Official BBR Tier List v7

[Delta-cod]

It might not be directly relevant, but the outcome of the conversation decides a lot.

 

[Sinister Slush]

Yeah, Pokemon related. But Tier related as well since this is how the whole argument started anyways.

 

[Luco]

It might not be directly relevant, but the outcome of the conversation decides a lot.

I am anti-MK ban. ANNNTIIIIIIII!!!!

 

[Dre89]

I started all of this lol.

It's still related anway, because it's comparison between the tiering systems of Brawl and Pokemon.

Besides, I don't see why we should have to stop talking about it when pretty much everyone in the thread seems interested in the dialogue. It's a tier list thread for a video game, it's not as if we're discussing issues that actually matter in the world lol.

 

[Delta-cod]

Dre, you underestimate how ****ing important this tier list is. Getting it accurate will save us from the apocalypse.

This **** is serious.

 

[Luco]

Dre, you underestimate how ****ing important this tier list is. Getting it accurate will save us from the apocalypse.

This **** is serious.

You guys use facebook?

[COLLAPSE="Facebook apocalypse"]

[/COLLAPSE]

I still am kinda like 'meh' on the MK ban discussion but I realize it's an issue that affects the community and thus why people would want to talk about it.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Im mad Gheb really punked out like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HOFRGOzknQ
this is very similar to the current situation.

 

[MarioNPinkie]

Gheb Y U NO respond yet?

 

[Dre89]

Gheb Y U NO respond yet?

Because he probably has a life.

 

[da K.I.D.]

You've seen how much he posts here.

Clearly that statement is false.

 

[MarioNPinkie]

he may have a life but im interested in his response lol

 

[Delta-cod]

There won't be a response. He's gonna wait it out until people get impatient and move on/forget about the topic. That way he can save face.

 

[Dre89]

You've seen how much he posts here.

Clearly that statement is false.

Only because I spend so much time here myself, so I don't have a life either lol.

 

[fkacyan]

I think a universal ban is silly because regions who don't want him banned shouldn't have to ban him because people outside their region voted for it.

I just don't understand how people can justify MK being legal from a competitive standpoint.

Because competitively MK isn't a goddamn problem.

Asking to ban MK is more or less equivalent to telling the 3S community to ban Chun-li and the Melee community to ban Fox. In a stagnant unpatched metagame there will always be a best character and the best character will see the most play.

 

[SoulPech]

Because he probably has a life.

trolls have no life though :/

 

[MarioNPinkie]

yea seems legit

 

[da K.I.D.]

Because competitively MK isn't a goddamn problem.

Asking to ban MK is more or less equivalent to telling the 3S community to ban Chun-li and the Melee community to ban Fox. In a stagnant unpatched metagame there will always be a best character and the best character will see the most play.

I really dont feel like dissecting this post and proving you wrong point by point, because, honestly, its been done before. Too many times.

Ill just say that im pretty sure the matchup thread just went on a 5 page long tangent about the idea of comparing brawl character viability to Pokemon characterg viability.

It never works and it never ends well because every game is different.

Please refrain from making comparisons to other games when discussing the Brawl metagame in the future if you don't mind.

 

[fkacyan]

I really dont feel like dissecting this post and proving you wrong point by point, because, honestly, its been done before. Too many times.

Ill just say that im pretty sure the matchup thread just went on a 5 page long tangent about the idea of comparing brawl character viability to Pokemon characterg viability.

It never works and it never ends well because every game is different.

Please refrain from making comparisons to other games when discussing the Brawl metagame in the future if you don't mind.

Dissecting it point by point to prove it wrong is something you can't do, because it's a valid point. MK is to Brawl's matchups and overall dominance as Chun-li is to 3S and Fox is to Melee (Unless you want to say that even Pichu can win if he lands a grab, which he doesn't really ever).

The MK ban camp has never been able to prove that MK breaks the game, ignoring ledge options and Infinite Caping which are both limited by other rules, as well as ledge options being pretty degenerate on other characters.

If MK is broken, how is he broken? Dominance? Other games are fine with worse levels of dominance. Matchups? MK isn't the worst offender there, either.

But yeah, I guess Brawl is 100% unique in every way and can never be compared to anything.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

MK only seems comparable to them because we took away his best stages, planking, scrooging and extended dimensional cape and dissected the character to bits to capitalize on all of his weaknesses.

And he is still better, relatively speaking, than Fox and Chun Li.



EDIT: Btw, MK isn't the only character with "degenerate" planking, but he is the only one that would be banned if we didn't have a LGL.

 

[-LzR-]

That is exactly the point. The whole ruleset is based around capitalizing on MKs weaknesses and he is still much better than ICs who can play on their best stages all the time. Of course MK is fine if we nerf him a lot with all sorts of stupid rules (scrooging rule). The fact you have to use these nerfs means the character should be banned instead. He is not unbeatable at all. He is just much better than the rest of the cast and even then he is easier to use, especially when compared to Melee where Fox is incredibly technical and has almost no room for error.

 

[fkacyan]

MK only seems comparable to them because we took away his best stages, planking, scrooging and extended dimensional cape and dissected the character to bits to capitalize on all of his weaknesses.

And he is still better, relatively speaking, than Fox and Chun Li.

Waaaaaay back when we still had Brinstar and RC legal on a global scale and MK was doing better than he is now, he still wasn't at Chun's level. Hell, not even Fox's. When a Melee player did the equivalent of Ankoku's old list for Melee, the people putting rankings points up for non Fox/Falco characters were extremet outliers. Jiggs got all of her points from two people to get second place by a margin larger than the MK / Snake difference.

For that last bit:

Define 'better.'

EDIT: Ease of use should never be a factor when deciding what is allowed for competitive use.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Sure. Name the last time Fox won a national.

Now name the last time MK didn't.

 

[fkacyan]

Sure. Name the last time Fox won a national.

Now name the last time MK didn't.

So you're saying the players playing MK wouldn't have won if playing another character, and the players winning Melee couldn't have won with Fox?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If they could've, they would've. We aren't so short on players that you can say "Oh all the good Melee players just happen to not use Fox, and all the good Brawl players just happen to use MK".

Also you completely dodged the planking problem.

 

[fkacyan]

If they could've, they would've. We aren't so short on players that you can say "Oh all the good Melee players just happen to not use Fox, and all three good Brawl players just happen to use MK".

Also you completely dodged the planning problem.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with this post.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Then you aren't worth debating with.



EDIT: **** auto-correct, try again now

 

[fkacyan]

Then you aren't worth debating with.

There's nothing to debate. You're giving credit to characters over players and using that as a basis for saying that a character is broken and banworthy without doing any kind of analysis on why that is the case and expecting that to make your point for you.

Why does a character winning have anything to do with him being broken?

EDIT: Why is creating a rule to limit planking a bad thing? You act as though this is inherently bad but have provided no reasoning as to why this is the case.

Inb4slipperlyslope

 

[-LzR-]

Waaaaaay back when we still had Brinstar and RC legal on a global scale and MK was doing better than he is now, he still wasn't at Chun's level. Hell, not even Fox's.

Are you seriously trying to say Melee Fox is better than MK even with Brinstar and RC legal? Fox has actual weaknesses and limitations, unlike MK who you can't even properly edgeguard.

 

[fkacyan]

Are you seriously trying to say Melee Fox is better than MK even with Brinstar and RC legal? Fox has actual weaknesses and limitations, unlike MK who you can't even properly edgeguard.

According to the data, yeah, Fox made more top8 placements per tourney than MK did back when RC and Brinstar were legal.

EDIT: Unfortunately I can't find the archives of Ankoku's point totals for each list iteration, but for reference, here are the threads I'm referring to:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=267771&highlight=character+list+ankoku

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=165954&highlight=ankoku+list+character+ranking

And Melee is missing a lot of results, unfortunately. One of the few things I can say for AiB is that it did popularize expedient results uploading.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

There's nothing to debate. You're giving credit to characters over players and using that as a basis for saying that a character is broken and banworthy without doing any kind of analysis on why that is the case and expecting that to make your point for you.

Why does a character winning have anything to do with him being broken?

EDIT: Why is creating a rule to limit planking a bad thing? You act as though this is inherently bad but have provided no reasoning as to why this is the case.

Inb4slipperlyslope

Winning is an indication of how good a character is.

Using a LGL to keep Meta Knight legal creates a double standard, because we don't so something similar to keep stages legal.

 

[fkacyan]

Winning is an indication of how good a character is.

Using a LGL to keep Meta Knight legal creates a double standard, because we don't so something similar to keep stages legal.

So, it's the character winning and not the player?

How do you intend to prove that it is MK that's broken and simply not the more skilled player winning in an even matchup? What data is telling you that MK is absolutely in the advantage in the matchups he's playing?

Using a LGL to keep Meta Knight legal creates a double standard, because we don't so something similar to keep stages legal.

I did say inb4slipperyslope, and there it goes.

Creating a rule specifically to limit a broken aspect of the game does not mean that similar measures are required for other parts of the game, especially if they're wildly different. Stages are another ballpark entirely.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

It's called common sense. The data you obtain from existing in the real world and taking note of connections.

In this case, I know that in a game with as many players as Smash, the chance of all the best players just picking Meta Knight instead of the other high tiers, for reasons other than him being incredible, is less likely than the alternative.

Pointing out a double standard is not the same as the slippery slope fallacy, btw.

Stages are not a different story. We ban stages for the same reason that we ban Meta Knight; to make the game more competitive, therefore, the same rules apply.

 

[Dre89]

Because competitively MK isn't a goddamn problem.

Asking to ban MK is more or less equivalent to telling the 3S community to ban Chun-li and the Melee community to ban Fox. In a stagnant unpatched metagame there will always be a best character and the best character will see the most play.

This has been explained so many times. Fox and Pikachu in Melee and 64 respectively, have weaknesses. MK doesn't. MK loses to no characters, and has no bad stages.

That's the difference. He's the optimal choice in pretty much any environment he's allowed in.

Edit- A lot of the top players skill-wise do use MK, but that's because he rendered their previous main unviable.

 

[fkacyan]

It's called common sense. The data you obtain from existing in the real world and taking note of connections.

In this case, I know that in a game with as many players as Smash, the chance of all the best players just picking Meta Knight instead of the other high tiers, for reasons other than him being incredible, is less likely than the alternative.

Pointing out a double standard is not the same as the slippery slope fallacy, btw.

Stages are not a different story. We ban stages for the same reason that we ban Meta Knight; to make the game more competitive, therefore, the same rules apply.

So you want to ban a character on "common sense" and yet take a logical standpoint as though there is data backing up what you want to do?

"All the best players" play Chun in 3S. Should she be banned?

Of course, not ALL the best players in our Top 8s pick MK. Not even close. So at what point is it 'enough' to ban MK? You seem to be setting arbitrary boundaries.

Also, double standard: "We do one thing for this and one thing for that, which means we HAVE do to the one thing for the other thing." This is the definition of a slippery slope. Under another name. Stop being dumb.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Stages are not a different story. We ban stages for the same reason that we ban Meta Knight; to make the game more competitive, therefore, the same rules apply.

Yeah, except at this point people don't ban stages to make the game more competitive anymore (it was back when the stagelist was at least 15 stages long), but to appeal communities.

MK loses to no characters, and has no bad stages.

That's because people don't like YI:M, it's such a terrible stage for him in a lot of MUs....
Some stage-character combos actually are bad for MK, not sure how much, that part of the metagame could never properly develop.



/Not an argument pro or anti MK

 

[Espy Rose]

Kyo, the best part is that "bad for MK" in your post essentially means that the character/stage combo allows them to go 50:50 with the bat at best.

 

[fkacyan]

This has been explained so many times. Fox and Pikachu in Melee and 64 respectively, have weaknesses. MK doesn't. MK loses to no characters, and has no bad stages.

What objective data are you using to use this as a factual point? Please show me the thread where we did a matchup analysis for MK vs every other character on every tourney legal stage.

Oh wait. We haven't done that and there's nothing to prove that this is fact.

Please don't bring up the matchup chart, either. There has been nothing close to the kind of in-depth analysis necessary for that thing to really be of any real use to something as serious as banning a character.

EDIT: lol texans talking about MK

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Thio: It is merely one argument against MK, not my entire reason for being pro-ban.

A slippery slope FALLACY is when someone says that because we did one thing for x reason, we are obliged to do another similar, yet more extreme for the same reason.

I admit that that appears to fit my argument pretty well, but only if you don't understand the philosophy behind banning things. I recommend checking the thread I made on the subject, it's called "The Competitive Criteria" and can be found in the stage discussion boards.

To summarize, a slippery slope would be "if you're going to cut down this tree, why don't you cut down all trees?" - it ignores the reasoning and focuses on the action. The reason to cut down one tree is not the reason to cut down all trees. The reason to ban stages is the reason to ban MK.

Kyokoro: A lot of the time, being as competitive as possible and appealing to the community are the same thing.



**** it's been a long time since I debated objective stuff instead of subjective stuff, feels good.

 

[fkacyan]

Thio: It is merely one argument against MK, not my entire reason for being pro-ban.

A slippery slope FALLACY is when someone says that because we did one thing for x reason, we are obliged to do another similar, yet more extreme for the same reason.

I admit that that appears to fit my argument pretty well, but only if you don't understand the philosophy behind banning things. I recommend checking the thread I made on the subject, it's called "The Competitive Criteria" and can be found in the stage discussion boards.

To summarize, a slippery slope would be "if you're going to cut down this tree, why don't you cut down all trees?" - it ignores the reasoning and focuses on the action. The reason to cut down one tree is not the reason to cut down all trees. The reason to ban stages is the reason to ban MK.

Kyokoro: A lot of the time, being as competitive as possible and appealing to the community are the same thing.

OK, so, it's one of your reasons to want to ban MK, but where is the actual, factual evidence to back it up? We are not yet at the point, nor were we ever at the point, and in fact are trending away from the point at which MK holds each top 8 placing. At what point do you consider a character broken enough to ban? If we ban MK and another character does the same thing, do we ban him or unban MK?

On the subject of matchups, what data are we using to say he has no losing matchups at any time ever? The matchup list? We never did that on a stage to stage basis, did we? And did we properly analyze every matchup (Answer: No, the BBR analysis is so frightfully lacking real analysis that it's rather pathetic)?

Sidenote: Slippery slopes are direct results of double standards, and the two are intrinsically related. If you want to argue semantics and ignore the fact that you have absolutely no basis in fact to ban MK, please, continue. It's an excellent smokescreen to the uneducated.

 

[Espy Rose]

EDIT: lol texans talking about MK

Because the region I'm from totally invalidates the voice I have about the character, right?
Seems legit to me.

Keep working on those off-handed insults by the way. It definitely makes you look more intelligent and friendly.