Official 2010-2011 Super Smash Bros. Melee MBR Tier List

[KAOSTAR]

I don't even understand how that post even responds to me lol. Theorycraft is annoying, data from tournaments and high-level players of the bad characters' opinions would be used to determine match-ups.
Theorycraft is what made KAOSTAR get Icy to make Mewtwo vs. DK in Mewtwo's favor. I mean, what?

so since I was theory crafting, what were you doing, spitin pure facts lol.

ive heard "mewtwo sucks just win" too many times.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Matchups, technically speaking, are static forever. The characters themselves never change, just the degree to which we understand them. This game being in its 10th year, I feel like we more or less are familiar with the higher tiered matchups in and out. Thus, if we were ever to sit down and make a truly objective matchup chart, theoretically (unless something gamebreaking was discovered) it should never change.

Despite that, you can hardly deny that the metagame has changed. Marth vs fox, sheik, falco etc is something static overall. People have their different opinions, but by around '08 those 4 characters were advanced enough at a top level that our concepts of their matchups haven't changed since then. Fox and falco vs marth since that time period has pretty much always been considered more or less even (leaning towards one side or the other), and sheik has always been considered to have around a 60:40 (maybe a bit more) advantage vs marth.

Marth really hasn't changed since back in 2008, and neither have his matchups. Despite that, he went from King of melee (with m2k) to hardly ever seen anymore. That's a great example of the metagame changing without the matchups really changing at all.

I was loving your posts until right around here. The reason why the metagame changes is because matchups change or at least how we play them. No, they don't change on the disc but there is a submeta for each matchup. People didn't know how to edgeguard offstage with Marth pre-M2K. That development drastically changed how people play Marth's matchups and therefore how good Marth is at fighting say, Fox. People didn't know some of the gimps they know now on Falcon. Adding that into Marth's game changed the matchup, and subsequently the ratio we would give to that matchup.

Matchups, just like tier lists, are entirely based on how we play them right now.

 

[Druggedfox]

I think I've said this 3-4 times in just the last page: we're at the point after 10 years of this game being out, that we know the ins and outs of pretty much every important matchup.

That pretty much addresses your entire post. Nowadays, the matchups aren't going anywhere, unless something gamebreaking is discovered.

So, theoretically, yes I see your point, but I already knew this. In practice, your post would be much more applicable in maybe 2007. For the last time in two pages: matchups nowadays are static, and will remain so unless something particularly gamebreaking is somehow discovered. As I mentioned, I don't think the fox/falco/marth/sheik matchups have seriously changed from 2008-2010, and there's nothing to suggest they ever will change.

Thanks for liking my past posts =D I hope that you realize what I'm saying and like this one as well

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I think I've said this 3-4 times in just the last page: we're at the point after 10 years of this game being out, that we know the ins and outs of pretty much every important matchup.

That pretty much addresses your entire post. Nowadays, the matchups aren't going anywhere, unless something gamebreaking is discovered.

So, theoretically, yes I see your point, but I already knew this. In practice, your post would be much more applicable in maybe 2007. For the last time in two pages: matchups nowadays are static, and will remain so unless something particularly gamebreaking is somehow discovered. As I mentioned, I don't think the fox/falco/marth/sheik matchups have seriously changed from 2008-2010, and there's nothing to suggest they ever will change.

Thanks for liking my past posts =D I hope that you realize what I'm saying and like this one as well

Right. And what I am saying is that I disagree with that. I think there has been plenty of progression in those matchups post-2008.

Now, the rate of change is probably slower than in 2005, but I think over an extended period of time, yes, the matchups change. Besides, we never know of a drastic change until it happens; I think it is unwise to think those matchups won't change again.

 

[Geist]

I feel like throwing my two cents out here, feel free to ignore.

If the metagame is changing, the matchups will inevitably change with it, albeit subtly.
Games usually go through trends where certain mechanics become more emphasized in the metagame than others, usually caused by the players that are ahead of the game at the time.
A character doesn't change necessarily, but small tweaks change certain outcomes in matchups, eg, countering a specific common approach, etc. Lots of players are proving that there are still new things to be utilized with different characters, so I wouldn't call it completely static.

Honestly though, it doesn't seem to be a negative idea to have a stable tier list. The game's been out near 10 years, tier lists up to this point aren't really anything more than novelty.

 

[The Good Doctor]

Stuff

Dude, I love you.
Homo all dayyyy!

 

[Wari]

OFFTOPIC (SORRY!!):

first of all, hi... im from venezuela, im gonna travel to South CA in 2 days and i would like to play there (im a good player), could anybody hlp me to find ppl to play with? i'll stay in LA down town, near to stapple center... i dont want to waste this oportunity *-*

im apologize for this but i didnt know where else to post this U.u

My msn: Elrub_96@hot..
Skype: Elrub_96

 

[Stevo]

who, the ****, are you?

was that for or against DK evolving since 2005?

 

[P. O. F.]

Here is why MU Charts > Then Tournament Results.

Please, do here me out on this one.

When assembling a tier list we want to examine and analyze every single character to the utmost accuracy, correct? We want to be as close to as humanly possible that the list that we create is indeed accurate. A tier list is simply a measure of how good that "character" is, right? When put into a competitive aspect character A will be better than character B, right?

Lets use three characters to convey this example:

Fox
Jigs
Luigi

-Fox is an amazing character. HE is INCREDIBLY POPULAR. but his tournament performance is a little down. Why is he still THE BEST then? Because we all evaluate Fox accurately and look at his MUS. (Think about the mid to bottom parts of the tier list. Why are they so BAD for each and every character and so utterly different? Because we don't take the time to look at those characters.)

-Jigs isn't as popular all around but she does great in tournaments w the FEW that use her. (So because TWO people are good with a character that makes them god tier? This is wrong because then we can't say the other characters are bad if they are not being used. If they are not shown in tournaments they are automatically ****ty characters?)

-Luigi isn't used as much as the two but we really haven't seen much evidence to say that he is "bad." No one plays him....so how can we accurately determine how viable he is in tournament if people do not use him?

What I'm getting at here is that Match Up Charts ARE important because they include characters that are not popular within tournaments and fairly evaluate how good they are. We all also have to consider that it is the MATCH UPS that we think about when WE AS INDIVIDUALS enter a tournament.

We don't go "Well, MaNg0 beats m2k's Marth all the time so this is in jigs favor." No, this is wrong...and stupid. It matters as a WHOLE what the community thinks. Not just two people who dominate. You all seem to forget that these jigs players could probably pick up any character and do close to if not, just as well without jigglypuff. (Mango proved this) Ever stop and think that it is NOT the CHARACTER that is good but it is the PLAYER WHO IS PLAYING THE MATCH UP? This stems back to my argument before with Ryu being the best in SF4 because of daigo....




When Armada first beat M2K at Genesis did anyone start thinking "****! Peach beats Marth dude." No. So why are people doing it for Jigglypuff? Maybe because we all actually know some of marths match ups?

Also, why isn't peach going up? Armada ***** tournaments....


If you guys haven't seen the fail in this tier list yet than you're pretty hopeless.

To those of you who agree with me or at least see my perspective/points: Good ****.

 

[Pink Reaper]

If no one uses Luigi how can you properly rank his match ups?

 

[Teczer0]

OFFTOPIC (SORRY!!):

first of all, hi... im from venezuela, im gonna travel to South CA in 2 days and i would like to play there (im a good player), could anybody hlp me to find ppl to play with? i'll stay in LA down town, near to stapple center... i dont want to waste this oportunity *-*

im apologize for this but i didnt know where else to post this U.u

My msn: Elrub_96@hot..
Skype: Elrub_96

Make this post or a thread or something here:

http://www.smashboards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=94

Post there for finding people in your area or whatnot.

 

[t3h Icy]

Seeing that numerous people are arguing that Match-Up Charts are more useful than tourney results, perhaps you guys can help out and we can get this rolling. n_n

 

[Laijin]

P.O.F. makes an excellent point.
I completely agree.
We are the only fighting game community in the world that bases our tier list off of tournament results, while everyone else uses MU charts.

Why are we so different? It doesn't make sense.


The main problem IS the fact that since only a few people actually play certain characters, it might be harder to accurately judge their MUs. Even so, an attempt should be made to make things as accurate as possible. I do believe posting in each character forum is a step forward

 

[TheGoat]

in the world that bases our tier list off of tournament results, while everyone else uses MU charts.

How does that make them better/more accurate than us?

Keep in mind ssbm is far from the typical fighting game.

I do believe posting in each character forum is a step forward

I think it's an interesting proposal, but we still get the same people doing the exact same thing, just in separate forums.

 

[Strong Badam]

so since I was theory crafting, what were you doing, spitin pure facts lol.

ive heard "mewtwo sucks just win" too many times.

as unlikely as it sounds, actual match-up experience as well as a decent amount of experience using Mewtwo myself.

 

[Laijin]

How does that make them better/more accurate than us?

Keep in mind ssbm is far from the typical fighting game.



I think it's an interesting proposal, but we still get the same people doing the exact same thing, just in separate forums.

SSBM, in the end, is a fighting game.
Its not far too different in other fighters when we look at it like this. Every other fighter has advancements in their metagames as well, so its not like we're in some exclusive club.

Basing tiers off of MUs rather than pure tournament placements does make it more accurate. If character X is clearly not as good as the other characters in the game but yet 1 or 2 players does really well with character X, why should character X be higher on the tier list than character Y that has overall better match ups than him, therefore making character Y the better character in the game but less people use him.

With the way things are now, this is how its panning out to be

 

[Brookman]

I'm taking my place here; I'll be back with something relavent.

Why is StrongBad a mod?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The opinions thing doesn't work because so many people will insist on what they believe is correct, without having legitimate reasoning and/or a sufficient understanding of the metagame.

which is why a diverse group of intellectual type fellows with lots of game experience talk about it and vote

The tier list should be based upon physical evidence and research, and most of the smash community form their opinions without much/any of this.[/QUOTE]

Feel free to do that. You can be famous and name the type of chart after yourself.

 

[Strong Badam]

The Goat Chart, rofl. I want to see this happen.

 

[TheGoat]

SSBM, in the end, is a fighting game.
Its not far too different in other fighters when we look at it like this. Every other fighter has advancements in their metagames as well, so its not like we're in some exclusive club.

Basing tiers off of MUs rather than pure tournament placements does make it more accurate. If character X is clearly not as good as the other characters in the game but yet 1 or 2 players does really well with character X, why should character X be higher on the tier list than character Y that has overall better match ups than him, therefore making character Y the better character in the game but less people use him.

With the way things are now, this is how its panning out to be

Just because it is categorized as a fighting game doesn't mean it needs have its tier lists structured similarly to other fighting games.

But more importantly, I am still convinced that matchups don't have as much weight behind them as tournament results do. Matchups result from discussion, review, theory, etc. but they are very subjective and are always open to debate. Tournaments results, while certainly not completely reliable, are physical evidence of how well characters are placing. Like it has been stated numerous times before, the MBR tier list reflects gameplay at the highest competitive level at the current metagame.

which is why a diverse group of intellectual type fellows with lots of game experience talk about it and vote

The tier list should be based upon physical evidence and research, and most of the smash community form their opinions without much/any of this.

I was referring the the "opinion" thing as a general consensus from the whole smashbords community, and that certainly wouldn't work out. I wasn't referring to the MBR. I know most of the MBR members know very well what they are talking about, but I'm the kind of person who would rather see the explanations and evidence put forth for the tier list, instead of just buying whatever is put out there.

Feel free to do that. You can be famous and name the type of chart after yourself.

The Goat Chart, rofl. I want to see this happen.

The Greatest chart Of All Time, sounds good. I'll spend the next ten years getting a phd in smash, and I will write my dissertation on the ssbm matchups. I just hope everyone will still be around then.

 

[Laijin]

Just because it is categorized as a fighting game doesn't mean it needs have its tier lists structured similarly to other fighting games.

But more importantly, I am still convinced that matchups don't have as much weight behind them as tournament results do. Matchups result from discussion, review, theory, etc. but they are very subjective and are always open to debate. Tournaments results, while certainly not completely reliable, are physical evidence of how well characters are placing. Like it has been stated numerous times before, the MBR tier list reflects gameplay at the highest competitive level at the current metagame.

I gave this example earlier but i'll use it again cause its such a good example lol.

Perfect example as to how other communities do it: Guilty Gear Accent Core. The lowest of low tiers(to give you an idea he is like Pichu tier), Holy Order Sol WINS, and I when I say Win, I mean literally..he WON 1st PLACE at one of the biggest nationals in the country.
That guy's win did not at all influence any tier list. He remained bottom tier because he sucks. So why do we have feel the need to move up a character's tier based off of ONE OR TWO players performance at a tournament? I mean honestly, can you guys think of any other high placing jigglypuff players besides Mango and Hbox? I mean really, just name one other. Oh thats right. You can't. Cause there are no others(Sure you can say Darc, King, etc etc. But have they won a national?) Can you guys name any other Zelda and Mewtwo players besides Cosmos and Taj that place as well as them? NO. Cause there are none.
So why do we, as a community, feel the need to move up a character's tier list spot based on the performance of one or two players. NOT A GROUP OF PEOPLE. Just..that one guy who does really well with character X but everyone else in the world still sucks with character X cause character X is actually not that good

My point from that rant is this(in case you didn't get it or you didn't read it):
A person playing a character that is doing well does not mean the character is good, it means that player is good. A player's skill does not entirely reflect how good a character is. Tournament results do have some influence yes, but basing it entirely on tournament results WILL exclude the characters that not played as much AND not accurately reflect how good a character is. Tournament results do influence because like you said, they offer physical evidence.

Match ups on the other hand are a collective opinion based on how a character generally performs against another character. While of course there is some opinion and it is a bit subjective, looking over the plain facts with one character vs another gets rid of most of the opinion because there is
only so much two people can disagree with until they ultimately hit a truth that cannot be overlooked:

Example: Fox vs Peach. The Fox player says Fox shouldn't lose because Fox can laser camp Peach all day. The Peach player can't really argue against that because Fox is much much faster than Peach and can successfully camp against her. The peach player especially cannot argue against this because it has been proven to be true time and time again.

That just a plain example, but do you see how this works? MU analysis is not entirely based on opinion, in fact there are hard facts within each match up that leads to the decision of how a how much actually is within the current metagame.

Also. I don't see why you feel the need to categorize melee as "similar at all to other fighting games". Sure its not, but when it really comes to down to it, it has plenty of similarities to normal fighting games. I take it you don't really play any other fighting games competitively(if so probably have not been doing so for too long?). Other communities don't use MU charts for no go reason. They use it because it works. Their metagames evolve too, probably not as frequent as ours, but they do and they make the correct adjustments based on the match ups on the current metagame.

 

[TheGoat]

I gave this example earlier but i'll use it again cause its such a good example lol.



My point from that rant is this(in case you didn't get it or you didn't read it):
A person playing a character that is doing well does not mean the character is good, it means that player is good. A player's skill does not entirely reflect how good a character is. Tournament results do have some influence yes, but basing it entirely on tournament results WILL exclude the characters that not played as much AND not accurately reflect how good a character is. Tournament results do influence because like you said, they offer physical evidence.

I did read it, just so that you are aware.
I disagree on this part; if any person is able to play a character well, it definitely says something about the character. Is the person somehow transforming himself into ssbm and playing as himself? No, the bottom line is that the character is being used, and that still stands.
However, I see your point. People are in way over their heads about jigglypuff at this point and time, I believe jiggs is considerably overrated.
About the Taj example; Taj placing so well in tournaments did not convince me that mewtwo was suddenly a godly character because of this. I simply think that he must be placed above certain characters (such as young link) because he has placed far better in competitive play, and in addition, we have not seen any of those lower characters doing anywhere near as well in competitive play any time recently. I understand matchups are valid, but you have to be able to draw the line somewhere and back up the matchups with data. For this example, it all came down to what actually happened in real competitive play, mewtwo playing as a better character competitively, and that is what the mbr tier list is about. If the other characters prove themselves to be worthy of tournament play, then the positions can be debatable.
So indeed, one person playing a character well doesn't mean the character is god tier, but it certainly makes a statement about the character itself.

Also-if one person shouldn't make a difference on a characters ranking on the tier list, then how many people are needed to change the ranking? Is there a magic number or something?

I do not believe in making a tier list solely out of tournament placings, but I think that needs to be given considerably more weight than matchups. The tier lists represent the current metagame, which might be changing regardless of what the matchups say.

Match ups on the other hand are a collective opinion based on how a character generally performs against another character. While of course there is some opinion and it is a bit subjective, looking over the plain facts with one character vs another gets rid of most of the opinion because there is
only so much two people can disagree with until they ultimately hit a truth that cannot be overlooked:

Example: Fox vs Peach. The Fox player says Fox shouldn't lose because Fox can laser camp Peach all day. The Peach player can't really argue against that because Fox is much much faster than Peach and can successfully camp against her. The peach player especially cannot argue against this because it has been proven to be true time and time again.

That just a plain example, but do you see how this works? MU analysis is not entirely based on opinion, in fact there are hard facts within each match up that leads to the decision of how a how much actually is within the current metagame.

Thanks for the example; however, that is one that is generally easily agreed upon. What about, say, falco vs marth? It's always up to debate, like will it be 50-50, 55-45, 60-40.
Indeed facts are taken into account while making matchups, but remember, what looks good on paper might not work in practice. For example, you could say marth chaingrabs and combos falco easily, but falco has lasers and shines, and such and such; this literally goes on forever. How does one come to a specific number there? It's realistically impossible to be "100% accurate", so to speak. I think matchups are better off as a guideline. I'm not shrugging them off, but again, they don't always reflect the actual outcomes with stunning accuracy.

Also. I don't see why you feel the need to categorize melee as "similar at all to other fighting games". Sure its not, but when it really comes to down to it, it has plenty of similarities to normal fighting games. I take it you don't really play any other fighting games competitively(if so probably have not been doing so for too long?). Other communities don't use MU charts for no go reason. They use it because it works. Their metagames evolve too, probably not as frequent as ours, but they do and they make the correct adjustments based on the match ups on the current metagame.

You are correct, I do not play other fighting games competitively. But I'm questioning the legitimacy of their matchup system when it is applied to ssbm. I'm saying that just because ssbm is a fighting game, doesn't mean that whatever works for, say, street fighter, is going to work for ssbm.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

TheGoat, I can run away and avoid conflict all day with pretty much any character. To take it a step further, I can attack carefully while not putting myself in danger. To take it a step further, I can attack carefully and without pattern while not putting myself in danger.

If I do those things as well or better than my opponent, does the character tier matter much? Not really. Ganon can beat fox by waiting and not over committing, simply spacing properly and punishing when fox oversteps.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Pretty sure fox has a gun with infinite ammo.

 

[Teczer0]

Pretty sure fox has a gun with infinite ammo.

I love this post LOL

And I think the tier list really over-represents jiggs as a whole. I can think of like.... 4 puff players maybe that do really well?

And reading this thread kinda confused me about tier lists since its become a discussion of how to build one.

If you're going to rank characters based on their representation of tournament placements why is it illogical to base lists on tournament results?

*shrugs*

I feel like if you're gonna base it on theory the discussion just goes into circles never accomplishing anything.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

^ I got an idea for a new ranking list on thursday, if i get an hour or two this weekend ima post up my work. Prepare to the plastic wrap so the couch doesn't get blood on it from your head exploding.

 

[TheGoat]

TheGoat, I can run away and avoid conflict all day with pretty much any character. To take it a step further, I can attack carefully while not putting myself in danger. To take it a step further, I can attack carefully and without pattern while not putting myself in danger.

Do it.

If I do those things as well or better than my opponent, does the character tier matter much? Not really.

It does matter because it goes to prove what the character is capable of doing. If any human being was able to perfectly space their attacks and essentially become a flawless say, bowser, and this person beats everybody else because of this, that would mean bowser would need some serious consideration in regards to his tier placement. But have we seen such a feat? No, and most likely we will not, ever.
Every character has their limitations. The fact that Taj was able to place above so many legit foxs taught us something about mewtwo's limitations; that mewtwo is capable of more than what was thought in previous tier lists.

Ganon can beat fox by waiting and not over committing, simply spacing properly and punishing when fox oversteps.

It was edited out I see, nevermind.

If you're going to rank characters based on their representation of tournament placements why is it illogical to base lists on tournament results?

*shrugs*

I feel like if you're gonna base it on theory the discussion just goes into circles never accomplishing anything.

Exactly.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

The Negligable tier came about due to the lack of real usable information for those specific characters. With no real tournament data and nothing but general subjective opinion we were mostly getting no where with attempting to arrange them properly. Though there are some generally accepted ideas about who's worse than whom in the last tier it came down to the inability to factually prove it.

I was just about to ask what the purpose of the Negligible tier is, and I got my answer.

Kirby should be below Gengar soon though.

So much worse than the other 4.....

Good stuff Taj getting Mewtwo up there.

 

[Tero.]

R000FO what a shrirtty tier list altho its kijdna good LL TIER listys suck lol **** u all all americans ie all that post on swf are all so ****ing stupud and ******** lol why isnt even armad ain bacjrooom **** u all flopmericans LOLOLOL

Armada is in the BR.

no other "top tier" character can be killed off the top as easily as jiggz. It's all about balance; Jiggz can't be easily edguarded but then she can be killed easily off the top. Sure rest is an instakill but other than gimping jiggz finds it hard to K.O. If we compare to say sheik who has a multitude of killing capabilty i can't see how you can place jiggz higher than sheik.

So apart from Fox which other Top/High Tier character has reliable and easy to land vertical kill moves and how is dying vertical at 70-90% comparable to getting gimped or rested at 0%?

druggedfox, i dont get how you can say "a tierlist based on matchups would be stagnant forever", then follow that up with "the great thing about melee is the metagame changes overtime" and provide examples fo different char's era's of reign.

that not the metagame changing, thats just the top players retiring or being replaced by new top players who coincedently use different chars.

if youre saying puff's "metagame" has changed but her matchups havent, i dont even know whats going on anymore.

also, peach should be higher than marth/sheik on a tourny-results based tierlist, just saying.

Matchups, technically speaking, are static forever. The characters themselves never change, just the degree to which we understand them. This game being in its 10th year, I feel like we more or less are familiar with the higher tiered matchups in and out. Thus, if we were ever to sit down and make a truly objective matchup chart, theoretically (unless something gamebreaking was discovered) it should never change.

Despite that, you can hardly deny that the metagame has changed. Marth vs fox, sheik, falco etc is something static overall. People have their different opinions, but by around '08 those 4 characters were advanced enough at a top level that our concepts of their matchups haven't changed since then. Fox and falco vs marth since that time period has pretty much always been considered more or less even (leaning towards one side or the other), and sheik has always been considered to have around a 60:40 (maybe a bit more) advantage vs marth.

Marth really hasn't changed since back in 2008, and neither have his matchups. Despite that, he went from King of melee (with m2k) to hardly ever seen anymore. That's a great example of the metagame changing without the matchups really changing at all.

I kinda feel like Match-ups did change with the metagame. Before Mango if you'd have asked around the boards Marth/Jiggs was undisputable in Marths favor, same for Sheik/Jiggs and to a lesser extend Sheik/Peach (PAL).

 

[Jim Morrison]

I love this post LOL

And I think the tier list really over-represents jiggs as a whole. I can think of like.... 4 puff players maybe that do really well?

That doesn't matter, bro, you only need one person to actually show how well the character CAN do, and there you have the potential!

 

[P. O. F.]

reading this thread kinda confused me about tier lists since its become a discussion of how to build one.

I feel like if you're gonna base it on theory the discussion just goes into circles never accomplishing anything.

Read it over again if you have to. You drunk now?


And no, it is not complete theory because you use a basis of tournament results to help formulate a match up chart and use that as evidence. Like, you take a collection of match ups/information to help determine if xx beats xx. you dont go, "well armada is beating jigglypuffs all the time. So it must be peaches advantage."

LOL.

You all think that because one kid who goes to high school and buys Nike shoes for a hobby is good with Captain Falcon that he beats Fox. (HAX)

Or one kid who LOVES video games and plays them all the time and dedicates his time to Marth....that Marth is god tier. (M2K)

No, just.....no.

That doesn't matter, bro, you only need one person to actually show how well the character CAN do, and there you have the potential!

I really hope this has sarcasm written all over it.

 

[Teczer0]

One person placing highly shouldn't drastically affect anything and I never claimed that.

Which is why I was like wtf at puff skyrocketing from like 10th to like 2nd.

My interpretation of the tier list is to show what characters you are likely to see do well. Or what characters have been placing well recently overall as a nation (Or whatever sample you take).

I mean if you think differently thats fine I'm just stating opinions really.

So no, I don't think just because Armada wins with peach, m2k wins with marth and Hax wins with CF they should move up.

If there was like 50 peaches winning or something then yea I'd say move her up.

Its not a perfect system but its definitely more definitive than a tier list based on match up theory since there are so many people that think of them differently based on experience for example.

 

[NJzFinest]

I don't even understand how that post even responds to me lol. Theorycraft is annoying, data from tournaments and high-level players of the bad characters' opinions would be used to determine match-ups.
Theorycraft is what made KAOSTAR get Icy to make Mewtwo vs. DK in Mewtwo's favor. I mean, what?

Mexican also said Mewtwo's Favor.

Dk hasnt changed since 2005, my money is not on him becoming randomly better.

Bum was 2007 lol. Before him was AOB, but any form of DK hype/recognition came after Bum.

But yeah, DK sucks. Should be lower on the list maybe.

 

[rhan]

 

[OverLord]

just to answer to Sveet's Ganon-Fox thing, and to Pink Reaper:


Sveet's right.
It's true that Fox has infinite ammo and can win the MU easily, but just JMan plays Fox as he should be played. Ganon can't do **** against spam. But Foxes like to go all the stage around doing Nairs and comboing, most of the time getting ***** by someone playing carefully.

If Ganon starts to win against all Foxes, then I would NEVER say that Ganon got an advantage or that Ganon should be higher, I'd say that FOX PLAYERS SUCKS BAD and don't know how to play vs Ganon LOL.

Same for Mewtwo.
Taj is GOD, but Mewtwo SUCKS and can't do **** against top tiers if they play correctly. The fact is just that no one has ever figured out how to play against Mewtwo 'cause there is just Taj that play him really well. And that Taj has probably better spacing and mindgames compared to lot of players. So it's normal to see him placing good, HE IS FREAKING GOOD.

I also agree with Mango when he said that no one knows how to beat Puff. Puff is overrated and Fox ***** her. End of the story.


Another example: Armada's kirby is ****, but Kirby SUCKS, he's the WORST CHAR IN THE GAME.

 

[Druggedfox]

Right. And what I am saying is that I disagree with that. I think there has been plenty of progression in those matchups post-2008.

Now, the rate of change is probably slower than in 2005, but I think over an extended period of time, yes, the matchups change. Besides, we never know of a drastic change until it happens; I think it is unwise to think those matchups won't change again.

I would love to hear how matchups have had anything resembling a significant change since 2008 =]

@Tero, since you addressed this. I really think that's because the community didn't really know much about the matchup, so once mango beat m2k they're like "woah". Even despite what happened, my personal opinions on the matchups have always been as follows:

Marth beats jiggs (I still think so).
Jiggs beats sheik (this used to be one of my favorite matchups for an entire 6 months, before hbox or mango even seriously came on the scene)
Jiggs beats peach (I used to think it was even until I thought about punishment disparity).

Any "changes" would be like people saying jiggs beats fox now just because hbox doesn't lose to them in nationals. Obviously that's flawed logic, but its no different than people rethinking marth jiggs just because of mango. Sure it might not be **** for marth, but it's still marth's favor...

I honestly don't feel like, at a top level, the matchups have really changed since then; the main thing that's changed is the perception of them by lower caliber players (oh, and I'm sure m2k had a bit of change of heart towards jiggs )

 

[Deleted member]

When assembling a tier list we want to examine and analyze every single character to the utmost accuracy, correct? We want to be as close to as humanly possible that the list that we create is indeed accurate. A tier list is simply a measure of how good that "character" is, right? When put into a competitive aspect character A will be better than character B, right?

Oh, here's where it gets fun. Your first assumption is actually wrong. We don't need to analyze the character at all. In fact, we can make a tier list without knowing anything about the characters. At a simple level we can make observations on which characters are winning, and then make an educated guess at their performance later. The more observations we have, the more accurate those predictions will be. We have an incredible amount of information and observations to make those predictions with, so we just use the top level of play and recent data only.

In effect, the tier list assumes "how good that character is" is synonymous with tournament placement on the basis that players will play to win. When put into a competitive aspect, character A is not necessarily better than character B at all. But players feel that they have a better shot at winning with character A or the more talented players are naturally drawn towards character A more. As a result, character A naturally performs better and becomes a better character than B simply on the merit that the character is more likely to win, making that character also "better".

 

[P. O. F.]

Druggedfox-agree with you about marth beating jigs. I've been saying that for forever and everyone just gives me the

Well then why is m2k losing? Bullcrap.

Umbreon-we don't need to analyze the characters at all? Where do you get your weed dude?

Didn't you just say like three posts back you have no idea what is going on in the melee back room?

Stop typing.

 

[Brookman]

Where do you get your weed dude?

classically trained in the art of debate.

 

[UltimateXShadow]

Wow, I hadn't expected there to be a new list. I'm glad I have something new to discuss about Smash with my friends.