The Official BBR Tier List v4 -> Sonic's HA Stall is NOT beaten by spot dodge!!!!!!!!

[ShadowLink84]

You recognized it?

Hypocrite eh?

Hey I said I was shaking my head, not that I didn't like it ~_^

XD

But back on the outlier conversation, all it shows is that with skill the 'player' can overcome the weaknesses of the character, but should that really change how the character works? Skilled Luigis can beat Skilled MKs, but does that make the Luigi matchup against MK a bit better for Luigi? Hell no, that matchup's hard as balls still, infact it's unchanged. It's just the fact that the -player- was skilled.

The reason I don't particularly like the outlier discussion is...

1) Not every character has an exceptional player, so while characters like ZSS, Ike and Sonic are getting light, there are other character who have potential however don't have the players that are needed to show it (because god knows this community runs off of tourney results)

2) Tournament results really don't show an accurate tier list-- I still whole-heartedly believe that.

Tournament results are good for showing an accurate metagame based tierlist.
They also function wel in providing an idea as to how characters are performing outside of theory.
I certainly do understand your disdain for ouliers, but they can be a possible indication of character potential.

 

[Kinzer]

1) Not every character has an exceptional player, so while characters like ZSS, Ike and Sonic are getting light, there are other character who have potential however don't have the players that are needed to show it (because god knows this community runs off of tourney results)

How do we know the character just isn't good enough to get those kind of results they "should" be getting?

/devil's advocate.

 

[Steeler]

jigglypuff is definitely not the worst character. she can actually do stuff to shields while remaining safe from most characters. her gimp game is not too shabby either.

 

[Espy Rose]

Excellent, SL.
Simply excellent.

 

[Juushichi]

dunno, but the fact that ZSS : MK is 50:50 in people's minds, and that MU (MK : d3) is horrid for D3. That fact alone makes ZSS a more viable character.

When did this start happening?

 

[Meru.]

X.
GG.
CP?

And yet, Sonic is not high tier.

I can say the same garbage.

If you're doing it in that way, please do not mention Nick Riddle's performance anymore as a back-up for your arguments.

 

[NickRiddle]

When did this start happening?

That would be my mind.
And people quote me all the time.

 

[YagamiLight]

Let's have it this way, Jigglypuff has winnable matchups.

I would much rather have you ADDRESS MY POINTS then see you go off on a completely different, opinion based tangent.

I'm done with this conversation, though. I would probably get more enjoyment out of trying to have a Smash debate with chimpanzees at a zoo than trying to use logic in this thread. That's not because the chimpanzees are smarter than your average smasher (though there's that too!) but it's more of the fact that at least the chimpanzees are pretty honest about the fact that they are throwing **** in my face instead of addressing my points.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Im not sure about ZSS, shes hard to place. I could see her above DDD for the reason SFP mentioned, but it seems like she might need to be consistent just a little bit longer for that.

The reason I push results is not because I want the tier list to be a rankings list. I push results because characters who are placed at X tier ought to show results indicative of that tier except in certain circumstances.

In ZSS' case, she has been getting low-high tier-like results since late 2008 and Nick Riddle has shown that she can do even better than that. Consistent top 5 results don't show you are high tier, they show you are top. I'm saying ZSS is high. Frankly Nick Riddle is consistent beyond my expectations or opinion of the character. He surprises even me.

Shaya said it best a while ago, actually: ZSS has been the most consistent tournament presence in mid tier.

I think the community has a difficult time perceiving her as a strong character because her traits sometimes seem very backwards compared to other good characters. I sort of agree with them sometimes: a good character has traditional methods to deal with shields, a short hop that's good for approaches, a strong camp game (or approach game, but usually camp game), etc. What other character uses dsmash as shield pressure? What other character can't kill with fsmash, or grab out of shield? Perception is only half of it, though. She has a lot of strong traits too and results to prove that they are relevant.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Excellent, SL.
Simply excellent.

I am not a furry. =P

 

[Espy Rose]

You just need to dig a little deeper, SL.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Just figured I'd say this, but there has to be a line between when it goes from simply player skill to the character attributes themselves. A player can be as skilled as he wants, but if a character's limitations refrain that character from doing anything worth noting, the player can be as skilled as he wants, but he won't do much.

Which is why I like outliers in many of these cases. They show that clearly the character itself has enough options to allow the player skill to become a successful part of the overall package. The less limitations a character has, the better the player will do. So if someone is doing very well with a character, it's safe to assume that this is because the character itself allows it.

Thus, this is probably why arguably the best player in the world, M2K, would not do well with Ganondorf. Even if he learned every matchup and knew everything about Ganon, because of how limiting Ganon is, he still would never do very well. But if someone does well with a character (and consistency is the key here), then clearly its because the character can allow it.

Just my two cents.

 

[Purple]

Hey I said I was shaking my head, not that I didn't like it ~_^

XD

I found another cool bbr member, aaaw yeah :'D

Tournament results are good for showing an accurate metagame based tierlist.
They also function wel in providing an idea as to how characters are performing outside of theory.
I certainly do understand your disdain for ouliers, but they can be a possible indication of character potential.

You're right, they can be, however sometimes it's just a good player doing better than expected. A good example of character development would be the large increase of diddy kongs winning tournaments or doing very well under MK, while ike is doing well in tournament, as of right now it's only one player in nationals, you have to wonder if it's just that player or not. Like, yagamilight has brought back informationt hat shows these matchups aren't hard for ike, so it can very well be san backing that up, however it could also be the info being a sack of **** and san just being good as hell :-x.

@Kinzer - you really have to look at the Mu and see what is just skill wise info, or matchup info. Let's use luigi and mk for example, luigi 's main way of play is to get in, while MK has beyond enough tools to keep people out. Luigi's sliding allows a lot of MK's smash attacks on shield to not be effective. Along with other things, Luigi just doesn't have a chance against MK, nothing's realyl going to change that unless some advanced tech is found.

 

[Purple]

When did this start happening?

ask ZSS mains.

 

[NickRiddle]

Tier lists are supposed to represent characters played at the highest level in the metagame.
Outliers show the characters being played at the highest level in the metagame.

Just throwing this out there.

 

[CaliburChamp]

Recovery is a very important trait to consider. Most of the top characters have good recoveries and multiple recovery options. I think some people here just ignore this fact.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Just figured I'd say this, but there has to be a line between when it goes from simply player skill to the character attributes themselves. A player can be as skilled as he wants, but if a character's limitations refrain that character from doing anything worth noting, the player can be as skilled as he wants, but he won't do much.

Which is why I like outliers in many of these cases. They show that clearly the character itself has enough options to allow the player skill to become a successful part of the overall package. The less limitations a character has, the better the player will do. So if someone is doing very well with a character, it's safe to assume that this is because the character itself allows it.

Thus, this is probably why arguably the best player in the world, M2K, would not do well with Ganondorf. Even if he learned every matchup and knew everything about Ganon, because of how limiting Ganon is, he still would never do very well. But if someone does well with a character (and consistency is the key here), then clearly its because the character can allow it.

Just my two cents.

There is no such thing as a character that cannot win if there's enough of a skill gap.


A Ganondorf player could still beat an IC player (that CGs perfectly each time), he just has to only be read a maximum of twice in a situation where he can get grabbed (like all of them...) and he can never lose the lead.


Not impossible, just requires a ridiculous skill gap to do reliably.

Tier lists are supposed to represent characters played at the highest level in the metagame.
Outliers show the characters being played at the highest level in the metagame.

Just throwing this out there.

Does it, or does it demonstrate what happens when a player fights somebody significantly worse then he/she is? Not even necessarily in overall skill, but also the MU and there are other possibilities to consider beyond that.


Thats why repeatability and backing it up with data about the character is so important.

 

[Spelt]

Actually considering ness and bowser tied this tier list I should have ( ) around them... looks pretty shmick

*edits*

TIER LIST IS UPDATED *****ES.

You should've made a completely new thread and called it tierlist v4.1

 

[Purple]

Tier lists are supposed to represent characters played at the highest level in the metagame.
Outliers show the characters being played at the highest level in the metagame.

Just throwing this out there.

Tier lists shows if a tournament was to be played where every play is at even skill, who would come out on top, and who would be at last.

Outliers -do- show characters being played at the highest level in the metagame, however there aren't 'outliers' for a variety of characters.

 

[NickRiddle]

Tier lists shows if a tournament was to be played where every play is at even skill, who would come out on top, and who would be at last.

Outliers -do- show characters being played at the highest level in the metagame, however there aren't 'outliers' for a variety of characters.

This actually isn't true. Tier lists show how well characters do vs. the rest of the cast. MUs make it so that the tier-list does NOT 100% reflect tournament results. If a region has a lot of Pikachu players, and a Falco player better than them, the Falco might still lose due to the MU, yet he is obviously a better overall character than Pikachu.



The best player(s) of each character show how good the character CURRENTLY is, or can be.
This is what should be reflected on the tier list.
The reason tier-lists change? People get better with their characters/learn new stuff about them.

Edit:
Then, as the metagame for specific characters grow and advance, they do better in tournament, causing the results to back them up.
If a player is amazing, and doesn't place, it is due to their character's limitations, or MUs, which is still a part of the character's limitations.

 

[vVv Rapture]

There is no such thing as a character that cannot win if there's enough of a skill gap.


A Ganondorf player could still beat an IC player (that CGs perfectly each time), he just has to only be read a maximum of twice in a situation where he can get grabbed (like all of them...) and he can never lose the lead.


Not impossible, just requires a ridiculous skill gap to do reliably.

I never said Ganon would never win. That wasn't the point of my post at all.

 

[Purple]

This actually isn't true. Tier lists show how well characters do vs. the rest of the cast. MUs make it so that the tier-list does NOT 100% reflect tournament results. If a region has a lot of Pikachu players, and a Falco player better than them, the Falco might still lose due to the MU, yet he is obviously a better overall character than Pikachu.



The best player(s) of each character show how good the character CURRENTLY is, or can be.
This is what should be reflected on the tier list.
The reason tier-lists change? People get better with their characters/learn new stuff about them.

Edit:
Then, as the metagame for specific characters grow and advance, they do better in tournament, causing the results to back them up.
If a player is amazing, and doesn't place, it is due to their character's limitations, or MUs, which is still a part of the character's limitations.

let me rephrase, who is -more likely- to come out on top when the character diversity is even. Sure, in your particular example falco clearly won't come out on top because of all of the pikachus, but what if it was a tournament where every character was included?

The problem in your logic is that you're trying to reflect the player's skill into a tier list that really shouldn't (in my opinion) include skill levels.

Let me try to explain why though. Let's say I'm using ganondorf and I'm pressuring a MK player (some how, SOME WEIRD AS HELL WAY, just bear with me) into rolling behind me. Apparently i'm very good at this, and as they roll i forward smash them for a kill at 60% or something ridiculously low. I do this constantly throughout the entire tournament in different silly setups that work just because i'm really smart; on another level of play I guess. In the end I place very high at this prestigious tournament. The question at hand is, is ganondorf better than the world thinks? No, I'm just -really- smart. Does the MU for MK : Ganon change? No, because really all i did was read them and make them roll into my forward smash, what does that have to do with MK or ganon as a character? Nothing at all.

Now granted I'm not saying this is the same for every scenario, some players are just showing how their characters are in fact good in certain MU's. It really requires looking into their matches, watching their replays and seeing if they are just on another level of skill, or if the character is actually good; there's a distinct difference.

Just because san is placing top 16 in tourneys, doesn't make Ike top 16 material consistently, it's not guaranteed where the character should be placing at all, just showing how skilled the player is. :s.

 

[ShadowLink84]

You just need to dig a little deeper, SL.

You are a worrisome fellow

I found another cool bbr member, aaaw yeah :'D

YAAAAAAY!

Tier lists are supposed to represent characters played at the highest level in the metagame.
Outliers show the characters being played at the highest level in the metagame.

Just throwing this out there.

Not really Nick.
Tier lists represents a character's capability in comparison to other characters.
Each tier within the list represents a point in which a character is significantly better or worse.

Now whether this relies on metagame behavior or capability is ntirely dependant on what wants to be viewed.

For example, in street fighter 3 they have had two tierlists. One that represented MU's, and one that reflected the metagame. The metagame typically reflected the former but with some notable differences.

Outliers do not represent the character being played at the highest level. It CAN, but it isn't an exact definition.
It is simply a case where a singular player performs beyond what is typically being seen. Much of the time, like Ally's Falcon, it is the result of a large skill gap between the player and their opponent.
It isn't a case where they are being played at the highest level, but more of a skill gap, though high level tends to be part of it. One doesn't necessarily imply the other is what I mean.

This actually isn't true. Tier lists show how well characters do vs. the rest of the cast. MUs make it so that the tier-list does NOT 100% reflect tournament results. If a region has a lot of Pikachu players, and a Falco player better than them, the Falco might still lose due to the MU, yet he is obviously a better overall character than Pikachu.

You kinda switched there from metagame to MU.
As I mentioned above, it really does fall down to what you want to look at in terms of character performance.
If you want to look at character capability purely, then you look at an MU based one.
If you want something more based in reality, metagame is more accurate.
They both work well and often follow each other.

The best player(s) of each character show how good the character CURRENTLY is, or can be.
This is what should be reflected on the tier list.
The reason tier-lists change? People get better with their characters/learn new stuff about them.

not always, because sometimes, those high level players are simply so much better and can do things that are typically beyond the scope of others.

For example, back when I played Metoid prime hunters, there was an exploit called shadow freezing. Using Noxus' freeze blast, one could aim with the vertical part of the hitbox to hit an infinite range.
In theory, it beat everything except the imperialist, in reality, it beat the imperialist because of how difficult it is to land a OHKO shot with the imperialist, while the Shadowfreeze exploit set up for the imperialist OHKO.

So of course the SF explit was considered #1, even despite the fact that I could typically oneshot people with my eyes closed.
It can be an indication, but is not direct evidence.

Edit:
Then, as the metagame for specific characters grow and advance, they do better in tournament, causing the results to back them up.
If a player is amazing, and doesn't place, it is due to their character's limitations, or MUs, which is still a part of the character's limitations.

If Ally won with Falcon it wouldnt change falcon being bad.
it would be an indication that he MIGHT be better than what was originally thought, but it could also mean Ally was just that **** good.

 

[Espy Rose]

You are a worrisome fellow

True.
And I'm in the BBR.
Ain't that crazy?

 

[NickRiddle]

If Ally won with Falcon it wouldnt change falcon being bad.
it would be an indication that he MIGHT be better than what was originally thought, but it could also mean Ally was just that **** good.

It would mean he isn't as bad as we thought... which would make him go higher on the tier list. Yup.
It becomes having to figure out if the player is that much better than his/her competition, or if it is the character.

 

[Purple]

Holy crap SL, Mind-Link. :X

 

[ShadowLink84]

True.
And I'm in the BBR.
Ain't that crazy?

Extremely.

It would mean he isn't as bad as we thought... which would make him go higher on the tier list. Yup.
It becomes having to figure out if the player is that much better than his/her competition, or if it is the character.

No it wouldn't mean that at al NIck. you're missing the point.
It is an indication, not direct evidence.
Primarily because it would need to be replicated by other players besides Ally to show that it is genuinely the character, and not just a case in which he player is so very good that the character doesn't matter.
For example, if I picked up Ganodorf, and destroyed everyone including M2K, would it change Ganondorf from being the worst character?
No.
Such a thing would have to be done by several others to show its not just me being awesome.

It is why Sonic didnt jump in the tierlist for over a year. More evidence was needed to show its a genuine case of character capability and not player capability.

@ Roxy: MIND CRUSH >=O

 

[Espy Rose]

Cuts me real deep, SL.

 

[stingers]

so I hear ROB is moving up on the tier list

 

[vVv Rapture]

so I hear ROB is moving up on the tier list

If by "up" you mean "down", "no where" , or "well **** you that's why", then yes.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Cuts me real deep, SL.

Your tears are delicious.

 

[Browny]

Nick I used to think that, but then think about this.

How drastically different do you think the tier list would look if certain players simply chose different mains. If M2K stayed as DDD, is aL1y never touched snake, d3hf mained fox etc. Because I think it would be enormous. Not only would their tourney results take a massive hit, they wouldnt get so much hype, you wouldnt have multiple people emulating their playstyle to place highly and the other characters would get the opposite.

This isnt a fair analysis though since smash doesnt exactly have many people playing it, you cant expect there to be 2 or more top players of most characters. But what about characters like Diddy, Lucario, IC's, Wario who you could take your pick to remove an outlier and the character would still be considered as good as it was before. It may not prove that the character is better but it certainly has FAR less doubt than if you considered a certain character to be much better than currently though based off 1 players ability.

 

[Shaya]

DJBrowny not trolling with an excellent post ^

 

[Kitamerby]

stop using -players who are skilled- for why a character might be higher. The players are just skilled -___-

Malcolm then.

or perhaps Shugo.

To a lesser extent, even Espy.

How many players do you need to pop up before you realize that this might not have all been a coincidence that so many good players have started off with this character? :x

 

[NickRiddle]

Nick I used to think that, but then think about this.

How drastically different do you think the tier list would look if certain players simply chose different mains. If M2K stayed as DDD, is aL1y never touched snake, d3hf mained fox etc. Because I think it would be enormous. Not only would their tourney results take a massive hit, they wouldnt get so much hype, you wouldnt have multiple people emulating their playstyle to place highly and the other characters would get the opposite.

This isnt a fair analysis though since smash doesnt exactly have many people playing it, you cant expect there to be 2 or more top players of most characters. But what about characters like Diddy, Lucario, IC's, Wario who you could take your pick to remove an outlier and the character would still be considered as good as it was before. It may not prove that the character is better but it certainly has FAR less doubt than if you considered a certain character to be much better than currently though based off 1 players ability.

If the outliers never used their characters, the characters would not be used to their full potential, thus their tier-list rankings would not be as high... which is kinda what I said.

San andI did well at MLG Columbus, and people thought they our characters should move higher. San and I continued to do well, and it was said that Ike and ZSS should STILL move up... because of the outliers.

Hmm, I wonder why people say the outliers should count when it's something impressive, but when other people argue about it they change their minds...

 

[BSP]

@kita

There probably won't ever be a agreed upon answer to that question.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I never said Ganon would never win. That wasn't the point of my post at all.

You missed the point.


A large enough skill gap allows you to overcome your character's limitation, regardless of which character it is.


A good enough outlier will make his character appear to be far better then the character actually is.

 

[vVv Rapture]

You missed the point.


A large enough skill gap allows you to overcome your character's limitation, regardless of which character it is.


A good enough outlier will make his character appear to be far better then the character actually is.

Yeah, but a player still is confined to the limits of the character. So the character's limitation is the final line to cross. A player can be as good as he or she wants, but if the character itself doesn't have the capacity to be nearly as good, you won't see that kind of success.

Thus, you have to wonder how good Ike really is if San continues to do well with him. It'd be even more convincing if more people did the same.

Then again, the fact that many others do not, or can't, is a wonder itself. Guess the point sort of goes both ways.

 

[Deleted member]

Some people are just better at reading than others. If the character can punish well, then a good player can do fairly well with that character based on that alone.

 

[Chuee]

Some people are just better at reading than others. If the character can punish well, then a good player can do fairly well with that character based on that alone.

Which is probably why San does so well with Ike.
Ike has really good reads.