So because A+ tiers are important that means to not give an equal attention to the rest below that? Again how you expect to make a legit tier list? And that has been my point this whole time. Ok these same boring characters is what you see at tournaments all the time and place well and are so called important. Other characters in this game compete too. And even beaten these over used important characters.
A Ness and a Fox Has beaten tyrants meta. But ness and Fox are not as important as A+ tier. So who cares right? Thats what I hear right now. Or there would be some excuse to why tyrant lost to these characters.
This is not about being worthy. This is not about characters being important. This about actually learning about each character to a full extent. When you make a tier list with every character in the game, you make sure you focus on every character in the game. Not work on making the important ones on point and then just juggle the rest below on placement. For that just make a tier list about A+ tiers and screw the others since they are not that important. I don't care if Peach was important or not . I don't care if Link was important or not. But they need to be in the right spots they should be in. And not be lazy or not have full info on these characters.
Okay DP.
However it wouldn't be a stretch that the metagame is based around A+ characters.
Those characters importance is obvious, they have proven they're viable. And your characters viability depends on how well you do against them.
If you can solidify Peach as having even/whatnot advantages with minimal disadvantages against A+ characters you're most likely worthy of being among them or near them. As I always say though, actions are louder than words.
To me, my definition, RIGHT THERE, is what the tier list is.
WHO CARES IF PEACH DOES WELL AGAINST LINK AND GANONDORF.
THIS IS THE METAGAME, the HIGH LEVEL METAGAME.
Who cares if Ike does well in Low tier tournaments, this has nothing to do with the REAL metagame.
Your ideas of a tier list have obvious fallacies, and that is your indefinite issue.
We know characters, we don't ignore characters, are you ignoring what I'm saying on purpose? The A+ metagame is extremely important in how we measure OTHER characters, because
who cares if Ike does well against all the low tiers. You're trying to say that Peach's match ups with Link really matter in the tier list? If you are, that is a huge shot to your ability to conceptualise.
We don't ignore characters,
I'll say it again.
But A+ defines the metagame. How characters do against them is what defines their viability (tier placement).
Are you honestly trying to say that the BBR is wrong/the tier list is bad or terrible because of your fallacy that Peach against Link should be as important as Peach against Meta Knight?
Please DP, use your head here.
Fox/Ness beating Tyrant's MK isn't ignored. If that was to happen consistantly it would
signify that those characters viability are increased largely due to MK's dominance
We care about if Fox/Ness do well against MK, but we shouldn't care (well we do, but to a LOT LESS OF A DEGREE) than we care about how Ness does against Fox
So we do focus on every character in the game.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Patience, child, patience.
