Official BBR Tier List v5

[Z'zgashi]

That's cuz Meta Knight is ****ing ********

 

[Coney]

Define what an isolated region is pertaining to smash.

I do not say that. I say D3 vs Snake is what you would consider +2 D3's favor and Olimar is -2. This guy beats them odds:

LOL IT'S YA BOI

the whole "isolated region" thing doesn't pertain to us, since we're alright already and we live near the strongest region in the nation

also i could swear you've said olimar/ddd is even at one point

either way snake/ddd is definitely not +2!

 

[Z'zgashi]

Notice how yoshi's in the bottom left of that pic

 

[Coney]

i can't stop looking at myself long enough to notice

 

[Steam]

maryland isn't near socal...


on topic @ some people: also I don't know why +1 would be anything other than a very slight advantage....

otherwise +3 and +4 would both be used to describe matchups that are basically unwinnable in tourney. and there's really no reason to catagorize "get fisted" and "get double fisted"

 

[Z'zgashi]

@coney: true, you really are quite attractive

 

[Coney]

maryland isn't near socal...

 

[deepseadiva]

@coney: true, you really are quite attractive

brb polling peach boards

We need facts. Not theorycraft.

 

[Xebenkeck]

@coney: true, you really are quite attractive

Mario and DK disagree

 

[C.J.]

maryland isn't near socal...

No, but it's kinda close to Florida.

 

[Chuee]

lol @ Coney pic.
Im guessing thats one of those Apex 2010 stream screenshots?

 

[Steam]

No, but it's kinda close to Florida.

but it's closer to NY/NJ, which is stronger than florida...

 

[Seagull Joe]

lol @ Coney pic.
Im guessing thats one of those Apex 2010 stream screenshots?

No, but I have several of those too. I collect all the pictures of Pink Fresh and Coney and utilize them in unique and special ways. They should feel honored....

 

[Coney]

we don't.at all

 

[Sinister Slush]

lol @ Coney pic.
Im guessing thats one of those Apex 2010 stream screenshots?

 

[da K.I.D.]

maryland isn't near socal...


on topic @ some people: also I don't know why +1 would be anything other than a very slight advantage....

otherwise +3 and +4 would both be used to describe matchups that are basically unwinnable in tourney. and there's really no reason to catagorize "get fisted" and "get double fisted"

omg! this was amazing.

 

[Chuee]

 

[Seagull Joe]

I'll raise you with this:

http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=88729

 

[The Real Inferno]

Haters gonna hate.

 

[AkiroWolf]

tier lists are based off of the way that the competitive community plays--namely, 1v1 on stages with minimal distractions. diddy absolutely thrives in this environment. his ability to rack up incredible amounts of damage while staying absolutely covered is why he's so good, and when played correctly his difficulties in killing aren't even that bad. another thing you have to factor in is that he doesn't necessarily HAVE to kill anyone, as he forces approaches with early leads extremely well.



you seem to put a lot of emphasis on power. that's fine and all, but consider other attributes of the characters.



ddd certainly gets combo'd to high hell, but it doesn't matter when he lives forever. and while his third jump is both a blessing and a curse, i would never say it's "inaccurate." it has a lot of intricacies about it that people don't realize at first glance, but you can actually maneuver the thing a lot better than people think you can.

again, don't prioritize killing so much. zss DOES have killing moves though, so i don't know where you're coming from there.

in short, it seems like you're making opinions of a tier list ignorant of the knowledge that cultivated it. familiarize yourself with the game a bit more, particularly with high level play, and some/all of this stuff will make much more sense to you.

Sheesh for the same reasons that I said before I'll say them again. I don't intend to play with Zero Suit Samus or Dedede for the reasons I stated above in my previous posts. I simply find individual faults in the way them play that isn't right for me to use them. I find other characters far better for my individual playing style such as Kirby. I know he has his faults but I learned to work past them like no other character could do for me.

Its actually reasons like what people have stated above that make me think the tier list doesn't really apply to Super Smash Bros. No character can truly be predicted on a sheet like they are on this chart and thats something that I really love about Super Smash Bros compared with other fighting games like Soul Calibur and Dead or Alive.

I don't really consider power to be the most important factor in my fighting style. I like someone that can go against one person or a whole group and not struggle to knock them out when the time comes. Thats easier for someone like Dedede and Kirby than Zero Suit Samus or Sonic. I often tend to use moves that will attack everyone I am fighting and give me a bit of control on the field and then work my way up to knocking people out.

 

[da K.I.D.]

first mistake, trying to judge the tournament worth of a character based on ffas.

 

[Shaya]

TBH, +1 has kinda dipped into 55-60.
If every match up that I see as +1 is meant to be 55:45, it's extremely iffy already.

It's a different scale.
Some of marth's match ups that have been (generally) universally agreed to as 60:40 are both in +1s and +2 categories. What that doesn't make sense?

It does to me.

 

[Lenus Altair]

TBH, +1 has kinda dipped into 55-60.
If every match up that I see as +1 is meant to be 55:45, it's extremely iffy already.

It's a different scale.
Some of marth's match ups that have been (generally) universally agreed to as 60:40 are both in +1s and +2 categories. What that doesn't make sense?

It does to me.

You know I have to say I like the idea behind this new system. The old matchup system was based on the concept that if two players of equal skill duke it out for 10 matches, due to the character they were using, how many matches each character should win based on the strength of the tools that character provided them.

This seems unrealistic in brawl because if the two players are equal skill and they use a character with a distinct advantage, the other one at a disadvantage pretty much never wins. It's something that I've though about lurking around here too but since the old system has been used a standard for most fighting games it seemed hard not to side with the bandwagon.

This new system, looking at thinks purely in terms of advantage as opposed to what percentage they "should" win seems more realistic to what actually happens in play. I look forward to seeing it.

 

[Steam]

TBH, +1 has kinda dipped into 55-60.
If every match up that I see as +1 is meant to be 55:45, it's extremely iffy already.

It's a different scale.
Some of marth's match ups that have been (generally) universally agreed to as 60:40 are both in +1s and +2 categories. What that doesn't make sense?

It does to me.

if +1 included 6-4 esque matchups as well. the chart wouldn't stand for much. as most matchups fall in that range... and +3 and +4 would be practically the same thing in terms of likelyhood of victory. as I said earlier there's no real need to catagorize levels of hopeless.

 

[Ussi]

My idea for what numbers mean..

0 = 50:50-55:45 / Relatively even
+1 = 55:45-60:40 / Slight advantage
+2 = 60:40-65:35 / Advantage
+3 = 65:35-70:30 / Strong Advantage
+4 = 70:30 or worse / Hard Counter or lol

i say just ball park range what the numbers should mean it should just be within those numbers inclusively. No need to be exact

 

[The Real Inferno]

The ratios do not translate into the new system at all. The new system is PURPOSEFULLY meant to include a wider range. Saying "60:40 = +2" is inherently incorrect as the new system does not accept that +2 is equal to any of the given matchup ratios. It asserts that +2 is defined as an advantaged matchup. This description is vague and purposefully does not allow for numbers to be easily transferred into this new system so as to allow you to shed your previous conception of how matchups were being displayed before.

We have hope that as this project continues, the broader definitions may be able to be more refined as we go on from here.

 

[Death Arcana]

will the real match up chart please stand up
i repeat
will the real match up chart please stand up

were gonna have a problem hear

 

[DMG]

The ratios do not translate into the new system at all. The new system is PURPOSEFULLY meant to include a wider range. Saying "60:40 = +2" is inherently incorrect as the new system does not accept that +2 is equal to any of the given matchup ratios. It asserts that +2 is defined as an advantaged matchup. This description is vague and purposefully does not allow for numbers to be easily transferred into this new system so as to allow you to shed your previous conception of how matchups were being displayed before.

We have hope that as this project continues, the broader definitions may be able to be more refined as we go on from here.

The problem with being vague in ratio definition is that you will have mislabeling based on subjective relativity. Say a character has 5 matchups that are not in his favor. 1 of those matchups is widely viewed as a soft counter. Not 6:4, not +2 or represented by any number, but in regular terms it's said to be a soft counter.

Now, the other characters who win have better matchups, but not to the point of being viewed as a hard counter. What do you label them as? It would be misleading to state that those matchups are of a similar difficulty that the first soft counter, but it would also look misleading to label them all strictly as a hard counter. I mean, if you had a "ranking" in each individual point scaling for each character that listed in order relative "hardness" of character matchups that meet the situation I described earlier, that would further breakdown for people "Ok so these matchups are seen as around a soft counter, but some matchups are definitely harder than others. Marth beats this guy harder than Snake, but not by a huge point margin, but we can still list Marth first to show that he's harder than Snake".



TL:DR

If we keep the current scaling, I think it would be good to order every point difference by relative matchup difficulty so that the chart goes more in depth and correctly shows what matchups are harder than others, even if they feel kinda similar in difficulty.

 

[The Real Inferno]

I actually have zero problem in labeling those two matchups as the same. If the other two were worse, but were not to the point of qualifying as more than a soft counter, then they are all soft counters, and all should be grouped under soft counters. IT doesn't really matter if they differ amongst themselves under that definition as that is pulling at hairs and looking outside the definition set. If that character doesn't actually move into the realm of hard counter then why WOULDN'T I classify him as a soft counter then? I don't see a point in stating "well, he's harder than the other soft counters!" .....So? Just because if we were to break it down more, he would then be harder does not disqualify him from being grouped with other soft counters who are not borderline. That's a process for a later date with a much more in depth way of separating matchups.

Of course if you keep going into that territory you're going to end up right back at overly specific definitions that become too hard to place on every character again which is what got us into this in the first place.

 

[Ussi]

i just don't want people going +1.5..

 

[Steam]

i just don't want people going +1.5..

+3.14592...

I'm just waiting for it to be a math equation.

better spacing = +1
longer survivability= X1.2
get infinited= -3
etc.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

That's not the rest of the game's fault, though.

Outside of that jerk, I would say the game is rather balanced overall.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Also like people have said the new system seems like it's not ratios so lets not try and translate or something like that.

Also lets be careful of the spam here please and thank you.

 

[Shaya]

Yeah outside of that jerk diddy kong, brawl is a very balanced game.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Don't you mean Link? Dude is mad broken, if only his mains weren't addicted to Starcraft 2.

Also if numbers turn to Pi or something, then I'm gonna lol hard.

 

[Technodeath]

Sorry I don't conform to childish bigotry.

Don' be hatin'

 

[Spelt]

all matchups should just be counted in measurements of meta knights.

like falco vs ganon is 400 meta knights, sheik vs fox is 173 meta knights, and diddy vs meta knight is 13 meta knights.

the math works out if you don't think about it.

 

[Technodeath]

The higher the meta knights the more difficult the MU?

 

[Meru.]

No character can truly be predicted on a sheet like they are on this chart and thats something that I really love about Super Smash Bros compared with other fighting games like Soul Calibur and Dead or Alive.

Dead or Alive is much, much, much more balanced than Smash, with the possible exception of DOA3. Dead or Alive Ultimate and Dead or Alive 4 are not even comparable with Smash in regard to balance. Dunno about Soul Calibur though, SC4 is quite a mess ;_;

 

[Lenus Altair]

Don' be hatin'

I'm not the one hating.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

The higher the meta knights the more difficult the MU?

But one is enough to beat almost anyone with no problem.