The Tiering of Clones

[Krubby]

So I've always found the discussion of how a clone should be tiered to be quite interesting and I feel it's very ill-defined. Tier lists are supposed to rank a character's "tournament viability" but what does that mean? Does it mean which character is most likely to win a tournament or how good of a choice a character is. To show what I'm getting at, let's pretend Sakurai decided to put a character into Brawl called Metanot. He's the same as Metaknight in literally every way with the one exception that his forward smash does one less damage. Now, if we were to tier the characters based on how they'd do in a tournament, Metaknight would be 1 and Metanot would be 2. However, if we were to do them by how good of a choice they are, then shouldn't Metanot be last? There is literally no reason to ever use him over Metaknight. Even Ganondorf at least has unique tools or could catch an unprepared opponent off guard. So that's where "outclassing" comes in and why I question the placement of Mario and Link on the tier list. Dr Mario is better than Mario in just about every way with almost no downsides. So shouldn't Mario be bottom tier? There's almost no reason to ever choose him over Doc. However, what can prevent a worse clone from being totally outclassed is if they're different enough that even if their unique tools aren't as good they still have a separate valid use, which is why Falco is top tier despite being a not as good fox clone. Finally, there's the case that two characters are incredibly similar that you can't really say one is better than the other that easily and it makes sense for them to be the same. Pit and Dark Pit in smash 4 fall into this category and some would say Link and Young Link do too. What are your thoughts? Do you think that clones should be ranked in comparison to their originator? That outclassing should be a part of their tiering? Thanks for reading!

 

[Uchihadark7]

So I've always found the discussion of how a clone should be tiered to be quite interesting and I feel it's very ill-defined. Tier lists are supposed to rank a character's "tournament viability" but what does that mean? Does it mean which character is most likely to win a tournament or how good of a choice a character is. To show what I'm getting at, let's pretend Sakurai decided to put a character into Brawl called Metanot. He's the same as Metaknight in literally every way with the one exception that his forward smash does one less damage. Now, if we were to tier the characters based on how they'd do in a tournament, Metaknight would be 1 and Metanot would be 2. However, if we were to do them by how good of a choice they are, then shouldn't Metanot be last? There is literally no reason to ever use him over Metaknight. Even Ganondorf at least has unique tools or could catch an unprepared opponent off guard. So that's where "outclassing" comes in and why I question the placement of Mario and Link on the tier list. Dr Mario is better than Mario in just about every way with almost no downsides. So shouldn't Mario be bottom tier? There's almost no reason to ever choose him over Doc. However, what can prevent a worse clone from being totally outclassed is if they're different enough that even if their unique tools aren't as good they still have a separate valid use, which is why Falco is top tier despite being a not as good fox clone. Finally, there's the case that two characters are incredibly similar that you can't really say one is better than the other that easily and it makes sense for them to be the same. Pit and Dark Pit in smash 4 fall into this category and some would say Link and Young Link do too. What are your thoughts? Do you think that clones should be ranked in comparison to their originator? That outclassing should be a part of their tiering? Thanks for reading!

Falco and Fox have the same animations, but almost totally different attacks. You could never use Falco the same way as Fox. I get where your coming from with Mario and Dr. Mario too, but Mario can't be bottom tier if he's still better than Bowser. Good points though. I've never thought of the tier list that way.

 

[Krubby]

Yeah, it's not perfectly clean split or anything but more just a "should a clone be below a character its worse than if its outclassed by its counterpart?"

 

[Uchihadark7]

Yeah, it's not perfectly clean split or anything but more just a "should a clone be below a character its worse than if its outclassed by its counterpart?"

I'd say it depends on the clone.

 

[Comet7]

"metanot" would be better than every character other than meta knight in brawl, so he'd be at number 2, not dead last, since he would still be leagues better than zelda or ganon.

 

[Uchihadark7]

"metanot" would be better than every character other than meta knight in brawl, so he'd be at number 2, not dead last, since he would still be leagues better than zelda or ganon.

Well there would still be no reason to use him. And if the tier list is a measurement of how useful characters are, he would be at the bottom, but if it's measuring how good they are, he would be 2nd.

 

[Comet7]

there isn't a reason to use anybody else over meta knight though.

 

[Krubby]

there isn't a reason to use anybody else over meta knight though.

Ice climbers and diddy kong both have unique tools and can defeat metaknight. good players losing due to matchup inexperience is a thing.

 

[Shikenshu]

Tier list is not a measurement of the usefulness of the characters, but a measurement of how likely a character will win a tournament. In melee, fox has the best tools to win a tournament while kirby has the worst. It does not mean all foxes win though, it depends on how well a player use the character. Though, even if it was a measurement of the usefulness of a character, metanot is still more useful than most of the cast since he has the same matchups as metaknight and it's nearly a ditto against metaknight, he's more useful to win a tournament than lower tier characters.

 

[Diosama]

Tier lists are based on matchups. It just so happens that the clones don't do as well.

 

[Krubby]

Indeed, I'm suggesting that should a tier list be based on which character is the best option instead. Because I'd consider a character like Link a low tier below game and watch in terms of how good a choice he is for winning a tournament as he offers so little over Young Link. I can't imagine a scenario where choosing Link would give an advantage over just selecting Young Link to the point that even if Link is a better character, G&W would be a better option because he isn't outclassed directly by anyone and offers weird disjoints that opponents may not be used to and the dreaded 9.

I'm not saying this should be done, but asking thoughts on if this is a truer way of judging viability.