Official BBR Tier List v5

[Raziek]

Outplay is very relative to the definition you apply it to.

Clai considers simply winning. Characters, choices, everything, solely revolves around that. If you didn't win, you didn't outplay.

There is something to be said for the definition Chuee refers to, which involves "playing better", but still losing as a result of factors that Clai would consider included. This point of view tends to focus solely on player decisions and performance quality, not "external" factors such as stage or character choice.

It's pretty simple. It's just two different viewpoints.

 

[Judo777]

Outplay is very relative to the definition you apply it to.

Clai considers simply winning. Characters, choices, everything, solely revolves around that. If you didn't win, you didn't outplay.

There is something to be said for the definition Chuee refers to, which involves "playing better", but still losing as a result of factors that Clai would consider included. This point of view tends to focus solely on player decisions and performance quality, not "external" factors such as stage or character choice.

It's pretty simple. It's just two different viewpoints.

My point exactly its semantics now.

@ Clai: Btw i never brought up Picto don't know where that came from.

When you brought up Wario Ware and said it would be fair if you made a certain change you took what was random and made it not random. Would I be outplaying you if we both won the mini game (as both players can) I get rewarded by double damage (not as broken) and you get rewarded with 1.5 times the damage and as a result I won? Because the win screen would say I outplayed you by your definition.

Anyway now that we have identified that your definition of outplaying is doing whatever it takes to win and then winning (I'll assume you are being reasonable with your "play to win" philosophy because in the most literal form "play to win" is wrong [from a moral stand point]).

I have to ask no duh you can't beat your opponent without winning. Did you not recognize that we were clearly not referring to the same term of outplaying. I feel like a ton of this could have been avoided if you simply would have stated that your definition of outplaying is winning. That's inarguable if what you refer to as out playing is infact winning because you can't win without winning. Like why didn't you bring that up initially.

My definition of outplaying is if it were an even MU (one might call it a fair fight) then I would have won because I made more right choices than you and smarter decisions overall your right decisions are just worth more cause you start with an advantage. As Raziek put it in the internal battle not the external one.

 

[Clai]

Outplay is very relative to the definition you apply it to.

Clai considers simply winning. Characters, choices, everything, solely revolves around that. If you didn't win, you didn't outplay.

There is something to be said for the definition Chuee refers to, which involves "playing better", but still losing as a result of factors that Clai would consider included. This point of view tends to focus solely on player decisions and performance quality, not "external" factors such as stage or character choice.

It's pretty simple. It's just two different viewpoints.

The problem I have with this other viewpoint is that it can lead people into a state of complacency, having the players justify themselves losing by saying "oh it was because it was a terrible matchup," or "oh, I lost because of this random event." By justifying your losses instead of analyzing them as a player and asking yourself 'did I do everything I could to prevent this from happening,' it impedes any sort of growth as a player and leads to mere indifference instead of truly pushing yourself toward getting better.

EDIT:

My point exactly its semantics now.

@ Clai: Btw i never brought up Picto don't know where that came from.

I figured it could have helped my argument, so I thought I'd mention it. It does pertain to what I've been saying.

When you brought up Wario Ware and said it would be fair if you made a certain change you took what was random and made it not random. Would I be outplaying you if we both won the mini game (as both players can) I get rewarded by double damage (not as broken) and you get rewarded with 1.5 times the damage and as a result I won? Because the win screen would say I outplayed you by your definition.

No, all I meant to say was that Wario Ware's rewards for winning minigames are completely imbalanced and can have a huge effect on the outcome of the match that the player cannot adapt to at all (an extended period of invincibility will do that). There has to be a line between what is reasonable for the players to adapt to and what the players can't adapt to.

Now going back what I've been trying to argue, being that as long as the rewards aren't broken, that the player, by picking Wario Ware, has acknowledged that he can either obtain an advantage by winning the minigames or has to face a disadvantage by facing an opponent with even bigger rewards. The player should have accounted for that when he chose to play on the stage, and if he has to face a disadvantageous situation like that, he has to be especially careful to not get damaged too much while the opponent has that reward. If he's getting hit by completely avoidable circumstances and all he can complain about is how the extra damage caused him to lose, he's not seeing the big picture, which is, "why did I get hit in the first place?"

Anyway now that we have identified that your definition of outplaying is doing whatever it takes to win and then winning (I'll assume you are being reasonable with your "play to win" philosophy because in the most literal form "play to win" is wrong [from a moral stand point]).

I have to ask no duh you can't beat your opponent without winning. Did you not recognize that we were clearly not referring to the same term of outplaying. I feel like a ton of this could have been avoided if you simply would have stated that your definition of outplaying is winning. That's inarguable if what you refer to as out playing is infact winning because you can't win without winning. Like why didn't you bring that up initially.

My definition of outplaying is if it were an even MU (one might call it a fair fight) then I would have won because I made more right choices than you and smarter decisions overall your right decisions are just worth more cause you start with an advantage. As Raziek put it in the internal battle not the external one.

Yeah Raziek essentially put it right. The reason I have a problem with your definition of outplaying is that it can lead to people blaming their losses on something other than themselves. I can understand people being frustrated at having to battle more difficult matchups while dealing with stage shenanigans, but in the end, the only thing that's holding you back from being able to compete with the best is yourself. The amount of energy that's spent in various threads complaining about things can be used for so many better purposes.

On a related note, I don't get how my arguments are so hard to comprehend. They sound perfectly logical as I'm typing them.

 

[Raziek]

Oh, I know exactly what you mean, Clai, I just said it kind of to simplify things, and I agree with your viewpoint.

People who blame the match-up won't really improve if they impose that kind of psychological limitation on themselves.

 

[Judo777]

The problem I have with this other viewpoint is that it can lead people into a state of complacency, having the players justify themselves losing by saying "oh it was because it was a terrible matchup," or "oh, I lost because of this random event." By justifying your losses instead of analyzing them as a player and asking yourself 'did I do everything I could to prevent this from happening,' it impedes any sort of growth as a player and leads to mere indifference instead of truly pushing yourself toward getting better.

EDIT:




I figured it could have helped my argument, so I thought I'd mention it. It does pertain to what I've been saying.



No, all I meant to say was that Wario Ware's rewards for winning minigames are completely imbalanced and can have a huge effect on the outcome of the match that the player cannot adapt to at all (an extended period of invincibility will do that). There has to be a line between what is reasonable for the players to adapt to and what the players can't adapt to.

Now going back what I've been trying to argue, being that as long as the rewards aren't broken, that the player, by picking Wario Ware, has acknowledged that he can either obtain an advantage by winning the minigames or has to face a disadvantage by facing an opponent with even bigger rewards. The player should have accounted for that when he chose to play on the stage, and if he has to face a disadvantageous situation like that, he has to be especially careful to not get damaged too much while the opponent has that reward. If he's getting hit by completely avoidable circumstances and all he can complain about is how the extra damage caused him to lose, he's not seeing the big picture, which is, "why did I get hit in the first place?"



Yeah Raziek essentially put it right. The reason I have a problem with your definition of outplaying is that it can lead to people blaming their losses on something other than themselves. I can understand people being frustrated at having to battle more difficult matchups while dealing with stage shenanigans, but in the end, the only thing that's holding you back from being able to compete with the best is yourself. The amount of energy that's spent in various threads complaining about things can be used for so many better purposes.

On a related note, I don't get how my arguments are so hard to comprehend. They sound perfectly logical as I'm typing them.

So n ow lets say their are 2 random stages like Wario Ware and....... We'll say a stage with minor randomness say Norfair. Norfair has on very slight occaision sent soo many lava plumes in a row in conjunction with the lava floor that it was literally undodgable (im not joking there was literally probably only a few spots on the screen that were safe). So lets say that you get one ban of these stages. You ban Norfair (we will just say that every time we play there the stage decides to set you up in one of those inescapable situations, its random but hey it can happen if its random), and on my CP you are forced to now play Wario Ware. Now we will give the same example every time we both win the minigame and I am getting the much better reward through pure luck and as a result I win. You had no way of avoiding going to some random stage. If the randomness is directly responsible for your loss than did you get out played.

And your argument made perfect sense because you knew what you meant by outplaying I didn't know what you meant lol.

Although I mostly agree with ur viewpoint on not blaming anyone but yourself, if you truly believe character diversity or even game diversity is important I don't see how you can think that MU's aren't some times responsible for your loss and not so much yourself. Granted you are responsible for not picking the best character but then you are devaluing the importance of diversity.

 

[Steam]

posts are not supposed to be so long in this thread... WTF

 

[Nike.]

So Mr.R and Leon place top2 at a huge European event and Mikehaze wins at his local tournament. All in the same weekend.

Yea, Marth doesn't win tournies.

 

[Browny]

Pity this isnt the european tier list thread, or that might actually be relevant.

lol locals.

 

[Nike.]

Prettyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy sure the Tier List takes Europe into account.

Guess the jokes on you.

 

[Conviction]

Lol yeah, unlike JAPAN (still wtf why not), EU has a say on this thread.

 

[Shaya]

Now now djbrowny, careful with your statements of "european tier list thread" and what not. Wouldn't want to ban you from discussing here due to being from Australia or something.



And yes, the tier list does take europe into account.
We "technically" take Japan into account too, but not in the same way. We don't have Japanese players voting on tier list positions. However, opinions (that we see) and their tournament results are often taken into individual bbr member's considerations.

 

[Chuee]

lol locals.

Yeah, locals in one of the top 2 regions in the states......................

 

[Fuujin]

Just wanted to say I do completely agree with Clai. Took me a looooooooong time to actually comprehend that, but now that I have it's all a matter of doing whatever it takes.

"No Johns" applies to everything including characters and "luck". Learn the game, learn your character, then learn your matchups; once you have all that then you should never put yourself in a bad position where you rely on "luck". This game is just as much about spacing/zoning and stage control as it is about character attacks vs dodges/blocks. Anything short of winning is still getting outplayed.

So If I trip into Ike's F smash and die at 50, I got outplayed?

 

[ShadowLink84]

So If I trip into Ike's F smash and die at 50, I got outplayed?

Yes because if you were outplaying your opponent and not the other way around, you would have tripped AWAY from him, or tripped THROUGH him, thus causing him to miss the Fsmash and allowing you to land a Dsmash.

 

[Clai]

So n ow lets say their are 2 random stages like Wario Ware and....... We'll say a stage with minor randomness say Norfair. Norfair has on very slight occaision sent soo many lava plumes in a row in conjunction with the lava floor that it was literally undodgable (im not joking there was literally probably only a few spots on the screen that were safe). So lets say that you get one ban of these stages. You ban Norfair (we will just say that every time we play there the stage decides to set you up in one of those inescapable situations, its random but hey it can happen if its random), and on my CP you are forced to now play Wario Ware. Now we will give the same example every time we both win the minigame and I am getting the much better reward through pure luck and as a result I win. You had no way of avoiding going to some random stage. If the randomness is directly responsible for your loss than did you get out played.

As I said before, by picking Wario Ware, you are acknowledging that there is a chance that you will put yourself in a disadvantage, through no more than shear luck, through the use of these minigames, and that when playing on this stage, you have to play safely enough that the randomness brought by the minigames doesn't have too much of an effect on you. You can't control random events, but you can minimize the damage that random events could bring; after all, with your example, you still have control as to whether you get hit or not, all that changes is that the consequences of getting hit are larger.

Nearly every hit that the opponent puts on you is directly in your control, either because you made a decision that you thought was good but instead was very poor (using a laggy move, per example), or because you did make a very good decision, but your opponent read you and did one of the few options that beats out your option. All randomness does is reduces (or expands, if you're the lucky one) the options that you have at any given time.

And your argument made perfect sense because you knew what you meant by outplaying I didn't know what you meant lol.

Although I mostly agree with ur viewpoint on not blaming anyone but yourself, if you truly believe character diversity or even game diversity is important I don't see how you can think that MU's aren't some times responsible for your loss and not so much yourself. Granted you are responsible for not picking the best character but then you are devaluing the importance of diversity.

It's not even a matter of picking the best character, it's just a matter of picking a character that doesn't get thoroughly mutiliated by a particular matchup, heh. When picking your character main, you have to realize what type of matchups your character has and whether you can incorporate the character's tools well enough to win despite the fact that the character may have several disadvantaged matchups. Again, no one is forced to pick the best character in the game; they're choosing the character that's the best fit for their playstyle.

So If I trip into Ike's F smash and die at 50, I got outplayed?

Why are you dashing forward against a grounded Ike? You're taking away almost all your best defensive options when you're dashing forward, seriously, just walk and shield. There goes a good number of Ike's options.

 

[SlashTalon]

Why are you dashing forward against a grounded Ike?

This.


10walks=0trips

 

[Flayl]

Why are you dashing forward against a grounded Ike?

To punish a spaced move.

 

[san.]

Walking and shield is only going to get you messed up against Ike. You need to get inside him quick but be smart about it.

 

[Tagxy]

And yes, the tier list does take europe into account.
We "technically" take Japan into account too, but not in the same way. We don't have Japanese players voting on tier list positions. However, opinions (that we see) and their tournament results are often taken into individual bbr member's considerations.

Real talk.

For as long as I can remember its been stated that the European and Japanese (and other areas) metagames have not been taken into account for tier lists due to their isolated scenes. Having them as BBR members is not the same as using their results. And while its impossible to judge the integrity of BBR members votes and opinions in past tier lists, it certainly would be a change of standards to openly consider Europe and Japan results now. However it's never been an issue, in fact no ones really even brought it up before until marth mains started using results from Europe the past couple weeks as Marth has been under fire for being placed too high.

Granted, unlike older tier lists where there was no crossover exposure, I dont think we should be completely opposed to using results from places we've had exposure too, it just needs to be realistic. Consider what doors youre opening. In Japan, a scene very arguably stronger than Europe, marth places even lower. Fox, Pit, shiek, DDD and Olimar all place really high. Will our tier list reflect this as well?

To be realistic areas with limited exposure should have proportionally limited consideration. And secondly the consideration should come from those who can actually give the context. i.e. those who have been to or live in europe and preferably have been exposed to both scenes. aka orion, sfp, ally, etc. iirc ally himself said not too long ago the European scene was behind ours. Of course it would be nice if the tier list came out after his extended visit to Europe, because that would definitely allow more consideration to be given to the European scene.

Oh yeah, and Mikes win was incredibly legit, he beat anuar as well knocking off some of the best players in the nation. Big win for him.

 

[Blacknight99923]

I call bull**** if you don't use socals tournament results in saying marth doesn't win tournaments.

 

[Raziek]

I'm pretty sure we've always considered Europe, but this will be the first tier list I've been a part of, so I can't speak with certainty on that.

 

[Shaya]

Real talk.

For as long as I can remember its been stated that the European and Japanese (and other areas) metagames have not been taken into account for tier lists due to their isolated scenes.

Step 1.

Find me these statements that contradict what I stated.
Japan is not represented in the BBR. Statements of your nature relating to this are possible and are not what I'm interested in before continuing.

The BBR is a group of players from various regions. Regions are not equally represented.
Japanese players are not represented in the brawl back room.
The tier list is a culmination of individual's opinions.
In comparison to Europe and South America (oh and Australia), American player opinions form a majority of the individuals who partake in voting.

-

Real real talk. A scene's players may be worse as competitive players compared to that of another. The relationship between that and their educated opinion is hard to quantify, hence we do not.
Is Europe's opinion suddenly valid because Gluttony beat Ally? Probably in the general populace's eyes, but you'd hope their opinion was at least somewhat valid at a prior point of time anyway =)
Ditto to Japan, brood/etc

 

[Spelt]

So ... we have no way to directly compare top players in one country to another, except we have before and they've shown they can hold their own against US top players but they still suck?

 

[Shaya]

Wait what?

 

[Spelt]

Real real talk. A scene's players may be worse as competitive players compared to that of another. The relationship between that and their educated opinion is hard to quantify, hence we do not.
Is Europe's opinion suddenly valid because Gluttony beat Ally? Probably in the general populace's eyes, but you'd hope their opinion was at least somewhat valid at a prior point of time anyway =)
Ditto to Japan, brood/etc

We cannot accurately compare a scene's players with one another.

We HAVE compared European top players with US top players and they have held their own, but it was obviously a fluke and we can't judge their metagame potency on that one occurrence. So we do not use their metagame to influence tier lists


That's what i got out of that, at least.

 

[Shaya]

Ahem,


1. We cannot gauge the accuracy of the opinion of one region's players compared to another.


2. While "1" remains true, individual bias always exists, and people would tend to not give a crap about a region so far disconnected until something like 'gluttony beating ally' happens.


The current notion you're replying to me under is one where I say Europe/other regions don't matter. This notion is wrong.

 

[Thebest1pj]

Ok so from my understanding ,,if you didntpick mk then you're nott rying to outplay your opponent


and if you make the hardest reads on your opponent and totally destroy them and while going for a kill you trip, SD or get shuttle looped during a moment of desperation by them or something..they outplayed you...

 

[Zigsta]

but he has that puff so it's all good

I've got you in my sights, evil troll!

 

[Conviction]

Everyone needs to stop outplaying themselves and pick MK

 

[Sinister Slush]

I guess we should all use Meta Knight so we won't get Yellow cards for not trying our hardest against our opponent which would come out to be like us trying to Manipulate the bracket.

 

[Conviction]

Not picking MK is like intentionally forfeiting...it all makes sense now

 

[Steam]

So Mr.R and Leon place top2 at a huge European event and Mikehaze wins at his local tournament. All in the same weekend.

Yea, Marth doesn't win tournies.

still has to happen consistantly to justify marth being in A tier. he doesn't even come close to comparing to the top four and others in A tier save wario who should drop as well.

 

[Raziek]

Nobody's saying Marth is better than the Top 4. Those guys are cemented. However, it's just fine for Marth, Wario, and ICs to sit in A tier, because they all have reasonably similar results.

In fact, I wouldn't be terribly opposed to putting in an S tier for MK and the top 4, and having Marth, Wario, ICs, Olimar and Pikachu in the new A tier.

 

[san.]

ICs is a much larger tournament threat than Marth at the moment.

 

[Blacknight99923]

still has to happen consistantly to justify marth being in A tier. he doesn't even come close to comparing to the top four and others in A tier save wario who should drop as well.

And who the hells actually better better LOLOLOLOL

Sonic? oh god no
D3? **** no
Olimar? I could see olimar as A tier but he's not a tier above marth or wario
pikachu? well if you want to play devils advocate esams the only pikachu getting results




You just don't want marth to be high tier because the vast majority of randoms are absolutely horrible with the character and spam fair all day LOLOLOLOLOL.

You mine as well say mks horrible because his randoms don't place in money

 

[san.]

Marth moving like 1-2 spots down to B tier isn't much of a stretch. He's already near the bottom of A. You're already comparing Marth to those characters in your post. I guess we'll see what happens.

ESAM's results however far outweigh probably all the US Marth results (combined) for the past year. Oli has RB, Dabuz, Logic, and others who are getting there.

 

[Steam]

Olimar is rediculously better than marth results wise... and is actually a national threat.

Even though it's only one player pikachu is a national threat as well and frequently places as such. If you take away MikeHaze Marth places like... absolute **** in the US

ICs are a much bigger threat... that's just obvious

Wario may or may not be above marth. I think him and Marth should be top of Btier. They both have been good in the past and were always good in theory but they're getting beat now. People have caught up with them.

and honestly I know of the top of my head Trela and Junebug consistantly do great in their locals in strong regions. Mikehaze doing well in Socal doesn't justify being Atier. to do that you have to be national threat IMO

 

[Spelt]

Mikehaze has probably done just as much as esam.

If you take away MikeHaze Marth places like... absolute **** in the US

same with Pikachu and esam.

 

[Chuee]

and honestly I know of the top of my head Trela and Junebug consistantly do great in their locals in strong regions. Mikehaze doing well in Socal doesn't justify being Atier. to do that you have to be national threat IMO

except that Mikehaze is a national threat?

 

[Steam]

Mikehaze has probably done just as much as esam.

Except go deep into a national any time recently.