Official MBR 2010 NTSC Tier List

[MookieRah]

For the life of me I don't understand why Jiggs is considered so great, which is not to say she isn't good, but I don't believe she is in the top 5 placement. I kinda see her like I do the IC's, overall very solid but not quite as good as the other top characters. Then again I pretty much sidestepped the entire Mango domination period that seems to have made people think somehow that Jiggs has an advantageous matchup against Marth.

I think that it is safe to say that Fox, Falco, Marth, Sheik, and Peach (no particular order there) are the overall best characters in the game. Throughout all of smashes history this seems mostly true. I also agree with TCB about movement being the next big thing that will shape the metagame. That doesn't mean that Marth is the best character, but I honestly think that he is S tier worthy. His tournament performance, on a whole, has been quite consistently better than the other A tier characters. So yeah, maybe he dropped out of favor for a while when people learned new stuff, but his attributes are so good that his meta just needed a bit of development to deal with it.

Not that it matters, but this is what my projection for the next tier list for S and A tiers (no particular order inthe groupings):
S - Fox, Falco, Marth, Sheik, Peach
A - IC's, Jiggly, Captain Falcon

I'm not going to bother going beyond that cause honestly things get super blurry for me past that point and I honestly don't have enough knowledge on those characters to make any real judgement on.

 

[KishPrime]

Good show, TCB. I am looking forward to seeing what happens as, as bones pointed out, Melee's metagame refuses to peak.

 

[Anand]

it isn't an honor thing, it's a very poor strategic choice in most situations, both at the time and for long-term improvement. switching off of your main in an already advantageous match-up is just a bad idea. i can't count the number of fox mains i've played that switched to sheik (either game 1 or game 2) expecting to have won at the character select screen and then get absolutely demolished in a 70-30 MU. and i'm not even going to get into how split your tournament experience becomes between characters when you start doing this.

and this is unrelated, but yes, it does make you a better player. it makes you a worse competitor, however, which is what we care about, since character choice IS a tested skill and always will be.

Oh, okay. That's reasonable, although that's definitely not how I read "are you that much worse than your opponents that you have to go from a 60-40 to a 70-30 to win?" (which implies that it helps you win, whereas your actual point is that it makes it harder for you to win). Thanks for clarifying.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I play Marth. I watch Marth. I breathe Marth. My opinion of him as a character hasn't changed because of a top placing or two. I already knew he was capable of that.

Marth is really ****ing good. Hes not some flavor-of-the-month character, and thinking he is the best in the game is not all that controversial. If you want to have a discussion about the theory then fine, go right ahead, but I'm sick of the anti-results angle being pushed when the theory and the results happen to line up. Theres more to the argument than that and it devolves active discussion to simplify it as such.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

@Mafia: I'll write a Peach post later just for you bby

 

[BTmoney]

One Marth player standing out, and PP/M2k using him for certain matchups does NOT make Marth the best in the game.

I think that is an unpopular opinion. I think #3 is good for him. I have him at #3. But with Fox's inconsistency he'd actually be #2 on my list. But I still have faith in Fox (for now) so it goes Fox, Sheik, Marth to me.

Armada pretty much said it how I see things. I just don't really go around saying it because I have no credibility when it comes to Melee.

Oh and may I ask why everyone is putting Marth so high? I know he is good, but on the same tier as spacies? What tools does he have to deserve a spot up there?

U-throw uair destroys the entire cast and he isn't being held down by the Sheik MU anymore clearly (not that I ever thought it was that bad). My unpopular opinion will also tell you that Dr. PP plays the best marth in terms of efficiency and his style is the most "correct." Marth's MUs (now) come down to how well you can deal with his ridiculous dash dance and avoid getting juggled. The only characters in my mind that beat Marth are both maybes and they are Falcon and Falco. I don't believe Marth has bad MU's at worst he has 2 maybe 3 45-55s

 

[Ziodyne]

Dr. PP's Marth should be the standard model from which Marth mains can branch out, but he probably does the most "correct" stuff out of any Marth (in my ALSO unpopular opinion LMAO).

I think Sheik-Marth is still Sheik's favor, but it's not really worse than 45-55 Sheik.
I dunno enough about Falco vs. Marth except that it's the best character rivalry in Melee history (Ken vs. Bombsoldier, Ken vs. PC Chris, Mew2king vs. Shiz, Mew2king vs. PP, etc.)

Falcon-Marth feels flat even to me, pretty stupid matchup for both characters playing IMO

 

[john!]

armada's first post is 100% spot-on and i hope everyone reads it (looking at you, PURDUE SMASH SCENE)

but his second post doesn't play out well because results DRIVE THEORY. i mean that people base their theory on what they see in tournaments, or on other people's theory which is in turn based on what THEY see in tournaments, etc. there is nobody here who has made a list that would be the same regardless of whether the professional smash scene existed or not. it's ridiculous to say that a tier list shouldn't be based on results, because everything is based on results.

if the tier list is a reflection of the metagame, and the anti-YL metagame is underdeveloped, then why shouldn't YL's tier list placing benefit from that?

 

[Bones0]

armada's first post is 100% spot-on and i hope everyone reads it (looking at you, PURDUE SMASH SCENE)

but his second post doesn't play out well because results DRIVE THEORY. i mean that people base their theory on what they see in tournaments, or on other people's theory which is in turn based on what THEY see in tournaments, etc. there is nobody here who has made a list that would be the same regardless of whether the professional smash scene existed or not. it's ridiculous to say that a tier list shouldn't be based on results, because everything is based on results.

if the tier list is a reflection of the metagame, and the anti-YL metagame is underdeveloped, then why shouldn't YL's tier list placing benefit from that?

Results do drive theory, but that doesn't mean they SHOULD. Would our lists be the same if we had never seen pro gameplay? Of course not. Would our lists be the same if we had never been able to watch a full set? What if we only ever got to watch single games from all of the best players with absolutely no context? What if we didn't attend tournaments in person and have bias forcefed to us based on who we lose to and who the top players in our regions main? That list would certainly look a lot different from the lists we have now, and I think they'd be much more reasonable interpretations about what the metagame looks like overall. You can't let results influence how you perceive the actual actions of the characters. When you see potential in the gameplay and the player messes up something that can reasonably be mastered or they get outsmarted by the opponent even though they had the upper hand, we need to be able to view that situation critically and decide if that was really a flaw of the player or the character. The player may lose the set, but even if every character X main loses to all the character Y mains, you have to actually look at what's happening before you jump to the conclusion that it's a bad matchup or something. Otherwise every single tier list fluctuation is going to be based on what characters top players happen to choose and which characters that are chosen happen to come out on top which is all but arbitrary at this point.

 

[FourStar]

results are the reason why the metagame changes. when people start winning with say a mid tier characters, you start wonder why. that's cuz the metagame is changing. Results do in fact affect metagame

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

results are the reason why the metagame changes. when people start winning with say a mid tier characters, you start wonder why. that's cuz the metagame is changing. Results do in fact affect metagame

Actually, improvements in the metagame of said Mid Tier characters are the reasons that the results change.

 

[FourStar]

Actually, improvements in the metagame of said Mid Tier characters are the reasons that the results change.

Yeah that sounds right Hahaha. i didn't know if i was saying it right.

 

[john!]

Results do drive theory, but that doesn't mean they SHOULD. Would our lists be the same if we had never seen pro gameplay? Of course not. Would our lists be the same if we had never been able to watch a full set? What if we only ever got to watch single games from all of the best players with absolutely no context? What if we didn't attend tournaments in person and have bias forcefed to us based on who we lose to and who the top players in our regions main? That list would certainly look a lot different from the lists we have now, and I think they'd be much more reasonable interpretations about what the metagame looks like overall. You can't let results influence how you perceive the actual actions of the characters. When you see potential in the gameplay and the player messes up something that can reasonably be mastered or they get outsmarted by the opponent even though they had the upper hand, we need to be able to view that situation critically and decide if that was really a flaw of the player or the character. The player may lose the set, but even if every character X main loses to all the character Y mains, you have to actually look at what's happening before you jump to the conclusion that it's a bad matchup or something. Otherwise every single tier list fluctuation is going to be based on what characters top players happen to choose and which characters that are chosen happen to come out on top which is all but arbitrary at this point.

everything you listed are results. results are more than the final game score of a set. results are the product of any experimental trial... the trial can be a set, a game, a stock, etc. vs. mango or the best player in your region or your little brother. and obviously, not all trials have the same value when making a list that represents likelihood to win a tournament set at top level play.

your next section is full of weasel words like "reasonably be mastered" and "had the upper hand". these leave players without complete knowledge of top-level play (i.e. all of us in this thread) free to make up all kinds of uninformed excuses for tournament results. not to say that we should ignore player error completely... that's part of interpreting the data we get from a tournament set.... but we are more likely to interpret top-level play incorrectly than top-level players are to play the game incorrectly... so it's a generally a bad idea for us mediocre players to try and guess what "could have been" instead of what actually happened.

and did you really just say that top pros choose their characters arbitrarily? lol

Actually, improvements in the metagame of said Mid Tier characters are the reasons that the results change.

wow, lol. and how do you kow that a character's metagame has changed? because some guy made a post on the low tier character's forum that totally revolutionized the way people play that character? has that ever happened before? doubt it.

 

[Bones0]

everything you listed are results. results are more than the final game score of a set. results are the product of any experimental trial... the trial can be a set, a game, a stock, etc. vs. mango or the best player in your region or your little brother. and obviously, not all trials have the same value when making a list that represents likelihood to win a tournament set at top level play.

your next section is full of weasel words like "reasonably be mastered" and "had the upper hand". these leave players without complete knowledge of top-level play (i.e. all of us in this thread) free to make up all kinds of uninformed excuses for tournament results. not to say that we should ignore player error completely... that's part of interpreting the data we get from a tournament set.... but we are more likely to interpret top-level play incorrectly than top-level players are to play the game incorrectly... so it's a generally a bad idea for us mediocre players to try and guess what "could have been" instead of what actually happened.

and did you really just say that top pros choose their characters arbitrarily? lol



wow, lol. and how do you kow that a character's metagame has changed? because some guy made a post on the low tier character's forum that totally revolutionized the way people play that character? has that ever happened before? doubt it.

It's pretty commonly accepted that when people are making "results-based" tier lists, they are basing it off of the outcome of tournaments or sets. They aren't looking at the "result" of a type of approach or defense or strategy.

I don't see how those terms are "weasel words". It's often pretty obvious when a player just chokes through tech skill error or just loses in decision making even though they win that situation 9 times out of 10. If you are only basing your opinion on results, then you're going to be incorporating instances where a player had "bad luck." That's why I say you need to look at it critically and separate the player from the character. Of course there are plenty of things that are so difficult that you should account for human error, and there are plenty of situations that have risk-reward skewed, but there's also plenty of things that don't fit that description, yet people attribute a top player's inability to perform tech skill that others have demonstrated possible or a top player's inability to use good decision making in a certain situation to the character they use. Mango doesn't like to play patiently as Fox, but you can't just watch Mango play and go "Mango is not good at camping, therefore Fox is not good at camping." You have to realize that the top players are not the epitome if their character even if they are the best with that character.

I never said pros choose their characters arbitrarily. I said which characters place well (discounting characters beyond the top 10), are mostly arbitrary because player skill is so much more important than what character you play. It shouldn't matter what characters the top players use because they could use other characters and do just as well. Mango has played Puff, Falco, and Fox, but surely no one thinks that those characters have really improved all that much compared to one another. It's not like each one experienced a ton of metagame progression right when Mango decided to use them. Mango was just able to demonstrate the potential they have had for a while. The same can be said for Armada's Peach or PP's Marth. Do these player's innovate and push the metagame further? Of course, but to say a character's metagame is stagnant just because a top player isn't using them in tournament is awfully naive.

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

wow, lol. and how do you kow that a character's metagame has changed? because some guy made a post on the low tier character's forum that totally revolutionized the way people play that character? has that ever happened before? doubt it.

Well, in this particular case I think it would be when somebody discovers some new trick or at with a bad character, and then uses that trick to achieve higher results than any other player of that character has before. The combination of new technology and better results warrants a rise on the tier list (imo, at least).

 

[KirbyKaze]

I think Peach is fine vs Fox once the Peach becomes immune to u-throw uair and can hit the tech chase after the first fair, dash attack, or d-smash (when possible) on reaction reliably. The fact that Fox's hitboxes are close to his body forces him to fight close to her and that makes him counterattack food, especially since he can't just unblockable grab > kill move like he used to because of SDI and such. I don't think Fox loses but it's honestly not that bad for him.

I still think Sheik and Puff are her worst matches. Sheik maybe less so, since Peach's retreat mobility is stronger than I thought, but I maintain Puff is rough for her. Relatively speaking, of course. I think Puff Peach is winnable for Peach too.

Basically all the good characters can beat each other.

Except Falco vs Falcon.

 

[Strong Badam]

Falcon isn't a good character, David, so that's not a necessary exception.

 

[FourStar]

Falcon isn't a good character, David, so that's not a necessary exception.

Falcon has so much wrong with him. He's not an A tier character anymore in my opinion

 

[Bones0]

I don't think Fox loses but it's honestly not that bad for him.

Where were you a year ago, bro?

Don't worry, you'll have changed your mind about Falcon by next year.

 

[hungrybox]

Lmao what BS. 2 Puffs have been able to win tournaments consistently and I've seen some others even win good sized tourneys or place really well overall. (Mango, Chexr, Darc as examples) Also Puff doesn't really have a horrible matchups. You have to explain at least why you would put her so low when there's evidence that says otherwise.

When's the last time a puff other than myself won a national?

Please do tell, kage. Also, humor me with how many puffs were in the top 32 for apex 2013.

I put her there because that's where her potential lays. I think Falcon is a great character.

 

[Ziodyne]

Hungrybox, I'm not really your fan and I don't really like your character
Having said that
You're a great guy
Hope everything's going well for you =]

 

[Bones0]

When's the last time a puff other than myself won a national?

Please do tell, kage. Also, humor me with how many puffs were in the top 32 for apex 2013.

I put her there because that's where her potential lays. I think Falcon is a great character.

This is an awful argument because there are so few Puff mains to begin with. It's the same **** I've been saying with Fox, but in reverse. I don't even disagree with your opinion that Puff is overrated. I just think your reasoning is flawed, which is weird considering there are many other good reasons such as people suck vs. Puff because she is so uncommon and can feel very gimmicky to bad players or Fox is probably her worst matchup and he is the most popular character.

 

[john!]

Mango doesn't like to play patiently as Fox, but you can't just watch Mango play and go "Mango is not good at camping, therefore Fox is not good at camping." You have to realize that the top players are not the epitome if their character even if they are the best with that character.

but who are you to say that? if mango is the most successful fox, and he plays aggressively, then maybe playing aggressively is a successful strategy for fox? i mean, obviously mango is really good at this game, but even he can't be the best player of the most popular character using a bad strategy.

I never said pros choose their characters arbitrarily. I said which characters place well (discounting characters beyond the top 10), are mostly arbitrary because player skill is so much more important than what character you play. It shouldn't matter what characters the top players use because they could use other characters and do just as well. Mango has played Puff, Falco, and Fox, but surely no one thinks that those characters have really improved all that much compared to one another. It's not like each one experienced a ton of metagame progression right when Mango decided to use them. Mango was just able to demonstrate the potential they have had for a while. The same can be said for Armada's Peach or PP's Marth. Do these player's innovate and push the metagame further? Of course, but to say a character's metagame is stagnant just because a top player isn't using them in tournament is awfully naive.

they could not use other characters and do just as well. they main their characters for a reason. sure, they could stomp mid-level players with bad characters, but that's just due to melee's depth.

also, if top players aren't what push the metagame forward, what is?

 

[Bones0]

but who are you to say that? if mango is the most successful fox, and he plays aggressively, then maybe playing aggressively is a successful strategy for fox? i mean, obviously mango is really good at this game, but even he can't be the best player of the most popular character using a bad strategy.



they could not use other characters and do just as well. they main their characters for a reason. sure, they could stomp mid-level players with bad characters, but that's just due to melee's depth.

also, if top players aren't what push the metagame forward, what is?

The second paragraph confuses me because I've already given one example of a player who has used other characters and done just as well. I would even argue Mango's Falco had a better track record than his Puff in his prime.

I already stated that top players do indeed push the metagame forward, but they aren't the only ones. There are plenty of ways mid-high level players can push their character's metagame forward even if they will never be top players. I think shield dropping becoming more common is a good example of this. None of the top 5 for the past year or so have used shield dropping at all, but does that mean a mid-high level player that begins incorporating it into their game isn't pushing the metagame forward for their character? Just because top players aren't utilizing every aspect of a character's metagame doesn't mean the metagame isn't improving.

 

[BTmoney]

I already stated that top players do indeed push the metagame forward, but they aren't the only ones. There are plenty of ways mid-high level players can push their character's metagame forward even if they will never be top players. I think shield dropping becoming more common is a good example of this. None of the top 5 for the past year or so have used shield dropping at all, but does that mean a mid-high level player that begins incorporating it into their game isn't pushing the metagame forward for their character? Just because top players aren't utilizing every aspect of a character's metagame doesn't mean the metagame isn't improving.

+1
This is the beginning of a friendship.

And to add to your point, mango said he can't shield drop and he barely can gentleman lol

 

[john!]

meh, i don't really think something counts as a "metagame improvement" unless it's been shown to work at top-level play. if top players aren't using it, then there's probably a better option.

 

[MookieRah]

but even he can't be the best player of the most popular character using a bad strategy.

The point of what Bones0 was trying to say is that Mango doesn't camp with fox much at all, something that is effective. Not only that, isn't Mango known for his statements towards disliking defensive/campy play? Honestly, I think Mango is just an amazing player who has really maximized offensive play quite a bit, but my guess is that if he played a bit more patiently and less overly agressive he'd be even better.

also, if top players aren't what push the metagame forward, what is?

This I agree with. Top players push the meta. There are several instances of people discovering various tech skill options, but then they sit there for years before a top player assesses it and decides to incorporate it into their play, improving them and putting the spotlight on something that was likely considered by many to be unimportant. The top players seem to be the ones that actually attempt to sit down and think about the game in the way most other players don't.

 

[Bones0]

meh, i don't really think something counts as a "metagame improvement" unless it's been shown to work at top-level play. if top players aren't using it, then there's probably a better option.

So you're saying shield dropping is useless? lol

 

[BTmoney]

meh, i don't really think something counts as a "metagame improvement" unless it's been shown to work at top-level play. if top players aren't using it, then there's probably a better option.

That is a pretty arbitrary stipulation with a "antiprogress" mindset. A lot of top players don't shorten their illusions with space animals, I do it all the time. If the ledge is open and that is the quickest and safest way to get to it then it really doesn't matter at all if top level player insert name here doesn't use that technique. Popularity among top players does not make anything objective less useful.

 

[Xyzz]

Indeed, just because it's not needed doesn't mean it's not helpful. Hell, Mango says his Falcon can't even properly perform the Gentleman... And looking at high level play that one seems definitely helpful :D

 

[john!]

if it helps you personally, then that's great! and i'm not saying that average players can't improve the metagame. but most of the time, an innovation isn't an actual improvement unless it's been shown to be better than an existing strategy (i.e. what the top pros are doing)

 

[The 2t]

The top players aren't necessarily an indication of perfect play though, they're just better at the game than everyone else. This game is deep enough that "perfect" is close enough to impossible for human players to pull off, and top players shouldn't really be used as an example of perfect play.

Just because a top player doesn't use a particular ability, it doesn't mean that ability isn't an improvement.

Just for a crude example, let's say we have 2 Fox players. One spams nothing but nair for the entire match, the other uses a much wider variety of tools (drill-shines, throw combos etc). Except the first guy is so much better at spacing and approaching in general that his nair spam is still enough to win him the game. That doesn't mean that nair spam is "optimal" and everything the 2nd player does is useless, it just means that the first player is good enough at everything else that he can win without it anyway.

Mango's Falcon is good enough at everything else that he can dominate even if he doesn't consistently gentleman. Doesn't mean that learning how to gentleman properly is useless; nor does it mean that shield dropping isn't a great technique.

 

[FourStar]

The top players aren't necessarily an indication of perfect play though, they're just better at the game than everyone else. This game is deep enough that "perfect" is close enough to impossible for human players to pull off, and top players shouldn't really be used as an example of perfect play.

Just because a top player doesn't use a particular ability, it doesn't mean that ability isn't an improvement.

Just for a crude example, let's say we have 2 Fox players. One spams nothing but nair for the entire match, the other uses a much wider variety of tools (drill-shines, throw combos etc). Except the first guy is so much better at spacing and approaching in general that his nair spam is still enough to win him the game. That doesn't mean that nair spam is "optimal" and everything the 2nd player does is useless, it just means that the first player is good enough at everything else that he can win without it anyway.

Mango's Falcon is good enough at everything else that he can dominate even if he doesn't consistently gentleman. Doesn't mean that learning how to gentleman properly is useless; nor does it mean that shield dropping isn't a great technique.

i honestly couldn't have said it better...

 

[Bones0]

Just for a crude example, let's say we have 2 Fox players. One spams nothing but nair for the entire match, the other uses a much wider variety of tools (drill-shines, throw combos etc). Except the first guy is so much better at spacing and approaching in general that his nair spam is still enough to win him the game. That doesn't mean that nair spam is "optimal" and everything the 2nd player does is useless, it just means that the first player is good enough at everything else that he can win without it anyway.

The first player's name is "Jman".

 

[-LzR-]

Ok so why exactly isn't Pikachu very good? What is his weakness. He has a super strong usmash, great uair, some cool grab combos and stuff and a nice recovery. I just don't see what keeps Pika from higher tiers.

 

[Bones0]

Ok so why exactly isn't Pikachu very good? What is his weakness. He has a super strong usmash, great uair, some cool grab combos and stuff and a nice recovery. I just don't see what keeps Pika from higher tiers.

Idk much about Pikachu, but it seems like he can't actually combo for percent reliably. His uair only does some ridiculously small amount (2-3%?), so the whole time he's comboing people it's solely for stage positioning. Then once he gets them off stage he's obviously good to go, but if you drop the combo for one reason or another, you've basically spent a lifetime racking up a measly 15-20%. That's the main thing that sticks out to me when I watch Axe play. Idk how much of a problem he or other Pika mains consider that to be. And of course it isn't as bad vs. FFers where he can tech chase with usmash and stuff, but idk how he would get around it vs. floaties. Seems like it'd be annoying having Peach just trying to trade with nair constantly while you have to be really precise and steadily work her off stage into an edgeguard from a tail spike.

 

[FourStar]

its also becuz pikachu is light he is easily comboed and KOed. however other than that he is really good and i'd like to see him move up

 

[Ziodyne]

Well, spacies also have the problem of being easily combo'd/KO'd lol. Pika doesn't have as much to compensate for his weaknesses though

 

[Purpletuce]

Pikachu also doesn't have any amazing approaches like other characters above him, and most of his normal moves are pretty mediocre. . . His D-air is slow and if you SHFFL it your opponent gets hit by a weak attack that reduces their hitstun, his B-air just sucks, his N-air is tiny, his F-air doesn't do anything reliably. His tilts are pretty average, but he can't get in too easily with them. His projectile is also very average.

He isn't a bad character, he just has a ton of limitations, try playing him and you'll feel them. He also doesn't have any one thing that is exploitable. Any one of your moves you can't really do consistently, so you have to be constantly playing smart(er).

He has smaller margins for error than most higher tier characters.

Compared to characters like Falco, where you can stop playing attention half way through a stock and still get a 0-death somehow. That is more or less why Pika is 'bad'.

I wish I could play Pika well. . .

 

[Bones0]

Pikachu has like the best approach in the game... Have you not seen Axe just spam overshot nairs against people? It's so good. Also, the only way Falco can stop paying attention is if his opponent is awful.