What defines a character's viability?

[GigizaDragon]

I've had this question on my mind for a while now, and people seem to give me mixed answers. Is it a character's attributes or tournament results that determines how good a character is? Or is it a mixture of both.

I'm aware there are high tiers in Ultimate who haven't won a major yet, and some top tiers have won majors despite having glaring flaws, but I'd like a more definitive answer. Right now I'm inclined to believe viability depends on a character's abilities, how close they've come to winning a major, and their placement on the official tier list. (Although I don't see why a player beating notable players with a character should have any significance.)

 

[Eremurus]

I would say it is a combination of matchup spreads, and having a top calibre player investing serious time into said character.

 

[TheZizz]

Remember when Cloud was severely overlooked in the day 1 meta since he was no longer godlike compared to Smash 4. He was still great and people weren't prepared & lacked experience. So if anything I'd say a character being slept-on works to their advantage.

I think the #1 factor is a toss-up between mobility and hit-boxes/frame data. Characters with above-average dash speed can set the pace of the match, chase, put the pressure on at will. Overall the ability to keep advantage and prevent return to neutral state is huge. Other characters with disjointed hit-boxes that are typically safe on shield can keep the enemy at bay and negate that mobility. It does seem that match-ups are more polarized in Ultimate compared to previous games but I'm not sure to what extent that prevents players from maining a single character, if any.

 

[Diddy Kong]

Speed, frame data, reliable options, quick options and range, good defensive tools, safe and good recovery, or if not a combination of these factors some other OP unique factor.

 

[DeanSeventeen]

A character's matchups, tournament resuls (cough Steve), the current collective meta and the character's individual meta. I'll give you a run-down on what the last two are (totally not checking SmashWiki- (I'm checking SmashWiki XD (don't worry I'm using my own words))).

The current collective meta is how the game's played, what stages are used, etc. which helps curate the tier lists. For example, in the first few years of the Brawl meta, R.O.B. was in the top 6, but then R.O.B. was noted for having an extremely ****ty matchup against Meta Knight, who had the speed most characters lacked and, of course, his stupid recovery, allowing him to be seen as the most broken character in Super Smash Bros. history. Custom moves in Smash 4 could've broken the meta, but they got banned, of course, so yeah.

A character's individual meta is how they're meant to be played. Generally most characters who have more options in the collective meta are ranked higher than characters that have less options (basically what I like to call the Versatility Effect). In Melee's early history, people argued about the viability of Marth and Roy. People who didn't like the tier list used Roy in tournaments to prove they were equal, but since Marth had considerably more options back in Melee, and Roy had basically no options, you know what happened.

I'm explaining this like an adult, why am I explaining it like an adult? I am literally 13 years old. XD