Top and "High" Tier= Broken
Mid Tier= Able to win 50% of the time
Low= Able to win 25% of the time
The rest doesn't matter.
Ok there is ****ing proof that lower tier characters are dependent on who plays them, this % of winning stuff is bull****.
The best freaking Kirby in the world would have a rough time against ken's kirby, the only possible reason that the best kirby would win is because they know how to ko/use kirby more than Ken does. That is pure 100% proof that low tier characters HAVE to be based on mindgames in order to be played nearly as well as top tier characters. The tier list is basically a scale ratio of tech skill to mindgames.
There is several ways this stuff works depending on who vs. who:
1. 2 foxes equal tech skill, the one with more mindgames will win
2. 2 kirbys, equal mindgames, the one with more techskill will win
3. low vs top (since I used kirby and fox I'll use them for this example), whoever is better with what their character is based on will win.
This is why people who play low tiers lose, not neccessarily because low tiers suck (you can call it a disadvantage that they don't have as much skills that can be utilized usefully), but rather because they are focused on how to use their character more than tricks (mindgames), which is what low tiers feed off of to replace lack of skills.
And not to bring my fox fanboy background into this, but I'm absolutely tired of people who have one-sided arguements about how fox is 'easy, cheap, broken.' He is way too ****ing overrated.
Until someone gets it through their head FOX IS THE MOST COMBOABLE/CHAINTHROWABLE CHARACTER IN THE GAME. On top of that he is one of the LIGHTEST CHARACTERS. its not that hard to **** fox if you just stop *****ing about it and do something. Reason I'm bringing this up, this is a discussion on tiers and I'm not attacking anyone specifically, but the crowd of anti-fox players (not that it makes my argument any less random.)
How do I know this? I play my cousins all the time, and believe me we're not nooby, we've got quite a few things down. One of my cousin's isn't much better than me, but he can **** my fox with ganon. He ****ing fairs me to death (do you know how bad fair ***** fox?). Yet he will complain when I do something such as shinespike him, regardless of percentage (and unless he does something such as down bs off stage or accidently jumps off stage its always a ko or nearly ko worthy percentage that he dies.)
On a list of my arguements to why shinespike isn't cheap, I'd like to add one thing. Shinespike isn't applicable in all situations. For example, if you are above the stage and recovering a shinespike won't do much to you (it would have to be repeated= oppurtunity to avoid it).
What is my point by all of this? fox=over-rated= if the tierlist was based on more than just tourney stats, fox should be lower.
And since I'm bringing this up why do a lot of people say fox is the hardest character to use. Keep in mind a lot of the people that say this don't main or play fox. Then there is a group that says fox is the easiest character, etc. My question is more directed toward the fact that why isn't there even anyone in between? Why is it either hardest or easiest?