This goes out to everyone learning Underused Characters

[Yuna]

Thanks for assuming I have no idea about anything. Really appreciated.

Quote me where I said anything like that.

I'm well aware of what the OP is saying, and I'm also quite well aware of what will happen regardless of what they say- the fact is, as much as people LIKE to play low tier characters, high tier characters will most certainly be ruling the scene.

Inconsequential to this thread.

But take a look at Wario- a month ago, he was mid tier at best! What happened? A couple lucky guys like Futile started figuring the character out, and ever since then he's been a noticeable threat in the tourney scene.

Wario mid tier a month ago? Um... no. Some of us have known he's a good character for a long while now. At least since march IIRC. Also, yay, someone managed to do well with a character who was underused and people realized he was better than they first thought when they tried him out for 5 seconds or saw someone bad play as him.

And? Futile was an entrepeneur. Random Wario #21193 who thouroughly failed was not. You're not automatically an entrepeneur. You have to prove yourself to be one.

There's OBVIOUSLY the fact that any one character isn't going to be guaranteed to outshine another (barring obvious, infinite situations), but that doesn't mean other characters don't have potential to eventually be able to do so too. I'm sure one day Snake's metagame will start to cap off and people will start to experiment around.

Inconsequential. I never said anything about this. Of course the tier list can (and will) be revised. Of course metagames will change over time as more is discovered. No one ever said this wasn't true. But Lucario #192394 who stood by idly and sucked isn't an entrepeneur just because Azen might or might not be able to innovate him enough to make him Top Tier. Azen will be the entrepeneur. Lucario #192394 will just be another player who didn't do well in Competitive play.

Again, Yuna- I wish you'd be more careful with your rash statements, as I find them rather offensive. I didn't reference this thread because I 100% support it, but because it's a mindset and an idea I think everyone should atleast consider it. I could care less WHAT people think of it- but opinions should be valued whether or not you agree with it.

I'm sorry, apparently saying "Some people might reference this for this to support bad opinions" means "Everyone who references this thread are obvious stupid!" since when now? I'd wish some people would actually read what has been written before they reply.

I'd also wish people would stop crying "Foul!" whenever a post is nothing but 100% supportive. It's not flaming, harsh or bashing just because I've said "I do not support everything written in the OP and this is why".

 

[Dr Peepee]

I completely respect your opinion Yuna, but I would also like to try to give another stab at supporting Kidd's argument. Despite the fact that some players may be comfotable with their low-tier characters, whether by personal preference or by their style, sometimes it seems like a foolish choice to main an underused character when going up against charcters with a better "tier" placement. The disadvantages brought on by playing an underused character make some people feel incredibly low and helpless at times. Kidd's speech was designed to instill hope into these people that feel like they can't keep going with their mains(I know it's competitive and all, but some people like to mix fun and competition).

 

[memphischains]

sirlin.net

 

[J4pu]

to give some hope to every1 that wants to main falcon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoADaj20soI

the lucario was horrendous, this shouldn't be used for inspiring hope,
but people who main underused chars do have one small advantage: people aren't used to playing against them and have not developed strategies to as high of a level as they have against the more popular chars.

 

[Yuna]

I completely respect your opinion Yuna, but I would also like to try to give another stab at supporting Kidd's argument. Despite the fact that some players may be comfotable with their low-tier characters, whether by personal preference or by their style, sometimes it seems like a foolish choice to main an underused character when going up against charcters with a better "tier" placement. The disadvantages brought on by playing an underused character make some people feel incredibly low and helpless at times. Kidd's speech was designed to instill hope into these people that feel like they can't keep going with their mains(I know it's competitive and all, but some people like to mix fun and competition).

But those people just need a swift talking to:
If you want to want to win at all costs, go for the Top and High Tiers, the ones with the best potential and who have to work the least hard for the win, even if you don't enjoy playing as them.

It's all about preference. Play to Win... but to what extent? Playing to Win is a mentality. You don't have to Play to Win, and even if you do, you don't have to tierwhore. Just play whoever you like to play as the most. If you can't win with them, you have a choice:
* Switch characters
* Remain with the same character(s)

Do you enjoy playing the character enough to keep going even though you cannot win as said character? Is it not enjoyable for you when you do not win, so you can go with a character you enjoy playing less for a greater chance of winning?

It all comes down to your own choices, your own mentality and your own needs. People need to stop to think logically and rationally more. I still enjoy playing as Peach. She's still fun. But it's not fun for me to have to work really hard to get a KO as Peach only to have a Snake swoop in and destroy me because Peach's potential is quite lackluster in Brawl.

I don't like Peach's new style where she has to play a hit-and-run game with little combos, damage and KO-potential. That's not fun for me. I like a character with potential, a character who can either rack up damage and KO easily, or who can combo easily or both. A character that doesn't require me to work 10 times as hard as the average character to win... my character choices (seen in my sig) reflect this.

This is what is fun for me. Some people might still have fun not winning but at least doing reasonably well with their Low Tiers. Good for them. Some people actually do well with their Low Tiers. Even better. Again, people just need to sit down and ask themselves:
What is fun for me?

No one should be telling someone they should switch mains to a High Tier to win. Just as no one should be telling someone to stick with their Low Tiers if they're considered switching up just for the sake of playing Low Tiers. The most important question is and should always be: What is fun for me?

 

[Yuna]

I completely respect your opinion Yuna, but I would also like to try to give another stab at supporting Kidd's argument. Despite the fact that some players may be comfotable with their low-tier characters, whether by personal preference or by their style, sometimes it seems like a foolish choice to main an underused character when going up against charcters with a better "tier" placement. The disadvantages brought on by playing an underused character make some people feel incredibly low and helpless at times. Kidd's speech was designed to instill hope into these people that feel like they can't keep going with their mains(I know it's competitive and all, but some people like to mix fun and competition).

But those people just need a swift talking to:
If you want to want to win at all costs, go for the Top and High Tiers, the ones with the best potential and who have to work the least hard for the win, even if you don't enjoy playing as them.

It's all about preference. Play to Win... but to what extent? Playing to Win is a mentality. You don't have to Play to Win, and even if you do, you don't have to tierwhore. Just play whoever you like to play as the most. If you can't win with them, you have a choice:
* Switch characters
* Remain with the same character(s)

Do you enjoy playing the character enough to keep going even though you cannot win as said character? Is it not enjoyable for you when you do not win, so you can go with a character you enjoy playing less for a greater chance of winning?

It all comes down to your own choices, your own mentality and your own needs. People need to stop to think logically and rationally more. I still enjoy playing as Peach. She's still fun. But it's not fun for me to have to work really hard to get a KO as Peach only to have a Snake swoop in and destroy me because Peach's potential is quite lackluster in Brawl.

I don't like Peach's new style where she has to play a hit-and-run game with little combos, damage and KO-potential. That's not fun for me. I like a character with potential, a character who can either rack up damage and KO easily, or who can combo easily or both. A character that doesn't require me to work 10 times as hard as the average character to win... my character choices (seen in my sig) reflect this.

This is what is fun for me. Some people might still have fun not winning but at least doing reasonably well with their Low Tiers. Good for them. Some people actually do well with their Low Tiers. Even better. Again, people just need to sit down and ask themselves:
What is fun for me?

No one should be telling someone they should switch mains to a High Tier to win. Just as no one should be telling someone to stick with their Low Tiers if they're considered switching up. The most important question is and should always be: What is fun for me?

 

[memphischains]

ill post it again i guess,

SIRLIN.NET
he explains it very well, although Yuna is doing the same, but, Dave does it slightly better

(lol coming from someone who plays sonic)

 

[Jack Kieser]

I'll post it again, I guess.

You are all reading too much into this. The TC has come in here... repeatedly... to tell you all that what you are insinuating (that he or anyone else in this thread is saying that underused mainers are better or deserve more respect than overused mainers) is flat out wrong. Sometimes, I really think that Yuna can't post in a thread without causing controversy, because not one of his 13 posts (not counting the double post) had anything positive to say to the TC, even though they agree at a base level.

They both think that you should play who you have fun with, not overused just because you're told their better, OR underused because you think there is more honor. The OP, which has some minor wording flaws that can be fixed (and for the sake of the thread, Kidd, you should probably revise your OP just to appease people like Yuna so that the d*mn negativity can stop and the thread can get back on track), is supposed to inspire underused mainers to keep playing who they love to play even thouugh the character isn't at the top of the tier list. It never says that anyone is better than anyone else for who they main, at least in message. It never says that people should switch to underused characters because they are underused, just like it opposes people who switch to overused characters just to play a character high on the tier list.

Seriously, guys. Is there ever a point to which you can excuse a few technicalities in wording to approve the overall message? And don't say the BS that you've been spouting for the past few pages just to incite inflammatory remarks; you all know good and well what the purpose of the thread is and what the message to be conveyed by the OP is. As has been said many, many times, the wording could use some work, but the message is fundamentally simple:

Play the character that is fun for you, regardless of tier position.

That's all the OP has ever meant to say. Kidd has come into his own thread multiple times to correct you all, and you've ignored him every single time. You know good and well that he doesn't condone casting down or elevating a player based on character choice, so stop slandering the poor guy and his (well-meaning) thread for no good reason.

Oh, and a note about the term 'entrepreneur': get off your high horse. Since when has the word 'entrepreneur' ever had an inherently positive connotation? Never. 'Entrepreneur' is defined as 'one who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise', and the operative part of that definition (in the context of this discussion) is 'assumes the risks'. Yuna, you yourself have said that you play characters that are at a lower risk to lose inherently. Let me get the quotation for you:

One thing I'm quite fond of is to not have to work ten times as hard as the best characters in the game to win. That, coupled with my ability to recognize strength and how I like my characters usually lead me to characters that end up pretty high in the tiers.

So, you are less entrepreneurial than someone who plays [insert low-tier character here] because you assume less risk. Who cares who wins, who cares who is 'inventive'? It doesn't matter. Entrepreneurs are people who assume more risks than others in their ventures, so you you know what?

People who play underused characters, regardless of their personal skill level, are assuming more of a risk because of the character they play. That's why tier lists are meaningful in the first place. If low-tier characters had the same risk factors as high-tier characters, they wouldn't be low tier.

 

[MusicalMike]

You know what Jack? I'm going to go off and modify the OP right now. I can word it better than it is right now so that's what I'm gonna do. I will post again once my OP is modified...once it is, I hope that at least a fraction of the negativity running around here will cease to be.

 

[Jam Stunna]

You know what Jack? I'm going to go off and modify the OP right now. I can word it better than it is right now so that's what I'm gonna do. I will post again once my OP is modified...once it is, I hope that at least a fraction of the negativity running around here will cease to be.

Don't bother. No matter how right you are, how well you write your posts or how well-reasoned your arguments are, a fair amount of morons are going to either 1) Completely miss your point 2) Post without reading through the arguments, or 3) Disagree for the sake of looking cool and savvy on the internet.

The tragedy here is that the people who understand what you mean don't need your advice, and the ones that aren't going to get it are the ones who need help the most.

 

[Morrigan]

I just read pages 1-6 and it was all full of love, then I jump to the back and see THIS.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Don't bother. No matter how right you are, how well you write your posts or how well-reasoned your arguments are, a fair amount of morons are going to either 1) Completely miss your point 2) Post without reading through the arguments, or 3) Disagree for the sake of looking cool and savvy on the internet.

The tragedy here is that the people who understand what you mean don't need your advice, and the ones that aren't going to get it are the ones who need help the most.

Jam, your understanding of internet politics is astounding. Oh, how true you are...

 

[MusicalMike]

Don't bother. No matter how right you are, how well you write your posts or how well-reasoned your arguments are, a fair amount of morons are going to either 1) Completely miss your point 2) Post without reading through the arguments, or 3) Disagree for the sake of looking cool and savvy on the internet.

The tragedy here is that the people who understand what you mean don't need your advice, and the ones that aren't going to get it are the ones who need help the most.

Right. I didn't mean it as primarily advice though, simply more inspiration than anything, you know? I'm going to probably go ahead and modify the OP anyways just to see what affect it will have.

I do agree with your three points though, they are very logical.

 

[joeysmash]

wow this thread died.... whered the love go?

 

[MusicalMike]

I'm gonna bring it back joey, hearts and all, just give me a few shakes of the edit button on my OP and we'll cross our fingers and see if I can make my message a little more concrete.

 

[Jack Kieser]

wow this thread died.... whered the love go?

To Sweden.

 

[Yuna]

Ummm Jack, Kidd said that we agreed but he still persisted that Low Tier mainers are by definition entrepeneurs and non-Low Tier mainers are not (though they can be, but they aren't automatically. Low Tier mainers, though, automatic entrepeneurs).

That's kinda saying Low Tier mainers are special and "better" in some ways.

Guess what, we disagree on that part.

Also, why are some people obsessed with positivity? I write tons of neutral posts but no one cares about that. No, as soon as I say something remotely negative, people crack down on them. Never mind the very constructive post where I outlined how people should choose their mains, be they Low or High.

"What's fun for me?"

 

[Edds]

we just make things more intresting than having snakes and metaknights at tourneys. plus we choose some of these so called low tier chars because we like them.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

People who main low tier should keep maining low tier if that's who they like.
People who main low tier shouldn't be treated as great players just because they main low tier.

 

[Blackshadow]

You know what thread we need to bring up?

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=88289

 

[Blackshadow]

Double posting is not fun

 

[palooka]

I was wondering, is Lucas one of the underused characters?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ummm Jack, Kidd said that we agreed but he still persisted that Low Tier mainers are by definition entrepeneurs and non-Low Tier mainers are not (though they can be, but they aren't automatically. Low Tier mainers, though, automatic entrepeneurs).

That's kinda saying Low Tier mainers are special and "better" in some ways.

Guess what, we disagree on that part.

Also, why are some people obsessed with positivity? I write tons of neutral posts but no one cares about that. No, as soon as I say something remotely negative, people crack down on them. Never mind the very constructive post where I outlined how people should choose their mains, be they Low or High.

"What's fun for me?"

No, it's not 'kinda saying Low Tier mainers are special and "better" in some ways'. I just spent half of a post explaining that to you, but you still ignore it. Once more, with feeling:

Entrepreneurs take risks, so the more risks you take, the more entrepreneurial you are. Overused mainers use less risky players than underused mainers, so underused mainers are more entrepreneurial. This is regardless of outcome of match or player sill because failure or success is not required to be an entrepreneur (by definition).

And, I think that people get frustrated with even your neutral comments because it's usually considered disrespectful to be indifferent to people doing good things. I realize that it's your right to be indifferent, or even to disagree, but don't be surprised when people tell you to chill out because you are essentially arguing with a person who is trying to do good, and that rarely goes over well. next time Warren Buffet tries donating money to charity, go to the press conference and let out a resounding 'meh'; let us know how that goes.

 

[otg]

No, it's not 'kinda saying Low Tier mainers are special and "better" in some ways'. I just spent half of a post explaining that to you, but you still ignore it. Once more, with feeling:

Entrepreneurs take risks, so the more risks you take, the more entrepreneurial you are. Overused mainers use less risky players than underused mainers, so underused mainers are more entrepreneurial. This is regardless of outcome of match or player sill because failure or success is not required to be an entrepreneur (by definition).

And, I think that people get frustrated with even your neutral comments because it's usually considered disrespectful to be indifferent to people doing good things. I realize that it's your right to be indifferent, or even to disagree, but don't be surprised when people tell you to chill out because you are essentially arguing with a person who is trying to do good, and that rarely goes over well. next time Warren Buffet tries donating money to charity, go to the press conference and let out a resounding 'meh'; let us know how that goes.

Jack, I see more negativity coming from everyone but Yuna. Just because he disagrees with you doesn't make him negative, and yes just because you main low tier doesn't make you honorable. We need "Low-tier" mains right now to start actually DOING SOMETHING entrepreneurial to flesh out the tier list. The Top Tiers are way too overpowered and tournament results prove that.

Sure you can say things like "MK and Snake stood out first, thats the only reason their top tier!" but you ignoring a very very key fact. They stand out because they ARE top tier and have a lot of metagame potential. I'm sure many low tiers are the same exact way, but stop kidding yourself into thinking that every single character has potential for competition, it's just not possible.

 

[Rigor Mortis]

to give some hope to every1 that wants to main falcon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoADaj20soI

seriulsly that match is full of epic win, that link is my new signature

 

[Jack Kieser]

Jack, I see more negativity coming from everyone but Yuna. Just because he disagrees with you doesn't make him negative, and yes just because you main low tier doesn't make you honorable.

This is like the 100th time I'm going to say this (hyperbole), and I'm really getting tired of repeating myself:

No one in this thread has ever or will ever insinuate that underused mainers inherently deserve any respect for the characters they main.

The TC is even currently in the process of re-writing the OP just to emphasize this fact. I'm not even going to try to repeat what I've already said about 'entrepreneurs' because it is painfully obvious that you are ignoring me every time I say it; to be completely honest, I'm at least 65-70% sure that you won't even listen to this post. Please, for the love of Mike, prove me wrong.

 

[Newskool]

I guess I can see both sides of the argument. On one hand, I can see where the OP is coming from. He finds it fun to explore the metagame and try to find new ways to play. Of course, he may lose a lot of matches along the way, but THAT'S NO WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT TO HIM. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS HAVING FUN, and he finds fun in fleshing out the metagame. Yuna, of course, plays to win. Winning is fun to him, and he's willing to do what it takes. He also finds comfort in a high tier, which is perfectly fine.

See? We have two different people, and two different mindsets of what is fun. And NEITHER OF THEM IS WRONG. If OP wants to play peach and finds joy of finding her game mechanics, that's fine. And who knows? Maybe He'll (He, right?) will actually find some crazy peach techniques that'll put her in the top tier. And if Yuna plays the characters he wants to, and he wins tournaments, well, more power to him.

Now, I think I may be able to clarify what OP was saying to yuna-

1.Now, a snake, and a ganon mainer could both discover a crazy new AT, which would make their character next to invincible just as easily, and doing so would make them an "entrepreneur" ( I reeeeeallly don't like that word in this context) regardless of character. Here's the difference- If the snake mainer decided to jump mains, there are tons and tons of snake mains, so the tech could just as easily be discovered by somebody else, accidentally, even. If the ganon mainer decides to switch, there are not so many ganon mainers, and so the technique may never get discovered at all. See what I mean? If those who main lesser characters, ones who may have potential, decide to abandon ship and hop to a high tier, that potential would be lost, and in reality, isn't that the point of this board, to unlock the game's full potential?
2. To people like OP, winning isn't the most important thing. If it was, he'd be maining Snake or Meta-knight. He likes playing for fun, and uncovering the game's potential. Of course he's not trying to defy all logic and say "Play a low tier! You'll win!" That of course, would be ridiculous. He's also not trying to say that maining a low tier makes you better than those who do not. There are threads that say that. This is not one of them.

Personally, I believe that people should not reference tiers at all when selecting a main. I main G&W, but that has nothing to do with his place on the tiers. And my standpoint? I'll play to win, but I have my limits. I.E., if someone decides to use ness on me, I will NOT use the marth infinite grab on him. I don't find it fun to win using such underhanded tactics to win. If you want to just get in there, win using any means possible, and get out of there, then that's how you like to play.

 

[Yuna]

This is like the 100th time I'm going to say this (hyperbole), and I'm really getting tired of repeating myself:

No one in this thread has ever or will ever insinuate that underused mainers inherently deserve any respect for the characters they main.

The TC is even currently in the process of re-writing the OP just to emphasize this fact. I'm not even going to try to repeat what I've already said about 'entrepreneurs' because it is painfully obvious that you are ignoring me every time I say it; to be completely honest, I'm at least 65-70% sure that you won't even listen to this post. Please, for the love of Mike, prove me wrong.

Funny, because no matter what the TC wanted to do, he did imply it and at least one other poster in this thread has directly stated such as well (though he later in the same post claimed he didn't).

From the OP (at this writing moment):
"That is selfless, and it is amazing, and anyone who succeeds deserves MAD props and credit, no lie." - In other words, it's amazing to main an underused character even if you do not succeed into doing something special with them.

Not to mention the endless praise to all entrepeneurs, something you automatically are the second you pick up an underused character as a main. No, you do not deserve praise the minute you pick up an underused character.

I don't understand this inane mentality in Competitive fighting games (and Smash in general) where maining a Low Tier is "selfless", "amazing" and whatnot... even when you fail. Ummm... whut?

No one ever looked at tennis players and went "That player never uses the best tennis techniques, yet he wins sometimes. He's amazing!" or "That NASCAR driver uses a 2nd rate (Low Tier) car! Amazing entrepeneur!".

Play who you like playing as. Who you play as is inconsequential. What you do with them is important.

 

[The Real Inferno]

Yuna you really do need to stop doing that straw man falacy, for shame.

Even if you are right in this particular instance.

I was wondering, is Lucas one of the underused characters?

It shouldn't really matter to you if you like playing him anyway.

 

[Fatmanonice]

Good read. I was making this arguement in another thread because I do think that way too many people flock to the top tier characters when they aren't winning with theirs. I'm a regular attendant of the boards of my mains (Wario, Ness, Mario, Ice Climbers, King Dedede, and Fox) and I'm getting tired of threads asking if there's any hope for some of the characters and if they should just play Marth/Metaknight/Snake (especially on the Ness board).

Wario is a good example of a so-so character that was developed into a great character from experimentation. Wario's range sucks both in the air and ground, he only has one attack that has super armor, he doesn't have any true projectiles (although his bike tires are crazy good when used right), and only 4 of his moves have decent KO potential (with only 2 of them being decently dependible). He's still only considered to be the top of the middle tier but he's winning tournaments left and right because people are taking advantage of his unique playstyle.

I main Fox because he was my main in the original and I consider him my Snake/Metaknight counter if things get really bad, I decided to main Wario and King Dedede as soon as they were announced, the Ice Climbers fascinate me because of their multiple chain grabs and how I consider them to be the most technical characters in Brawl, and I main Mario and Ness because they were mains in Melee but there is a more important reason why I main them, I want to prove their potential.

Mario's my second favorite fictional character period (try to guess the first ) and I consider him a very inspirational character. As "Mr. Nintendo", I believe he should be better in all three Smash games but that wasn't the case. He's always been a middle of the road character and has never had a easy time in tournament play. I want to prove that he is tournament viable and that a lot of amazing things can be done with him if you learn how to use him.

Let's face it, Ness was awesome in the original and sucked in Melee. I switched to Ness as my main when I discovered this site in 2005 and learned about tiers. I learned about Fox being top tier and I felt like I hadn't accomplished anything in the past 4 years. I regularly beat the crap out of my friends even when they'd come at me 2 at a time. Winning with Ness was very gratifying and still is. I love all the things that can be done with his specials and it's great that he was improved so much in Brawl (despite the infinite that Marth and Charizard have against him).

As you said, it is more satisfying to win with a lower tier character. Truth be told, the character I have the most fun winning with is Yoshi because I know that people know how bad he sucks. Metaknight used to be one of my mains but I grew tired of him. Most of his attacks have close to no lag, he's retardedly fast, his tornado can eat most attacks (including projectiles), he has not one but four dependible ways to recover, several of his attacks eat shields, and his dsmash makes spotdodging against him almost completely pointless. He's not unstoppable but knowing your opponent is working three times as hard while you're barely even trying is extremelly discouraging. As mentioned early, this was the exact same way I felt with Fox in Melee.

In the end, this is good message to the Brawl community and I hope that many people pay attention to it.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I went from Ike to Bowser, so ehhhh.

There's a difference between underused and crap characters. I mean, so far, the best Ike I know of stopped using Ike against good people, etc. etc. Until someone can prove Ike has viability (I mean the guys who wrote the good Ike guides ****ing said you usually need to be the better player to win) I will keep him in the list of crappy, avoidable characters.


Then there are the Pokemanz trainers and the Sheik's, the Kirby's and the Mario's, who need more use. Hop to it guys.

 

[Mega-Japan]

I really don't think Zelda would be a low/bottom tier or anything, but she IS underused. In the many tournaments I've been to, only 1% of the time I find another Zelda besides my own. Yet I know she is pretty good.

Either way, awesome read.

 

[Yuna]

I really don't think Zelda would be a low/bottom tier or anything, but she IS underused. In the many tournaments I've been to, only 1% of the time I find another Zelda besides my own. Yet I know she is pretty good.

Either way, awesome read.

Zelda was 5th worse in Melee. In Brawl she's actually around 5th best.

 

[Morrigan]

She was considered the 5th BEST in the first Melee, remember?

 

[Yuna]

She was considered the 5th BEST in the first Melee, remember?

You mean the first Melee Tier List? Sources?

 

[Morrigan]

http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_previous_tier_lists

I don't know if that source is reliable or not. But I heard you couldn't DI out of her Usmash in the first version of the game? Or am I wrong?

 

[Yuna]

http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_previous_tier_lists

I don't know if that source is reliable or not. But I heard you couldn't DI out of her Usmash in the first version of the game? Or am I wrong?

If that list is correct, then Zelda was considered 6th best, actually . Then again, Zelda is 7th worst and not 5th, but then again, I said "Zelda is, like, around" and other variations of it. The 1st Tier List was released after PAL had been released and hence after 1.2 had been released. Zelda's smashes had had Freeze Frames on them since 1.1, i.e., before he Tier List was created, so they probably took in the new DI-ability into consideration.

Yes, Zelda's smashes enjoyed no Freeze Frames in v. 1.0 (neither did Samus' Up B IIRC and neither did Peach's Up B), hence, making it impossible to DI out of them once they connected. Neither of these things were, by the way, mentioned in the article linked to below!

Then again, that Wikia is highly inaccurate. Just take a look at the entry for Version Differences.

No mention of Fox's nerfed Upsmash and widely discredit BS like "Peach's dashattack is weaker" is still in there (even though it was discredited several years ago).

 

[Fatmanonice]

Zelda was 5th worse in Melee. In Brawl she's actually around 5th best.

5th best? How do you figure?

 

[Mega-Japan]

Zelda was 5th worse in Melee. In Brawl she's actually around 5th best.

Your calculations are indeed correct if not very close, but even as "5th best", she is still heavily underused. Heck lately I've seen a rise in Ganondorf mainers for some reason, and pretty sure he is around bottom.

5th best? How do you figure?

Yuna is doing what is called "assuming", hence the word "around" 5th best.

 

[Fatmanonice]

Yuna is doing what is called "assuming", hence the word "around" 5th best.

What's with everyone talking down to me today? Anyways, I was asking because this is the first time I've ever heard someone rank Zelda so high. Her tournament results don't really reflect this too much either so I wanted an explanation from a Pro who mains her.