adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Tournament results mainly.
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Matchup based tierlists reflect the tier position accurately.The problem with making tier lists based on matchups is that they may not represent a tier position a character deserves. For example, Zangief in Street Fighter 4 beats like half the cast, but the other half he doesn't beat happens to be higher tier guys that you'll be seeing in tournaments.
You are quite wrong.Mountain Tiger said:Making a tier list based solely on matchups, although fair in principle, doesn't really work in practice.
Then that is an error on the community itself.Mountain Tiger said:To see what I mean, take a look at the match-up list and see how much both sides of a matchup disagree. For example, with Zelda vs Fox, some people say it's 40:60 Fox's favour, while others say it's the same in Zelda's favour! It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get both sides to agree on all of the matchups.
This is only true for metagame tierlist.Mountain Tiger said:Matchups should definitely make up part of the tier list, but tournament results, though not flawless, help set a foundation for the list, because in geenral characters with better matchups do better in tournaments.
I have to agree with this for the most part, but one thing to point out. Metagame tierlists in their own way ARE accurate, that is if their purpose is to evaluate a character's viability in the current metagame. Yeah, the character cannot change. But their PERFORMANCE in the metagame can change. So by using a metagame tierlist, I suppose one could say we're not truly evaluating the characters, but rather the relationship between the characters + top-level players.ShadowLink84 said:metagame weighed tierlists are NOT accurate because they are affected by the metagame itself.
So if DDD's bad matchups are showing up suddenly, he will drop.
If they do not show up, he will rise.
Which is not accurate because a character does not change.
This is true, especially when the true experts of that character's potential are people who can't get to any tournaments or just plain can't utilize the character's potential in actual tourney play. It's wrong for problems like that to affect a character's value. And the way the tierlist works now, that's exactly what's happening... >_<ShadowLink84 said:Then you also have learning curves which may hold character back. Sure they may be awesome, but if no one realizes that characters potential, they would be doomed to remain low in spite of their awesome capability.
Sorry about that, I meant Guilty Gear the fighting game.OK, this is bothering me, quick question: what does GG mean????
True, but the relationshp between top players and the characters mean little. The players are really changing anything about the character, and the tierlist, by current definition, is meant to evaluate the capability of a character next to the others.I have to agree with this for the most part, but one thing to point out. Metagame tierlists in their own way ARE accurate, that is if their purpose is to evaluate a character's viability in the current metagame. Yeah, the character cannot change. But their PERFORMANCE in the metagame can change. So by using a metagame tierlist, I suppose one could say we're not truly evaluating the characters, but rather the relationship between the characters + top-level players.
orrect, which I do not believe they are reflecting.If we wanna evaluate the actual characters, then a match-up tier list is definitely the way to go.
My point is, the accuracy of metagame tierlists depend primarily on what we intend for them to reflect.
OH NO YOU DIDN'TSnake is the best character in the game.
I haven't seen Oates take out Tyrant recently. Debate over.The exact same reason why people argue whether Lucas or Ness is better, even though both of them are low tier.
We want our tier list to reflect the metagame, and reflect the metagame it shall dammit!Sorry about that, I meant Guilty Gear the fighting game.
True, but the relationshp between top players and the characters mean little. The players are really changing anything about the character, and the tierlist, by current definition, is meant to evaluate the capability of a character next to the others.
orrect, which I do not believe they are reflecting.
People are looking to see how good those characters are compared to others, not necessarily how good they are under a certain ruleset, under so and so variables which easily change.
^_^
This...post...is...goodSnake is the best character in the game.
Fixed for moar accuracy.Jiglypuff is the best character in the game.
Didnt even think, just sigged.Do I smell a Metaknight ban?
No, that's just the smell of Ally sh*tting all over the pro-ban community.
Too awesome.Didnt even think, just sigged.
Perhaps for you but in general, this is not true. Most people view the tierlist wondering how good the character is in comparison to everyone else. Hence why you often hear moaning and groaning from people maining lower tiered characters because they are not aurately represented by a metagame influenced tierlist.We want our tier list to reflect the metagame, and reflect the metagame it shall dammit!
No really, *smacks you in the face with fish*I void your argument by simply saying that you're wrong and that we don't want a tier list based on matchups. I wanna know how likely it'd be for me to earn money if I chose a random character off the tier list and went to a tournament.
YepI mean seriously, if we wanted a tier list based on matchups, we'd make one, wouldn't we? =D
I have guilty gear too...Also Kinzer, you have Guilty Gear?
I was already out the door.Well then why don't you pack up your keyboard and get the **** out of here?
This is win.Do I smell a Metaknight ban?
No, that's just the smell of Ally sh*tting all over the pro-ban community.
Anyone care to explain what fapping means? (Sorry for going off-topic)I was already out the door.
Why don't you stop fapping to MK?
He is win :BThis is win.
Speak for yourself, yo.I void your argument by simply saying that you're wrong and that we don't want a tier list based on matchups. I wanna know how likely it'd be for me to earn money if I chose a random character off the tier list and went to a tournament.
Yeah I admitted that issue earlier.A matchup-based tier list has merit only when there's some general consensus on matchups. People are still arguing over at least half of the matchups in the game.
Wario is an awesome character, and what serious players he does have generally place very well. He also has more than a few tricks, as his aerial mobility means he never really has to commit to anything, so he can bait and camp all day as soon as he gets a lead.On another note i don't see warios placing at genesis wario is not 3rd on the tier list once his tricks are worked out wario sucks
Not if you weigh the match-ups by importance.However, metagame tier lists are more accurate as to who is viable or not. Image two characters, identical, but they each have one counter. For one of them, the counter is one of the worst characters in the game. For the other, it is the best character.
Now better characters turn up in tournaments more often. Hence, the character with a higher tier counter is not as viable as the other, who is unlikely to face their counter. However, both would be the same on a matchup tier list.
But, most of those arguments are mostly for like 5-10 point difference. Those could be settled with an outside opinion that can deliberate the situiation. At the very least people can always come to an accord upon advantage, disadvantage or neutral for the match-up. The problem is deciding how much of an advantage or disadvantage. Since I main Falco/Snake I see 2 arguements with how bad is it for DDDvssnake or falcovskirby. At first many saw it as a hard counter, but now we are reconsidering a lightcounter maybe even. But still advantage to DDD or Kirby. That kind of situation I think will always be agrued and points to another problem with the MU tier list: MUs change over time.A matchup-based tier list has merit only when there's some general consensus on matchups. People are still arguing over at least half of the matchups in the game.
I'll agree with that lol Too many boards are still trying to finish off there own match-up list while others are not even done. And it's been ~1.4 years since brawl in NA came out. Really takes a long time to finish this.Primarily since metagame tierlists are easier to make and can establish a basic outline while a matchup based tierlist takes longer due to the data required for an accurate ratio.
But won't that leave you with a metagame tier list?Not if you weigh the match-ups by importance.
Granted, you have to run a few transformations to get it right, but you certainly can do a weighted match-up list.
No, because you're weighing the match-ups internally, valueing them based on their relationships with themselves. That's what I mean by using transformations, you start with pure match-up, and then based on the positions each character's match-ups on the chart, revalue them, and create a new tier list.But won't that leave you with a metagame tier list?
Correct, both characters would be to same on a matchup based tierlist because it is measuring the capability of those characters in regards to the others.However, metagame tier lists are more accurate as to who is viable or not. Image two characters, identical, but they each have one counter. For one of them, the counter is one of the worst characters in the game. For the other, it is the best character.
Now better characters turn up in tournaments more often. Hence, the character with a higher tier counter is not as viable as the other, who is unlikely to face their counter. However, both would be the same on a matchup tier list.
But that would be reflected in a weighted match-up tierlist.Example: You are hard-countered by MK and no one else. This matters a lot, so you're not #2.
Another character is harder-countered by only Yoshi. Yoshi however is hard-countered by most top tiers (I don't know or care if this is actually true, just an example) so having a bad match-up against Yoshi doesn't matter as much.
A match-up-based list, weighted by the metagame, not the other way around, is the best way to do it, if we can get a match-up list that works.
Yes it is, but it correctly notes the fact that not all advantages and disadvantages are equal.Adumbrodeus said its possibly to make the matchup based tierlist with the matchups being weighed though it sounds kinda unusual @_@