No more top tiers

[Komotonoto]

"No more Kirby"
/bread

 

[Baby_Sneak]

I never said MU spreads exist. Any character can beat any character. You can also have MU spreads without having a tier list lol. Its called Rock Paper Scissors. Rock has 100-0 matchup vs Scissors and Paper has a 100-0 matchup vs Rock, all while Scissors has a 100-0 matchup vs Paper. Are you going to tell me RPS aren't all in the same tier?

Regardless, you must be missing my point. No one is good enough to even begin thinking about a matchup spread chart nevermind a tier list. At the base level no one knows anything about this game and its severely underdeveloped. This game is 2 years old, go look at melees tier list 2 years after it came out and look at it now. Hell, that tier list has changed a **** ton from 2008 to now. Every year everyone thought that tier list was the definitive tier list, and the next year they always found out they were wrong and people like you who argued it faithfully looked like fools. Same happens in 64 and same will continue to happen. The tier list was created so melee fanboys had something to relate to in 64 and give some ****ty half ***** explanation of how this game works. Its made so people can have excuses instead of figuring out solutions and truly understanding the game. There is no tier list, only an excuse list.

For reference: Changes in melee tier list https://blog.forrestthewoods.com/the-unbalanced-design-of-super-smash-brothers-3fbc9b346e15

This has to be a joke.

Any character can beat any character, but there's obvious advantages and disadvantages in each MU, especially at the top level and those disadvantages are going to be more exploited at that level. the Rock Paper Scissors analogy is dumb, don't even feel like having to make a long explanation on why (TLDR: not every character is hard countered by another).

And tier list is the current outlook on who's the best character down to the worst; nothing more nothing less. There's truth to it, but nothing to be taken as gospel (especially if it's something with a fresh meta). And let's bring up the melee tier list made early. What's funny about that instead sheik stayed top tier from the beginning til now. So, even though it was off, there was some truth behind it from day one.

like, I don't even know. I just been hearing a whole bunch of crap from the beginning of this argument and it just seems like since everyone is saying "this game is sooo underdeveloped," (wario, boom, tacos, isai, mariguas, kero, and others has been developing the game at a fast pace. Isai has been developing the game since forever.) they're using it as an excuse to say that a tier list doesn't exist for this game instead of sayin any tier list made at this moment should be taken with a grain of salt. That's my 2cents.

 

[Shears]

This has to be a joke.

Any character can beat any character, but there's obvious advantages and disadvantages in each MU, especially at the top level and those disadvantages are going to be more exploited at that level. the Rock Paper Scissors analogy is dumb, don't even feel like having to make a long explanation on why (TLDR: not every character is hard countered by another).

And tier list is the current outlook on who's the best character down to the worst; nothing more nothing less. There's truth to it, but nothing to be taken as gospel (especially if it's something with a fresh meta). And let's bring up the melee tier list made early. What's funny about that instead sheik stayed top tier from the beginning til now. So, even though it was off, there was some truth behind it from day one.

like, I don't even know. I just been hearing a whole bunch of crap from the beginning of this argument and it just seems like since everyone is saying "this game is sooo underdeveloped," (wario, boom, tacos, isai, mariguas, kero, and others has been developing the game at a fast pace. Isai has been developing the game since forever.) they're using it as an excuse to say that a tier list doesn't exist for this game instead of sayin any tier list made at this moment should be taken with a grain of salt. That's my 2cents.

No character has a guaranteed win in any matchup. I don't think you even remotely begin to understand this game. Every character is viable.

 

[Baby_Sneak]

No character has a guaranteed win in any matchup. I don't think you even remotely begin to understand this game. Every character is viable.

Yooooooo LUL when did I ever say this? Never did I say any character has a guaranteed win. Nor did I say there's a non-viable character in 64 (Samus tho, but I would like to see what she's able to do). There's a best character and a worst character and that alone proves the existence of a tier list, regardless if the game is underdeveloped or not (because when the game becomes developed, we'll have a good grasp on who's the best and the worst).

 

[Uair]

Yooooooo LUL when did I ever say this? Never did I say any character has a guaranteed win. Nor did I say there's a non-viable character in 64 (Samus tho, but I would like to see what she's able to do). There's a best character and a worst character and that alone proves the existence of a tier list, regardless if the game is underdeveloped or not (because when the game becomes developed, we'll have a good grasp on who's the best and the worst).

There is no best or worst character. Link can punish Pikachu on dreamland. There are literal viable situations on DL where link easily punishes pikachu.

The same goes for any matchup, even Jiggly vs Luigi jiggly can punish luigi, that matchup isn't even that hard because of jiggly's insanair.

There is no single worst or single best character.

 

[NTA]

dont quote me *****. ill **** ur **** up real bad like i did gav in 2018

 

[B Link]

Here are some thoughts I've had on tier lists and perfect play (highest level play possible) for a while. Don't read if you don't like thinking deeply:

Spoiler

All Possible Results between Two Perfect Players

1) In dittos, if both players are forced to approach and not just evade all attacks the entire match, a Rock Paper Scissors game must occur prior to the match to determine port priority, since the end result must be that both players hit each other into a blastzone at the exact same frame, meaning the player with the lower port number will win
- If the RPS game/s are allowed infinite time to decide moves, the match will end up in a tie due to an infinite level Yomi mind game match which lasts for eternity (both players continue to deepen their Yomi selection one level further each time the opponent does the same, ad infinitum)
- If finite time, then they'll just end up both releasing the same move because they are both perfect and so they must draw, or else one of them is not perfect if there is a winner and a loser in the end

2) In non-ditto matches, with both players FORCED to approach or be approached (can be because of small map size like Dreamland or rule stating both players must approach on a big map like Hyrule), the following will happen: even if one player is perfect, he will be limited by the character selected. If no matter what he does with that character, the result is a loss given perfect play by his opponent (given the entirety of quadrillion billion or whatever situations that exist in the game), he will end up losing due to "the rules of the game" (game coding, polygon shapes, etc.) making him lose. Note that this can happen even if that player can accurately predict with 100% success what his opponent will do for obvious reasons.

Thus, even though a player is perfectly talented, if he is forced to approach or be approached with an inferior character, he will still lose because the rules of the game were not in his favour.

I think the inferior character(s) will be the ones whose best attack(s) have the slowest attack release time, shortest range, and lowest damage. Don't feel on elaborating why but this should be obvious why.

It could also come down to character movement: if a character gets "locked down" into an inferior situation, no matter what option they select in the entirety of quadrillion billion options or whatever, then that character must be inferior to the other character who caused that lock down situation.

It's basically like playing Tic Tac Toe with one player saying "ok but the rules are that no matter what you do (or don't do) I win." For example, I get to play the first three moves. No matter who you are, whether you are a god or a perfect being or whatever, if you agree to those kinds of rules you will lose no matter what.

It's analogical to SSB: if you agree to play the game with X character vs Y character, you might be agreeing to a game such that no matter what you do, or how perfect you play, you will lose due to the "rules of the game" (as defined by the coding of the game, the polygon designs, etc.).

EDIT: Actually a god could still win that tic tac toe game if he bent the rules of logic to his advantage, but if he agrees not to bend those rules prior to the match, the god still cannot win.

 

[Ælude]

Tier list arguments exist because everyone seems to have a different opinion on what one actually is. We defend what one means to us and the arguments are recycled and regurgitated for all eternity.

All characters are viable but not all are created equally. If we can not at least agree on this then nothing can be resolved.

 

[Shears]

All characters are viable but not all are created equally. If we can not at least agree on this then nothing can be resolved.

That doesn't mean there is a tier list. Rock, Paper, and Scissors are not created equally, yet there is no RPS tier list and all are viable.

 

[Grahamaglam]

Rock, Paper, and Scissors are not created equally, yet there is no RPS tier list and all are viable

I don't think I have ever read a more incorrect sentence.

 

[Shears]

I don't think I have ever read a more incorrect sentence.

What is incorrect about it? Are you saying rock=paper=scissors? Because they are all clearly different and therefore not equal. Are you saying there is a RPS tier list? Because there is definitely not a RPS tier list and all are indeed viable. So what is incorrect?

 

[Uair]

rock paper and scissors can only attack one of each other, therefor there will always be another who can attack them. The implication is the matchup will always be favorable to whoever can beat who. Therefor rating Rock Paper or Scissors as tiers would be unsound.

I think graqmahlama is refuting his own argument.

 

[Battlecow]

Here are some thoughts I've had on tier lists and perfect play (highest level play possible) for a while. Don't read if you don't like thinking deeply:

Spoiler

All Possible Results between Two Perfect Players

1) In dittos, if both players are forced to approach and not just evade all attacks the entire match, a Rock Paper Scissors game must occur prior to the match to determine port priority, since the end result must be that both players hit each other into a blastzone at the exact same frame, meaning the player with the lower port number will win
- If the RPS game/s are allowed infinite time to decide moves, the match will end up in a tie due to an infinite level Yomi mind game match which lasts for eternity (both players continue to deepen their Yomi selection one level further each time the opponent does the same, ad infinitum)
- If finite time, then they'll just end up both releasing the same move because they are both perfect and so they must draw, or else one of them is not perfect if there is a winner and a loser in the end

2) In non-ditto matches, with both players FORCED to approach or be approached (can be because of small map size like Dreamland or rule stating both players must approach on a big map like Hyrule), the following will happen: even if one player is perfect, he will be limited by the character selected. If no matter what he does with that character, the result is a loss given perfect play by his opponent (given the entirety of quadrillion billion or whatever situations that exist in the game), he will end up losing due to "the rules of the game" (game coding, polygon shapes, etc.) making him lose. Note that this can happen even if that player can accurately predict with 100% success what his opponent will do for obvious reasons.

Thus, even though a player is perfectly talented, if he is forced to approach or be approached with an inferior character, he will still lose because the rules of the game were not in his favour.

I think the inferior character(s) will be the ones whose best attack(s) have the slowest attack release time, shortest range, and lowest damage. Don't feel on elaborating why but this should be obvious why.

It could also come down to character movement: if a character gets "locked down" into an inferior situation, no matter what option they select in the entirety of quadrillion billion options or whatever, then that character must be inferior to the other character who caused that lock down situation.

It's basically like playing Tic Tac Toe with one player saying "ok but the rules are that no matter what you do (or don't do) I win." For example, I get to play the first three moves. No matter who you are, whether you are a god or a perfect being or whatever, if you agree to those kinds of rules you will lose no matter what.

It's analogical to SSB: if you agree to play the game with X character vs Y character, you might be agreeing to a game such that no matter what you do, or how perfect you play, you will lose due to the "rules of the game" (as defined by the coding of the game, the polygon designs, etc.).

EDIT: Actually a god could still win that tic tac toe game if he bent the rules of logic to his advantage, but if he agrees not to bend those rules prior to the match, the god still cannot win.

Yeah but this is true of every game that doesn't involve an element of randomness.

And of course it goes without saying that a game can be good even if it isn't good at "perfect" levels of play. There are things that we can say with a fair amount of certainty that no human will ever be able to do--like react to something one frame after it happens, for example. So if we define smash as having some kind of athletic component like that, it stops being like a "solved" game like chess or whatever. That said, it's possible (maybe even probable idk cuz idk enough about the game and maybe no one does altho a bunch of people probably think they do) that at some human level of play some or most or even all non-ditto matchups are "solved," practically speaking.

This is why no one would ever say something like "beach volleyball is broken, the server wins every time." The system in which that game occurs (the universe) is so complicated that until someone with a PhD in physics (or I guess ballin4life) tells me otherwise I'm just going to assume that there's some randomness involved including the genetic or circumstantial randomness that we call skill.

And smash also kinda occurs in that universe. You could probably build a computer that would beat everybody, but that's like building a giant unbeatable beach volleyball robot.

 

[Roy.]

Listen! We all have bad recovery that's why we're all low tier. That's also why Pikachu's up+b should do damage. Thanks Shears!

 

[Roy.]

Now, please go and get spiked by a Kirby off of dreamland and please, bump the side while you're at it.