Official BBR Tier List v7

[Seagull Joe]

Earth placed top 32 at APEX 2013. That's a very high-tier placing. Other than Shaky, Earth was the only 'non-HT' char to place that high. On top of that, Koolaid got 33rd. Those two placements are better than what most HT chars got at that tourney. The highest-placing TL was MJG at 33rd (who was also the ONLY TL in the top 64), and obviously, there were no Lucarios to be found.

In fact, Pit's results at APEX were on-par with DDD's, even though the DDDs had help from other used chars (but also had one more DDD in the top 96, who also happened to be a solo DDD main).

Koolaid almost goes solo . MJG also tends to go a bunch. You're mislead so much it's saddening.

Chu got 33rd though (I think) with if that holds any weight. I don't think 33rd at a national is that big of an accomplishment. If you win your first round match in winners and then beat like 2 loser's matches afterwards you can achieve 33rd. Placings are not as important when you're on the lower spectrum of the results. The importance comes in who they beat to get there. Beating billybobjoe, humdinger, falco101, and mechwarrior along the way doesn't solidify your placing being deemed "good".

An example of how lower placings do not matter at Apex: Ishieymoro lost R1 of winners. In losers he beat FAE and then Croi. He beat good players, but not amazing players. He got 49th. Kain got 65th beating Ishieymoro R1, but losing to Salem R2 and then Attila (?) in losers. Kain certainly had to play better players and as a result when he lost, his placing was lower then Ish.

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

Personally I think Luigi is better than Yoshi and Pokemon Trainer. Maybe Ness too but I'm not sure about that one.

Koolaid almost goes solo . MJG also tends to go a bunch. You're mislead so much it's saddening.

Chu got 33rd though (I think) with if that holds any weight. I don't think 33rd at a national is that big of an accomplishment. If you win your first round match in winners and then beat like 2-3 loser's matches afterwards you can achieve 33rd. Placings are not as important when you're on the lower spectrum of the results. The importance comes in who they beat to get there. Beating billybobjoe, humdinger, falco101, and mechwarrior along the way doesn't solidify your placing being deemed "good".

Chudat beat TO Joe, lost to Mr. R, beat Negga (idk who this is... probably and OoC player), beat Rafa and lost to Tyrant to get 33rd.
I think that's not too bad.

 

[infiniteV115]

Negga's a Wifi warrior from Quebec who claims to be 2nd best in Canada, apparently.

 

[bubbaking]

Isn't it obvious? 'Hideously bad' is -4 lol.

-4 is practically impossible for all intents and purposes. -3 might as well be "hideously bad". -2 is bad. -1 is annoying. 0 means that it's somewhat even, but I like to think of it more as BOTH chars now have to focus a lot on stage CPs instead of depending on the advantage. Bad stage strikes/bans/CPs are enough to sway a 0 into a -1 for either side. It's a bit harder to do that for other MUs, IMO.

Anyway, basic gist of it is, Ness vs. DK I doubt is -3, the cargo grab is like the only reason this MU is bad and although I haven't played this MU myself I get the feeling Fair out-spaces his Bair, or something else like that because recently talking to Yink, I seem to recall her saying a +1 for Ness wouldn't be improbable if he didn't suffer from the cargo grab bull. I dunno....

Cargo grab is bad enough, but it's honestly more than that. His huge, powerful tilts let him swat Ness away quite easily, and they kill. DK's also pretty good at gimping. If DDD's bair can gimp Ness (and it can), you can bet that DK's can probably do it better. Cargo grab shenanigans also means that he can go for Cargo bthrow stage spikes a lot easier with Ness than with others.

Ness/GnW seems harder than it is but it's a pretty solid/hard -2 if you ask me.

When you tell me how Ness can reliably get in, make up a deficit, or avoid being gimped easily, then I'll believe you. Oh, I forgot to mention earlier, Ness is in that wonky weight class that makes it REALLY easy to dthrow > dsmash him if he misses the tech.

Koolaid almost goes solo . MJG also tends to go a bunch. You're mislead so much it's saddening.

Yeah, but Earth went solo Pit, so there!

Chu got 33rd though (I think) with if that holds any weight. I don't think 33rd at a national is that big of an accomplishment. If you win your first round match in winners and then beat like 2 loser's matches afterwards you can achieve 33rd. Placings are not as important when you're on the lower spectrum of the results. The importance comes in who they beat to get there. Beating billybobjoe, humdinger, falco101, and mechwarrior along the way doesn't solidify your placing being deemed "good".

Did all of those players make it into bracket at APEX 2013, though?

An example of how lower placings do not matter at Apex: Ishieymoro lost R1 of winners. In losers he beat FAE and then Croi. He beat good players, but not amazing players. He got 49th. Kain got 65th beating Ishieymoro R1, but losing to Salem R2 and then Attila (?) in losers. Kain certainly had to play better players and as a result when he lost, his placing was lower then Ish.

Attila's a great DK, but I don't think he's better than FAE or Croi.....

 

[infiniteV115]

Atilla = Snake player from Australia
Atilla the Hun = DK player from EC Canada

Unless Seagull shortened his name in his post.

 

[bubbaking]

Ohhh, I see... Is this Australian Atilla a good player? Also, is there a reason those two names have different numbers of 't's or was that just a typo? That being said, beating Ishiey and then losing to two amazing players does not prove that Kain did any 'better' than Ishiey or that he beat better people. Heck, he only beat Ishiey and that definitely doesn't prove anything unless you agree with Inui logic. Now, if Kain had intensely close sets, that would mean something. I mean, I could have entered APEX and beaten John12346 in R1 of bracket but then lost to M2K and Ally and then claim that my results were more 'meaningful' than those of John, who (for the sake of this argument) beat Fatal and Anti in Losers before being knocked out. Yeah, I LOST to way better players than who John faced at all, but that doesn't say anything. I'd still admit that, overall, John's a better player than I am.

 

[infiniteV115]

Pretty sure that they both have 1 t and that I just made a typo

 

[Dekillsage]

Kain didn't play either atilla
He lost to Rafa(Mexican snake)

If I recall correctly hun didn't even make it into bracket

 

[infiniteV115]

He's right, Kain didn't even play either Attila (okay this is bugging me I'm pretty sure it's 2 Ts and 1 L) in bracket

 

[bubbaking]

Hey guys, I have 21 likes! Does this mean I'm S for Spelt Tier? ^_^

 

[infiniteV115]

Shutup Seaking.

 

[bubbaking]

S for Seaking! I like it!

 

[infiniteV115]

S for shutup.

 

[bubbaking]

S for Stop it, V!

 

[Seagull Joe]

I got the person wrong, but the character still right. I just knew Kain lost to a in losers. Regardless, Ish outplaced Kain by one spot to get 49th, which wasn't a relevant spot either. I was not saying Ish or Kain played better players or one was better then the other, but that their placings did not matter. Until stuff starts getting into the 10's or an early upset happens, lower placings do not hold any weight other then being placeholders.

Attila the from Australia (Shmot on Swf) is really good. I highly underrated him at Apex due to thinking "Lol Australia". The man could also bench press Shaya and use him to floss his teeth. He's jacked.

 

[bubbaking]

Well what do you expect? He's gotta 4-stock them crocs, yo!

 

[infiniteV115]

Placings are generally inferior to wins/losses when trying to judge player skill (especially with larger brackets). The perfect example is how Nairo, ESAM, Ally and DEHF got 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th (respectively) at Apex 2012 even though they all lost to Otori and Nietono (in that order), just at different times.

Admittedly, Nairo was the only one that actually beat Nietono, he just lost to him in their LB encounter. But the point still stands

 

[Shaya]

Considering that I would 3 stock Seagull, I'm surprised he thought the player that actually wins most of the **** in Australia would be LOL AUSTRALIA.

 

[Seagull Joe]

Considering that I would 3 stock Seagull, I'm surprised he thought the player that actually wins most of the **** in Australia would be LOL AUSTRALIA.

You use ...I would **** you silly while wearing the Neo tag.

 

[Diddy Kong]

No. Everyone should use Diddy.

 

[Luco]

-4 is practically impossible for all intents and purposes. -3 might as well be "hideously bad". -2 is bad. -1 is annoying. 0 means that it's somewhat even, but I like to think of it more as BOTH chars now have to focus a lot on stage CPs instead of depending on the advantage. Bad stage strikes/bans/CPs are enough to sway a 0 into a -1 for either side. It's a bit harder to do that for other MUs, IMO.


Cargo grab is bad enough, but it's honestly more than that. His huge, powerful tilts let him swat Ness away quite easily, and they kill. DK's also pretty good at gimping. If DDD's bair can gimp Ness (and it can), you can bet that DK's can probably do it better. Cargo grab shenanigans also means that he can go for Cargo bthrow stage spikes a lot easier with Ness than with others.


When you tell me how Ness can reliably get in, make up a deficit, or avoid being gimped easily, then I'll believe you. Oh, I forgot to mention earlier, Ness is in that wonky weight class that makes it REALLY easy to dthrow > dsmash him if he misses the tech.

I don't agree with that MU system. There is no 'impossible' MU in smash. Even Ganon - MK isn't 'impossible', it's probably closer to 90-10 than it is to 100-0. At an even skill level, Ganon can win at the MU.

Now, I call -4 MUs 'hideously bad' because they are. -3's are 'bad', -2's are 'grr', -1 MUs are 'okay...' and 0 MUs are 'oh that's pretty decent'. But that's my perception of MUs and you can percieve them in different ways. Why are we arguing this when we know there's gonna be no clear answer?

Look, granted that I haven't spoken to her in a small while and you should never quote anything I say that comes from Yink... I dunno, I might talk to them more before really replying to this one... or just ask them here, I dunno.

GnW is similar but i'm pretty sure 'hard' -2 fits it, i'll look at it more. @.@

Attila the from Australia (Shmot on Swf) is really good. I highly underrated him at Apex due to thinking "Lol Australia". The man could also bench press Shaya and use him to floss his teeth. He's jacked.

Attila from Aus. is apparently really good, in that there's a large gap between him and any other player. With any luck i'll get to meet him at BAM (if I go!)

Aus is kinda okay. <3

Considering that I would 3 stock Seagull, I'm surprised he thought the player that actually wins most of the **** in Australia would be LOL AUSTRALIA.

Actually?? :O

 

[Shaya]

Australia was lucky.
We got to learn how to beat Wolf for like 3 years.
He's basically low tier now.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Australia was lucky.
We got to learn how to beat Wolf for like 3 years.
He's basically low tier now.

No, Shaya you have it wrong. Wolf is so OP that he still beats every character that can lock him from 0-100 or death.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Wolf is bad. His recovery is almost as bad as link's

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Wolf is broken. His dsmash is almost as good as MK's.

 

[bubbaking]

No, Shaya you have it wrong. Wolf is so OP that he still beats every character that can lock him from 0-100 or death.

Ummm, DDD though.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Wolf is broken. His dsmash is almost as good as MK's.

MK's Dsmash isn't even close to being broken. I'm sorry I insulted your character by saying the truth. The only thing he has going for him is the fact that nobody knows the match up. If MK plays it right, I could see it being -2

 

[Dekillsage]

mk dsmash still pretty godlike tho


just do it
do it do it just do it do it do it

 

[peeup]

Has Zamus reached God tier yet?

 

[Luco]

Ummm, DDD though.

Lighten up bro.

 

[Judo777]

MK's Dsmash isn't even close to being broken. I'm sorry I insulted your character by saying the truth. The only thing he has going for him is the fact that nobody knows the match up. If MK plays it right, I could see it being -2

It's not broke, its just the BEST down smash in the game. It is kinda broke in teams tho.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

-dead- @ Jebus taking my post serios.

I play Snake btw

 

[Luco]

Hehe, even I could see that one (well to be fair i was slightly unsure but still) and it's ME. I Like, never get these jokes when they come around. @.@

But aah well.

 

[bubbaking]

I don't agree with that MU system. There is no 'impossible' MU in smash. Even Ganon - MK isn't 'impossible', it's probably closer to 90-10 than it is to 100-0. At an even skill level, Ganon can win at the MU.

I agree with you somewhat. I don't agree with the MU system we have now (but for different reasons), and there is no "100% impossible MU" in Smash, but there ARE 'practically impossible MUs' at high-level. Examples are Fox: Pichu (Fox out-camps and out-spaces Pichu easily, but the MU breaking feature is that Pichu's techroll goes nowhere. If Pichu is knocked down by anything, such as dthrow or shine, Fox can techchase him with dthrow until he hits death %'s and dies at 70% from usmash), Sheik:Bowser in Melee (Bowser WILL shield a lot but Sheik has one of the best grab games in Melee, and Sheik can CG him from 0-to-death, ending the CG with a fair), and DDD:Bowser (Bowser can not reasonably avoid being grabbed at all, not if he wants to actually land damage on DDD, who outspaces him, anyway. After being grabbed, Bowser is small-stepped CG'd to the ledge, where he is ledge infinited. At death %'s, dthrow can be combo'd into dtilt, bair, usmash, and dsmash on-stage so DDD always has a fresh killing option, even though they should all be fresh after the infinite anyway... ). There are 'practically impossible MUs' and +4's should be conserved ONLY for them. As it is now, our MU chart actually has too many untrue +4's.

I actually don't agree with the +4 on MK:Ganon. That MU isn't 'impossible' like ICs:Ganon is. Heck, I'd even be willing to say that DDD:Ganon is harder for Ganon than MK:Ganon. DDD actually has the choice to automatically erase one of Ganon's stocks at ANY % from a correct read in a 50-50 situation after a CG > dthrow at the ledge. DDD also doesn't die nearly as early from hard 'Ganon-reads'.

There is no 100:0 MU in any fighting game. At worst, I'd say the -4 MUs in Smash range from 90:10 to 95:5.

Now, I call -4 MUs 'hideously bad' because they are. -3's are 'bad', -2's are 'grr', -1 MUs are 'okay...' and 0 MUs are 'oh that's pretty decent'. But that's my perception of MUs and you can percieve them in different ways. Why are we arguing this when we know there's gonna be no clear answer?

-3's are "hideously bad". You have almost no chance of winning those matches against a player of equal skill in tourney. -4's are different because in those MUs, you have almost no chance of winning against ANY competent player who is aware of the MU's MU-breaking aspects. Btw, I don't think you're allowed to have your own "perception" of what each MU value means. There is supposed to be a "clear answer" to what each MU value means. We have an official scale and if we can't completely agree on how it's interpreted, then we can't discuss MU values at all and the chart promptly holds no value. In the MU panel discussions, we must agree to a 'common viewpoint' before we start firing off what we think the value should be. Where we disagree is on how hard/easy a certain feature makes a MU, not what the values are in the first place.

Ftr, THIS is our current MU value system:

-4: (close to) unwinnable
-3: large disadvantage/hard countered
-2: medium disadvantage
-1: small disadvantage
0: even
+1: small advantage
+2: medium advantage
+3: large advantage/hard counter
+4: (close to) unloseable

Notice how a -3 = large disadvantage/hard countered. Do you know what "hard countered" means? That's "hideously bad" because it means that the countering player has chosen a char that is meant to shut down any advantage the countered player may have. Anything else is a soft counter a.k.a. a character that gives you a (clear) advantage but still requires you to outplay your opponent, given stage choice, etc.

The only thing he has going for him is the fact that nobody knows the match up. If MK plays it right, I could see it being -2

I don't think there is really any other way for DDDs to play that MU.....

 

[Seagull Joe]

I don't agree with that MU system. There is no 'impossible' MU in smash. Even Ganon - MK isn't 'impossible', it's probably closer to 90-10 than it is to 100-0. At an even skill level, Ganon can win at the MU.

No, cannot win if both players are evenly skilled. That matchup is 100-0 or 99-1. does not have a ten percent of beating a competent .

If I put Nairo/Zero/M2k vs Verm/DLA 100 times, the chance of Verm/DLA winning is like 1%. Don't say that has a 10% chance of winning because that's an astonishing statement.

 

[DLA]

I actually don't agree with the +4 on MK:Ganon. That MU isn't 'impossible' like ICs:Ganon is. Heck, I'd even be willing to say that DDD:Ganon is harder for Ganon than MK:Ganon.

Popping in to disagree, IMO Ganon:MK is the worst MU in the game. As long as the MK A. is willing to spam tornado, B. knows how to shuttle loop onstage/OoS properly, C. doesn't air dodge to the ground, and D. knows how to edgeguard properly with shuttle loop... Ganon simply won't win. Closest thing to a 100:0 MU in the game.

 

[Luco]

I agree with you somewhat. I don't agree with the MU system we have now (but for different reasons), and there is no "100% impossible MU" in Smash, but there ARE 'practically impossible MUs' at high-level. Examples are Fox: Pichu (Fox out-camps and out-spaces Pichu easily, but the MU breaking feature is that Pichu's techroll goes nowhere. If Pichu is knocked down by anything, such as dthrow or shine, Fox can techchase him with dthrow until he hits death %'s and dies at 70% from usmash), Sheik:Bowser in Melee (Bowser WILL shield a lot but Sheik has one of the best grab games in Melee, and Sheik can CG him from 0-to-death, ending the CG with a fair), and DDD:Bowser (Bowser can not reasonably avoid being grabbed at all, not if he wants to actually land damage on DDD, who outspaces him, anyway. After being grabbed, Bowser is small-stepped CG'd to the ledge, where he is ledge infinited. At death %'s, dthrow can be combo'd into dtilt, bair, usmash, and dsmash on-stage so DDD always has a fresh killing option, even though they should all be fresh after the infinite anyway... ). There are 'practically impossible MUs' and +4's should be conserved ONLY for them. As it is now, our MU chart actually has too many untrue +4's.

I actually don't agree with the +4 on MK:Ganon. That MU isn't 'impossible' like ICs:Ganon is. Heck, I'd even be willing to say that DDD:Ganon is harder for Ganon than MK:Ganon. DDD actually has the choice to automatically erase one of Ganon's stocks at ANY % from a correct read in a 50-50 situation after a CG > dthrow at the ledge. DDD also doesn't die nearly as early from hard 'Ganon-reads'.

There is no 100:0 MU in any fighting game. At worst, I'd say the -4 MUs in Smash range from 90:10 to 95:5.


-3's are "hideously bad". You have almost no chance of winning those matches against a player of equal skill in tourney. -4's are different because in those MUs, you have almost no chance of winning against ANY competent player who is aware of the MU's MU-breaking aspects. Btw, I don't think you're allowed to have your own "perception" of what each MU value means. There is supposed to be a "clear answer" to what each MU value means. We have an official scale and if we can't completely agree on how it's interpreted, then we can't discuss MU values at all and the chart promptly holds no value. In the MU panel discussions, we must agree to a 'common viewpoint' before we start firing off what we think the value should be. Where we disagree is on how hard/easy a certain feature makes a MU, not what the values are in the first place.

Ftr, THIS is our current MU value system:

Notice how a -3 = large disadvantage/hard countered. Do you know what "hard countered" means? That's "hideously bad" because it means that the countering player has chosen a char that is meant to shut down any advantage the countered player may have. Anything else is a soft counter a.k.a. a character that gives you a (clear) advantage but still requires you to outplay your opponent, given stage choice, etc.


I don't think there is really any other way for DDDs to play that MU.....

Hard countered may be a definite term but 'hideously bad' is not. Dude, you're trying to take a term and fit it in to the current system, which doesn't really work because those terms aren't quite solid themselves (The definition might be but the way people use it is not and you can't play high moral ground here because we ALL do it, we ALL use terms in our own ways). If I say 'hideously bad' is -4, it means I have my perception of what 'hideously bad' is, and even then there are different ways to say the same thing. For all you know, 'hideously bad' might be referring to a near impossible MU.

And then, even the 'definite' ratings can have different interpretations based on our experiences. I mean, Marth is a -3 and I consider him bad but if I go Ganon against MK it's going to be... you guessed it... hideously bad for me. All i'm saying here is, our thoughts on ratings are wishy-washier than you think, dude...

I guess this probably isn't helped by the fact that I play -2 MUs and go 'eh'.

No, cannot win if both players are evenly skilled. That matchup is 100-0 or 99-1. does not have a ten percent of beating a competent .

If I put Nairo/Zero/M2k vs Verm/DLA 100 times, the chance of Verm/DLA winning is like 1%. Don't say that has a 10% chance of winning because that's an astonishing statement.

I thought you might make a statement like this and to a large extent I agree... but I have to wonder, is this where the tier list comes in to play? Because of a lack of options for x character, does it mean it's harder to have a 'top' player of that character that can actually do things with the top players of high and top tiers?

I honestly don't know and DLA/Verm might be as good with ganon as M2K/Nairo/Zero/etc are with MK...

 

[Seagull Joe]

Hard countered may be a definite term but 'hideously bad' is not. Dude, you're trying to take a term and fit it in to the current system, which doesn't really work because those terms aren't quite solid themselves (The definition might be but the way people use it is not and you can't play high moral ground here because we ALL do it, we ALL use terms in our own ways). If I say 'hideously bad' is -4, it means I have my perception of what 'hideously bad' is, and even then there are different ways to say the same thing. For all you know, 'hideously bad' might be referring to a near impossible MU.

And then, even the 'definite' ratings can have different interpretations based on our experiences. I mean, Marth is a -3 and I consider him bad but if I go Ganon against MK it's going to be... you guessed it... hideously bad for me. All i'm saying here is, our thoughts on ratings are wishy-washier than you think, dude...

I guess this probably isn't helped by the fact that I play -2 MUs and go 'eh'.



I thought you might make a statement like this and to a large extent I agree... but I have to wonder, is this where the tier list comes in to play? Because of a lack of options for x character, does it mean it's harder to have a 'top' player of that character that can actually do things with the top players of high and top tiers?

I honestly don't know and DLA/Verm might be as good with ganon as M2K/Nairo/Zero/etc are with MK...

You're dumb.

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

I think Low tier mains will have different opinions on how difficult MUs are, because for them, they probably consider -2 MUs among their better MUs. Luco showed this mentality well when he said:

I guess this probably isn't helped by the fact that I play -2 MUs and go 'eh'.

For low tier players, this mentality is necessary, and when they don't have this mentality they end up switching to higher tiered characters so they don't have to "deal" with bad MUs.

I know that when I see people complaining about "terrible" MUs in Melee like Marth vs Sheik or Peach vs Puff and saying they're "nearly unwinnable", I'm over here playing Ganon against Falcos and Sheiks and Mewtwo against Marths and Falcons like "meh, that's not so bad, you have it a lot easier than I do."

I feel like there's something else I wanted to say in this post but I can't remember it...

 

[Seagull Joe]

Cocky little welps.