Tier List Speculation

[TheReflexWonder]

Neutral game is not the only factor towards tier placement. If it was, then 2.6 Sonic would've been the best character in the game still, or close to it... Nuetral game is a lot more than dashing right or left, because frankly not every character can operate on that level. Sure, having the ability to wavedash or dash dance when you are a slower character is a massive factor in neutral, but their neutral game is not controlled by it. There are characters who take control of space and threaten ranges from the air like Jiggs or Wario very effectively. They are also characters who set up walls of projectiles and will not take a step towards you unless they have to like maybe Link/ROB/TL/Zelda.

I don't like the notion that neutral game is all running left right left in the eyes of some people because that downplays a lot of the beautiful decision making that happens. Smash's neutral game/footsies are why it's so good, alongside DI and control basically never leaving the player even when getting death combo'd.

Neutral game is still far and away the most important. Your comparison to 2.6 Sonic suggests that the neutral game has little to do with the options you have in that mobility. Falcon would be top tier if it were all about speed, but his tools still require you to go in and risk significant order to make something happen, moreso than a character like Sheik or a space animal. It's the commitment required in that, which Sonic has much, much more of than he did in 2.5.

Jigglypuff and Wario have ridiculous mobility in neutral and generally nice hitbox placement in the air that most other characters can't hope to manage. As long as they're still somewhat near the ground, it's still the neutral game for them; it just so happens that that is the place where they have the best set of options. They are able to attack and steer away from danger that is largely unique to them (in the air, anyway).

In terms of projectile characters, Falco and Sheik can totally play that way too, and I'd say they do it better than any of the characters you listed. You'll note that most people don't consider Link/ROB/TL/Zelda to be very good characters (in terms of ranking)...not that I'm casting judgment on their placing, but, while those characters range from being considered great to bad, Falco and Sheik are consistently at the top. There are reasons for that, and the argument of "over a decade of matchup experience" doesn't hold water because that same matchup experience allows people to know what to expect and how to fight them. These characters can really control positions with incredible hitbox placement and positioning control.

It's not all about left-right-left, but when the decision-making in a lot of matchups is "Bowser did ANYTHING AT ALL? Initial dash backward for zero risk while he has to hard read and risk so much on an attack" is a serious problem in terms of being able to call matchups as a whole balanced. The problem is that a lot of characters cannot "really" play the neutral game/do not "really" have footsies in certain matchups. The neutral game and PM's balance may thrive in the matchups where characters can keep up and realistically threaten each other, but there isn't any "beautiful decision making" in the matchups with lopsided balance. A smart character with that advantage learns to play calculated risk instead of doing any meaningful thinking in certain matchups. It's smart, effective, and not at all fun to play against when you're the guy with the huge mobility disadvantage. Sheik -can- move forward and fight Bowser, but why would she do that when so much risk can be mitigated by only approaching when you absolutely have to/when you have the opponent frozen from their options not working due to dash back hard countering so many "footsie" options?

 

[Burnsy]

I wonder who would win, in a contest between equal players... Melee Fox or Brawl MK.

But that question isn't for the tier list thread. Here's one that is:
Why is Falco worse in PM than he is in Melee, compared to the rest of the cast. Has he received any changes, apart form the removal of frame 1 invincibility on shine? His recovery is comparatively worse than most, but his on-stage game is still good.

I know this was said a few pages back, but I just wanted to remind everyone that Falco recieved an enormous unintential buff due to how his Melee shine had to be coded.

Falco can jump cancel the lag from reflecting projectiles immediately, rather than having a period of reflect lag he must wait for, unlike all other reflecting/absorbing characters. Falco is the only one who doesn't have to commit to the action and can safely reflect from any range. This wasn't in Melee.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

I'd argue that universal mechanics like RAR, wavebouncing, B-reversals and DACUS are buffs for Falco as well.

 

[FinalTaco]

My list


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
S:



11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
A:



30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
A-:

 

[Nguz95]

Dat Squirtle placing doe...

 

[Sashimi]

39

what

 

[Oro?!]

Neutral game is still far and away the most important. Your comparison to 2.6 Sonic suggests that the neutral game has little to do with the options you have in that mobility. Falcon would be top tier if it were all about speed, but his tools still require you to go in and risk significant order to make something happen, moreso than a character like Sheik or a space animal. It's the commitment required in that, which Sonic has much, much more of than he did in 2.5.

Jigglypuff and Wario have ridiculous mobility in neutral and generally nice hitbox placement in the air that most other characters can't hope to manage. As long as they're still somewhat near the ground, it's still the neutral game for them; it just so happens that that is the place where they have the best set of options. They are able to attack and steer away from danger that is largely unique to them (in the air, anyway).

In terms of projectile characters, Falco and Sheik can totally play that way too, and I'd say they do it better than any of the characters you listed. You'll note that most people don't consider Link/ROB/TL/Zelda to be very good characters (in terms of ranking)...not that I'm casting judgment on their placing, but, while those characters range from being considered great to bad, Falco and Sheik are consistently at the top. There are reasons for that, and the argument of "over a decade of matchup experience" doesn't hold water because that same matchup experience allows people to know what to expect and how to fight them. These characters can really control positions with incredible hitbox placement and positioning control.

It's not all about left-right-left, but when the decision-making in a lot of matchups is "Bowser did ANYTHING AT ALL? Initial dash backward for zero risk while he has to hard read and risk so much on an attack" is a serious problem in terms of being able to call matchups as a whole balanced. The problem is that a lot of characters cannot "really" play the neutral game/do not "really" have footsies in certain matchups. The neutral game and PM's balance may thrive in the matchups where characters can keep up and realistically threaten each other, but there isn't any "beautiful decision making" in the matchups with lopsided balance. A smart character with that advantage learns to play calculated risk instead of doing any meaningful thinking in certain matchups. It's smart, effective, and not at all fun to play against when you're the guy with the huge mobility disadvantage. Sheik -can- move forward and fight Bowser, but why would she do that when so much risk can be mitigated by only approaching when you absolutely have to/when you have the opponent frozen from their options not working due to dash back hard countering so many "footsie" options?

In terms of Link/ROB/TL/Zelda I would argue that it is not largely due to a decade of matchup experience that they are not quite on par with Sheik/Falco. I would say it is mostly the decade plus of metagame that propels them over these characters. Let's see how often a Falco lives from a Zelda touch in a year or two. Let's see if Falco has any reliable way in when Zelda's maximize their ability to keep an average speed character who relies on projectile control out. The fact that underdeveloped characters can compete ALREADY with top tier Melee players who have honed their craft for several years speaks volumes to me. It should take years for "insert new PM character here" to completely maximize their potential. It should take years before the best options and strategies are discovered. You could say that since smash and Melee is for the most part solved, that this process should take much less time, but I hardly think it should be this drastic of a pace. What takes longer, learning a single new PM matchup as a Melee top, or learning the entire foundation and every matchup for a new character. With all of this being said, yes Sheik and Falco are excellent characters, but I don't expect them to stay at the top for very long. After all, they are not Fox.

I'm really glad you used Bowser in this example. "Bowser did ANYTHING AT ALL? Initial dash backward for zero risk while he has to hard read and risk so much on an attack" THAT is an asinine statement. That sounds to me like, "Oh Bowser did something smart and is threatening the space I am occupying now, but he did it smartly so I have to concede stage position." By the way, that range that Bowser threatens is astronomical, or at least it was prior to 3.0. You have to give Bowser that stage position in a lot of cases, unless you are playing on Dreamland or something. The reason that people play that style against Bowser, is because it was the only basically acceptable way to even fathom counter poking or opening up Bowser. You question my assessment earlier that speed is such a big factor earlier by saying that I did not take risk/reward for characters like Falcon or 2.6 Sonic, so it was irrelevant in a sense that they were fast in some cases. Then you come back in the case of Bowser and say that there is lopsided balance because Bowser is essentially too slow to keep up in neutral. I am saying that prior to 3.0, Bowser's risk/reward for pokes and approach were extremely lopsided in his favor. I can guarantee you that a lot of matchups were "not fun" playing against Bowser in that style of run away game. That should not be considered a factor in whether or not Bowser wins or loses neutral. This is the part that irked me the most. "Sheik -can- move forward and fight Bowser, but why would she do that when so much risk can be mitigated by only approaching when you absolutely have to/when you have the opponent frozen from their options not working due to dash back hard countering so many "footsie" options?" This makes me really sad because saying Sheik only approaches when she absolutely has to, or when her opponent messes up is hardly optimal play. You are forcing yourself into a decision between Bowser being able to completely pressure you/mix you up/react to your options, OR you are merely relying on Bowser to mess up. By allowing Bowser to put you in a situation where you either succumb to his will, or hope that he messes up, I would effectively say that he has won that neutral game exchange.

P.S.- 3.0 Bowser is really really really bad. I don't know if Ganon bad, but it's close.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

After all, they are not Fox.

By the way, that range that Bowser threatens is astronomical, or at least it was prior to 3.0.

P.S.- 3.0 Bowser is really really really bad. I don't know if Ganon bad, but it's close.

These statements depress me.

 

[Ali Baba 177]

In terms of Link/ROB/TL/Zelda I would argue that it is not largely due to a decade of matchup experience that they are not quite on par with Sheik/Falco. I would say it is mostly the decade plus of metagame that propels them over these characters. Let's see how often a Falco lives from a Zelda touch in a year or two. Let's see if Falco has any reliable way in when Zelda's maximize their ability to keep an average speed character who relies on projectile control out. The fact that underdeveloped characters can compete ALREADY with top tier Melee players who have honed their craft for several years speaks volumes to me. It should take years for "insert new PM character here" to completely maximize their potential. It should take years before the best options and strategies are discovered. You could say that since smash and Melee is for the most part solved, that this process should take much less time, but I hardly think it should be this drastic of a pace. What takes longer, learning a single new PM matchup as a Melee top, or learning the entire foundation and every matchup for a new character. With all of this being said, yes Sheik and Falco are excellent characters, but I don't expect them to stay at the top for very long. After all, they are not Fox.

I'm really glad you used Bowser in this example. "Bowser did ANYTHING AT ALL? Initial dash backward for zero risk while he has to hard read and risk so much on an attack" THAT is an asinine statement. That sounds to me like, "Oh Bowser did something smart and is threatening the space I am occupying now, but he did it smartly so I have to concede stage position." By the way, that range that Bowser threatens is astronomical, or at least it was prior to 3.0. You have to give Bowser that stage position in a lot of cases, unless you are playing on Dreamland or something. The reason that people play that style against Bowser, is because it was the only basically acceptable way to even fathom counter poking or opening up Bowser. You question my assessment earlier that speed is such a big factor earlier by saying that I did not take risk/reward for characters like Falcon or 2.6 Sonic, so it was irrelevant in a sense that they were fast in some cases. Then you come back in the case of Bowser and say that there is lopsided balance because Bowser is essentially too slow to keep up in neutral. I am saying that prior to 3.0, Bowser's risk/reward for pokes and approach were extremely lopsided in his favor. I can guarantee you that a lot of matchups were "not fun" playing against Bowser in that style of run away game. That should not be considered a factor in whether or not Bowser wins or loses neutral. This is the part that irked me the most. "Sheik -can- move forward and fight Bowser, but why would she do that when so much risk can be mitigated by only approaching when you absolutely have to/when you have the opponent frozen from their options not working due to dash back hard countering so many "footsie" options?" This makes me really sad because saying Sheik only approaches when she absolutely has to, or when her opponent messes up is hardly optimal play. You are forcing yourself into a decision between Bowser being able to completely pressure you/mix you up/react to your options, OR you are merely relying on Bowser to mess up. By allowing Bowser to put you in a situation where you either succumb to his will, or hope that he messes up, I would effectively say that he has won that neutral game exchange.

P.S.- 3.0 Bowser is really really really bad. I don't know if Ganon bad, but it's close.

Bowser isnt't that bad, he still has placed okay in some tournaments since 3.0 Definitely not as good, but I dont think he is really really bad
http://www.twitch.tv/thesharkasmcrew/c/3362699
From like 1:10:00 to 1:30:00 is bowser play.

 

[Oro?!]

These statements depress me.

Them's the brakes.

Bowser isnt't that bad, he still has placed okay in some tournaments since 3.0 Definitely not as good, but I dont think he is really really bad
http://www.twitch.tv/thesharkasmcrew/c/3362699
From like 1:10:00 to 1:30:00 is bowser play.

Sure I could see Bowser doing okay locally. Bowser ever getting top 8 nationally in his current state and with his most accomplished player quitting? Not likely.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

The problem is that every time Sheik moves forward-ish (via dashdancing, mostly), Bowser HAS to respond. As such, Sheik pressures Bowser with every bit of movement she can do a grab or jump Needles or dash back with. That's a significant problem that throws a huge wrench in the idea that calculated risk doesn't work for Sheik, and it's why Bowser was bad in 2.6 and will continue to be bad in 3.0. People just need to get used to that and learn this calculated risk with a pocket fast dude for free wins instead of playing the same game as Bowser with a slow character.

 

[Infil]

So how should they adjust Bowser in the next update then? Should they at all? Can they make him better without making him dumb to play against?

 

[Wolf_]

Why do you feel armor is gimmicky?

EDIT: or any more/less gimmicky than intangibility.

Maybe it's not the right word, but I feel like it's something initially perceived as good, but then once it's been used for a while it gets exposed to have an obvious weakness, then it's just covering up a crappy move. I just think it would be better to make the actual move better in some way rather than just covering it up with armor to make it seem good

For intangibility, idk of any character that has it besides Zelda, and from what I understand, it only applies before the neutral-B hitboxes actually come out, it's not intangibility and throwing out an attack at the same time

 

[Oro?!]

Intangibility is pretty much everywhere. Since we are talking about Bowser, his hand has intangibility on both his fair and ftilt for the duration of the hitboxes active frames. Zard fair has the same thing. Kirby's feet are intangible on a majority of his moves. Squirtle's tail is intangible a lot. It's really no different than making things disjointed except the hitboxes match animations and you don't need a sword.

 

[The_NZA]

Maybe it's not the right word, but I feel like it's something initially perceived as good, but then once it's been used for a while it gets exposed to have an obvious weakness, then it's just covering up a crappy move. I just think it would be better to make the actual move better in some way rather than just covering it up with armor to make it seem good

For intangibility, idk of any character that has it besides Zelda, and from what I understand, it only applies before the neutral-B hitboxes actually come out, it's not intangibility and throwing out an attack at the same time

What is the obvious weakness you are referring to?

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

you don't need a sword.

I'm sorry, but you ALWAYS need a sword.

Y'know, making Shines CC'able would go a long way towards balance without altering the core playstyle of a spacie. Shine at the moment comes out on Frame 1, has low commitment and extreme versatility, the latter two traits arising from their being JC'able and the various things that implies in this game. One of two ways to deal with them (shield, dodge) is actually pressured using the Shine as a tool - trapping you in the shield is something the spacie can easily achieve with Shine. The other one leaves you open to being chased and forces to give up ground either way - it is a substandard option at best. When something so good, so versatile, so easy to follow up, so embedded in the core kit of the character has so few drawbacks, how can you not have balance issues? Shine needs another answer to it, especially when "Don't get hit" really doesn't apply to a spacie. Shield? Pressure. Dodge? Chase. Or positional disadvantage. Run away? Lasers. How about CC -> Punish? Punishing a Shine? Does that sound like a good idea to anyone?

Or was my strong impression that Wolf was a statement by the PM:BR, a statement that a spacie could be both good, with an even matchup spread across the board, AND perfectly balanced, completely off base?

Spoiler

Of course, Fox's USmash/Air, Falco's too-long lingering spike and Falco's lasers needing a range or hitstun nerf - preferably both - are something I'd also like to state. But you know. One point at a time.

 

[Oro?!]

The ability to trade with shine is pretty paramount in oos options against shine pressure already. For what it's worth, Wolf's shine being CCable just leads him down the path of needing to multishine to knock people down or combo, which already happens pretty frequently. That's a lot of effort as a CC workaround when most characters can just space to not get CCed.

I think Wolf is better than Falco, personally...

 

[Ace55]

The problem is that every time Sheik moves forward-ish (via dashdancing, mostly), Bowser HAS to respond.

Sheik has a pretty bad dash-dance, just wanted to point that out. Wavedash back ftilt/grab is more useful for her than trying to dash-dance camp someone.

This is gonna sound harsh but what I understood after asking 'why the Bowzer nerfz?' basically boiled down to: he was easy to play and scrubs complained about him.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

I'm a scrub and I have been complaining about spacies since 2.6 too

Though on a more serious note, if there's anything more mindless in this game than pillaring I haven't seen it.

 

[Nausicaa]

New post with descriptions and updates and stuff.
Old post tacked to the bottom.


BAMBAMBAMBAMBAMBAMBAMBAMBAMBAMBAMBAMBAM

C Tier

Spoiler

Some of this really doesn't need explaining. Being in the batch of 'Won't win a tournament alone" is obvious for some, given their polarizing nature, and there's no reason they should be anywhere else, or changed due to this. Simply being big, slow, can't fly, don't have good beards, don't even have 'the' fire, just purple and normal fires, this is expected for these characters.

ROB and G&W are there for the same reasons, just to a lesser extent. They're fine as they are in this placement, being not able to 'win' a tournament 100%, but will do very well alone. If we were to look at a Round-Robin, they would simply have a few 'more-certain' losses than most, while remaining somewhere in the mix if those 'more-certain' losses were excluded/didn't apply, but sadly they do/will.

Ike, is an example of someone who 'could' fit here, but he can at least force 'actions' from opponents. The others (ROB/G&W/Ganon/Bowser/Char/Zelda) can to a degree, but none as 'universally' as Ike in terms of functioning. Plenty of ranged disjoint, a distance mix-up for offense/imposing threat, this stuff gives him at least the possibility of 'actually' being able to win without straight-up out-playing opponents (against his 'weaker' match-up conditions that is) raw matches. The same applies to others to a lesser extent, or maybe with simply some conditions applying to them. DK and Lucario fit under each category.

Some might need a little explanation. Ness, Jiggs, Olimar, Squirtle.
Ness suffers slightly from the polarizing thing, but that's all due to the conditions of his 'forcing actions' thing towards finishing what is started (which is working against him).

Smash is a game of not getting hit by the things you don't want to get hit with, and hitting people with the things you want to hit them with.

This means not getting hit. Ness can do this perfectly fine...
Then it's to hit people with what you want to hit them with...
This is where the conditions for Ness fall polarizing.
He can't straight-up force opponents to do anything without doing something himself, FIRST. Once the conditions are set-up, it's easy from there, but he will almost always be the one that needs to make the action. He can still catch things with his speed and range, but it's not certain.
A F-Air leads to a Grab, good, but he has to F-Air. Same with PKF, or just the act of establishing offense to get a raw Grab on a defensive action from an opponent.

The condition works, since he can set things up fairly easily, but there's still a condition. Like a slow character needing a condition to hit someone (Ganon [against his weaker match-up conditions that is] either needs to hard-read someone 2 years in advance, or pressure the opponent with milder reads to make them scared and run into something), Ness applies the same for other reasons.
This same functions in the punish going against him too, which applies for everyone (finishing what they start), and is easily applicable against Ness with his defensive/recovering conditions. So this nullifies any advantage he would get from his otherwise not-so glass canon potential.
Polarizing, but completely functional.

Squirtle is good too, and simply struggles with the condition of being linear outside a few options (even Bubble fits in this, really) and his depth not really being applicable given the same methods to avoid 1 of his functions... can be applied to most. Whether it's Grabs, D-Smashes, F-Tilts, Aerials, or whatever (even Bubbles and Withdraw), the same methods apply to lessening their effectiveness. The same concept that applies to slow characters applies to generally anyone with linearity being too observable as a foundation to the dynamics the COULD have. (see: Ness but less certain-vs-not hit-and-miss wild-carding due to his tool functions.... and more raw out-play plain and simple but doable to a significant degree with his tools)
The difference between Squirtle and Ike/DK/Lucario, is there's no condition to REMOVE or MOVE AROUND this linearity.

Olimar has the 'can force stuff from opponents' but lacks the dynamics of it. Like Ike in regards to the 'imposing threat', but lacks the 'certainty' of getting something if they DO get forced into it (hitting a Pikmin off them compared to swatting at an assumed QD approach or something.)

Jiggs is obviously as polarizing as they come, but in the sense of Falcon-style where she makes people play her game regardless of who they are (or HAS to make people play her game or she won't work properly), rather than play an opponents game and try and make things work (like slow characters or those with conditions)
It's just harder instead of easier, opposite to Falcon-traits and the same goes to Melee vs PM. Big stages and big characters and the works make her need to tab on a chunk of % before Rest can straight-kill, so multiple catches are needed just to do the ToD that stabilizes her as an imposing threat in most situations. Quick gimp-kills aren't as common with her nature, given how she can't choke people out of space as easily when there's a lot of room, and doesn't have her own room to play if there's less, which she needs given her lack of trading being favorable and the easier time the cast has regarding short-distance choking compared to what she generally has available to risk for rewards...
Still good, and can do great long-term, but the dynamics lack to make her as polarizing as the others of this nature (forcing others to play HER game) given she can no longer force opponents to get hit with choking space, and can't avoid getting hit if she doesn't get great conditions through out-play that can only go so far given the linearity of her, and can't finish what she starts when those forces work out.

S Tier

Spoiler

For 'higher' Tiers... even Lucas struggles in some situations, but it's not very conditional and therefore is manageable when simply not being out-played directly, or even while he's being out-played. It can be pretty obvious still as to why someone like him is there, but these details apply to everyone to some extent. If they have any of Lucas's qualities, they can function perfectly fine in this game. What makes Lucas the 'best' on this list, is that he has essentially more of these 'qualities to make a character work well' than most, while not having many of the qualities to need conditions to work.

He can Touch-of-Death a space animal or puff ball, off a single F-Air/Magnet/Snake > Grab link... which is basically a Shine with Sword properties... or just raw neutral mobility allowing him to catch (safely and connecting into stock-taking processes with anything from raw Grabs to F-Tilts to whatever else into combos/positioning) literally anything an opponent does from a Marth F-Air or DD Grab/D-Tilt attempt, to a Fox distant laser or approach attempt.
So whatever to him and his -100 frame around-the-world ranged Ph1r3 powered F-Tilt/Grab/F-Air/Magnet/D-Air into free Grabs/anything unconditional mix-up kills-on-a-platter.

With Wolf, people just have to do what the DAT Wolf thread on Smashmods says and they'll do fine since he's so good if you don't get hit. Let alone the depth of the character in the nuances of how literally any hit is a free 70% Side-B kill out of a neutral-stale-mate game that can be performed and translated into certain-hits better than anyone in the game against anyone in the game...
With Luigi, just DD/WD/Crawl/be jank and dive in to get that free Misfire kill at 50% and spend time between stocks checking charges every 0.8 seconds before charging at the opponent to trade hits with your silly speed, range, power, and mobility control for the next free 50% combo+kill on any character any time.
With Yoshi, just DD Grab anything they do, and pretend to jump around fishing for F-Airs, and B-Airs, and Lays, or whatever goes into Grabs in the meantime.
With Pika, just DD and wait for the opponent to do something, regardless of who they are and what they're doing, then punish. He doesn't even have to do anything to get something out of the opponent, then there's gimmicks like the frequency of Quick Attack > F-Air > U-Tilt shield-poking almost 100% of the time and connecting into hits that lead to free Grabs again, or just take the free Grabs off the pressure/connections of the shield-poke Up-B/Aerial/D-Tilt/whatever otherwise.
With Peach, just be an amoeba of hit-boxes and choke opponents out through being in the places they really REALLY don't want you to be. She's uncomfortable to be around given how easily she can apply pressure from nowhere, avoid pressure or the need to act entirely, and loves hitting people with things she wants to hit them with when they don't really have a choice when she's more flexible than them in almost all ways so can at least go even in terms of match-up conditions regardless of match-up condition.
With Metaknight, just don't get hit in neutral, since getting hit out of the raw-neutral game is basically the only reason he won't be able to win with simply equally-playing with his opponent. If that raw-neutral is continuous and doesn't crack under pressure, he got this, and it's a matter of the opponent breaking this raw-neutral game in some way, which few can since he doesn't 'have' to break to almost anything.

These characters are all perfectly fine as they are, as is everyone else in the tiers below, there will likely just be less 'game-breaking' than in this 'top' tier, and more 'game-functioning' due to their natures as balanced characters in the game. Some notes can be given on request, but for the most part, blehcakes to that.

Special note:

Spoiler

F (Permanent Ivan Ooze Tier)
Ice Climbers
- They get half a Tier because there's 2 of them and that makes their Hammers combo into 1 FULL DEDEDE HAMMER.

This has been 'roughly' the same since 3.0, but Samus and Roy aren't fully analysed so I just placed them at the bottom of the B list knowing they're not S or C, and I'm currently thinking they're lower on the B list than most, if not already in the proper position. *not enough time.

There are 'batches' of characters... (Sonic/Kirby/ZSS and Snake/Ivy/Falco as examples) that have moved around a lot within the groups, but the batches have been steady otherwise.

These are the characters that have moved a LOT (not within a group/just all over the place) from the Original 3.0 list.
DK went down 9 then up 4
Char went up 6 then down 7
Pika went down 5 then up 3
Wario went down 7 then up 2
Mewtwo went up 7 then down a 4
ROB, Game & Watch, Jigglypuff, and Charizard, went down to C
Samus and Roy moved a lot (were both lower/higher at different times)

List

Spoiler

3.0 series

S - Completely Viable (Can win a tournament alone, with only a few hurdles)

Lucas
Wolf
Luigi
Yoshi
Pikachu
Peach
Metaknight

A - Viable (Can win a tournament alone, but with more than a few hurdles)

Zero Suit Samus
Sonic
Pit
Wario
Kirby
Fox
Diddy Kong
Mario
Sheilda

B - Functional Viability (Can win a tournament alone, though possibly with many hurdles)
Captain Falcon
Mewtwo
Snake
Falco
Toon Link
Ivysaur
Marth
Link
Lucario
Ike
Donkey Kong
Sheik
Roy
Samus

C/B - Viably Functional (Probably won't win a tournament alone, but it's still possible since they're good enough to go far until their quirks come into play. Minor tweaks could do well for some, but nothing major, while some are perfect in this tier without changes due to their polarizing nature.)

Game & Watch
ROB
Jigglypuff
Charizard
Bowser
Ganondorf
Ness
Zelda
Olimar
Squirtle

F (permanent Ivan Ooze Tier)
Ice Climbers (2 hammers make a whole)

Funny is ye who think not shall a list thy see feel silly, cometh!

Edits incoming.

Spoiler

1) Burnsy "rather than just taking what is popular opinion and making adjustments from there based on things he disagrees with."

That's generally because the popular opinion is a popular opinion, why would anyone make a tier list based on that? Watching others play, watching ourselves play, playing and thinking for ourselves, for both developing our own play and our ability to watch ourselves learn and develop... and the results are WAY better.

Luigi (I've discussed this a lot before, but at least this is a specifics-question instead of general stuff)
Regarding your Luigi match-ups question, in terms of 'who beats him' I'll simply revert to the thing everyone talks about, and WHY THIS IS THE CASE.
The Neutral-game. If NULLIFYING his play is possible, then who you can do that with? Nullify what Luigi does.

Remember that Statement I made earlier:
"Smash is a game of not getting hit by the things you don't want to get hit with, and hitting people with the things you want to hit them with"
People talk about a bad Neutral, but it's really just a matter of nullifying the Neutral, because this nullifies him from doing anything, and (I'll partial hyperbole this thang) anything he does is better than yours if the hits DO connect.

Don't get hit, priority #1 in any match-up. From both Luigi's side AND your side. If you can avoid getting hit by Luigi at all costs, you'll do well. Regardless of character, if you don't get hit by him, that's the most significant thing in the match-up.

To nullify the neutral... that means a simple thing...
Note: I'm not talking about the Luigi that WD's into Grabs/Smashes or Down-B's because 'they can' and just do it, but rather, the Luigi who focuses directly on manipulating Neutral, not trying to force it open. Since the 'Neutral' is what everyone says is bad, so gahdawfull that it makes him trash-tier, if this is his weakness, trying to force it open is akin to Lucario just Dash-Attacking or Fox N-Air-Shining a DDing target from across the stage.

So, which character is best at 'not-getting-hit' then? Since that's the 'advantage' that can be played out in the match-up, that should be the target.
Luigi won't get hit, and shouldn't be trying to hit you if you're not doing something that he 'can' hit you for.
So, if both players focus 100% on not-getting-hit, who can hit Luigi without being hit back, INDEFINITELY?
This means they don't have to commit to pressure, but they can pressure this non-committal way indefinitely. They have to be able to defend at a distance, yet pursue to a point where that distance is being closed. They have to be able to string something favorable out of the hit, then be able to back away and continue without allowing a hard-reset of positions (this includes having Luigi grab the ledge or land un-teching/not using an aerial out of forced-action to defend the landing and able to punish that action if done)
I'd say... Peach, Yoshi, ROB, Pit, Falcon, Wolf, Samus, Mario, Wario, Fox, Ivy, and a few others can at least force Luigi to act out of this state by putting the conditions on the match-up to an extent at some point, though whether or not they can do this without getting caught in the process, or get enough OUT of this to make up for what 'will' be caught in the process, and it's left at them simply being potential candidates as 'Counter-Picks' to Luigi. Otherwise, they'll just do as fine as any other character that won't get hit, and can hit him favorably, which really aren't many when Luigi plays to those same priorities in return...

Maybe that helps, maybe not.



Edit2

Pretty sure Lucas has more problems he'll encounter than Fox...

Neither of them have to 'act' to impose a threat to the opponent, so the opponent can be made to 'act' first out of neutral by simply establishing yourself as a threat.
Fox, however, has lasers to chip away in the meantime, forcing the opponent to go a little further with it. This is a nice trade-off for being choke-able in terms of getting cornered or needing escape routes (platform play if heavy evasion game doesn't work when pressured), but that still is a loss of positioning. Lucas doesn't have to revert to this, as his range and mobility straight out of defensive situations comes with enough burst mobility to be able to turn things around from tight spots with certainty and flexibility, AKA there's not really a tight spot that exists for him, where it DOES for Fox. This includes even process-stock-elimination positions happening against them with any form of resetting.

Soft Serve
I'll post a quote from the Falco boards I made about what you're talking about/who you're talking to.
Here it is.
"Choke people out with spacing. Use everything from Tilts to Aerials and crush them all with sexy hit-boxes. Don't give anyone room to move, watch for the moments they try and break through your wall, and catch them for it with more sexy hit-boxes.
Zoning with the feet all day.
The character really isn't exceptionally fast or mobile, so you'll have holes in your game, and your job is to not let the opponent know where those holes will be, bait out what they think will be holes but aren't, and poke through every hole in their defense that you can."

Characters don't have options to deal with/projectiles that out shine the lasers, there are ways to poke through these holes and it's a matter of finding them, while Falco finds his own ways of choking away the options characters have.
Tiz the meta-game of that style.


Edit 3
To the posts before this.
1) Sheik has to stale-mate every match-up, that's her thing and where she thrives (AKA short burst mobility, not zoning in a lock-down force-option sense, and why slower characters make her happy), otherwise she gets clobbered, can't risk trades, etc.
2) Bowser has a great Dash Dance/WD/DD/Pivot/Grab game, that's right I said it.
3) Wolf is still polarizing, just less-so in a linear way like Fox/Falco. He's not comparable to them. He's more like a Sheik in stale-mate nature, since he 'can' stale-mate the neutral, and wins raw-neutrals if that happens. See: Direction that meta-games go.
4) Fox and Falco aren't breaking the game, and don't need to be changed to be in the middle of the pack (I've been under the impression that they already ARE in the middle)
5) Bowser is fine as he is too.

 

[MysteryRevengerson]

Pretty sure Lucas has more problems he'll encounter than Fox...

 

[Soft Serve]

Y'know, making Shines CC'able would go a long way towards balance without altering the core playstyle of a spacie.

Shines are definitely cc'able. CCing falco or wolf's shines put you into knock down, and ccing fox's shine just helps him as you end up closer and never get knocked down. Its not a "true" cc like how samus can crouch cancel up to like 90% and have no hitstun/stay grounded, but its still and option. I'm not sure how I feel about falco anymore. I think he still dominates a lot of matchups with just his lasers, but more characters have options to deal with/projectiles that out shine the lasers. I'll have to ruminate on it more and play the MUs alot.

 

[Bleck]

So how should they adjust Bowser in the next update then? Should they at all? Can they make him better without making him dumb to play against?

I'd be okay with a faster, weaker Bowser. It doesn't seem like it's possible to make slow characters work in the Melee-oriented metagame without giving them an inordinate amount of range/armor/intangibility to a degree where it's no longer fun or fair to play against them.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

I'd be okay with a faster, weaker Bowser. It doesn't seem like it's possible to make slow characters work in the Melee-oriented metagame without giving them an inordinate amount of range/armor/intangibility to a degree where it's no longer fun or fair to play against them.

Ike does okay, I think.

 

[Generically Epic]

We can all agree that Olimar is terribad. :3 I know he was broken in brawl, but I'd rather him play like his brawl counterpart than his current one. I always thought Olimar should fight somewhat similar to Amaterasu from MvC3, with the B down a 1 frame complete shift move.

 

[Jacob29]

Bowser's grab game is pretty good.

But he is still wrecked by a lot of the cast.

While this isn't so much of a problem it is a bit annoying that if you want to win tournaments as a Bowser player you pretty much need a backup character.

 

[Cassio]

Reflex got things pretty spot on.

In terms of Link/ROB/TL/Zelda I would argue that it is not largely due to a decade of matchup experience that they are not quite on par with Sheik/Falco. I would say it is mostly the decade plus of metagame that propels them over these characters. Let's see how often a Falco lives from a Zelda touch in a year or two. Let's see if Falco has any reliable way in when Zelda's maximize their ability to keep an average speed character who relies on projectile control out. The fact that underdeveloped characters can compete ALREADY with top tier Melee players who have honed their craft for several years speaks volumes to me. It should take years for "insert new PM character here" to completely maximize their potential. It should take years before the best options and strategies are discovered. You could say that since smash and Melee is for the most part solved, that this process should take much less time, but I hardly think it should be this drastic of a pace. What takes longer, learning a single new PM matchup as a Melee top, or learning the entire foundation and every matchup for a new character. With all of this being said, yes Sheik and Falco are excellent characters, but I don't expect them to stay at the top for very long. After all, they are not Fox.

Cmon now. You say this as if Sheik and Falco arent the most versatile characters in melee's environment. And thats really what it comes down to, trying to judge off current placements as if top tier characters will just fall by the way-side while other characters develop does no justice to why they're top tier in the first place. For every advancement new characters make, the top tiers will adjust to stay a step ahead unless that character is as versatile.

I'm really glad you used Bowser in this example. "Bowser did ANYTHING AT ALL? Initial dash backward for zero risk while he has to hard read and risk so much on an attack" THAT is an asinine statement. That sounds to me like, "Oh Bowser did something smart and is threatening the space I am occupying now, but he did it smartly so I have to concede stage position." By the way, that range that Bowser threatens is astronomical, or at least it was prior to 3.0. You have to give Bowser that stage position in a lot of cases, unless you are playing on Dreamland or something. The reason that people play that style against Bowser, is because it was the only basically acceptable way to even fathom counter poking or opening up Bowser. You question my assessment earlier that speed is such a big factor earlier by saying that I did not take risk/reward for characters like Falcon or 2.6 Sonic, so it was irrelevant in a sense that they were fast in some cases. Then you come back in the case of Bowser and say that there is lopsided balance because Bowser is essentially too slow to keep up in neutral. I am saying that prior to 3.0, Bowser's risk/reward for pokes and approach were extremely lopsided in his favor. I can guarantee you that a lot of matchups were "not fun" playing against Bowser in that style of run away game. That should not be considered a factor in whether or not Bowser wins or loses neutral. This is the part that irked me the most. "Sheik -can- move forward and fight Bowser, but why would she do that when so much risk can be mitigated by only approaching when you absolutely have to/when you have the opponent frozen from their options not working due to dash back hard countering so many "footsie" options?" This makes me really sad because saying Sheik only approaches when she absolutely has to, or when her opponent messes up is hardly optimal play. You are forcing yourself into a decision between Bowser being able to completely pressure you/mix you up/react to your options, OR you are merely relying on Bowser to mess up. By allowing Bowser to put you in a situation where you either succumb to his will, or hope that he messes up, I would effectively say that he has won that neutral game exchange.

The key to what you said is "did something smart". Yes, if I consistently outclass/make brilliant reads with a sub-par character I can do cool stuff. Your description of Bowser sounds like a tamer version of Brawl snake, who started out broken and consistently fell through the games span. In the hands of a smart player who makes the right reads, snake becomes formidable. But hes a glass canon, he requires too much commitment to hang out with the best of them and youll see lower consistency from this sort of character than the more versatile cast members. Also shiek doesnt have to play that way, its the fact that she can and be advantaged that matters. The point is Bowser is likely to mess up because he has to choose the right option and has little room for error with that sort of style.

 

[Bleck]

Ike does okay, I think.

I wouldn't say Ike is very slow.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

Brawl Snake is a glass cannon?

I know less about competitive Brawl than I thought I did.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

He hit like a Mack truck but had slow movement and pretty bad defenses/recovery overall.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

He hit like a Mack truck but had slow movement and pretty bad defenses/recovery overall.

So he was P:M Snake in slo-mo, okay

 

[Oro?!]

When did I say Sheik or Falco are bad or not versatile. That would be a stupid claim.

My responses come from Reflex's opinion that Bowser, even 2.6 and prior was a bottom 5 character. You comparing Bowser in any way to a good character like Brawl Snake, even if he is not top tier in the meta anymore should hold enough weight to counteract that bottom 5 position, no?

I don't understand this whole preconception that running away and giving up stage position to a Bowser who is safely advancing is beneficial in any way shape or form. @ Cassio

For what it's worth. I thought 2.1 Bowser was in the high-top tier range, and 2.5/2.6 Bowser were roughly mid tier.

 

[Nausicaa]

You know what's REALLY funny?
The points Cassio and others have made about Falco/Sheik/old characters goes against the arguments as to why Pika is bad in PM.
The points Oro and others have made about those same characters goes against the arguments as to why Pika is good.

These are the edits I made to that 'BIG' post.

Spoiler

Edits incoming.
1) Burnsy "rather than just taking what is popular opinion and making adjustments from there based on things he disagrees with."

That's generally because the popular opinion is a popular opinion, why would anyone make a tier list based on that? Watching others play, watching ourselves play, playing and thinking for ourselves, for both developing our own play and our ability to watch ourselves learn and develop... and the results are WAY better.

Luigi (I've discussed this a lot before, but at least this is a specifics-question instead of general stuff)
Regarding your Luigi match-ups question, in terms of 'who beats him' I'll simply revert to the thing everyone talks about, and WHY THIS IS THE CASE.
The Neutral-game. If NULLIFYING his play is possible, then who you can do that with? Nullify what Luigi does.

Remember that Statement I made earlier:
"Smash is a game of not getting hit by the things you don't want to get hit with, and hitting people with the things you want to hit them with"
People talk about a bad Neutral, but it's really just a matter of nullifying the Neutral, because this nullifies him from doing anything, and (I'll partial hyperbole this thang) anything he does is better than yours if the hits DO connect.

Don't get hit, priority #1 in any match-up. From both Luigi's side AND your side. If you can avoid getting hit by Luigi at all costs, you'll do well. Regardless of character, if you don't get hit by him, that's the most significant thing in the match-up.

To nullify the neutral... that means a simple thing...
Note: I'm not talking about the Luigi that WD's into Grabs/Smashes or Down-B's because 'they can' and just do it, but rather, the Luigi who focuses directly on manipulating Neutral, not trying to force it open. Since the 'Neutral' is what everyone says is bad, so gahdawfull that it makes him trash-tier, if this is his weakness, trying to force it open is akin to Lucario just Dash-Attacking or Fox N-Air-Shining a DDing target from across the stage.

So, which character is best at 'not-getting-hit' then? Since that's the 'advantage' that can be played out in the match-up, that should be the target.
Luigi won't get hit, and shouldn't be trying to hit you if you're not doing something that he 'can' hit you for.
So, if both players focus 100% on not-getting-hit, who can hit Luigi without being hit back, INDEFINITELY?
This means they don't have to commit to pressure, but they can pressure this non-committal way indefinitely. They have to be able to defend at a distance, yet pursue to a point where that distance is being closed. They have to be able to string something favorable out of the hit, then be able to back away and continue without allowing a hard-reset of positions (this includes having Luigi grab the ledge or land un-teching/not using an aerial out of forced-action to defend the landing and able to punish that action if done)
I'd say... Peach, Yoshi, ROB, Pit, Falcon, Wolf, Samus, Mario, Wario, Fox, Ivy, and a few others can at least force Luigi to act out of this state by putting the conditions on the match-up to an extent at some point, though whether or not they can do this without getting caught in the process, or get enough OUT of this to make up for what 'will' be caught in the process, and it's left at them simply being potential candidates as 'Counter-Picks' to Luigi. Otherwise, they'll just do as fine as any other character that won't get hit, and can hit him favorably, which really aren't many when Luigi plays to those same priorities in return...

Maybe that helps, maybe not.



Edit2

Pretty sure Lucas has more problems he'll encounter than Fox...
Neither of them have to 'act' to impose a threat to the opponent, so the opponent can be made to 'act' first out of neutral by simply establishing yourself as a threat.
Fox, however, has lasers to chip away in the meantime, forcing the opponent to go a little further with it. This is a nice trade-off for being choke-able in terms of getting cornered or needing escape routes (platform play if heavy evasion game doesn't work when pressured), but that still is a loss of positioning. Lucas doesn't have to revert to this, as his range and mobility straight out of defensive situations comes with enough burst mobility to be able to turn things around from tight spots with certainty and flexibility, AKA there's not really a tight spot that exists for him, where it DOES for Fox. This includes even process-stock-elimination positions happening against them with any form of resetting.

Soft Serve
I'll post a quote from the Falco boards I made about what you're talking about/who you're talking to.
Here it is.
"Choke people out with spacing. Use everything from Tilts to Aerials and crush them all with sexy hit-boxes. Don't give anyone room to move, watch for the moments they try and break through your wall, and catch them for it with more sexy hit-boxes.
Zoning with the feet all day.
The character really isn't exceptionally fast or mobile, so you'll have holes in your game, and your job is to not let the opponent know where those holes will be, bait out what they think will be holes but aren't, and poke through every hole in their defense that you can."

Characters don't have options to deal with/projectiles that out shine the lasers, there are ways to poke through these holes and it's a matter of finding them, while Falco finds his own ways of choking away the options characters have.
Tiz the meta-game of that style.


Edit 3
To the posts before this.
1) Sheik has to stale-mate every match-up, that's her thing and where she thrives (AKA short burst mobility, not zoning in a lock-down force-option sense, and why slower characters make her happy), otherwise she gets clobbered, can't risk trades, etc.
2) Bowser has a great Dash Dance/WD/DD/Pivot/Grab game, that's right I said it.
3) Wolf is still polarizing, just less-so in a linear way like Fox/Falco. He's not comparable to them. He's more like a Sheik in stale-mate nature, since he 'can' stale-mate the neutral, and wins raw-neutrals if that happens. See: Direction that meta-games go.
4) Fox and Falco aren't breaking the game, and don't need to be changed to be in the middle of the pack (I've been under the impression that they already ARE in the middle)
5) Bowser is fine as he is too.

Edit: If you want to know the difference between Ike and Bowser, read the first section of the 'BIG' post.
Not included is this tid-bit.

"Bowser has a sweet jab"
That is all.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

There's a lot more to it than Ike's Jab.

I don't think Bowser simultaneously threatens so much space directly in front of him as well as so much space half a stage away.

 

[PMS | LEVEL 100 MAGIKARP]

Please talk about DDD Nausicaa do you eternally relegate him to Ivan Ooze tier for ****s and giggles or do you actually think he's bad. If so, why?

 

[Burnsy]

I wouldn't say Ike is very slow.

He is slow enough that "being pressured up close" would be considered one of his major weaknesses.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

Ike lacks a good "get off me" move that isn't jab or counter, and in a lot of cases jab isn't good enough and counter is ... counter. Situational.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

My responses come from Reflex's opinion that Bowser, even 2.6 and prior was a bottom 5 character. You comparing Bowser in any way to a good character like Brawl Snake, even if he is not top tier in the meta anymore should hold enough weight to counteract that bottom 5 position, no?

No. Saying they have similar strengths and weaknesses does not mean that Bowser isn't ****ty, especially when it's comparing two games that are very different in terms of what's important for a character to have. Snake also has a lot of traits that Bowser is sorely lacking.

That said, the main comparison being made is that Snake's metagame was very powerful at first but because it was largely due to his ability to punish mistakes, those strengths were mitigated as people got better overall. His metagame didn't have a lot to develop, either, so he only got steadily worse as characters with more potential continued to grow.

 

[DMG]

NAUSICAA put that in spoilers/collapse tag! Jesus that's a huge read, yes we get it Luigi is Christ on Earth

Bowser: He's definitely worse off in 3.0, regardless of specific changes he received, due to the new characters introduced (many of which seem wholly capable of beating him INB4 samoose)

What changes to him, made him worse though? Gimpy argued that some of the reverts like dash grab and dash attack were buffs iirc? I know about the obvious nerfs in knockback some moves got, and the Upb not auto latching from falling offstage with it, but were those really that significant?

I'm sort of in Reflex's camp on Bowser, but not nearly as severe. I don't think Bowser's problem is merely DDing characters, but rather people with solid grab games. Grabbing Bowser invalidates his armor, his power, stops CC, and in some cases gets him offstage in Dangerville or puts him in a decent tech chase. The threat of someone coming in quick with a grab and/or having good grab range on top of this, is something that's hard for Bowser to guard against.

Dashing back beats some of Bowsers options yes, but it's not the hardest thing for him to deal with. Almost every character can move backwards or try to bait Bowser, but not everyone is equipped like Marth, Sheik, etc to dash back in with a nice grab and say "Hey Bowser, guess what? Your feet smell and I'm going to slay you!"

There are characters without good/top grabs that can do good, but those tend to be people that break down Bowser slowly and punish sluggishness. Diddy and Samus come to mind.


I dunno how to fix or balance Bowser, but I'm not so sure that armor was the way to go. For many MU's, it basically leads to "Well why the **** would I try and hit him, grabbing/projectile/waiting is safer" and that's kind of lame

 

[Cassio]

@ Oro?! That was just poor phrasing, I meant it in a way that you probably did know they were versatile to explain why shiek and falco would likely remain on top.

I said Bowser seems like a tamer version of Snake. Remember I was comparing snake to top tiers, not the overall cast. Snake didnt have the best movement or risk/reward but it was still better than a lot of other characters, which goes back to the point of the importance of such things. Im judging the traits more than the character, I cant judge bower personally because I dont know how well his traits rank. I dont think its a bad design necessarily, but I think you have to be cautious about how powerful you make someone to account for this or you end up with things similar to infinite chain grabs.

Nausicaa I said pikachu is bad because hes not entirely complete, not because he lacked movement options.

Pikachu's lack of range and true combos were traits that meshed with speedy movement supplemented by a strong grab game and top tier edge guarding. Hes a character that keeps opponents off-balance and these were critical traits in that scheme. It all worked together and gave him character, but now pikachus grab game and edgeguarding took big hits and he lost part of his personality. Moving around with pika and being obnoxious in PM is fun and probably fine for a lot of people that dabble with him, but its like when youre actually trying to compete. I dont think there's a real fear of being grabbed or being offstage vs pika compared to other smash games, which defines how pika is played and fought against. It should be giving people nightmares!