Tier List Speculation

[Oracle]

Dont be facetious. Every character in this game has what it takes to win a tournament. No project m player is at a level where their character bring 'bad' is holding them back. Rob is towards the bottom of the list and even at my level he isnt holding me back

 

[Guilu]

If your choice of character doesn't make a difference on your results, what is the point of sticking them into tiers ? What are we tiering ? What are the other criterias ?

 

[SleepyTRex]

Its just for funsies

 

[Apollo Ali]

Dont be facetious. Every character in this game has what it takes to win a tournament. No project m player is at a level where their character bring 'bad' is holding them back. Rob is towards the bottom of the list and even at my level he isnt holding me back

It is somewhat interesting that we assume this. We don't really have the proof of that yet, even though we all seem to agree it seems possible. By 'has what it takes', do we include character switching or does that mean someone has to use the same character all the way through? And by tournament, do we mean a large tourney or just any size tourney?

If we mean small-medium tourneys and we don't include character switches, I might mostly agree, but I am concerned about Ganon, ROB, Squirtle and some others.

But large tourneys, we dont really have enough data (for 3.0, not including theoretically future patches) to know that. Especially if we are assuming someone is sticking to one character throughout, you know?

 

[jtm94]

I have the firm belief that certain characters may hold people back due to bad MUs.

 

[woundedust]

I have the firm belief that certain characters may hold people back due to bad MUs.

Agree. They are there, and definitely restrict some of the "low tiers" from being succesful.

I honestly think roy is high-mid tier. Look at what sethlon did with him at apex. He upgraded his wet noodle, found some more killing opportunities, more mix ups, etc. plus he has more than two viable moves now so hey
Thats something

 

[Nausicaa]

Dont be facetious. Every character in this game has what it takes to win a tournament. No project m player is at a level where their character bring 'bad' is holding them back. Rob is towards the bottom of the list and even at my level he isnt holding me back

This, but not as short-sighted, and with a twist!

The Project M community has barely taken a baby step in development, and that naturally means every individual within the collective is currently not close to a form where character ability has much significance at all in relation to the significance of player ability. Therefore, character ability will have a huge factor on the players playing, but those factors will change dramatically and often, to a point where entirely different things will be significant, and what's significant now likely won't mean much.
However, player ability doesn't apply to character ability in terms of functionality in the game (Tier Lists) at all, as it only can imply the point at nearest to the end of these changes that's fathomable. Hence it's Tier List speculation at best.

^
This... is known by basically everyone, but repeating it forever is what we'll all do... due to other reasons... that also change... and those change for other reasons etc etc.



In current news, So Jiggs can stay in that 'Unlikely to win a tournament on their own without major things working out or at least a nearly forced switch out along the way" group...
Given that vote, ROB is now the last in the list... that has been voted as someone who 'Could' do this.

Oracle, what's your thoughts on it? Do you think ROB has what it takes to win a full tournament without nearly force-switching out at some point along the way?

This was the list


Game & Watch
ROB
Jigglypuff
Charizard
Bowser
Ganondorf
Ness
Zelda
Olimar
Squirtle
Ice Climbers (2 hammers make a whole)

 

[Oracle]

ROB? Seriously? do you know who I am?

I mean, to argue that a character genuinely can't win a large tournament means that you think either
1. There is some strategy you can execute against said character that literally 100% shuts them out of the match and makes it impossible to win, or
2. The character is so ridiculously bad that winning with him requires you to be so much better than your opponent that even if you are significantly better, you will still lose.

1 is not really possible, and I think 2 is also not a factor in PM because of how good all the characters are. I mean, there are some bad matchups, but they're all winnable


Naussica- what kind of question is that? I've won like a dozen tournaments with solo rob and placed consistently top 3 in my region

 

[Nausicaa]

So in the same breath, you think everything is winnable enough for Jiggs in PM to win large-scale tournaments in?
I don't even think that's feasible in Melee... (even just broken down to specific match-ups, she has hints of 1 and 2 in there) let alone this game.
If so, that's cool, but I couldn't fathom that.

The other option from your post, is that it was all for ROB (1 not being possible and 2 not a factor for him specifically)
If so, then I could fathom that, but it's on the edge (like GW)
Char is more in the Jiggs batch, just on the other side of that subjective edge for as far as I can see.
Which is cool too.

 

[Oracle]

Yeah. theres no way any character on that list would be impossible to win a tournament with. They all have the tools to win in every situation, so in the right hands its definitely possible. The only exception might be ganon because of how hes so similar from melee and thus almost 'solved', so there isn't that much room for us to be wrong with him. I still think the addition of an air grab and some of his other tools definitely make him very solid

 

[Halfhead]

So in the same breath, you think everything is winnable enough for Jiggs in PM to win large-scale tournaments in?
I don't even think that's feasible in Melee... (even just broken down to specific match-ups, she has hints of 1 and 2 in there) let alone this game.
If so, that's cool, but I couldn't fathom that.

What are you saying? Jigglypuff wins Melee tournaments all of the time!


Also, I predict that we haven't seen Squirtle exploited nearly as much as we are going to. There is some technique with him that's going to blow everyone away once it is figured out. It's inevitable for such a mobile character.

 

[jtm94]

Ice Climbers lost melee infinites that were bread and butter to get to the finals in big tourneys, without it they lost A LOT. Not saying they aren't that solid, but they are easily defeated imo. I am no master, but Nana still flies off the edge rather easily.

I can speak for Zelda in saying you have to be on your stuff to even fathom winning a tourney solely as her. Knowing Sheik and using her though cheating makes it much more possible, but only Zhime as of now could even begin to approach that goal, and tbh I think he is even held back by bad MUs.

Some MUs are entirely out of their favor, and that does indeed make them bad. Saying it's winnable doesn't excuse or fix anything. Anything can't be said with certainty because ANYTHING is possible. It isn't an insult, but don't dance around the truth that if two people of equal skill play and one uses a character that is advantageous they are going to win. This game is going to be all about MUs and counterpicking. There will be a few troopers who try to solo main, but that isn't how the 20XX of this game will go.

 

[Nausicaa]

Cool cool.
Even with solidity, I think the 1 and 2 you gave might be applicable just enough to hint at some characters falling short of it. Of course, they'll always do amazingly well, and can easily go far every time and threaten to win it all. There's always 'variables' and in such a diverse game, and one of the variables being the amount these variables varies, means there will be less leans on the polarization bell-curve.
Naturally, someone will fall to the 'polarizing' end of that bell.
The 2 questions are then...
1) Who's on that end of the bell?
2) How far does that bell dip?

If that's the list of the characters on that side of the bell, maybe only Ganon will dip.
That would be one freaking amazing game.
Or...
This IS one freaking amazing game.
I like it.


Edit: Halfhead
Jiggs may win tournaments a lot, but not the full-scale massive ones.
Better way of putting this...
As far as final-meta goes, in terms of how far I can fathom it, Jiggs on even footing player-wise won't make it to 1st. What we can observe in Melee with the top players now gives us something to work with, and it's a matter of what it's hinting at. As far as I'm concerned, Jiggs not getting 1st over others is pretty understandable to me.
In PM, I feel this hint is similar, but stronger. That's all.

Ediedit: Agreed with Squirtle in regards to seeing him exploited/etc, though the same 'hint' is more what it's about than that.

 

[Oracle]

It isn't an insult, but don't dance around the truth that if two people of equal skill play and one uses a character that is advantageous they are going to win. This game is going to be all about MUs and counterpicking. There will be a few troopers who try to solo main, but that isn't how the 20XX of this game will go.

Its 430 so i'm not gonna make a full reply, but for now i'll just say that while that seems like its the case in theory, in practice it doesn't always go that way. Skill is a lot more complicated than just a power level, this isn't dbz. Saying two players are 'equal skill' doesn't really make any sense.

Even in a bad matchup, the better player will almost always win. Most 'bad matchups' come down to inexperience or player fault rather than just character choice. The cast is so close and even that pointing to matchups as a source of loss is not only a bad attitude for improvement, it is also usually just inaccurate

 

[Nausicaa]

Oracle, What do match-ups have to do with attitude to improve?
If that's too subjective to answer, don't bother, as I 'think' I 'might' get what you're trying to say.
Otherwise, I've only observed it to be helpful.
How do you deal with Link's rang as Wario?
>Discussion
^That's both helpful for players improving, as well as clarifying any concept of how they match-up against each other for everything from the development of the game, the meta-game, or the individual's own meta-game.
If you throw bias onto that, you get cyclical debates of lasers/rangs/loves and that's it.
It, in itself, is actually directly one of the most beneficial things a community forum could ever offer, by a technicality, not subjection.

If that's understood, then lets not go discussing that direction, as we're on the same page and it's linguistics stuff.
I like the dbz and equal level never actually happening analogies, makes a good testament to how discussion sourced from speculation on possibilities can be beneficial to progression and improving.

jtm94, MU's and CPing has a lot to do with player style and player specifics too. Not just the character directly, but every player playing the same character, is nearly a different character altogether. *see earlier ZSS discussions
No 2 people play the same 1 character the same, no matter how hard we try. That factor is a major factor when it comes to MU's and CP's, and often more-so than the character change in the game itself.
Hint: The change from Sheik to Zelda mid-match has a lot greater factors than the actual MU change itself. Good character is good.

 

[Strong Badam]

Oracle this is totally DBZ
Let's Fusion Dance and become more powerful

 

[Archangel]

Holy hell this thread still exists! O_O

 

[Jaedrik]

Its 430 so i'm not gonna make a full reply, but for now i'll just say that while that seems like its the case in theory, in practice it doesn't always go that way. Skill is a lot more complicated than just a power level, this isn't dbz. Saying two players are 'equal skill' doesn't really make any sense.

Even in a bad matchup, the better player will almost always win. Most 'bad matchups' come down to inexperience or player fault rather than just character choice. The cast is so close and even that pointing to matchups as a source of loss is not only a bad attitude for improvement, it is also usually just inaccurate

I sense a hint of inconsistency here. First, you say that we cannot know that players can be of even skill, then you later suppose that there is such a thing as a 'better player'?
Pray tell, at what point may we attribute loss to skill or matchup? Is it even possible?
Either we can objectively know the abilities of a player, and can approximate (not quantify, because qualities cannot be translated into numbers) skill levels, or we cannot know anything relating to skill levels at all. There is no middle ground, lest one fall into error.

 

[ELI-mination]

Yeah. theres no way any character on that list would be impossible to win a tournament with. They all have the tools to win in every situation, so in the right hands its definitely possible. The only exception might be ganon because of how hes so similar from melee and thus almost 'solved', so there isn't that much room for us to be wrong with him. I still think the addition of an air grab and some of his other tools definitely make him very solid

Nah son I'm winning with Ganon from now on

 

[Rizner]

This, but not as short-sighted, and with a twist!

The Project M community has barely taken a baby step in development, and that naturally means every individual within the collective is currently not close to a form where character ability has much significance at all in relation to the sign of player ability. Therefore, character ability will have a huge factor on the players playing, but those factors will change dramatically and often, to a point where entirely different things will be significant, and what's significant now likely won't mean much.
However, player ability doesn't apply to character ability in terms of functionality in the game (Tier Lists) at all, as it only can imply the point at nearest to the end of these changes that's fathomable. Hence it's Tier List speculation at best.

^
This... is known by basically everyone, but repeating it forever is what we'll all do... due to other reasons... that also change... and those change for other reasons etc etc.



In current news, So Jiggs can stay in that 'Unlikely to win a tournament on their own without major things working out or at least a nearly forced switch out along the way" group...
Given that vote, ROB is now the last in the list... that has been voted as someone who 'Could' do this.

Oracle, what's your thoughts on it? Do you think ROB has what it takes to win a full tournament without nearly force-switching out at some point along the way?

This was the list


Game & Watch
ROB
Jigglypuff
Charizard
Bowser
Ganondorf
Ness
Zelda
Olimar
Squirtle
Ice Climbers (2 hammers make a whole)

I don't think Zelda should be in there. I think her matchups are mostly even, ranging from 45-55 to 55-45 for most of the cast, with maybe 3 or 4 who take it to 60-40 on each side. That to me is not losing based on character matchups, and imo until you get a mu that makes a pocket character win or enough bad matchups that increase the odds of fighting them in higher rounds of tournaments with like 8 or 9 40-60 matchups, you can win a large tournament with that character.

 

[Oro?!]

It is a common theme in high level Fighting Games. Even in counterpick matchups, the bad matchup can win very easily. Just because two players are "equal skill" doesn't mean that the player with the better matchup will always win. There are a lot of factors that go into a players skill, and players function entirely different based on a myriad of factors. Anything from lack of sleep, good diet, emotional state, lack of focus, and a million other things affect a players execution and decision making. Everyone basically has a spectrum of how of good and bad they could play at any possible time. In addition to that, even if the players are equally skilled, the player with the bad matchup might be a specialist in that matchup, or the good matchup player might be slightly inexperienced and just executing the known counter strategy without any adaptation. This stuff happens in games like Street Fighter, where there is a lot less freedoms. In a game like smash, where it's basically a sandbox fighter and has so many freedoms of movement, it is way harder to have those situations where a character virtually cannot win. Brawl Ganon is the closest thing I can think of to "unwinnable matchups" in smash bros, and I have seen high level Ganons take games off of high level Ice Climbers.

Oracle's statement that the better player wins means just that. Whoever is playing better at that time will most likely win. There certainly are cases where a player outplays his/her opponent for the majority of the set and loses, but that is hardly the norm.

 

[ELI-mination]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poWtERXY_fk
STFU and watch this poetry
Its a story about adaptation, sex, rectal insertion, and Ganon's down b sound effect

 

[guedes the brawler]

fox and Falco are OP, and the only right way to nerf them is brainwashing everyone to get rid of the 12+ years of metagame under their belt.

 

[Kaeldiar]

I have the firm belief that certain characters may hold people back due to bad MUs.

And when your bad MUs are commonly played, you have a lot of difficulty winning big tournaments, because you have to face a lot of them. The ideal goal of balancing these characters should focus on making sure that every character has a fighting chance against any other. Lopsided MUs, especially against commonly played characters, are what drops a character to F tier. As long as it's remotely close,

Different characters are going to have different play styles. This can't be avoided. What I think needs to happen is that we need to make sure that every character has the POTENTIAL to beat most other characters given about equal player skill. There are going to be bad MUs. That's a given. You cannot have a perfectly balanced game (all 50-50 MUs) with 41 characters. So, to make this game as balanced as possible...
Who is fine, who needs time, who needs a nerf, and who needs a buff?

Spoiler

EDIT: Added Ganon

 

[Tlock]

^ Ganon: Too unviable to even be on that tier list.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

Slap some armor on that shizz and Ganon's good to go.

 

[NWRL]

MK is fine nerds.

The only reason people are ******** is because he has a good MU against the "untouchables".

 

[Jacob29]

I don't think the balance is as close as Oracle thinks. Not far off. But not as close as he thinks.

 

[ELI-mination]

Here's my tier list

Fox tier: Pass
Top tier: The
Mid tier: Salt
Bottom tier: Please
Worse than bottom tier: Other things

 

[JOE!]

Ganon's Neutral B should be changed so that if you cancel it before he punches, the next time you use the Warlock Punch animates right from where you cancelled it.

 

[Cassio]

Becoming viable isnt winning a large scale tournament, it's statistical significance. How frequently are characters winning and is within a range so as to not be a fluke? Given the current cast of high-top tier, other characters might have good tools but simply are not versatile enough to achieve the dream created for them. Of course creating this dream is a suicide mission, but the other issue is that its catered enough to existing top tiers that you will eventually see a top tier separate themselves simply because of their versatility. It wont be anything broken and will be something capable of defeating, but together with their full design will make them stand-out as more capable then the rest of the cast. Of course by the time this gets noticed, people will be so attached to their character that changes wont be possible. Which is one thing peeps dont really consider when they say let the game develop, by the time its developed and established tiers are created it'll be separate enough to establish viable from non-viable but not so far that people will accept changes from characters who have become beloved. Although, it may be too late for that already, lol. Not that Im an advocate for balance changes, but just something for peeps to consider. Most important is creating wholesome well developed characters with enough versatility and character completeness to compete, which I think isnt the case for possibly half a dozenish characters although from characters not based on their melee design it may be hard to tell.

 

[Metazoa]

What if Game and Watch held his hitboxes out for the whole match
I think what they might've been trying to do by keeping Olimar down at 4 Pikmin was keeping from going rapid-fire with the Pikmin Throw, since it's quite easy to not have Pikmin on standby if you just keep throwing them and tossing out Side Smash.

 

[XXXX1000]

Cassio makes a good point regarding people becoming attached to characters and being resistant to change, even if it's better for the game. Coming from the FGC, when balance changes come for games like SF4, the community is generally accepting of them, whether they buff the bottom or nerf the top. This is partly because there have only been a few balance patches over the five years the game has been out, but largely the community accepts that when things change, one must adapt.

However, lots of people here seem to be very resistant to changes, especially when the spacies are mentioned. It's like you all agree that their gameplay causes problems of crowding out other cast members, but are willing to accept it because that's what Melee was like and you don't want to mess with it at all. I think that type of attitude is dangerous to the long term health of the game.

Some characters like Ganon or Olimar will likely receive changes soon-ish, and that's fine, and I still think that the game should be left to simmer for awhile before kneejerk reactions are made to need the top tiers, but I really hope that if it becomes clear that spacies need to be tweaked, that PMBR is willing to pull the trigger. Just because something is the way it is doesn't mean it should be, and it's scary to realize that this community is somewhat dependant on keeping spacies the same to use as a metric of a good character instead of being able to formulate its own idea of a good character.

 

[Jacob29]

I more than welcome change.

It's one of the reasons I love Dota 2, due to how heroes change over time.

Now I will argue whether or not those changes have affected the game, or specific character, for the better. But I definitely do not want things to stay the same.

 

[JOE!]

Thinking on that more, how hype would it be if you actually could "pre-load" the Warlock punch and use it for like, tons of different finishers?

 

[NWRL]

I more than welcome change.

It's one of the reasons I love Dota 2, due to how heroes change over time.

Now I will argue whether or not those changes have affected the game, or specific character, for the better. But I definitely do not want things to stay the same.

Legion Commander is my waifu

 

[MLGF]

The day Fox and Falco get PAL nerfs will be the greatest day of PM's life.
But for Europe... it is merely tuesday.

 

[Oro?!]

There has been a minimum of 6 months between every major patch/update. This is towards people that act like the game is changed frequently.

 

[The_Altrox]

Thinking on that more, how hype would it be if you actually could "pre-load" the Warlock punch and use it for like, tons of different finishers?

Like the Donkey Kong punch?

 

[JOE!]

Like the Donkey Kong punch?

Similar, but more in that you can cancel then resume the start up.

Picture: Ganon goes halfway through the start up then (shields). The next time he does Nspec, it would resume from where he canceled it last.

Ganon still has to go through the motions, but not all at once