Official MBR 2010 NTSC Tier List

[stelzig]

So you're using fox, a character that fits my definition of a character who would be better, as an example for why I am wrong?

It is quite simple. I said earlier that you need to win your matches, not destroy them. This is still true. I cannot agree with the sentiment that just because a character can sleep more through certain matches, that it is better overall. The character can always get a lucky bracket, yeah, but it will be infinitely harder for the user of this character to become the best in the world by only using that character.

About your mewtwo comment... The topic of unusual/normally bad characters countering people is only really relevant here in the case of puff vs. y.link, no? I don't disagree that insignificant characters countering a good character means less than a good character countering a good character either way.

Edit: I suppose you could say it may not be infinitely harder for the user of the less balanced character because he can put more focus on his actually hard matchups, but it doesn't really change anything as far as how good the actual character is.

Edit: Just read the mewtwo thing more closely... If the mewtwo is worse than the fox and/or they don't happen to meet... Then yeah. I only agree to the whole low tier counter thing meaning little in the sense that the matchup is less likely to happen (and even less likely to happen in a somewhat even skill matchup), not that fox would have a better chance at winning a tournament where he had to face a losing matchup while marth didn't.

 

[Xyzz]

Puff is indeed overrated
But Marth is underrated so it's not that I disagree with your sarcastic tone as such.

i was mainly pointing out that tournament results don't always point out which the best character is (:

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

stelzig, I mostly agree with you that Marth is drastically underrated, but it's hard to blame people. As I said, he's difficult to play at high level, and he lacks the overt raw power of Fox, Falco and Sheik. A character is, to a very large extent, defined by his matchups, and it's totally absurd to say that a character with nothing but good and even matchups is bad. But when there are almost no good Marths out there at national events representing the character, players start to come up with very broad theory to explain very short-term metagame changes.

i have issue with this statement.

First u point out marth is lacking raw power and compare him to characters where in fact he is lacking compared to them, but what of peach? she is also lacking in raw power and despite what some think she is a very very difficult character to play at high levels. (of course pretty much everyone is hard to use at high level, otherwise there would be more top players).

Then u bring up mu's again, but the mu ratios r arbitrary numbers which do to actual results might not be accurate and might need to be reexamined.

imo marth's weaknesses r being exploited more today then ever before, but people have a hard time accepting that such a staple character in melee's meta might not be as good as he once was.

I am not saying marth is not underrated, just i want some kind of real proof that he is better then he is showing, and some proof he should not move down the tier list do to his poor showings. I mean clearly peach is proving her viability, more so then marth so why not move her above him to represent this in the next tier list?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Marth is better than peach. Why? Play the game and you'd know.

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

Marth is better than peach. Why? Play the game and you'd know.

wow that argument convinced me and wasn't pointless at all

edit: all i am asking for is proof, not opinions or pointless statements like the one u just posted

 

[ruhtraeel]

Ok yeah Zelda ***** G&W in a head to head matchup (a lot to do with me not knowing how to space properly against her so you don't get toed out of your attacks)

But yeah. Just cause he has crap rolls and stuff, doesn't make him instantly horrible, because like any other character, you can play him in a way that makes up for it quite well.

Like instead of shielding, lightshield. (I still have to incorporate this)

Instead of tech rolling, jump out of hitstun with a d-air or a b-air onto a platform, and time it differently for it to be less predictable

And like Doc vs Marth, it's all about spacing. If you space your boxes and stuff correctly and then throw out jabs to be safe, it's a lot harder to be punished IMO, something I learned playing against Puff.


And yeah G&W vs Ganon, I used to just run in with f-air into d-tilt, but that gets ***** if Ganon shields it and stomp punishes like Falcon. But if you space the f-air and then throw in a couple of jabs, you pretty much have a free grab a LOT of the time and you have a lot more options

I think G&W is better against high tiers than a lot of the low tiers.




If G&W could u-tilt OoS it would nullify a lot of defensive weaknesses he has imo

EDIT: Oh and G&W has AMAZING edgeguards

All in all, you need to read your opponent like a champion to play G&W well, on defence AND offence.

 

[Merkuri]

Marth is better than peach. Why? Play the game and you'd know.

We're interested in evidence, not naked opinions.

And Marth has dropped more than any other character from the previous tier list. It's understandable why people don't want to push him down even further.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

All evidence in a fighting game is subjective. Even if i listed facts out the *** you still have to know how to play the game and weigh them internally in order to say "oh yeah, marth is better" or "no i disagree, peach is better".

So instead of arguing on the internet about stuff, you should spend more time playing and studying the game.

 

[Kal]

NAGACE, I don't really understand anything you've written. Everything I mentioned about Marth was clearly speculation. Is it possible that he really isn't ever going to be top-tier again? Sure. I didn't say otherwise. I merely think that, after we see some Marth development, we will see Marth rise into the top tier again. This is just speculation.

 

[Dr Peepee]

Marth *****

Large range on all of his moves, a solid grab game, AND speed(DD+sick WD+running mobility)?

great character imo

the current stagelist even sets him up to do well

all it takes now is the right player(s)

 

[Merkuri]

Marth *****

Large range on all of his moves, a solid grab game, AND speed(DD+sick WD+running mobility)?

great character imo

the current stagelist even sets him up to do well

all it takes now is the right player(s)

Will you be using Marth as a serious second anytime soon?

 

[Dr Peepee]

as of this moment

I am strongly considering it

 

[~Twitch~]

so i mean...

your marth has juts been a weak second?

or something?

what does that mean?

 

[Dr Peepee]

It means I play him as a secondary but not in tournament

like my other secondaries

If I played Marth in tournament he'd be my true secondary and my other characters would be tertiaries.

 

[~Twitch~]

thanks for clearing that up maaaan.

you're a swell guy.

 

[Cherished Doll]

That's awesome I hope u do use Marth also!

 

[t3h Icy]

I hope you use Pikachu instead, and Falco on the side like Axe.

PeePeePikachu!

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

All evidence in a fighting game is subjective. Even if i listed facts out the *** you still have to know how to play the game and weigh them internally in order to say "oh yeah, marth is better" or "no i disagree, peach is better".

So instead of arguing on the internet about stuff, you should spend more time playing and studying the game.

what makes u think i dont play melee a lot? i play as often as i can against as many diff people as i can. Besides my argument is based on evidence, your idea of "you got to play the game to understand" makes no sense, I play the game a lot but that doesnt necessarily mean my opinion means more. So how about a coherent argument of why marth is better and not just arbitrary statements

NAGACE, I don't really understand anything you've written. Everything I mentioned about Marth was clearly speculation. Is it possible that he really isn't ever going to be top-tier again? Sure. I didn't say otherwise. I merely think that, after we see some Marth development, we will see Marth rise into the top tier again. This is just speculation.

what is it u dont understand? all i am saying is that the next tier list should not be based on speculation so until marth proves he is top tier again or even proves he is still better then peach, he should move down on the tier list. I never said marth cant be great again, i even said that i believe what he needs is the right player to pick him up but atm he is doing nothing.

so i am not arguing against u just staying that until proof is giving i think maybe we should consider moving marth down.

(who knows maybe the player marth needs is dr. pp)

edit: the reason i am using peach in my arguments as to why marth should move down is b/c there is reasonable evidence to show that she might in fact be better, plus playing her i can argue for her better then i can a character i dont use. This is not some kind of favoritism. (in case someone just thinks i want my character to rise or something ridicules like that)

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The only reason you don't think marth is better is because you don't have enough experience. If you want more recycled arguments and WORDS for why people with experience think that way, you can browse this thread.


/bad day

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

yet once again u dont put down a argument.

i fully understand why some might say marth is better. i am saying the lack of proof atm shows maybe these arguments r wrong. so until there is proof it follows that marth should move down the list to better represent the current meta. and no i dont want recycled arguments and WORDS i want EVIDENCE. something which is clearly lacking for marth atm.

Further more i have plenty of experience and i dont believe i ever stated that marth is in fact worse just that the tier list should reflect what is seen in the meta, a meta which atm has marth not succeeding like he has in the past, and a meta which has someone like peach being much more successful.

 

[ShroudedOne]

When people say "Peach is doing really well in this metagame," what they really mean is "Armada is really, really good." Come on, guys. Sure, Vanz and MacD did really well at Apex. But they won't be representing Peach anymore (as I understand it). If Armada were to start beating people with Young Link, would that automatically warrant him moving above all of the other low tiers that have no representation? Don't forget that Armada is a good player. His success, by itself, doesn't automatically make Peach loads better.

NAGACE, if Marth's aren't winning, maybe it's not because the MU ratios need to be reexamined, but perhaps it's because Marth players are just...not as good as other players? Sure, proof of him being good is nice, but the lack of proof doesn't make him worse. Armada will tell you that he believes that Fox beats Peach fairly badly (65:35).

Again, people, Armada doing well =/= Peach is suddenly better.

 

[Merkuri]

The only reason you don't think marth is better is because you don't have enough experience. If you want more recycled arguments and WORDS for why people with experience think that way, you can browse this thread.


/bad day

This is just a dumb post. If posts like these are all you have to contribute then don't bother posting at all.

When people say "Peach is doing really well in this metagame," what they really mean is "Armada is really, really good." Come on, guys. Sure, Vanz and MacD did really well at Apex. But they won't be representing Peach anymore (as I understand it). If Armada were to start beating people with Young Link, would that automatically warrant him moving above all of the other low tiers that have no representation? Don't forget that Armada is a good player. His success, by itself, doesn't automatically make Peach loads better.

NAGACE, if Marth's aren't winning, maybe it's not because the MU ratios need to be reexamined, but perhaps it's because Marth players are just...not as good as other players? Sure, proof of him being good is nice, but the lack of proof doesn't make him worse. Armada will tell you that he believes that Fox beats Peach fairly badly (65:35).

Again, people, Armada doing well =/= Peach is suddenly better.

You have reason to believe that Macd and Vanz won't be playing Peach anymore? Why?

Unless you have some reason to believe that for whatever reason marth players are just weaker than the mains of the other higher tier mains, then it stands to reason that the matchup ratios are are likely overstating Marth's advantage. It's simply more likely that the metagame has shifted than it is that ALL Marth players just happen to be weaker than the counter parts of the other higher tiered characters.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Vanz is fairly sure he's switching to Sheik, and MacD doesn't wanna play this game anymore (although that may change, seems unlikely though).

No, I don't have evidence for saying that Marth players are worse. I just don't want us to jump the gun too quickly in saying that Peach is better. I'd like to see more Peaches do well, first (And perhaps another win from Armada...)

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

yet once again u dont put down a argument.

i fully understand why some might say marth is better. i am saying the lack of proof atm shows maybe these arguments r wrong. so until there is proof it follows that marth should move down the list to better represent the current meta. and no i dont want recycled arguments and WORDS i want EVIDENCE. something which is clearly lacking for marth atm.

Further more i have plenty of experience and i dont believe i ever stated that marth is in fact worse just that the tier list should reflect what is seen in the meta, a meta which atm has marth not succeeding like he has in the past, and a meta which has someone like peach being much more successful.

ur dumb. tier list isn't what u think it is.

also, my last post IS an argument. Please do research on word definitions.

/bed time

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

When people say "Peach is doing really well in this metagame," what they really mean is "Armada is really, really good." Come on, guys. Sure, Vanz and MacD did really well at Apex. But they won't be representing Peach anymore (as I understand it). If Armada were to start beating people with Young Link, would that automatically warrant him moving above all of the other low tiers that have no representation? Don't forget that Armada is a good player. His success, by itself, doesn't automatically make Peach loads better.

NAGACE, if Marth's aren't winning, maybe it's not because the MU ratios need to be reexamined, but perhaps it's because Marth players are just...not as good as other players? Sure, proof of him being good is nice, but the lack of proof doesn't make him worse. Armada will tell you that he believes that Fox beats Peach fairly badly (65:35).

Again, people, Armada doing well =/= Peach is suddenly better.

u bring up valid points.

when i sat peach is doing well i was more talking about vanzs and macd both out placing the highest peach. armada is to good and makes arguments less valid b/c clearly its him as a player which is great.

is it really far to just write this off as "marth players r not as good"? i mean there r plenty of marth players (i would think more people play marth then peach) so its not lack of rep which leads to his best players being worst. so then it would just be luck which leads to the peach player pool being better but thats hard to believe especially since she is less used). so how about we compare some players, like ice or hbk and macd. macd who had not been playing melee for a good deal of time b4 apex still did better then those two. is this b/c he is a better player even when not playing for a long time or was it other factors who knows. I guess the point of this paragraph is to point out that once we start arguing about quality of players it opens up a huge amount of variables which are unmanageable.

lastly i am not going say armada's ratios r wrong, i am going to say the numbers then self have no finite meaning. i believe i stated b4 i dont believe that ratio to be correct under how i understand the ratios. I also want to add (once again not saying this is true of armada) but some people get a little dramatic with the character they use, and sometimes exaggerate ratios. (some people always feel there characters lose so all Mu's r worst then they really r and vise versa)

Remember now my argument is not why peach is better, but is instead to point out marth's lack of success as of recent.

Lastly just going to add: your post bringing up maybe the marth players r worst, makes me believe that u favor theory over evidence when it comes to the tier list. and while i agree that some theory is needed for something like a tier list in this game, i dont believe we should ignore actrual evidence that we have to draw off of.

edit: also i never heard vanz say that, that is to bad. and macd said he had fun playing at apex and is thinking of playing again

edit2: sveet's last post was "The only reason you don't think marth is better is because you don't have enough experience. If you want more recycled arguments and WORDS for why people with experience think that way, you can browse this thread.


/bad day " there is no argument there, unless your argument is i dont have enough experience which is not just untrue but cant be proved one way or another. maybe your argument is for me to go back in this 319 page thread and read other arguments but that is also not an argument. so this makes two pointless posts in a row for u i guess

 

[Merkuri]

NAGACE something else that is important to keep in mind is that Marth is a much more difficult character to play at the top level.

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

NAGACE something else that is important to keep in mind is that Marth is a much more difficult character to play at the top level.

is that really true, how does one define that? i am not saying that is wrong but a opinion, i believe i have recently seen a post by hax saying peach is incredibly hard to play at top level

 

[Max?]

Wait, why can't you d-throw him? I thought you could just tech chase off the d-throw in that case rather than do the auto-combo (which is still good).

Yeah sorry, meant to say Dthrow -> fair.

Well theory is one thing but actually playing a good G&W main is another. Have you done this?

My crew in NY actually has a GnW main who is pretty solid. He doesn't post on the boards and has only been to a handful of tournaments, but it's more experience than many others can say. I also played against QERB for a good half hour at Zenith, and of course I've played PC's GnW, tho that's just PC's jank in GnW form lol

 

[kalamazhu]

Peach is underrated by some players but not soo much that she should move in the tier list

 

[KirbyKaze]

I played as Peach tonight.

Her punishment game is actually as ridiculous as it looks.

edit:

I still think her first hit game is very limited though. It's enough to work with, but her movement haunts her. And will haunt her. Forever.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

S: Fox/Falco
A: Sheik/Jigglypuff/Marth/Peach
B: Captain Falcon/Ice Climbers
C: Dr. Mario/Ganondorf/Pikachu/Samus
D: Mario/Young Link/Luigi/Yoshi
E: Donkey Kong/Link
F: Zelda/Roy/Mewtwo/Popo
G: Mr. Game & Watch/Ness
H: Bowser/Kirby/Pichu
I: Master Hand

Fox/Falco in their own tier due to their incredible safeness.
Sheik > Puff for reasons that other people have explained before.
Pikachu > Samus cause of Axe/lack of Samus results (is already changing)
Young Link > Luigi/DK cause of good MU against Puff, decent against Peach.
Yoshi > Heaps cause of Leffen.
Popo is still decent due to wavedash and grab combos, and is ranked cause why not.
G&W/Ness are slightly better than garbage.
Master Hand cause he is playable.

 

[Blistering Speed]

Sheik > Puff for reasons that other people have explained before.

Plz elaborate. I won't even debate you on it, I'm just curious.

My tier list is unchanged, because tiers don't change every five minutes.

Fox/Falco
Puff

Sheik
Marth

Peach
Ice Climbers
Falcon

I refuse to put Ice Climber positioning w/o wobbling, because it's ****ing ******** to even acknowledge it.

 

[Kal]

NAGACE, my entire point is that I'm speculating. That, in the future, we will see evidence for Marth improving. Not that we should publish a new tier list with Marth higher solely because I think his part in the metagame will improve. Far from it; if we were to publish a tier list, I would probably place him sixth, below Fox, Falco, Jigglypuff, Sheik and Peach. I'm not for speculation taking precedence over hard evidence.

 

[ShroudedOne]

A tier list is a list of characters ranked best to worst in their likelihood to perform well in a tournament setting in the near future based on recent, relevant tournament results. We then separate characters at statistically significant gaps to be grouped with their relative equals, and those groupings are called "tiers". A tier list is, in essence, a "prediction" list as to how any given character will fare in a competitive setting. We naturally assume top level of play.

This is probably why you guys are right about Marth, and why I dislike what the criteria for a tier list are. :\ Oh well.....

 

[Kal]

A tier list is actually just any ordering of a partition of the roster. You can define it however you want. Most fighting game communities just sum up a character's matchups and order accordingly, and the tiers are decided by "significant" jumps in the sums. Sometimes they weigh them according to frequency with which characters show up in tournament. Some people do it differently.

There is no higher being who can tell you what a tier list should be. Everyone has, and is more than welcome to have, his own opinion on what a tier list should represent.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Plz elaborate. I won't even debate you on it, I'm just curious.

Puff loses hard to Fox, and slightly to Falco (imo) [two most common characters] and doesn't dominate mid/low tiers as hard as Sheik does.

I refuse to put Ice Climber positioning w/o wobbling, because it's ****ing ******** to even acknowledge it.

Agreed.

 

[Kal]

I don't understand the sentiment written about Ice Climbers and Wobbling.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

He doesn't rank Ice Climbers under the assumption that Wobbling is banned.

 

[Kal]

Wobbling has almost no impact on Ice Climbers metagame. Anyone who wants to ban it is doing so because they don't like the idea of getting ***** while being unable to move. You know. Like when you're being combo'd.

 

[Beat!]

But Kal

Wobbling is laem

!!!111one11!1