Which tiers are viable in competitive play?

[Station]

Assuming my opponent was to use a top tier character what tiers would be viable and still give me a decent chance of winning? I'm guessing guessing that there's a point when using a character below a certain tier ranking becomes a pretty stupid idea.

 

[Beat!]

Everyone from Ice Climbers and above are considered completely tournament viable by most players. After that there are a few sort-of viable characters, but it goes downhill pretty quickly.

 

[Doser]

I almost want to add Doctor Mario on the viable side.

 

[S l o X]

Every character is viable. Above Tier D = most "viable".

 

[SamusPoop]

There are a few wierd cases like YL vs puff or roy being Okay against fox. But for the most part each tier is much worse on nearly every level.

Also I think axe with pikachu has shown something to say in the least placing better than any ice climbers players anyways

 

[SnakeMan]

What you should have said was 'Assuming my opponent is a good player...' , because it really only matters what characters are 'viable' to play if your opposition is at least semi-pro level.

In other words, if your opponent sucks, pick whoever u want, u can still win.

But, idk. I totally think mario and ylink are viable in top play, but then again im no top player...

 

[Pi]

tier list is meh
worry about matchups
the worse the matchup the greater the player you have to be to win
if ur playing boswer, you don't auto lose to every sheik or w/e his **** matchup is
if you're not a good enough player to overcome the matchup then you will lose, in every matchup, that's just how it is

if you want to have even matchups with everyone then play ditto's vs. everyone

i just think it's silly when people ask who the viable characters are, what do you mean? where is the line? people discount samus, but she only really loses to sheik
her matchups w/ the spacies are even or maybe slightly in their favor
and armada wins a matchup he thinks is 70-30 (peach vs. fox), so i don't discount any character that doesn't have a like 90-10 matchup from being viable, and even then only in that particular matchup

use whoever you want, overcome your bad matchups or counterpick them

it's not like tier a ****s on all of tier b, and tier a and b ****s on tier c,

 

[_Xanatos_]

Decent chance of winning depends on your skill and your opponents skill. However, Pikachu (Axe) is probably the lowest tier character that I see do really well against high tiers and top players. Of course, Mango and Armada can use whoever the **** they want.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

The 8 top tiers - everyone ICs and up
The 6 super viables (characters you can make your main without any real need of a secondary) - everyone Luigi and up
The 7 "specialists" (characters who have major flaws overall but are still great at certain matchups; ex: Y.L v. Puff, Link v. Marth/Samus, Zelda v. ICs, Roy v. Falcon, etc) - Yoshi and up
The 5 at the bottom (characters that struggle, and struggle hard, at just about every matchup) - Kirby, Pichu, Bowser, Ness, and G&W

Nearly every national has one player or more of each of the top 14 make bracket. Those are the core matchups that every tournament player can expect the face often. The next 7 after that are used selectively but are still seen in bracket, usually as a surprise secondary, so they are still relevant to know but much less so. You can just **** around and press buttons to beat the bottom 5.

Quoting an old post of mine.

A lot of current theory places Doc in the top tiers and Yoshi among the super viables though so take that as you will.

 

[Riddlebox]

kk posting

i'm drunk

also, the viability of a lot of characters with glaring flaws and weaknesses fluctuate based on the environment

pikachu sux ****ballz in an environment full of sheik & ics

but give him ffers and it's like a second christmas

so *** da police

nipples

ummm

more characters are at a similar power level

link is the worst "playable" character

DUCK A PINK BALLOON

ummm

yoshi, luigi, dk, and ylink are all better than normal link

 

[Strong Badam]

chars aren't viable
players are

 

[SamusPoop]

nipples

I started listing here I think you are on to something

 

[Station]

I almost want to add Doctor Mario on the viable side.

Good to hear, I was considering playing as him.

 

[DerfMidWest]

chars aren't viable
players are

^ this.
Play as whoever you want, don't worry about where they are on the tierlist.

 

[ETWIST51294]

chars aren't viable
players are

Donkey Kong is not viable.

 

[Rykard]

most of the reason for the tiers are cause we don't necessarily have top players representing them in tournament because they pick what they know and/or what is good. You can know everything there is to know about a character, but if you aren't good, then you wont be good no matter what character you are using. I suggest playing either Marth or Doc just because both of those characters can teach you the fundamentals really well and get you good before you may want to branch out.

 

[Wobbles]

There are a few wierd cases like YL vs puff or roy being Okay against fox. But for the most part each tier is much worse on nearly every level.

Also I think axe with pikachu has shown something to say in the least placing better than any ice climbers players anyways

yeah

getting outplaced or evenly placed by me

and beaten by me

in every tournament we play together

is "placing better" apparently because SWF has selective memory

I love Axe and all because he's ridiculously good, you people don't even know because he plays differently in tournament, if you got to play his friendly no-pressure style like I do you'd know how good he REALLY is

(that is, way better than you even think)

but still

c'mon

 

[Station]

Is there much difference in the way Doc Mario and vanilla Mario play?

I mean could I easily switch between them dependant on how good my opponent is or would it be like learning two seperate characters?

 

[Pi]

yeah

getting outplaced or evenly placed by me

and beaten by me

in every tournament we play together

is "placing better" apparently because SWF has selective memory

I love Axe and all because he's ridiculously good, you people don't even know because he plays differently in tournament, if you got to play his friendly no-pressure style like I do you'd know how good he REALLY is

(that is, way better than you even think)

but still

c'mon

rare footage of wobbles giving a ****

 

[Doser]

yeah

getting outplaced or evenly placed by me

and beaten by me

in every tournament we play together

is "placing better" apparently because swf has selective memory

hurt feelings

 

[ETWIST51294]

yeah

getting outplaced or evenly placed by me

and beaten by me

in every tournament we play together

is "placing better" apparently because SWF has selective memory

I love Axe and all because he's ridiculously good, you people don't even know because he plays differently in tournament, if you got to play his friendly no-pressure style like I do you'd know how good he REALLY is

(that is, way better than you even think)

but still

c'mon

Get wobbled on.

..

...

No homo.

 

[P-99]

I fully agree with TheCrimsonBlur.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Wobbles gets completely ignored despite being amazing at Melee :/

 

[Kal]

I like how people come on with this "profound" sentiment on how characters aren't viable, but players are.

Obviously, when you ask a question like "which characters are viable?" you probably mean "which characters, at high levels of play, stand a reasonable chance of winning a tournament?" No one is claiming that you'll be able to win APEX if you just pick Fox or Falco. Skill is obviously a factor. But to deny the reality of character viability is scrubby.

If you're going to hone some sort of 0-60% combo when you have an obvious 0-death, people will agree that you're not playing to win. But when you hone a mediocre character when there are clearly vastly superior ones available, it's somehow an example of trying to overcome adversity and a display of resolve. I just don't get it. Honing a sub-par tactic is "bad," regardless of whether that tactic is using a particular combo or playing a particular character.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

That is completely wrong.

If you do well in a tourney with Pichu, people will be impressed.

If Mango jabs HBox to punish Rest, people will be impressed.

 

[Kal]

What does being impressed have to do with anything?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If you're going to hone some sort of 0-60% combo when you have an obvious 0-death, people will agree that you're not playing to win. But when you hone a mediocre character when there are clearly vastly superior ones available, it's somehow an example of trying to overcome adversity and a display of resolve. I just don't get it.

When I read this, I was reading "not playing to win" as a derogatory statement.

All I was saying was that people respect anyone who does something sub-par, not just low tier mains.

I kind-of dropped the ball a little on that post... lol

 

[Kal]

Yeah, obviously what impresses people is subjective and largely arbitrary. That's got nothing to do with playing to win.

I got second place at a local tournament using only Pichu. People were impressed, and everyone had a lot of fun, but the game didn't know the difference; I still got half the money first place got.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Is playing to win using the best character in every situation, or the character you can use best in every situation?

 

[Kal]

Strictly speaking, it's maximizing your chance of winning. On the one hand, if you spend all your time honing your skill with Roy, you're not really playing to win. On the other, if at present time Roy is your best character and maximizes your chances of winning, you should use Roy. Keep the distinction in mind: the skills you hone do not necessarily have anything to do with the present situation. For example, if you've ever met a Marth newby who is prone to spamming forward smash, you'll tell him he needs to forward smash less. While spamming the move is highly ineffective, if it's currently his best strategy, and if he were present at a tournament, the suggestion would be for him to play as he normally does.

Sadly, the above distinction often forces players to continue honing a sub-par strategy. If your main is rather bad, but is so much better than your other characters, you are very tempted to simply continue using him. Whether this is playing to win is somewhat time-dependent and difficult to assess, and really just boils down to how long it will take you to reach the same level of skill with a superior character. For the most part, I think skill in this game "carries over" to other characters pretty well (not to suggest that it's character independent; merely that you can focus on a new character and relatively quickly shift mains), so I think it's in any player's best interest to maximize his chance of success by picking a viable character.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

My Ness is better than my top tiers in several ways just because he "clicked" for me in the last few months.

And I've mained viable characters for years.

 

[Kal]

Since I'm not you, I can't say whether you're maximizing your own chance of success by playing Ness. I know that, no matter how much time I put into Ness, that he is a character so much worse than the rest of the cast that I will naturally do much better investing time in a different character. Sirlin has a page here where he discusses a few of these issues. It's a good read.

 

[huMps]

Depends how good you are, and what your goals are.
Mango makes mario viable, axe makes pikachu viable, shroomed, germ, Darrell, cosmo etc.

 

[Frame Perfect]

yeah

getting outplaced or evenly placed by me

and beaten by me

in every tournament we play together

is "placing better" apparently because SWF has selective memory

I love Axe and all because he's ridiculously good, you people don't even know because he plays differently in tournament, if you got to play his friendly no-pressure style like I do you'd know how good he REALLY is

(that is, way better than you even think)

but still

c'mon

axe is starting to look like TAS, it's pretty terrifying

oh and

the theory is... when you're good enough you can do whatever you want

 

[TheGoat]

Everyone from Ice Climbers and above are considered completely tournament viable by most players. After that there are a few sort-of viable characters, but it goes downhill pretty quickly.

This guy pretty much hit the nail on the head here.
The most viable and likely to win tournaments are fox, falco, marth, shiek, and perhaps puff. Falcon, IC, and peach can as well, but they have some difficult matchups to get through and so we don't them placing high as often.

As for below these characters, there are a bunch that can still be played competitively like ganon, doc, pika...but these take superior players to place well, and when facing other really good players, it's going to be a very uphill battle.

 

[Life]

There's not really a line where some characters are viable and some aren't. It's more of a curve.

 

[Strong Badam]

Kal: It's obvious enough that some chars in this game just aren't viable in tournament. For the purpose of getting better I prefer to not give a **** about it and do as well as I can with whatever character I want to, rather than try to john about my character.

 

[Kal]

Obviously, I'm not condoning being a whiny little ***** and using your character as an excuse for losing. Either learn to win with whomever you currently play, or pick up a secondary.

 

[Varist]

i'd just like to say vman came to my house yesterday and roy and yoshi are the sickest **** ever. jesus christ their combos are so cool and they're soooo fast.

some people play for fun, or the cool factor, or because they're literally a fan of the nintendo character. playing to win doesn't even matter in melee when you've got top pros running around as falcon rofl. if you're not playing falco you're not playing to win in the first place, so we're all obviously just having fun with it while trading money.

that's competitive melee imo

 

[Shroomed]

yeah

getting outplaced or evenly placed by me

and beaten by me

in every tournament we play together

is "placing better" apparently because SWF has selective memory

I love Axe and all because he's ridiculously good, you people don't even know because he plays differently in tournament, if you got to play his friendly no-pressure style like I do you'd know how good he REALLY is

(that is, way better than you even think)

but still

c'mon

The way you deal with tournament pressure is part of your strengths as a player. If you can't play to your potential because there is pressure on the match/set, then you're a weaker player than someone that can. Your maximum ability is reflected in what you can bring out during a tournament set, not during friendlies.