Oh, it's this thread again.
Here, let me explain how this thread works.
Someone will say that bad characters are automatically hard to win with at tournament level because they're limited and bad and therefore they are the hardest to play.
This will be countered by the argument that "difficult to win with" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "difficult to play". They will likely say that Pichu or whatever is actually very easy to play, because there's so little to know about him in terms of practical, useful information (this is largely attributed to the fact that he's limited). But he just sucks and therefore it is difficult to win with him. Other characters that may come up in this line of thinking include Kirby, Game & Watch, and Zelda.
Another group will then figure that the technical barrier equates to difficulty of playing, and will decide the space animals are definitely the hardest to win with because of how much effort it takes to learn how to play them.
This will be countered with the argument that Fox and Falco have the most tournament representation so even if the learning curve is high for them, they ultimately wind up being the most common tournament characters. Therefore the curve must get easier once you pass the technical barrier. This will largely focus on Fox. Then someone from this group, or who agrees with this group, will likely argue that Sheik, Puff, Marth, Peach are harder to play because they see less representation at top level.
This will be countered with the observation that Jigglypuff wins all the tournaments.
Then someone will say "Mango and Hungrybox are too good, Jigglypuff is hard to play".
At some point we'll return to the low tiers and recycle that whole bit. We won't really reach a conclusion or anything, though, we'll just sort of go through it again.
Eventually someone will spam the thread with off topic stuff and we'll start talking about puppies.
Then Mic or whoever will lock the thread.
