at the very least have an understanding of their character. It is impossible to make a tier list for people who, say, are completely incapable of even recovering.

2) You really don't think you know how the Pichu vs Sheik MU works?

Assuming mango is the best in the world, he is more skilled that m2k, if mango's jiggs is playing m2k's fox, there's a flaw in matchup data there, one of them is more skilled than the other. The information is null in void.

When you make a tier list the tippity top players are often meaningless unless other players can mimic their results. When it was just Ken winning with Marth, then Marth really wasn't that great. We could easily point to player skill cause there were no other Marth's in the country doing anything notable. Then Azen came. Then M2K. Guess we were wrong, Marth is a really good character.

There is also such a thing as "evenly skilled". I don't know about you, but when I play someone I can sense whether they are on my level. Below me. Above me. Whatever. The character doesn't mask how well a person thinks.

That's why it should be made off of theoretical matchups not tournaments.

I'm not much of a scientist, but aren't theories confirmed or thrown away based on evidence? How is it you are forming your "theories" anyways? If not based on results of not just your own personal matches but what you witness happening around you?

With your logic you could be handed a peice of paper with all the frame data and construct a tier list without ever having witnessed a match. I bet your tier list would suck *** to.

What if there's a good random neutral for jiggs? a good neutral for fox? there are a lot of things to account for that don't happen in EVERY match in tournament.

Melee's stage list has been so narrowed that, no, there really isn't that much left to account for. The most "crazy" stages are Brinstar and Cruise and those are pretty tame all things considered.

However, one tournament is meaningless in terms of data. Tier lists are also dependent on trends. If something happens once, great. Lets see it happen again and again so we know what is happening is accurate.

Eventually, i'm sure a skilled Fox player will be over to overcome Jiggs spacing and the tier lists will change all over again.

So based on your theories we may have to wait a decade just to confirm the results? What if what you say never happens? What a great tier list you made, look at all the value it has! It accurately predicts a metagame that will occur 100 years into the future! That is SO useful in showing how the characters stack up right now.

Where do you draw the line? When do you admit that your theory is just plain wrong? How do you confirm that your theory is right?

oh....results...

To bad you don't want to use them for your tier list, right?

---

So here are the facts.

1) Tier lists will always change.
Why?
Because it is impossible to predict how a character will develop when the game comes out of the box. Frames help but are more or less just a semi-useful tool. No amount of frame data would have informed you that Jigglypuff had the moves to dominate Melee.

2) Tiers are made up of a variety of factors. If it were JUST tournament results then we would just use Ankoku's list. Instead though, its the results with analysis of WHY those results occurred. It is entirely possible on Ankoku's list that a character can be ranked in the top 20, yet only ONE player in the world contributed to those results. Such a lapse would be apparent upon interpretation and you could then ***** that this character is getting help from a very good player (Taj's Mewtwo anyone?).

 

[Rayku]

(Taj's Mewtwo anyone?).

Isn't Taj's Mewtwo right above Peach on the tier list?

lol @ Armada doing so well and Taj not doing as well.

 

[The Alpha Gundam]

A tier list is how good a character is vs the rest of the cast.
Even with Armada doing so well with peach it still doesn't address how she squares off vs the rest of the cast. I got more to say but i have to run to class.

 

[Purple]

AlphaZealot, read my second relatively large post in this thread.

btw i read your post and i agree with everything you said.

 

[ama(m/t)]

shut up no one wants to read your posts

 

[Purple]

;_;

 

[ZIO]

Holy balls! Did AZ just post in here?

WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING WRONG!?!