The "Mastery and Skill Requirement" Ranking

[FluxCapacitor]

My friend and I, both avid smash players, were having a discussion about tier lists. I told him that tier lists are simply player interpretations of tournament results, and only that. He, on the other hand, was under the false assumption that tier lists were rankings of how easy a character was to master. I laughed at his ignorance at the time. However, it brought an interesting thought to my mind: What if there was a ranking, or tier list, of the characters rated on how easy they are to master.

Why doesn't this belong in the "Official Tier Discussion" thread? Well, moderators can delete or move it as they deem necessary. However, I believe it differs on the most fundamental level; this is a discussion of ease of character mastery, not tournament results.
I also acknowledge the typical arguments about how tier list discussion is out of the question, due to the game's short existence and lack of player experience, and lack of technical and advanced abilities known to the community. This conversation is purely speculative and mostly for fun. So, if you want to contribute, awesome. If not, I don't need a lecture about how folly my idea is.

This list is obviously purely based off my experience, so those are the characters that I will comment on. Feel free to discuss any characters that you want. I am basing my judgment on comboing, spacing, and other advanced techniques. Characters that I think have the fewest advanced, difficult abilities and fewer combos will be higher on the list.

Anyway, here is my prototypical (and incomplete, hence my request for feedback and other ideas) suggestion, with easiest descending to hardest:

Very Easy:
Pit
Meta Knight
Kirby
Zelda
Peach

Easy:
Ike
ROB
Sheik
Toon Link
Pikachu
Game and Watch
Yoshi

Mediocre:
Fox
Wolf
Diddy Kong
Bowser
King Dedede

Difficult:
Ness
IC's
Donkey Kong
Olimar
Snake
Pokemon Trainer


Very Difficult:
Link
Sonic
Lucas
Ganondorf

I realize that I'm missing characters. Please read my entire post for the reasoning.

 

[SketchHurricane]

Interesting. I know your taking into account all the characters techniques, but I think a quick and dirty way of doing it is to ask yourself, "how much thinking does it take to win with this character?" Your list is actually pretty good in that respect.

I'd move G&W up to Mediocre, there's nothing terribly advanced about him IMO, but he's not my main. His moves are spamable with sick priority, and his air control makes him easy to maneuver. The only reason I can guess you put him at Difficult is because his B moves aren't quite as obvious as most characters (ie the take a bit of planning or extra thought to utilize), but I don't think it's enough to put him that low.

Snake, on the other hand, should definitely be at Difficult. For one, he has **** near infinite strategies when all his moves are combined. For two, most of his attacks are laggy and easily punishable when used sloppily (A combo and dash A might be his saving grace here).

Other than that, it looks pretty spot on as far as I know.

 

[Chrono Centaur]

the ease of learning them does contribute to the tiers, though. I mean, Marth was third ranked and had to be the easiest character to learn how to use in Melee. :<

I don't think Bowser is THAT hard to learn. He's been improved dramatically from Melee.

 

[BBQ°]

I think Captain Falcon will be one of the harder characters to master. Just like in Melee, he requires a lot of technical knowledge such as damage percentages for knee set-ups. His knee is also harder to hit with in Brawl so you'll have to be more accurate in that scenario. I think pretty much all the characters that seem to suck when you first try them will be the harder ones to master and will probably be the best once they are mastered.

 

[Warrior_J]

i dont see Link in that list.

Otherwise i would agree with most of those learning curve tiers.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

No one I know plays as Link. Ever. So I decided to leave him out.

We do, however, play often as Captain Falcon. Both my friend and I were Captain Falcon mains in Melee, and we have been so disheartened by Brawl CF that we have completely disregarded him.

I was hoping other people could contribute their views on the characters that I don't have up there.

 

[Leth]

Lucario is is probably 'difficult'. Lots of wierd hitboxes and lots of lag on his moves.
Marth for Very Easy? Easy to pick up and c-stick spam.

 

[FishkeeperTimmay!]

I lol'd at Snake being anything less than difficult.

Or Ike being anything less than Easy.

Seriously, Snake is one of the hardest characters to master merely because his explosives can be set up in so many elaborate and unique ways. He has many character specific techs that make him unique. No new player could pick him up and learn all his tricks as fast as he could learn all of Bowser's, or anyone above him on that list for that manner.

And Ike? Where do I begin? He's the most noob friendly character in the roster. The only thing you "learn" about Ike is his spacing, lag times, and spikes. Everything after that is universal tactics. >.>

Lurk around the boards a little longer, you'll understand what I'm talking about.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

I lol'd at Snake being anything less than difficult.

Or Ike being anything less than Easy.

Seriously, Snake is one of the hardest characters to master merely because his explosives can be set up in so many elaborate and unique ways. He has many character specific techs that make him unique. No new player could pick him up and learn all his tricks as fast as he could learn all of Bowser's, or anyone above him on that list for that manner.

And Ike? Where do I begin? He's the most noob friendly character in the roster. The only thing you "learn" about Ike is his spacing, lag times, and spikes. Everything after that is universal tactics. >.>

Lurk around the boards a little longer, you'll understand what I'm talking about.

I understand your point about Snake. I probably should move him down.

Ike, however, forces me to raise a point of contention. While he is seemingly "noob friendly" at first with his incredible power, this does not necessarily dictate instant success in a 1v1 match. With his slow attack speed and lag, timing is imperative for an Ike player; almost moreso than any other character. That's why I said he was at least somewhat difficult.

 

[TheLastKnight]

Sonic is not very difficult...

 

[Ørion]

I would move sonic down into an easier to master category and move zelda into a harder to master category, but very nice idea and good all-around.

 

[Vice Lord]

well i would think if you're going to add marth, make it in either very easy or easy, even though someone not used to him wouldn't use him to great potential, you can still do quite good as long as you know to fair.

Also i'd add fox in for mediocre or difficult. To play well with him and use his moves properly takes alot of knowledge and precision and overal skill. Spamming the c stick will get you killed.

 

[FishkeeperTimmay!]

I understand your point about Snake. I probably should move him down.

Ike, however, forces me to raise a point of contention. While he is seemingly "noob friendly" at first with his incredible power, this does not necessarily dictate instant success in a 1v1 match. With his slow attack speed and lag, timing is imperative for an Ike player; almost moreso than any other character. That's why I said he was at least somewhat difficult.

Ah, but timing is not a character specific issue to address. Once you've learned timing as a whole, you can pick up Ike, learn his lag times, and have no drastic issues playing him. His "difficulty" as a character often stems from playstyles.

Uber aggressive players pick him up, have good success with him at first due to the learning curve, but run into issues as their opponents learn to shield. Ike doesn't mesh well with all out aggression, he needs to have someone who can sit back and chill when the situation calls for it. I'd estimate that over 60% of Ike users have this issue.

 

[Warrior_J]

I wouldnt say lucario is that difficult, you can pick him up and combo easily.

as far as his meta game, we have yet to find out.

And i would agree that Ike should be moved up the list to mediocre or easy. Less experienced players i play with clean up with him in 4 man brawls and punish easily for any slip ups i might do. Being good enough to hit often doesnt mean anything when all you need is to hit your opponent 4-5 times with Ike. I often see people dodging to early because of his lagged attacks as well, which gives a less experienced player good luck.

 

[The_NZA]

Wolf Should be Very Easy.
Olimar should be Easy. There is just a general perception that he is hard to do well with, but its not true. Spamming the Cstick between forward aerials, and what just comes as "intuitive" in the game makes for great results. This is comign from an Olimar player, who just won a tournament (although im good with him), but had to do an Olimar ditto in Winners finals against an Olimar who WAsn't good.

Everything else seems pretty solid.

 

[Foxy]

Snake is hard to MASTER. High-level play with him takes major mindgames. However, anyone can perform well with Snake due to his two jab combos, grenade spam, and a crazy fsmash.

Also, Lucas should be under a higher category - check the Lucas boards' AT thread. He has the deepest (albiet still not that deep) metagame of any character so far.

Finally, about Olimar, he's the king of noobs with insanely spammable smashes and grabs, but his metagame is ridiculous. Pikmin choice is everything, farming the right 'mins is important, every attack (plus whistle) changes the order of your 'mins, you have to shuffle a purple in front to protect from edgeguarders if you're recovering... a high-level Olimar player has a LOT to keep track of.




So this discussion comes down to two things:
-How easy the character is to spam or play cheaply and still win
-How deep the character's metagame is, or how difficult the character is to effectively play at a high level and to the best of its abilities

People I think don't understand which point this thread and study is about, and I'm not even sure.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

The word "mastery " in the title isn't a hint?

 

[Leifio]

mario should be easy, hes a good balanced character

 

[masterspeaks]

For your missing characters I would propose:
Very easy - Marth
Easy - Falco, Luigi, Mario, Ike*
Medium - Jigglypuff, Wario, Samus, Donkey Kong**
Difficult - C. Falcon, Link
Very Difficult - Pokemon Trainer(each pokemon is simple individually, the challenge is coping with switches)

*Learn the timing for Ike is very simple.
**Donkey Kong isn't difficult to master, nearly unchanged from melee.

 

[Greenpoe]

Lucario should be under the difficult category. You have to play him a ton to start stringing combos together, since the knockback of his moves constantly change, you have to improvise everything.

Sheik is NOT easy to master. She has a hard time KO'ing and none of her specials are easy to use (unlike most characters).

 

[xS A M U R A Ix]

I think learning a character and doing well with them are two different things. It's one thing to learn metaknight and beat up scrubs with him, but winning at a high level actually takes a lot of finesse, I think. On the other hand, there seems to be some notion that Snake is hard to play. He's got a bit of a learning curve, but once you figure him out, he's the most brain dead easy character to play and win with.

Some characters are easy to play but hard to win with. Some are harder to play but east to win with. See the difference?

 

[FluxCapacitor]

I'm trying to take both into consideration here.

 

[GoForkUrself]

Originally being an Ike main, I'd have to say Ike goes in the easy section. The reason I am no longer an Ike main is simply cuz I pretty much mastered him. He has limited potential, and once the timing, spacing, and spiking is down, there are only universal techs left.
Lucas should be difficult and Ness be mediocre. Falco could probably go in the same group as the other spacies.

 

[R i p]

There is two types of difficulties/challenges which characters can react to. Vs people with no/low skill and people with high skill and good understanding of your character.

Ike is someone who falls into Easy in the former and at least Mediocre in the latter.

Ike is really easy because his attacks are strong. But they are mostly easy to block. Defending is hard in FFA and 90% of Smash players can't shield/dodge/sidestep for their lives... so naturally Ike will tear **** up in With Anyone.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[SSBB]

I dunno about Yoshi being hard. My friend just jumps over me and either Bombs or Flutter Kicks. Dam annoying, but still effective. Try it!

 

[Andromeda]

I don't know where I would put Olimar on this list. He's very easy to just pick up and be good with, but he's very difficult to truly master, as FoxySigma said.

I would put Falco in the middle somewhere. He has campy potential, I am afraid, and he certainly doesn't lack power in melee fights. (Close-up-melee, not the game Melee) But I find him a bit hard to control, and sometimes it's hard to pull of those powerful attacks.

 

[greenthunder130]

Ike should probably be under mediocre or easy, as he is extremely powerful, and extremely easy to use. You probably don't know how to use Wolf if you think he's that easy, as he's the heaviest and weakest Star Fox character. And as for Ganondorf, he isn't that hard to master, I suggest lowering him to hard. And if Link isn't on that list yet, probably mediocre, because you have to balance out melee and projectile.
Ya, ok, I'm done for now.

 

[???????]

Mario's a pretty straightforward character and easy to get good with but can be difficult to master at a high level if you plan on going beyond simple juggling and camping; Mario's got a lot of high level techs. Also with Mario's limited range with tilts and grabs, gives him a little bit of a learning curve.

 

[Deleted member]

theres no link on that list....

I'd put link more torwards the harder to master category because winning with him is near impossible T_T

(stupid nerfs) /complaint

 

[Muad'Dib]

I like how everyone says "difficult to master" for the character that matches their avatar or that is listed as their main. :-)

I think that since all the character play so different, it's pretty tough to rank them in an order. Alot of it depends on the person and the play style as well. Certain people's styles lend themselves to pick up certain characters more easily.

Nevertheless a cool idea. I'd vote for Pit being easiest. Many of my noob, never-played-Melee friends love Pit.

 

[Rapid_Assassin]

All characters in this game are easy to pick up and beat noobs with. I don't think anyone has mastered any character yet. But generally speaking, characters with a simple moveset and a good projectile like Pit and Toon Link are easier to play on a competitive level than those with weird hitboxes like Zelda or Peach, or with weird moves in general like Olimar.

 

[Ulevo]

My friend and I, both avid smash players, were having a discussion about tier lists. I told him that tier lists are simply player interpretations of tournament results, and only that. He, on the other hand, was under the false assumption that tier lists were rankings of how easy a character was to master. I laughed at his ignorance at the time. However, it brought an interesting thought to my mind: What if there was a ranking, or tier list, of the characters rated on how easy they are to master.

Why doesn't this belong in the "Official Tier Discussion" thread? Well, moderators can delete or move it as they deem necessary. However, I believe it differs on the most fundamental level; this is a discussion of ease of character mastery, not tournament results.
I also acknowledge the typical arguments about how tier list discussion is out of the question, due to the game's short existence and lack of player experience, and lack of technical and advanced abilities known to the community. This conversation is purely speculative and mostly for fun. So, if you want to contribute, awesome. If not, I don't need a lecture about how folly my idea is.

This list is obviously purely based off my experience, so those are the characters that I will comment on. Feel free to discuss any characters that you want. I am basing my judgment on comboing, spacing, and other advanced techniques. Characters that I think have the fewest advanced, difficult abilities and fewer combos will be higher on the list.

Anyway, here is my prototypical (and incomplete, hence my request for feedback and other ideas) suggestion, with easiest descending to hardest:

Very Easy:
Pit
Meta Knight
Kirby
Zelda
Peach

Easy:
Ike
ROB
Sheik
Toon Link
Pikachu
Game and Watch
Yoshi

Mediocre:
Fox
Wolf
Diddy Kong
Bowser
King Dedede

Difficult:
Ness
IC's
Donkey Kong
Olimar
Snake
Pokemon Trainer


Very Difficult:
Link
Sonic
Lucas
Ganondorf

First off, with regards to your impressions on what a tier list is, I believe you and your friend are wrong. A tier list is a ranking board for how good a character is overall compared to the rest of the roster when used to that specific characters full (human) potential.

If it were based off of player interpretations on tournaments only, and everyone played Pichu, or even Captain Falcon from Brawl, by your logic, they would be top tier. That is wrong, although tier lists are best based off of tournament results because that is where the most talented players lie and examples can be drawn from. Your friend is also false in assuming it is based on which character can be easily mastered. Fox from Melee was essentially easy to abuse due to his high speed. But to win with Fox on tournament levels and play to his full capacity was exceptionally difficult, considering his speed and timing. He is easy to play, but difficult to master completely, if at all possible. He was still top of the tier list because anyone capable of playing at near full potential with Fox would **** even the best Mid Tier players. Your friends assumption like yours wasn't entirely out of point though, as most characters who are easy to master have there game developed more thoroughly because they are easy to play. The easier the character, generally the more attention they get, the faster techniques are discovered for that character, the more they improve.


On another note, concerning the list you have composed, I would not rank Peach very easy to play. She would definitely be mediocre (which should say Medium, as we are talking about difficulty, not quality), as it takes intelligent play to use her Turnips appropriately to win, and no beginner who picks up peach is going to know how to use her Float and Aerials properly. She has good knockback to abuse, but that is it really in terms of easy use. Kirby I would put at easy, and Yoshi should definitely be at Difficult. I tried to pick up Yoshi for the first time a few hours ago, and despite being experienced myself, he was harder to use then I had first assumed. He eased up after a while though. I don't regard Lucas as difficult, but that may be just me. I also suggest splitting Pokemon Trainer into three separate characters for the Pokemon respectfully, as each of them handle differently from each other.

 

[Unusual_Rex]

Marth isn't on the list

 

[WhiteWingDemon]

Wouldn't this just be the inverse of a tier list? Considering that low tier characters are harder to use than top tier characters?

 

[Trozz]

My critique of OP's list:

Very Easy:
Pit: Agreed.
Meta Knight: Agreed.
Kirby: Agreed.
Zelda: Should be Easy. Sweetspotted kicks are a large factor of her play style.
Peach: Should be Normal or Difficult. Doing a rolling throw in to a melee attack is an advanced technique.

Easy:
Ike: Agreed.
ROB: Agreed.
Sheik: Agreed.
Toon Link: Should be Difficult. B-air approach gives TL a great aerial game (if you've got the skill for it).
Pikachu: Agreed.
Game and Watch: Should be Normal, due to his bizarre aerials.
Yoshi: Agreed.

Normal:
Fox: Should be Hard. Fox requires split second thinking and excellent air combat skills.
Wolf: Should be Easy or Very Easy. Wolf rewards players who spam tilt attacks and don't want to bother with aerials much.
Diddy Kong: Agreed.
Bowser: Agreed.
King Dedede: Agreed.

Difficult:
Ness: Should be Normal. B-sticking doesn't work well for Ness, but he has some insane throws.
IC's: Should be Very Difficult. ICs have very advanced throws that are tricky to pull off even in training mode.
Donkey Kong: Agreed.
Olimar: Agreed.
Snake: Should be Very Difficult. He has an unconventional play style, crazy nade tactics, and the capability to break the physics.
Pokemon Trainer: Should be Normal. Each of the three Pokemon have a rather straightforward strategy.

Very Difficult:
Link: Should be Difficult. Link's techniques aren't that hard to pull off unless you want to make heavy usage of the dash u-smash glitch.
Sonic: Agreed.
Lucas: I can't comment on this.
Ganondorf: Agreed.

You missed a couple characters (Falco/Lucario/etc).

 

[Unusual_Rex]

Wouldn't this just be the inverse of a tier list? Considering that low tier characters are harder to use than top tier characters?

Possibly, though Olimar, and DeDeDe, aren't they possibly top/high tier? Falco, Fox, and Wolf, they are all pretty good as well.

 

[ElementalP]

As a Pit player i'd have to disagree that Pit is very easy. Yeah, he's easy to spam with and hard to fall down with, maybe noob pick-up friendly cause of the arrows and wings and such, but against a skilled player a lot of that is just fluff. What people pick up and play because they like it and what they can win with are two different things. I can pick up pit and have some success, but i run against a huge wall against someone who knows how to play because

1. they dodge/jump over and then punish you for your arrows,
2. most characters i play against seem to have hit priority against pit's small hit boxes, reach, and start up lag.
3. characters like pikachu eat you alive if you jump high and dont reflect their lightnings
4. you have to get your opponent to like 150% plus to have a decent ko hit, as his hits are pretty weak, have small hit boxes and lower priorities.
5. you have a very high juggle possibility

Now, i'm relatively new, didnt really play melee, picked Pit cause i used to play kid icarus as a kid (yeah, old enough to remember the game when it was new and when he used to come on the super mario bros. cartoon) and because i got comfortable with him in the subspace emissary. Playing against some decent players in my area and online has made me want to just quit him many a time, not because he's overpowered, but because he seems pretty weak when i get hit by some characters sub 100 percent and am sent flying off the screen, or get hit from a distance i could never reach my opponent.

Basically though, i dont know if lists like this are very accurate, because different people will learn to excel and develop different tactics, and some of the things that make a character easy to learn may also be easy to counter (like paletuna's arrows) . If the rankings are based on how easy it is to learn to perform a character's moves, maybe it is accurate, but if Pit is the easiest to win with i must really suck harder than i ever imagined. If the ability to spam arrows makes a character formidable in any way i think then that the problem is not with the character, but with the opponent. Every half way decent person i fought (or mediocrely decent person, since i'm a noob) has been able to dodge/jump over those arrows for the most part. They hit occasionally, but miss or are dodged more often than not.

If Mastery means "how hard is it to learn this characters moves" then there is not much to any character. If mastery means "How to excel and beat other players with" then i don't see pit as some super juggernaut (he would be the strongest char by this ranking, being the easiest to master). I think win most people with experience see pit as their opponent they think "Noob spammer, watch me kick his butt even with those arrows" rather than "Oh snap, he picked pit, i'm going to lose."

Tell me i'm wrong.

 

[calprinicus]

ICs = very difficult

why:
Ics game is all on muscle memory that requires lots of training.
the chain grabs are very precise and hard to pull off/learn . Desyncs and then changing desyncs are much harder in this game and require lots of training.

Pokemon trainer = very difficult

why:
each has it's own charater and play style and you have to know how to interchange them effectively versus your opponent.

 

[IceEmblem]

I don't see how lucas is hard and ness isn't vice versa with toon link/link.

 

[GoForkUrself]

b-stick. Lucas revolves around b-sticking. Given Lucas's strange timing and hitboxes, he gets to be a little harder. I am a Ness user, and I'll admit Lucas is harder to master.

P.S. Lets not think of mastering a character as being the best at that character. With college degree's, there are different levels; Associate(has knowledge in that field), Bachelor(fit to work in that field), Master(fit to teach that field), and Doctorate(so knowledgeable that they are capable of creating new doctrine and also has extensive knowledge of other related fields).
In Smash terms, Associate would be someone who knows how the character works(I understand MK and can use him, but a couple levels lower than MK mains).
Bachelor is someone who could say they are good with that character and can apply their knowledge of the character in battle(like I know how to use Snake's grenade dropping and mortar sliding). A Master would be someone who knows their character inside-out, and can tell a player pretty much all they need to know about that character.
A Master knows all the timing, techniques, spacing, hitboxes, and how to apply them in an efficient fashion(that's me with Ike).
Then there is the Doctorate. They know all that the Master knows and can use it even more effciently. They know so much that they create more ways to use the character; ways that no one has ever used that character. Not only do they know their own character amazingly well, but they have to extensively understand all characters, that way they can battle against them even more efficiently.

Anyway, to master a character doesn't mean you have to be the best, or to not have room for improvement. It doesn't even necessarily mean you win a lot of games. It just means you have expertise with that character. I know I won't master another character for many months, if not years, or never. If anyone here wanted to, they could master Ike in less than a few weeks, and that doesn't even require playing many hours each day. Snake and IC don't even seem to have a limit to their possibilities. Just cuz Ganondorf isn't easy to win with doesn't mean he is hard to master. I'd keep him at mediocre or difficult.
Pichu in melee was really really hard to win with. Was he the hardest to master? Nope. He just sucked at winning. "Mastery" doesn't equal winning a lot. It pretty much means that the player has unlocked almost all of the character's potential.
Characters with high potential would generally be harder to master, though that isn't always the case. MK for example sucks with noobs. They just can't figure out how to kill anyone. The best MK's are amazing. Therefore the noob has a lot of potential to unlock with MK. MK players know that it doesn't take too long to unlock all that amazing potential. On the other hand, Sonic doesn't have much potential. He doesn't seem to be a viable tournament option. Even so, the little potential he has is seemingly impossible to unleash in battle.

So basically, the question one must ask themselves to decide who is easier to master is "How difficult and time consuming is it to unlock this character's potential?"