Official BBR Tier List v5

[DMG]

this isn't what i meant at all

maybe this will help clarify what i meant:

tier list v1



tier list v2



those two tier lists are based on completely different criteria

tier list v5: ??????

Like I mentioned though, the context of when those lists were out needs to be taken into consideration. Version 1 was brand new, first for the game. There were more ideas on potential than just looking at tournament results. List 2 isn't that far off criteria wise from the first: Competitive Value can also be called "Potential Based on Trends observed/believed to be taking place". Dedede has higher competitive value in tournaments if people use a lot of Snake and DK and Wario compared to a lot of Falco, IC's, Pika, MK, etc

List 1 to 2 basically sounds like they shifted more from pure potential to potential and tournament results. I think ideally a tier list should be the combination of tournament results, and "Competitive Value". I think the lists from 2 onward were based on both results and potential/competitive value, even if they did not word it very well.

 

[King Funk]

The only reason we had that issue was because our recommended ruleset of No LGL and being a bit more liberal is not the direction many tournaments go in, especially nationals. LGL and more conservative lists are much more common in practice than our exact ruleset. If we voted off just our ruleset, it would be neglecting the rulesets commonly used in practice.

Thank you for taking the time to answer.

I have one question that hasn't been answered though: what IS the BBR's recommended ruleset? As I said it's a pretty customizable ruleset which allows TO's to tweak them as much as they want. And this can influence the events very heavily.

3.0 was criticized for forcing a super-liberal ruleset upon everyone. 3.1 has now the problem of being a bit ambiguous. What I like about it is how you can take off "group 1 & 2" of counterpicks and you get almost exactly the european ruleset.

AA and ESAM, still waiting for an answer on that post.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=11268729

 

[Dark 3nergy]

i agree with this notion of riding on potential for a first tier list. Since its so new to a large region of players, ppl would need to have tournaments over a long set of time to accurately gauge where characters stood[v2 list imo].

 

[typh]

Like I mentioned though, the context of when those lists were out needs to be taken into consideration. Version 1 was brand new, first for the game. There were more ideas on potential than just looking at tournament results. List 2 isn't that far off criteria wise from the first: Competitive Value can also be called "Potential Based on Trends observed/believed to be taking place". Dedede has higher competitive value in tournaments if people use a lot of Snake and DK and Wario compared to a lot of Falco, IC's, Pika, MK, etc

List 1 to 2 basically sounds like they shifted more from pure potential to potential and tournament results. I think ideally a tier list should be the combination of tournament results, and "Competitive Value". I think the lists from 2 onward were based on both results and potential/competitive value, even if they did not word it very well.

this is the thing though, the BBR wants to be the last and best authority on Brawl, and your tier list is based on criteria that you "think ideally should be" what lists 2 and on "basically sounds like" and "did not word very well"? i bet i can find at least one BBR member that thinks the tier list should be based on potential, and another that thinks it should be based on current results and gameplay.

the BBR can't expect to be taken seriously if you don't take what you do seriously and cover all your bases and have a semi-scientific way of going about things.

 

[Conviction]

...

They were impressed with how high he could jump.

No, really.


Edit: To me, there is nothing that warrants him being THAT high. The highest I possibly saw Fox was right over Kirby and ROB, under Pit and everyone else.



GG sir, indeed hard reads is the name of the game.

I bet you main Fox. HARD READ AMIRITE?

No read at all I have a Fox Icon.

 

[Marc]

I think people need to be aware that Kewkky and DMG are voicing their own opinion a lot. There were plenty of people who also thought Snake shouldn't be #2, which is why him, Diddy and Falco are almost interchangeable for the second spot when you look at how close they are. Statistically speaking they could have been in a tier with just the three of them.

As for Fox' rise, there were several reasons. The most notable is that TKD goes head to head with players like DEHF and top MKs and has done so for a while. The argument regarding his jump was butchered tremendously, because it's his incredible rising speed that is the major asset. Pierce can explain this better than I can, but Fox can often bait an approach (his camping game pretty much forces people to approach whether he's behind or not) and jump out of the way in time to either go over it or punish. That his jump also is really high simply makes this tactic more effective as it is hard to get to Fox when he's up in the air, but that's not the point.

I'm not denying potential played a large role in his boost, but there is definitely a basis. Fox has a playing style that works, assets like rising speed that are objectively good and a good player representing him. He also has several drawbacks, but that's why he's still mid tier.

 

[DMG]

this is the thing though, the BBR wants to be the last and best authority on Brawl, and your tier list is based on criteria that you "think ideally should be" what lists 2 and on "basically sounds like" and "did not word very well"? i bet i can find at least one BBR member that thinks the tier list should be based on potential, and another that thinks it should be based on current results and gameplay.

the BBR can't expect to be taken seriously if you don't take what you do seriously and cover all your bases and have a semi-scientific way of going about things.

Covering all your bases would be trying to base the list on both tournament results and potential. Most people used a mix of both; very VERY few, maybe even no member at all (besides 1, oh man his list), was completely on 1 side or the other. The only 1 clear exception was a list that was, frankly, absurd because it was pure potential based.

The "divide" of people voting just off of potential or tournament results is far less than you imagine. I can guarantee you that.

Edit: Marc that's basically it though. Jumping High with mixup potential on how to land, where to land, how fast to land, etc as a tool to amplify his camping game. That's basically what I said lol. I mean yeah you can go more in depth, but then it becomes a debate over how effective you think it is to begin with, as scenarios will play out differently for people with different opinions on how viable it is. Pierce for example thinks it is really strong, and that there are not many good reliable options to stop it. While I would disagree because of how immobile horizontally he is in the air and how you can tend to zone his general landing spots at a safe distance OR play the mixup game with him at opportune times and get away with bad guesses for free over and over because he lacks the mobility or significant hitboxes to punish you.

 

[Browny]

Again though Marc, X did just as well as tkd vs the same people with sonic and others are doing just fine all over the place while fox leaves a lot to be desired in that category.

Thats a pretty weak reason if you are going to pick and choose who it applies to as it suits the flavour-of-the-month bias

 

[da K.I.D.]

Ike mains should all use the tag +5 now.

 

[Conviction]

*Activates Shine!*

Lol these discussions are actually looking interesting! My I partake?

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Covering all your bases would be trying to base the list on both tournament results and potential. Most people used a mix of both; very VERY few, maybe even no member at all (besides 1, oh man his list), was completely on 1 side or the other. The only 1 clear exception was a list that was, frankly, absurd because it was pure potential based.

The "divide" of people voting just off of potential or tournament results is far less than you imagine. I can guarantee you that.

...An all potential tier list...

That sir, is an oxymoron. Tier list = facts. Potential = prediction. Why were his votes counted at all? It's not a tier list. Tell him to go back and actually make one, otherwise he won't have a say at all in the tier list.

 

[DMG]

His list was 5% tournament results, 95% potential. Not ALL potential but it was on the extreme side that is for sure. In the end it didn't affect anything at all actually; not G&W, not Fox (actually IIRC his list helped keep Fox in Check), etc.

 

[typh]

i bet it was tkd

 

[Conviction]

Sooo wouldn't his list be considered as an outlier?

Even so do you guys know what you want? You complain about not enough BBR members contributing to their own threads and everyone should accounted for but when one or more people in the BBR contribute and you don't like you say they shouldn't be counted...you guys contradict yourselfs.

His list was 5% tournament results, 95% potential. Not ALL potential but it was on the extreme side that is for sure. In the end it didn't affect anything at all actually; not G&W, not Fox (actually IIRC his list helped keep Fox in Check), etc.

i bet it was tkd

Hmm I wonder what that part I highlighted says...if it kept Fox lower it couldn't been TKD....come on man lol

 

[Flayl]

Is this the list that was centralized around a certain dumb tactic?

 

[DMG]

i bet it was tkd

Not at all

You people give him too little credit

I will not say who it is obviously, that person can come forward and explain their tier list vote/why they felt that way if they want to. I'm just gonna have to leave it at that. That 1 list was the only 1 I can honestly say fell into that divide you talked about earlier of players voting based almost completely on 1 side while neglecting the other.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

Ike mains should all use the tag +5 now.

^^^


they worked mad hard, grats

 

[typh]

Sooo wouldn't his list be considered as an outlier?

Even so do you guys know what you want? You complain about not enough BBR members contributing to their own threads and everyone should accounted for but when one or more people in the BBR contribute and you don't like you say they shouldn't be counted...you guys contradict yourselfs.

maybe he would have changed his list and would have been counted if they decided to vote on it based on a mix of potential and tournament results beforehand and not argue about it afterward?

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Still...even if it did keep Fox from being stupidly high...it's not logical to allow it to count. Tier lists can't have potential be a real factor. Maybe a 5% factor, just to help with tie breakers basically. But it should be based on tournament results, match ups, proven ability to use stages to their advantage, proven ability to counter various play styles, ect. If you can look at various things about a character because almost nobody uses that character in a tournament, that says something about the character and should be reflected in the tier list. It shouldn't be "Well, even though we have nothing to base it on, we believe character X has the potential to be a MK counter. +5 boost in the tier list."

If you go that route, you'll have people arguing "But character Y has greater potential to deal with this problem, he should be higher than X!", ect, all over something that can not be given a quantitative value. Not that most things in the tier list can be given a perfect value, but you can't even begin to give a value to potential: it's 100% opinion.

EDIT: @Iblis: Not really. I'm relucantly fine with very weird tier list votes being counted...as long as it's on facts. Potential is not fact, nor will it ever be fact. It can't be counted because of this, as a tier list is about facts in the first place.

 

[Kewkky]

lol ur argumentation is still DUMB.
why are other characters falling or rising then?
they are STILL the smae characters also, same as snake.
they just have it harder/easier at the current metagame..
same as SNAKE.

fail ur logik is fail
and i wont read ur posts anymore same as orion, cause your pighead is at least as piggy as the ones you blamed to be one.

Calling my logic fail, but you fail to see that we don't know where the "perfect tier list" places every character. Characters rise or lower because we're not sure where they actually belong.

*If something good happens and we go like "well hey, if this guy can do that good with X character consistently then maybe he shouldn't be around those other characters" and he goes up.

*If something bad happens, we go like "Ehhh, no character mainer seems to be doing as good as we expected them to be doing consistently by maining that character. He doesn't fit in with the characters around him, so let's lower him".

*If nothing happens, characters just shift around them.


It would be better for the both of us if you would be smarter, but I guess you're not. The best way to respond to my posts and call me dumb is to actually make an effort with your arguments besides "you can't see what I'm thinking, but in my mind it totally makes sense, so YOU'RE WRONG!".

 

[Teran]

Wow, I had no idea how many assumptions people make about what goes on in the BBR.

 

[Red Arremer]

Is this the list that was centralized around a certain dumb tactic?

If you mean that one list that is based 95% on "potential" DMG mentioned, then yes.

 

[hippiedude92]

mightttt as well make luigi low tier if he's staying at that +0 then!

^~^

rapetastic **** for fox's placement

 

[Browny]

Wow, I had no idea how many assumptions people make about what goes on in the BBR.

rofl, yeah good one. what exactly are people supposed to do when its all so super secretive coz it will doom us all if what goes on in there is exposed to the public?

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

As for Fox' rise, there were several reasons. The most notable is that TKD goes head to head with players like DEHF and top MKs and has done so for a while.

Tier Lists are based on the character, not the player, this is invalid.

Or am i Mistaken

 

[typh]

Not at all

You people give him too little credit

I will not say who it is obviously, that person can come forward and explain their tier list vote/why they felt that way if they want to. I'm just gonna have to leave it at that. That 1 list was the only 1 I can honestly say fell into that divide you talked about earlier of players voting based almost completely on 1 side while neglecting the other.

lol i am tkd's number one fan and i think he is smarter about smash than everyone else in the back room, it wasn't a jab at him it was a joke

and i don't see the point in trying to argue for or against what i'm saying, just next time there's a list keep in mind it would probably be better for everybody if you defined a tier list BEFORE you vote on it instead of trying to argue about it and discredit members' lists afterwards

 

[Conviction]

maybe he would have changed his list and would have been counted if they decided to vote on it based on a mix of potential and tournament results beforehand and not argue about it afterward?

What...I what does that have to do with me saying you guys didn't want him counted for, so apparently even though I see "IMO" (in my OPINION) and state where X character should stay/go/up/down/around town, or whatever but the people who you complain about the most when they don't contribute decide to actually do say you say their opinion should not be counted? There is always gonna be an extremist in the BBR and there extremist outside BBR. SOO my question is why do you subjectively pick when something should count but it wasn't there at you would complain about it?

 

[Red Arremer]

Tier Lists are based on the character, not the player, this is invalid.

Or am i Mistaken

However, players are able to show what a character is capable of.

Characters are tools. Example. You have a hammer with a bottle opener on its handle. Everyone uses it as a hammer and nobody as a bottle opener. Some time, a user of that hammer comes in and opens a bottle of coke. Everyone is baffled and realizes that they had an option they didn't use before, heck, that they even weren't aware of.

 

[typh]

What...I what does that have to do with me saying you guys didn't want him counted for, so apparently even though I see "IMO" (in my OPINION) and state where X character should stay/go/up/down/around town, or whatever but the people who you complain about the most when they don't contribute decide to actually do say you say their opinion should not be counted? There is always gonna be an extremist in the BBR and there extremist outside BBR. SOO my question is why do you subjectively pick when something should count but it wasn't there at you would complain about it?

wasn't directed towards you bro

 

[Marc]

Tier Lists are based on the character, not the player, this is invalid.

Or am i Mistaken

It depends on how much of an outlier you believe players to be and how much you raise a character based on their performance. If you take TKD by himself, Fox is high or perhaps even top tier and that's not where we put him.

 

[Brawlin]

Alright im just gonna say, A CHARACTER SHOULD NOT RISE ON POTENTIAL. Look at Pit. He bumped up on v4 and got bumped right back down. If Fox players dont do anything he'll probably get bumped right back down. idk about Ike.

 

[Conviction]

wasn't directed towards you bro

The thing you qouted was more directed to people in general

Alright im just gonna say, A CHARACTER SHOULD NOT RISE ON POTENTIAL. Look at Pit. He bumped up on v4 and got bumped right back down. If Fox players dont do anything he'll probably get bumped right back down. idk about Ike.

I believe Marc just gave you an example of why Fox rose, you guys are blowing up one part of his explaination.

 

[The Milk Monster]

Honestly this is the most impressive and accurate list I've seen yet. Most characters place seems justifiable, especially Bowser and Ike's swap. And Fox. Watching Zeton made me know he's a better character. Along with Pit, who even notably plays him anymore?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

It depends on how much of an outlier you believe players to be and how much you raise a character based on their performance. If you take TKD by himself, Fox is high or perhaps even top tier and that's not where we put him.

Right, really glad you said this. One of the arguments I was making for rises from characters like Fox and ZSS is that yes, Nick Riddle and TKD are outlier players, but if we were moving solely on steam from these two players we'd be looking at top tier, not high or mid or whatever we're asking for, for that specific character.

A single player doesn't say everything, but often says something.

 

[T-block]

typh:

The general consensus for this list seemed to be a mix of potential and results, probably with a higher emphasis on potential. This is not an official BBR statement though. It's the way I voted, and I'm sure many others did the same, while some placed more or less emphasis on results, etc.

If you take a look at the character discussions released, you'll see that we do take into account both. Things like "If this character seems so great, where are the tournament results to back it up?" and "What is ____ player doing that's so great - is it player skill or character potential?" often came up. That attitude should be largely reflected in this tier list.

Hope that answers your question.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

Hey Amazing Ampharos and ESAM, I am extremely confused with your explanation about your opinion of Falco's placement here. I am also very confused about how the BBR works in making the tier list in general. On what terms do you even agree on in making this list? What was everyone told before they made that list? It looks like some in the back room believe the list should be made in a more liberal environment and some in a more conservative environment. For example, from what I heard, lots of members have put Falco at 2nd in their list. Why so? Because they believe Falco would be the second best character in the game in a more conservative ruleset? Or was everyone's personal tier lists supposed to be based on a fully liberal ruleset and half of people forgot about it?

I took a look at the BBR 3.1 ruleset once again to get an answer to this.



If I understood the official BBR 3.1 ruleset well, this stage list is a very customizable stage list for tournament organizers. It apparently allows anyone to choose between 3, 5, 7 or 9 starters and also which groups of counterpicks they want to allow for the event. For example, I, as a tournament organizer myself, can decide to satisfy my own definition of what is fair and balanced: have 5 starters and only the 1st group of counterpicks. Now I know some other TO will disagree with me and might want maybe 9 starters and all three group of counterpicks. If we were both members of the back room and we posted our tier lists, my tier list would probably be based on my preferred stage list while his will be based on his own.

My reasoning/concerns in a nutshell:

Is there a variant of the stage list the back room members should have based themselves on?

• if there is one, why do many members seem to have forgotten they should have based themselves on a particular model? Opinions seem so varied to a point where there doesn't seem to have been an agreement on that matter.
• if there isn't one, aren't we just calculating averages of tier list placements made by people who don't even have the same view of what the tournament environment should be like? And also... how do we know there's no imbalance between people leaning towards a more conservative stage list (less starters, less counterpicks) and people leaning towards a more liberal stage list?

We were told to assume all stages that are on the BBR ruleset to be legal. Not group 1, not group 2, ALL. So yeah, the stage diversity throughout the entire list is detrimental to Falco/IC/Diddy because they are only good on flat non-moving stages. Some people used their personal experiences and less theorycraft, and some vice-versa. It is impossible to have everybody's same opinion because people have different experiences and opinions, but we were told, to make a list to the best of our ability based off of all the stages on the BBR Recommended Ruleset 3.1 and all the rules that go along with it.

Tier Lists are based on the character, not the player, this is invalid.

Or am i Mistaken

There is no other way to look at the metagame but with the top players of each character. If ganon was an amazing character but 0 people used him the right way/nobody knew the right way, he is still trash. Once his new playstyle is figured out, he will rise because the players will be able to use him accordingly. Hope that answered your question


For all:

The main controversy between making the list based off an LGL and based off of no LGL is the fact that most major tournaments where top players of a variety of characters go to...there IS an LGL. Those are the best determinants we have off of tournament results (Random Falcon beating everybody in a really bad but large region [let's say getting 1st out of 50 every week but everybody is bad] doesn't affect the rankings, it is more towards the results of multiple high-level players at high-level tournaments against high-level opponents). There are barely any large-scale tournaments without an LGL, so there is no feasible way to judge the meta-game without it. Most people's list who accounted for LGL did some basic things like drop Diddy and Falco a little bit, made Pit a little higher, and a few others. There is one list (Not going to name who) that had a radical list basically off of who he thought were the best plankers (and he was misinformed even on that). He actually made 2 lists: One with an LGL in, which looked more like the actual tier list, and then the one without it. Since there is no LGL in the BBR ruleset, the one WITHOUT the LGL was counted.

 

[The Milk Monster]

Right, really glad you said this. One of the arguments I was making for rises from characters like Fox and ZSS is that yes, Nick Riddle and TKD are outlier players, but if we were moving solely on steam from these two players we'd be looking at top tier, not high or mid or whatever we're asking for, for that specific character.

A single player doesn't say everything, but often says something.

Pretty sure this reason is why PT is lower, and not as high as Reflex makes him look, cause Reflex seems to be the only person advancing his metagame..

 

[Conviction]

Sooo wouldn't his list be considered as an outlier?

Even so do you guys know what you want? You complain about not enough BBR members contributing to their own threads and everyone should accounted for but when one or more people in the BBR contribute and you don't like you say they shouldn't be counted...you guys contradict yourselfs...

What...I what does that have to do with me saying you guys didn't want him counted for, so apparently even though I see "IMO" (in my OPINION) and state where X character should stay/go/up/down/around town, or whatever but the people who you complain about the most when they don't contribute decide to actually do say you say their opinion should not be counted? There is always gonna be an extremist in the BBR and there extremist outside BBR. SOO my question is why do you subjectively pick when something should count but it wasn't there at you would complain about it?

Soo is anyone gonna answer these?

 

[Juushichi]

Joel, Kewkky, DMG, and AA (as well as anyone I could have forgotten --- like Marc), thanks to you guys coming in and giving us your opinions/explanation's on this tier list and imo, clearing up some of the misconceptions that the member base has had. People (obviously) aren't always going to be happy with what's done in the back room, but you guys are doing the best you can with what you can --- in line with what you guys outright stated that you can do.

Although it's not perfect (I'm not expecting it to be) it means quite a bit to some of us that are looking for things like this from a peer-representative body. That being said, I'm rather interested in seeing Pierce's personal opinion/input.

 

[typh]

typh:

The general consensus for this list seemed to be a mix of potential and results, probably with a higher emphasis on potential. This is not an official BBR statement though. It's the way I voted, and I'm sure many others did the same, while some placed more or less emphasis on results, etc.

If you take a look at the character discussions released, you'll see that we do take into account both. Things like "If this character seems so great, where are the tournament results to back it up?" and "What is ____ player doing that's so great - is it player skill or character potential?" often came up. That attitude should be largely reflected in this tier list.

Hope that answers your question.

it does, but it doesn't change the fact that it should have been said since before the vote, not while arguing with me now what the "general consensus" "seemed to be".

understand?