Official MBR 2010 NTSC Tier List

[ShroudedOne]

There aren't that many people who enjoy playing her. It's that simple. Most people choose characters based completely on coolness/whether they like the series/like the playstyle. It's basically Puff syndrome.

 

[Strong Badam]

the people that think sheik is an easy char with autocombos are the ones that are wrong, kp

 

[iRobinhoood]

I will go to my grave wrong.

 

[ShroudedOne]

She definitely has autocombos, but she's definitely not easy.

 

[Xyzz]

After some ridiculously easy basic things her combos actually become rather interesting, I think. Sure everybody can do easy two steps like ftilt > fair, but planning ahead enough to actually pull off amazing death combos is far more challenging.
And she is fun to play imho. She moves so fast and smooth <3

 

[JPOBS]

Kage, the entire up tier of players is made of people who win despite literally refusing to play match ups right. It's the entire reason people boo when Hbox/Armada happens. Of the upper echelons of players, the ones who purposefully play match ups correctly are probably like, You(and even you outright refuse to CG generally) M2K, PP, Armada, Hbox and Axe. Very rarely do high level players play match ups correctly, but when 2 people play against each other incorrectly it generally resets advantages to 0 and you end up with a legit looking match-up.

If the best players are playing matchups in such ways contradictory to the established "right" way to play, who's to say that the top players don't have it right and whatever the common opinion on a matchup is, is essentially contrived nonsense?

Hint: it is.

free unknown

 

[ShroudedOne]

Matchups are nearly irrelevant at top level.

 

[JPOBS]

>implying matchups are relevent at ANY level

At lower levels, sets are determined by who messes up less.
At higher levels sets are decided by who adapts to their opponents idiosyncrasies the fastest.

matchups are just ways to kill time on the internet, they dont matter real games.

 

[Juushichi]

At least maybe not in smash.

 

[Strong Badam]

>implying matchups are relevent at ANY level

At lower levels, sets are determined by who messes up less.
At higher levels sets are decided by who adapts to their opponents idiosyncrasies the fastest.

matchups are just ways to kill time on the internet, they dont matter real games.

 

[Deleted member]

>implying matchups are relevent at ANY level

At lower levels, sets are determined by who messes up less.
At higher levels sets are decided by who adapts to their opponents idiosyncrasies the fastest.

matchups are just ways to kill time on the internet, they dont matter real games.

lollllllll

this is easily the worst advice i've seen all day

and i post on the marth boards.

 

[KirbyKaze]

I was thinking of explaining something but then remembered how bad SWF is lately.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Between the misinformation/ignorance on one side, and the haughty elitism from the other side, it's hardly a surprise.

 

[JPOBS]

lollllllll

this is easily the worst advice i've seen all day

and i post on the marth boards.

Feel free to disagree and explain.

 

[jerflip]

Feel free to disagree and explain.

Some characters dominate other characters due to better priority and approach options

There's a reason Fox/Falco/Shiek/Jiggs/Marth have the highest win %s at tourneys by far, ya doof

 

[JPOBS]

lol
aight brah

 

[Blistering Speed]

Are you seriously asking for someone to explain why match-ups matter?

 

[JPOBS]

Someone earlier put forth the thesis that matchups don't matter at a high level because the top players aren't "playing the matchup right" because at that level, they are playing the player.
I just went a step further and postulated that if the top players aren't "playing it right" then neither are the lower level players because, for ****s sake, lower level players don't have to know how to do it properly anyway.

extrapolating from that, I've just concluded that, if we accept the premise that top players aren't playin it right (because they don't need too), then who the **** is?

This goes back to the whole argument that "jiggs isn't that good, all the fox players in the world are just playing the matchup wrong" that e used to have back in 09-10. And more recently "fox-peach is 70-30, but armada is just so much better than all the foxes so it doesn't matter".

For the record, I'm only saying all this because this is what logically follows from a statement "matchups are almost irrelevent at high levels", I'm just pushing the envelop to show how silly that statemet is. My original point on the topic a while back is that top level is here the matchup is most well defined, and all this stuff we talk about on the forums are mute (imo).

 

[Max?]

Homies just need to use the OT Matchup System already so we can stop talking about this bull**** and move on with our lives

 

[Mahone]

>implying matchups are relevent at ANY level

At lower levels, sets are determined by who messes up less.
At higher levels sets are decided by who adapts to their opponents idiosyncrasies the fastest.

matchups are just ways to kill time on the internet, they dont matter real games.

but what about the mid level, thats where id say mus matter the most, i can kinda agree with you otherwise (athough i personally think mus always matter, even at super high level)

Between the misinformation/ignorance on one side, and the haughty elitism from the other side, it's hardly a surprise.

GOT EM

Homies just need to use the OT Matchup System already so we can stop talking about this bull**** and move on with our lives

ya, this is true, that system is pretty nice

 

[Bones0]

One thing I have to ask myself though, if sheik is so good against so many of the chars and often the trouble matchup for non top 6 chars is sheik, then why aren't there any sheiks? Is sheik vs falco and sheik vs fox that bad? or is getting good with sheik actually secretly one of the most difficult things to do?

or do people just hate sheik? this runs through my head a lot. There really should be more sheik players. it's really weird how few exist if sheik vs fox is even like m2k says and sheik vs falco is even like KK says and sheik is an easy char with autocombos like everyone else says. Someone has to be wrong

I think the issue with representation is that characters are easier or harder at certain levels compared to other characters. Sheik IS easier at lower levels. Anyone who denies this is insane. Her basic combos into fair bypass a lot of the stuff other characters have to do to lead into kills, and the easier something is at low levels, the stronger it makes that character. Amongst the super high level players, having two Sheiks (M2K and KK) is pretty good representation. Especially when you consider the spacies, who make up a third of the entire Melee population, yet you really only see Mango and PP competing at the top, maybe including Unknown or Javi. What other spacies have even come close to beating Armada or the Elite 4? Going down a notch, I think you see a LOT more high level spacies, particularly Fox. Maybe this level benefits spacies the most because players aren't punishing as hard as they are at the top. Idk, that's just a theory, but my point is that different skill levels benefit different mains, so just because successful Sheik mains run thin at mid levels doesn't mean she doesn't excel at top levels. To go back to your original point, M2K's and KK's opinions of the Sheik matchup are based on TOP level game play, which is where Sheik has pretty good representation.

I don't think JPOBS actually believes matchups are just figments of our imaginations. I hope that his actual point is that matchups vary based on skill level, and I would even argue that at the top level, with so little character representation to begin with and Melee just being an insane game, matchups are constantly being rewritten (and therefore going into nationals, the status quo doesn't matter). How anyone can truly say if PP or Armada is playing the matchup right is beyond me because they are both constantly innovating to try to beat each other. At most levels, people are worried about executing their strategies properly. At PP and Armada's level, they are worried about finding a strategy that will work. They are focused on figuring out what their opponent did that prevented them from exercising their own control over the match. That is the core of what matchups are: the strategies used to shut down and destroy the other character. Looking at it from that perspective, it's pretty easy to see how matchups can be different depending on the skill level of the players. New players fighting to make it out of pools aren't using the same strategies top players use, therefore the matchups are different at their level. What's important to understand is that matchups don't change linearly. Just because Sheik is good at low levels and bad at mid levels doesn't mean she doesn't become good at matchups once she gets into high level matches.

Yeah, I know, I'm a long-winded ****.

Some characters dominate other characters due to better priority and approach options

There's a reason Fox/Falco/Shiek/Jiggs/Marth have the highest win %s at tourneys by far, ya doof

Also because they are the most popular characters, and Hbox/Mango are/was really good with Puff. Leaving Puff as a CLEAR outlier, do I think those 4 characters would suddenly stop losing tournaments in a world where character mains are evenly distributed? Of course not. But suggesting that their win ratio nears 100% solely because of their matchups is a ridiculous assumption. They win every tournament because they make up a good 70% of the tournament scene AND their characters are good.

 

[Kink-Link5]

All those high placing Falcon players that take up a huge chunk of the scene and win everything.

 

[Bones0]

Fox, Falco, Sheik, Marth, and Peach mains are all more common than Falcon mains.

 

[Kink-Link5]

And yet there are characters like Jigglypuff and Ice Climbers that exist. The point being there isn't a correlation. Character usage and character viability have an effect on how quickly a character's metagame is developed and can thus change how the character is perceived over time, but to retroactively make a claim that characters win because they're overrepresented is completely backwards logic. Perhaps they're overrepresented because they win instead?


Or perhaps there isn't a correlation.

 

[MaskedMarth]

Yeah but the Falcon mains are sexier.

 

[Strong Badam]

dthrow fair with falcon: WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAA
dthrow fair with sheik: "gay"

-smash community forever and always

 

[JPOBS]

I would even argue that at the top level, with so little character representation to begin with and Melee just being an insane game, matchups are constantly being rewritten (and therefore going into nationals, the status quo doesn't matter). How anyone can truly say if PP or Armada is playing the matchup right is beyond me because they are both constantly innovating to try to beat each other.

This, precisely.

 

[Kink-Link5]

dthrow fair with falcon: WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAA
dthrow fair with sheik: "gay"

-smash community forever and always

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEOrgBWr_N4#t=644s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEOrgBWr_N4#t=703s

 

[Gea]

They were cheering for homeboy against M2K, not for the characters.

 

[Bones0]

And yet there are characters like Jigglypuff and Ice Climbers that exist. The point being there isn't a correlation. Character usage and character viability have an effect on how quickly a character's metagame is developed and can thus change how the character is perceived over time, but to retroactively make a claim that characters win because they're overrepresented is completely backwards logic. Perhaps they're overrepresented because they win instead?


Or perhaps there isn't a correlation.

Jiggs and ICs don't win nearly as many tournaments as the more popular characters. There is certainly a large correlation between popular characters and successful characters. How much causation is involved is certainly up in the air, but to deny popularity has a significant positive impact on a character's success is nonsense. I don't see how it's backwards logic at all. If 80% of Fox players use green Fox and 20% use blue Fox, you will have approximately 80% green Foxes and 20% blue Foxes at any given level. Just because more green Foxes make it to later in the bracket than blue Foxes doesn't mean green Fox is inherently better than blue Fox. It just means green Fox is overrepresented, especially since most players would agree blue Fox is the best via Theory Bros.

 

[Kink-Link5]

And Peach the best character in the game when Armada beats Mango

Boneslogic101

 

[Hax]

Matchups are nearly irrelevant at top level.

lol

Spoiler

10chars

 

[Bones0]

And Peach the best character in the game when Armada beats Mango

Boneslogic101

Hbox only places well because he uses Puff.

KinkLinkLogic



Wow, look, I can put words in peoples' mouths too!

 

[Warhawk]

You had to know that was going to happen when arguing with kink

 

[ShroudedOne]

lol

Spoiler

10chars

This is actually not something I invented, but rather that I've heard other top players say, that people are too hung up on matchups and that player vs player is more important. And it makes sense to me.

Though perhaps this is only among characters that are Peach and better, which would explain your response. Tbh, I don't know why I'm bothering with a response. Everyone seems to be content with saying "you guys don't know what you're talking about" and leaving it at that.

 

[john!]

This is actually not something I invented, but rather that I've heard other top players say, that people are too hung up on matchups and that player vs player is more important. And it makes sense to me.

Though perhaps this is only among characters that are Peach and better, which would explain your response. Tbh, I don't know why I'm bothering with a response. Everyone seems to be content with saying "you guys don't know what you're talking about" and leaving it at that.

if their opinion is right, why should they bother to defend it? welcome to an online forum, where nobody ever changes their mind.

 

[Blistering Speed]

This is actually not something I invented, but rather that I've heard other top players say, that people are too hung up on matchups and that player vs player is more important. And it makes sense to me.

Nobody would contest that. Your original statement, however, is this:

Matchups are nearly irrelevant at top level.

Two very different things.

EDIT: And as for the lack of elaboration, I'm not going to patronize you and JPOBS (though he appears to have completely back tracked on this immediately so whatever) with an explanation of the existence and significance of match-ups. It's a fundamental of the genre.

 

[john!]

i think what he meant is that talking about matchups and learning more about which characters are better than others won't affect tournament results in any meaningful way

 

[knightpraetor]

referring to the "matchup" seems not to refer to the most used strategy being executed at top level when the matchups are played, but to the dynamic between what the speaker thinks are the optimal strategies. Thus, it's inevitable that people will speak past each other and also have completely different ideas of what the tiers are like.

I don't think the currently executed strategies are just stupid stuff that the top players pulled out of their ***, so I naturally think that the current state of the matchup is important. You can't just invent anything or do whatever you want, you hvae limitations based on what has already been invented for dealing with things your char can do in the matchup. Saying player knowledge is more important, seems to be something like "knowing what this player likes to do," but in reality if you knew the progression that led to the current matchup state you should know how to adapt to a player. So adapting to the player is just part of understanding the matchup. To claim that you "know the matchup" but just "couldn't adapt to the player" is utter nonsense. Obviously the player knew something about the matchup you didn't, otherwise you should have come close unless the matchup itself is so imbalanced that knowing your char side well did not help you.

Honestly though, I think most people lose to player's more than to knowledge of optimal strategies in a matchup. Often I can wreck people using silly ridiculous stuff that doesn't even work. But sometimes it's because the opponent is using such dumb strategies that they obviously don't know what they are doing, while other times they are trying to implement a good strategy but don't have the spacing or execution. There are plenty of people who lose matches just to poor dashdance spacing or missed tech skill, and i guess in those cases you might say they lost to the player.

But often the differences lie in a few millimeter variations of marth's jump or dashing back slightly farther than usual at the right times that throws them off. If such is the case, then couldn't you also say that their lack of knowledge of the matchup leads them to be unable to make the tiny incremental changes in spacing necessary to maintain control?

anyway, my main point was merely that the line between player skill and and the strategy being executed is not very clear, and that no one is thinking of the same thing when they talk of the "matchup" which always makes dialogue difficult. however, i find that people who have played marth a lot have far more similar viewpoints to me than people who main other characters. There is definitely a lot of common strategy and belief about how to play the common matchups.

However, I find I can't really talk well to people about marth who don't actually play marth cause they have weird conceptions of the character (which i would say are wrong). I find it far more beneficial to talk to them about how they would go about dealing with a marth who does A or B and gain a better understanding of how they play the other side of the matchup, and use that to figure out what I ought to be doing rather than asking them (or in the case of the marth boards them giving you information you didn't ask for) what I should be doing to deal with [insert problematic falco strategy].

Also, you should try not to look at the opinion of top players as law if they haven't even played your char long enough to have tested the various options. Oftentimes top players will later realize that what they were doing was suboptimal. PP's marth's game changes very regularly. I think the most impressive feat i watched was when he slowly designed the marth vs jiggs metagame over 3-4 hrs. Things I had spent days working on were all tested and incorporated rapidly, and the final product was nothing like the initial way he had been playing the matchup, which i would merely categorize as bad.

i honestly think after those 4 hrs he probably could have gone and 3-0'd hungrybox's jiggs easily, but knowing PP he probably forgot half the things he learned and then learned another 1000 things about other chars. The stuff PP knows seems to change depending on what month of the year you catch him at. It's like his brain can't hold all the stuff he's worked on or invented

 

[FrootLoop]

is this thread going through identity crisis or something?