The Official SBR-B Brawl Tier List v2.0

[Vorguen]

Low lag? Someone hasn't been using Meta Knight's B-down!

 

[Pirate Goomba]

Not much of a lag though compared to others , more than any of his other attacks.

 

[The Trump Card]

I think it's more than just his low lag; it's fast frame speed, low lag, and all disjointed hitboxes.

 

[Nixernator]

Meta-knight would still win on those factors you've been saying tho. He has good speed, fast, powerful, disjointed and relatively lagless attacks. Also he glides, has multiple jumps, and a variety of other things so he is still on top anyway.

Edit: W00t smash child now

 

[Atlas242]

But Metaknight also has low damage per attack, the only thing that makes him capable of putting a bunch of damage on quickly is his speed and combo ability. At that point all you need to do is evade a few attacks and then lay on a hit, then repeat until he's at moderate damage. Then its all a mater of getting him off the stage. since all his special attacks leave him vulnerable in the air, it's all a mater of getting him to use up all his jumps, then send him a moterate distance away, more than gliding distance, and he's done for.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

But Metaknight also has low damage per attack, the only thing that makes him capable of putting a bunch of damage on quickly is his speed and combo ability. At that point all you need to do is evade a few attacks and then lay on a hit, then repeat until he's at moderate damage. Then its all a mater of getting him off the stage. since all his special attacks leave him vulnerable in the air, it's all a mater of getting him to use up all his jumps, then send him a moterate distance away, more than gliding distance, and he's done for.

You see, this is a nicely boxed up theory within the confines of your mind. This is how you imagine it, but I'm not being a jerk when I say this: you go to some real tournaments and let us know how that works out. Competent MK players not only know how to avoid ever being hit, all they have to is get you off the edge and gimp you. Your theory simply does not play out in real life unless playing at home against your friends.

Judging by your join date, I'm going to take a stab in the dark and assume that you do not attend many competitions. I do not mean that as an insult by any means. I only say it to point out that many people are offended by the tier list without remembering what it is designed for: high end competitive play. Of course Captain Falcon beats Meta Knight when goofing around or playing with non-competitive people.

If you do attend competitions, then forgive me. I am simply deducing a few things based on my observations of your posts.

 

[M.K]

But Metaknight also has low damage per attack, the only thing that makes him capable of putting a bunch of damage on quickly is his speed and combo ability. At that point all you need to do is evade a few attacks and then lay on a hit, then repeat until he's at moderate damage. Then its all a mater of getting him off the stage. since all his special attacks leave him vulnerable in the air, it's all a mater of getting him to use up all his jumps, then send him a moterate distance away, more than gliding distance, and he's done for.

1) Meta-Knight's flaw is supposed to be his low damaging attacks and light weight. HOWEVER, Meta-Knight players so easily compensate for this that his minute flaws become incredibly difficult to punish effectively.
Compare this to a character like Captain Falcon who, with his low range, inability to camp, subpar recovery, and small handful of unreliable kill moves, has nothing to help himself compensate.

2) I think you assume that we can act at the speed of light, because it is INCREDIBLY difficult to evade Meta-Knights lightning quick attacks. I'm also going to assume that you don't play much with the competitive scene, because YES, the CPU Meta-Knight is incredibly terrible. If you are basing your facts off the CPU then your arguments are very flawed.

 

[Red Arremer]

3) (although this wasn't mentioned in this very post but somewhere else) Due to his great recovery and his ridiculous DI, Meta Knight easily makes up for his light weight. Of course he's easier to kill like Snake or R.O.B., but he still can survive longer than you would expect judging just from his weight.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I'm not going to lie. Despite not having any personal MK experience (and only having seen various videos of what he can do), I was able to pick him up and start 3-stocking my friend during one smash session. He's just so stupidly easy to use.

My point is that simply picking up Meta Knight skips 50% of the work involved with making a character good. Granted, you still have to be well rehearsed in order to perform in a tournament and win.

I agree. I'm not a Meta Knight pro by any means. I'm just pointing out that its absurd that simply choosing a character with such low lag can neutralize all the work put in by another character main.

The funniest thing is that D3, GW and Falco are even easier to learn. You want to win with Falco? Just spam AC lasers and run away the entire battle, use shine to space/reflect projectiles and phantasm to get out of bad situations. Easy wins right there - you don't even need to KO your opponent to win.

You can't do that with MK

Competent MK players not only know how to avoid ever being hit, all they have to is get you off the edge and gimp you.

Please show me how many times this works against players that are actually good. "Just getting them off the edge and gimp them." You make it sound like it's an easy thing to do.

1) Meta-Knight's flaw is supposed to be his low damaging attacks and light weight. HOWEVER, Meta-Knight players so easily compensate for this that his minute flaws become incredibly difficult to punish effectively.

So you agree that it's the players! If that's the case you're right.

Compare this to a character like Captain Falcon who, with his low range, inability to camp, subpar recovery, and small handful of unreliable kill moves, has nothing to help himself compensate.

lol why Cpt. Falcon? He's complete garbage.

Compare it to King Dedede, who lives to like 180% every stock, who can basically just grab 75% of the character out of 3/4 of their moves, who can recover from any distance, who's utilt KOs opponents at absurdly low %, who's CG alone makes 2/3 of the cast unviable and who can deal 16% from one single throw.

Or compare it to Snake, who lives to like 180%, who can easily deal 30% from one dthrow, who has a move that deals 21% and comes out in 4 frames (and outranges 80% of the non-projectile moves), who has a move that KOs at 110%, who deals 18% if you hit his shield, whom you can't space against because he can lay his mines/nades anywhere he wants and who can position himself in no time by mortar sliding (and punish like everything with it).

Or compare it to Falco, who has the best projectile (aka best move) in the game, who never ever needs to approach, who deals like 60% from one CG, who can run away until the time runs out, who can't be hit by any projectile, who can always get away out of most situations by simply running away or use phantasm.

tl;dr: compare it to characters that are actually good. The difference to MK isn't that big.

2) I think you assume that we can act at the speed of light, because it is INCREDIBLY difficult to evade Meta-Knights lightning quick attacks.

Since when is it incredibly difficult to press the "L" or the "R" button and - if needed - one of four directions of the control stick?

...

Even if I can't deny that MK is the best character right now, I still have to critisize the SBR for putting him in a tier of his own. If the SBR is chosen so "wisely" they should've known that this is very misleading, especially after deciding not to ban MK. Putting him in a tier of his own above everybody else implies many things that aren't true like MK winning every single match-up and that he's so good that there's no point in using any other character.
Saying that he's up there because everbody in the SBR agrees that he's the best character and everybody gave him the maximum score is a poor excuse. Tier lists are supposed to show how viable a character is at this point not what some people think about him.
Just because it's obvious that he's the best character and everybody agrees right now doesn't mean he's so much better that he needs his own tier.
Either way a tier list that has MK a tier above Snake and two tiers above Falco (although all three characters are equally broken) should not be taken serious.

tl;dr MK is overrated, every other character is underrated.

 

[Justblaze647]

Tier lists are supposed to show how viable a character is at this point not what some people think about him.

Well... how is this incorrect, then?

MK is obviously the most viable character...

period.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Well... how is this incorrect, then?

MK is obviously the most viable character...

period.

And? That's why he's a whole tier higher? He isn't that much better...not a whole tier.
Best character =/= deserves his own tier

 

[Justblaze647]

And? That's why he's a whole tier higher? He isn't that much better...not a whole tier.
Best character =/= deserves his own tier

So... what? is that supposed to make me feel stupid or something?

You argued that MK is not viable enough to have his own tier.

I argued that MK is the most viable character available on the character selection screen.

Maybe he doesn't deserve his own tier. But if not it wouldnt be because he is not "viable enough" or because he's "overrated."

Were those facepalms intended for me, or yourself?

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

wall o' text

You're right. Meta Knight's current domination is a fluke.

 

[Red Arremer]

I still think that your suggestion making 3 tiers (Top, High, Everyone Else) would be far better. Then MK wouldn't have his own tier. ^_^

Also, next time don't post the voting numbers next to the characters, but rather in an extra section explaining how it's not meaning that it's a perfect character but only the average of the points given by the BR.

Also, <3 u Buzz. ^_^

 

[Frown]

IMO, this voting for characters thing isn't really the most accurate way of making a tier list. Lucas and Ness ARE NOT EQUALLY AS GOOD.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

IMO, this voting for characters thing isn't really the most accurate way of making a tier list. Lucas and Ness ARE NOT EQUALLY AS GOOD.

But they're both going to lose, so does it really matter? LOL

 

[Frown]

But they're both going to lose, so does it really matter? LOL

I guess you're right... It's not worth the trouble discussing low tier placements when making a tier list.

 

[BentoBox]

But they're both going to lose, so does it really matter? LOL

Yes, yes it does.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Let me rephrase the question.

Does it really matter to any non-Ness/Lucas mains?

 

[Vorguen]

Don't you mean Ness and Lucas are both as bad

 

[Atlas242]

But if the tiers were set up to say no one was any better than the next guy then everyone would be happy. Quite clearly a tier that could be applied to each individual character would better suit the game and its metagame development. Take this for example:

Some math professor creates a formula that would tell how hard a math problem was:

# of Diagrams +[(#of terms x # of operations)/ multiple choice+1] to the power of the # of curveballs = how hard the problem is.

However this would not apply to every one. Say one kid never learned trig. He'd have a hard time with a trig problem, even if the formula said it was an easy problem. Or maybe the kid's dad beat him silly when he got a D on his algebra homework, and now when ever he sees an algebra problem, he is reminded of the pain and wets his pants. Or maybe this kid for whatever reason hates the number 5. He's going to have a hard time working a problem as simple as 2 + 5.

If a Professor came out with guidelines for someone to ***** the difficulty of their problem based on their needs however:

1. Do you know the material?
2. Are you familiar with the material?
3. Does your father Beat you?
4. Do you hate the number 5?

It would properly ***** each persons perception of the problem and give them their own personal assessment of the problem that was unique to them.

This same concept could be applied to tiers.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Atlas242, let me just ask you this:

Do you honestly see no advantageous difference between Meta Knight and Captain Falcon? You think Link is as good as Snake?

You are over-analyzing the nature of tiers. Plus, your math philosophy makes zero sense because math problems are not competitive. They are not head-to-head situations; they are... math problems.

 

[BentoBox]

Let me rephrase the question.

Does it really matter to any non-Ness/Lucas mains?

For the sake of credibility, yes it does.

 

[Atlas242]

No I'm saying I don't want somebody telling me that MK is the best character, let me make that decision on my own. As I've said before, opinion cannot be quantified, therefore, it should not be shoved down our throats as fact. What bothers me is that the tier says MK IS THE BEST, instead of, popular consensus is that MK is the best. And at that, whose the popular consensus? If every one were free to form their own opinion, then there would be no need to have popular consensus. Sure, people would still be able to defend their favorite character, just without stupid reasons like "Metaknight is the best, he's got his own tier." There'd be better reasons like "I play Snake because his projectile usage and knock back power.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

OK then. Where is your evidence? The members here don't believe the tier list because "the SBR made it" or that "we must worship it". We don't take it at face value. We acknowledge that Meta Knight is the best because real world evidence says so. Meta Knight wins matches. When he wins, it is often by a large margin. Most tournaments these days feature a Meta Knight at the top.

OK, your turn.

 

[Red Arremer]

No I'm saying I don't want somebody telling me that MK is the best character, let me make that decision on my own. As I've said before, opinion cannot be quantified, therefore, it should not be shoved down our throats as fact. What bothers me is that the tier says MK IS THE BEST, instead of, popular consensus is that MK is the best. And at that, whose the popular consensus? If every one were free to form their own opinion, then there would be no need to have popular consensus. Sure, people would still be able to defend their favorite character, just without stupid reasons like "Metaknight is the best, he's got his own tier." There'd be better reasons like "I play Snake because his projectile usage and knock back power.

It's not about personal opinion, though. It's about the potential of a character and the (relative) chance of him placing against a player of equal skill.

The tierlist is nothing but an information. It's not "shoving down your throat". MK is said to be the best because he IS the best, no matter how much you're trying to prove the wrong.

If your main - whomever it is - is so good, then go to tourneys and beat the MK players. PROVE how your character is better than MK, whose placement on the tier list is based on not only the "popular consensus", as you call it.

 

[Atlas242]

Where are we allowed to decide. All I've see on this site so far is "MetaKight Rocks", "Captin Falcon Sucks"

I want to see just solid evidence on each character like strength speed recovery and yes, tournement results would also be helpful. Because it give more freedom to the players to decide.

As for evidence that some people think differently than what is popular belief, IM RIGHT HERE. What if no one else thinks my way. My way would allow them to think like that, and quite frankly, I'm fine with that.

 

[Frown]

Let me rephrase the question.

Does it really matter to any non-Ness/Lucas mains?

It doesn't matter to anyone. Tier lists aren't supposed to matter.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Where are we allowed to decide. All I've see on this site so far is "MetaKight Rocks", "Captin Falcon Sucks"

Because Meta Knight rocks and Captain Falcon sucks.

I want to see just solid evidence on each character like strength speed recovery and yes, tournement results would also be helpful. Because it give more freedom to the players to decide.

Visit the respective character rooms and view the guides/FAQs on those characters. Many of their stats are available there.

As for evidence that some people think differently than what is popular belief, IM RIGHT HERE. What if no one else thinks my way. My way would allow them to think like that, and quite frankly, I'm fine with that.

No. I'm not looking for evidence that people disagree with the list. That kind of evidence is all over the place. I was asking for evidence that Meta Knight is NOT the best. I pointed out that competition results clearly indicate that Meta Knight is the best character. I was asking you for some evidence that somehow suggests he is NOT the best. To do that, you'd have to somehow prove that some other character is the best.

"I disagree" is not evidence.

 

[Red Arremer]

Where are we allowed to decide. All I've see on this site so far is "MetaKight Rocks", "Captin Falcon Sucks"

You always are allowed to decide. Noone says "YOU MUST PLAY META KNIGHT D:<", or "If you play Captain Falcon, a lightning will strike you and you'll die" or something.
Noone forces you to play whatever character you want.
The tier list, again, is an INFORMATION.

I want to see just solid evidence on each character like strength speed recovery and yes, tournement results would also be helpful. Because it give more freedom to the players to decide.

Here you have the tournament results:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=165954

And if you want to find evidence on the characters - feel free to browse the respective character boards, read their guides, try it out yourself.

As for evidence that some people think differently than what is popular belief, IM RIGHT HERE. What if no one else thinks my way. My way would allow them to think like that, and quite frankly, I'm fine with that.

Noone forces you to think the tier list is true. Noone forces you to play and pick a character having the tier list in mind.
You can do whatever you want.

 

[Atlas242]

Then the evidence is clearly that "MK is the best" is an opinion. Opinion is not fact. Im not out to change everyone's opinion, Im out to say that they're entitled to their own. The current format of tiers makes that hard.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Then the evidence is clearly that "MK is the best" is an opinion. Opinion is not fact. Im not out to change everyone's opinion, Im out to say that they're entitled to their own. The current format of tiers makes that hard.

But it's not an opinion. Meta Knight is the best. What is your definition of "the best"? It is pretty clear to me that Meta Knight is the best since he wins the most. What other criteria is there?

 

[Dekar173]

CoT4

1st: MK
2nd: Debateably the BEST Snake in the world.
3rd: MK
4th: MK

There were 2 more MKs in top 8. This was a tournament out of almost 300 people, meaning there were bound to have been at the very least one main per character.

MK is the best character in the game, and was made so purposefully by Sakurai. How do you not understand that Atlas? Sure, player skill goes into account here, but MK has ZERO bad match-ups, godly recovery, godly damage racking, and godly speed. How the hell can you not tell he's the best character in the game, by a large margin?

Wait wait wait... 11 posts... Atlas, have you ever even been to a tournament? If not, you best be trollin'!

 

[Atlas242]

Well then what's the problem with a stratified Tier on multiple dimensions. The current tier would be the tournement potentential, while there could be other catagories like speed, power, and recovery. Therefor as a tool I can use it when picking characters to say, MK is top for tourney potential, but 4th for speed, 5th for recovery and 17th for damage.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I'm sure those other evaluations would be "useful", but why would I care one bit about 2nd Best Recovery when I can just go choose the character with 1st Best Chance of Winning Always?

 

[Atlas242]

Because it's not the character who wins its the player. A character is either the best or the worse depending on the player. You talk as if it were the character winning, and not the player.

 

[Ice!]

There's no need for arguing, Meta Knight is the best, and Captain Falcon is the worst, so what's the problem with that? real men use low tier. nuff said.

 

[Collective of Bears]

Well then what's the problem with a stratified Tier on multiple dimensions. The current tier would be the tournement potentential, while there could be other catagories like speed, power, and recovery. Therefor as a tool I can use it when picking characters to say, MK is top for tourney potential, but 4th for speed, 5th for recovery and 17th for damage.

So basically you're saying we need more tier lists, because one that combines all the factors into a list of best to worst is not accurate. That logic makes no sense.

I'm sure those other evaluations would be "useful", but why would I care one bit about 2nd Best Recovery when I can just go choose the character with 1st Best Chance of Winning Always?

Recovery is important when you're fighting Meta Knight. Because you'll be recovering a LOT.

Because it's not the character who wins its the player. A character is either the best or the worse depending on the player. You talk as if it were the character winning, and not the player.

And you're talking as though all characters are exactly the same and one character cannot have the upper hand against another, which it utter bull.

There's no need for arguing, Meta Knight is the best, and Captain Falcon is the worst, so what's the problem with that? real men use low tier. nuff said.

QFT

 

[Red Arremer]

Because it's not the character who wins its the player. A character is either the best or the worse depending on the player. You talk as if it were the character winning, and not the player.

I guess that whole day we tried to tell you what a tier list is didn't help at all.

Hopeless case... =/

 

[Owndizzl3r_Ownag3]

um...isn't mk dominating in the tournament rankings! so ill say he is the best!