The Difference Between "High Tier" and "Low Tier" + Why Low Tiers are Viable

[Fuss]

In Soviet Russia, mistake makes you. Unless you're Falco.

 

[bertbusdriver]

IE your valid points are all **** ppl already know and there are a lot of things you said that are just plain dumb. some characters are just that bad. no **** you're gonna win if you don't make mistakes, but that doesn't make pichu competitively viable

 

[CloneHat]

It all makes sense now, choosing a low tier must be a mistake in itself.

 

[Deadandlivin]

Speed, range, priority, defense and mobility also comes into play.

Bowser is an awful character because he has nothing but up b and his ledge attack pretty much. But a bowser that reads and reacts perfectly against the one he's playing can still beat most top tiers.

But you're right on the notion that top tier characters can get away easier than lowtier when they do an misstake.

Abilities like shine and rest are perfect examples that really can turn the tide of a battle and let you away when doing something stupid.

 

[DerfMidWest]

I have not read every post in this topic (yet), so sorry if this repeats any previous posts:

There are two things I think define a low tier:

1. They have flaws that are easily exploitable (i.e. die fast, have no approach, can't play defensive, can't punish well, have no kill moves, etc).
2. They have fewer options than a higher tier character. I don't really know how to explain this well.


You can win with any character, the lower tier character just relies more of the player's ability.

 

[FrootLoop]

it's like chess, you get better by blundering less, until neither player blunders and you get better by forcing weaknesses

 

[Kal]

Yeah, but Chess is noticeably less dynamic than Smash. And, as I think you pointed out, improvement from not making blunders only lasts until a B+/A- ish rating, after which you need improved strategic strength (i.e., tactical strength alone will get you to a B+ rating). So I suppose you could try and make an analogy between character weakness in Melee and player ranking in Chess, but some of us have been trying to point out that there are distinct examples where a character's weakness has nothing to do with "making mistakes," instead that the character simply lacks winning options altogether at high level play (e.g. Fox vs. Zelda).

 

[Beat!]

I may be wrong, but I think that's kind of what he meant by "forcing weaknesses".

 

[Dan Salvato]

some of us have been trying to point out that there are distinct examples where a character's weakness has nothing to do with "making mistakes," instead that the character simply lacks winning options altogether at high level play (e.g. Fox vs. Zelda).

I basically agree with this when it comes to the absolute worst characters, but everyone between Doc and Young Link, and some of the characters underneath, definitely don't lack winning options, because many of them are low tier due to their exploitable flaws rather than lack of options. I think at least 90% of the characters stand a chance.

 

[Kal]

Sounds like a ton of unjustified speculation and oversimplification. The low tiers aren't just low tier because of their "exploitable flaws," in the context you've mentioned. Often times it's that their options themselves are exploitable; that you can counter many of these characters with simple strategies. All the options in the world are irrelevant if they have no way of being used.

And, for sake of pedantry, 90% of a 26 character cast is 23 characters.

 

[thesage]

I disagree. A lot of the lower tiered characters lose to strategies that they simply have no real answer too.