Who exactly are the viable characters (for winning tournaments)?

[Marcbri]

I was thinking about marth, but I personally don't think he can do it alone, just due to the fact that it's terribly easy to Gimp him. =/

just because its easy to gimp Marth? then take out falco of that list.

I think everyone from MK to D tier and luigi are viable for now, the other ones may have still potential to be discovered, I mean look back at melee times: at first Zelda was really high in the tier list and characters like peach were crap. with the time thinks changed, I think this will happen here too, so far there are a lot of characters that are viable for sure and we still don't know about the other ones.

 

[Cheapless Jared]

MK? With marth, hes an easy feat. Marth can use his b down when he does the flying attack, because it's obvious you'l use that attack when you're done flying.

 

[Ninjaneos]

donkey kong....?

"are you kidding me?"

 

[Cheapless Jared]

donkey kong is easily comboable, even though he is semi strong.

 

[Roller]

The only pika who wins tournaments is Anther. Pika's biggest redeeming factor in tourneys is that it was always thought he had an edge on Snake, but then Ally pretty thoroughly stomped the best Pika (Anther did get a 2-stock in on the first game though) which threw that advantage over Snake into question.

I think you guys are putting things out of perspective. The most viable character would be the character that on average does well and wins tournaments. Not based on the pros that use them.

People are saying "Pika should be in the list... because Anther is good with him". Uh, so???
Boss is good with Mario but that dosn't make Mario a viable character. And the fact that people name only one good player rather than a host of them is even more laughable.

Alright. you people taking the same position need to stop contradicting eachother. Because BOTH the above quotes are anti-pika. and BOTH use contradictory mentality.

In the first example, because the top pikachu loses to the top snake, that means he isn't tournament viable? Ya. ok. There is ONE snake player in the country who can beat Anther (and as you pointed out yourself, Anther can beat Ally as well) . He can manhandle 99/100 tournament going snake players. You are basing your statistic of an entire character's viability based on ONE matchup. and not only that. but one individual. and not only that. but that individual's matchup against another specific individual. and not only that. but one specific match...
Because of one match that occured with 2 people that many people will never even have the opportunity to play against and will not be at even 20% of the total smash tourneys.
You know what dude. you're right. how dumb of me to think pikachu was viable. I mean COME ON! A PIKACHU PLAYER LOST A MATCH ONE TIME TO ONE OF THE BEST PLAYERS IN THE GAME! HOW THE HECK COULD THAT CHARACTER BE CONSIDERED VIABLE!?/sarcasm

I don't think I really need to go on in my lambasting of the first quote. Anyone who agrees with that guy for his fallacious reasoning is quite frankly a fool.

Now for the next guy..
You are not an idiot like the first guy. I understand what you are saying. And you are somewhat correct. (However the other guy with the same end belief as you says it for reasoning you say is not correct. Which I find interesting.) My rebuttal would be quite simply, that most pikachu players are ALSO guilty of fallacious reasoning. As I stated in my first rant; basing a character's viability based on one players performance is ridiculous.

Yes. Anther is good and DOES win tourneys. But that is due in large part to his quick thinking and advanced analytical skills. Not because of his character choice. That is why he is ALSO a friggin house with a number of other characters. It is NOT because of his character choice. That being said, anyone IN THEORY could be that good with pika and do just as well in tournaments. However that is not a great single reason to use to support your cause, because "IN THEORY" everyone else could ALSO get that good with any other character and the results would be entirely unpredictable. The fact of the matter is. that tournament viability changes based on your area, playgroup, and a myriad of other things that all mesh together.

There is no set in stone nationwide "character viability." The concept of this entire thread is absurd.

 

[Wayland]

OK, we need to back up. This discussion has gone through about 3 definitions of viable.
Viable = capable of successfully working/feasible. (That's the dictionary)
So, that leads us to:
"is it feasible for me to invest time learning [insert character] with the aim of competing successfully in a respectable tourney environment."

A viable character is any character that can support a main through a tournament. It does not mean that secondaries must be necessary or unnecessary because that comes down to preference and personal match-up difficulties.

For example, DK is more viable than Pokemon Trainer, almost everyone would agree. However, DK's got much harder counters than Pokemon Trainer has, due to the nature of Pokemon Trainer's auto-counterpicking thing.

An even more extreme example is DK's own bane, D3. By that same logic, D3 becomes a non-viable character. And wario, a character with very even matchups, is **** good, but more viable than DDD? Really? Saying that wario is more viable than D3 basically means that you don't know what the word "viable" means.

Personally, I feel like viability is a rating of a character if you take the tourney results, and then try to weed out the influence that popularity has on the numbers. Then, you'd have viability, pure and simple. I dunno how you'd do that, though.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Pokemon Trainer isn't a viable character?

Maybe not a good one, but viable, maybe...

 

[Teh Future]

Every character can win a tournament with a secondary.

skill >> tiers.

 

[Roller]

OK, we need to back up. This discussion has gone through about 3 definitions of viable.
Viable = capable of successfully working/feasible. (That's the dictionary)
So, that leads us to:
"is it feasible for me to invest time learning [insert character] with the aim of competing successfully in a respectable tourney environment."

A viable character is any character that can support a main through a tournament. It does not mean that secondaries must be necessary or unnecessary because that comes down to preference and personal match-up difficulties.

For example, DK is more viable than Pokemon Trainer, almost everyone would agree. However, DK's got much harder counters than Pokemon Trainer has, due to the nature of Pokemon Trainer's auto-counterpicking thing.

An even more extreme example is DK's own bane, D3. By that same logic, D3 becomes a non-viable character. And wario, a character with very even matchups, is **** good, but more viable than DDD? Really? Saying that wario is more viable than D3 basically means that you don't know what the word "viable" means.

Personally, I feel like viability is a rating of a character if you take the tourney results, and then try to weed out the influence that popularity has on the numbers. Then, you'd have viability, pure and simple. I dunno how you'd do that, though.

OK. The problem with your definition is that this is about who is more viable in a tournament setting. and IN a tournament setting you HAVE the option to switch when you feel you need to.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Every character can win a tournament with a secondary.

skill >> tiers.

Not if your main/secondary is, like, Falcon/Ganon. :/

 

[Roller]

Not if your main/secondary is, like, Falcon/Ganon. :/

Actually. If you were significantly more skilled than the other player(s). Then odds are they would.

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

Skill gaps THAT huge don't usually happen in tournies unless it's a region with a very scant scene.

 

[Sky`]

No offense but that statement is laughable.

Plenty of Top and High tiers don't need a secondary to compete. 60-40's don't need counter picks.

Name some.
In fact, I'd be surprised if you named 5 characters other than the ones that I mentioned that can win a tournament alone.

 

[Roller]

Skill gaps THAT huge don't usually happen in tournies unless it's a region with a very scant scene.

True Story.

 

[Teh Future]

Yes but the point is the limiting factor is the player skill, not the character.

 

[Sky`]

Viable = capable of successfully working/feasible.
That's the definition right?

So then now we have to decide...
Are we talking about characters that are Viable against Every character?
Or viable in terms of placing at Major tournaments?

gotta decide that before this thread goes anywhere. I can debate either one, =D

 

[|RK|]

I see Viable as, Able to win a tournament by themselves, which would X out most of that list.
DK especially, cause he gets infinited.

I'd say, MK, Falco, Snake, Wario.

Those four are tournament Viable.
The rest are Viable if you've got a sub backing you up. =]

Lucario doesn't need a sub... just cause those for are top tier means nothing.

EDIT: I'd say placing at major tournaments.

EDIT2: In fact, anyone in C+ is viable in tournaments. The rest need moar work.

 

[Sky`]

Lucario doesn't need a sub... just cause those for are top tier means nothing.

EDIT: I'd say placing at major tournaments.

EDIT2: In fact, anyone in C+ is viable in tournaments. The rest need moar work.

No Sub for...
DDD on Delfino?
MK on rainbow/Brinstar?
Marth on BF/ Any other stage?

Characters aren't only supposed to be Viable against Characters to place...
But they have to be Flexible on all of the other stages as well!

If we played like the Japanese Used to, and only went on FD for tournaments... The tier list would drastically changed.

But we don't, we have CP,s and such. Take that into consideration. I know there are levels that **** Lucario, thus making him in the tier that he is.

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

Lucario's placement has more to do with the fact that he's at a disadvantage to all but a few of the characters above him.

Not really a huge disadvantage in any case, but it doesn't help when you have to outperform the vast majority of your opponents.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Yeah and Gimpy made Bower viable in Melee, right ?

I thought we were done with stupid **** like this last year. Holy crap, Gimpy did not make Bowser viable at all, people who played characters that beat Bowser bad that were even close to Gimpy's level beat him. Bowser isn't viable, Gimpy is just so good that his skill allowed him to get far, but in the end Bowser weighed him down.

@Sky-Hasn't Chudat won tourneys or at the least done very well with Kirby alone? I mean, I myself have said he should have a sub, but I dont see it being that impossible.

 

[Brave Hippo]

Falcon is tourney viable....I mean, you wouldn't WIN but the crowd would love you. Thats considered a win by some.....But really, the OPs list looks pretty good.

 

[Samuelson]

Lucario can't win alone. I don't think Lucario will ever beat a top level MK on MK's counter pick. I don't think Lucario really has a chance vs a MK who knows what they're doing against Lucario. :/

I have MK as my secondary and it's working pretty good for me....

 

[.Marik]

Yoshi is viable, if you have a substitute. If you have a Yoshi like Bwett and PRiDE, you don't even need a secondary backing you up.

ZSS is viable, even without a secondary. Unless you're facing Falcos, then it's going to be a pain in your ***. =P

 

[Sky`]

I thought we were done with stupid **** like this last year. Holy crap, Gimpy did not make Bowser viable at all, people who played characters that beat Bowser bad that were even close to Gimpy's level beat him. Bowser isn't viable, Gimpy is just so good that his skill allowed him to get far, but in the end Bowser weighed him down.

@Sky-Hasn't Chudat won tourneys or at the least done very well with Kirby alone? I mean, I myself have said he should have a sub, but I dont see it being that impossible.

Winning I'm not sure about, but I totally think that Kirby is Tournament Viable. =]

He's just getting Stale, and he's not as good as he used to be, but that doesn't make him bad.


Like, remember in the beginning when everybody thought that ROB was amazing?
now he's much lower, and not as good, but he's still good, ya dig?

 

[Adapt]

Yoshi is viable, if you have a substitute. If you have a Yoshi like Bwett and PRiDE, you don't even need a secondary backing you up.

ZSS is viable, even without a secondary. Unless you're facing Falcos, then it's going to be a pain in your ***. =P

Falco is also beatable, but yes, Falco is clearly her hardest matchup. I absolutely consider her viable. Several ZSS mains have placed quite well, not just Snakeee (who is the most well known)

Dazwa, Claw, NickRiddle, and Raretruffle have all placed very high in large tourneys in all parts of the US using solely ZSS. Many other people are using her as a secondary (like Erow) with success. She is currently ranked 12th on Ankoku's list, having steadily climbed since Christmas.

 

[Anther]

Lucario's placement has more to do with the fact that he's at a disadvantage to all but a few of the characters above him.

Not really a huge disadvantage in any case, but it doesn't help when you have to outperform the vast majority of your opponents.

At the same time, being viable shouldn't mean that you have **** matchups against the top tiers, or should be able to win by "Underplaying" your opponent. Who consistently wins and underplays their opponents? That doesn't even exist. If the player is good enough, and picks a character that they can win with, the character is tournament viable, especially if the player uses that character to win most bad matchups. (Imo bad matchup doesn't always mean uneven...) *runs away*
A character like lucario's good because if your solid game is better than your opponent's, you should win (Except for the fact that lucario gets exploited like a drunk teen off stage...)

I know the game better than a lot of people, play as pika, and can win with him because of that, thus tourney viable. A lot of the times a lot of players with winable characters don't win just because they don't know the game as well as the guy that keeps placing above them.

 

[|RK|]

Lucario, once again, doesn't need a secondary. If MK is the only problem, that makes him totally viable. Going back to an older topic, it's much easier to work hard and win with High Tiers, right? Besides, I guess that means me, Milln, and all the others going straight Lucario in tournaments are all crazy. If you're half good, I'm pretty sure you can find a way around bad matchups. Lucairo's worst matchups are 40:60 and there are only like 3-4 or those out of the entire cast. Therefore, Lucario is viable, and not just in the hands of Azen.

 

[.Marik]

Lol, yeah Ally beat Anther with Captain Falcon, remember?

If you're good enough with that character, you should be fine! 8D

Falco is also beatable, but yes, Falco is clearly her hardest matchup. I absolutely consider her viable. Several ZSS mains have placed quite well, not just Snakeee (who is the most well known)

I never said Falco was unbeatable.. But yes, Falco's her worst matchup.

Oh yeah, she's completely viable. ZSS is easily High-Tier.

Seems like a lot of people underestimate ZSS.

 

[SSJ5Goku8932]

Would a character havin 6:4 all disadvantages be counted viable?

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Would a character havin 6:4 all disadvantages be counted viable?

Yes, but I bet that would be frustrating to play as, XD.

 

[.Marik]

Would a character havin 6:4 all disadvantages be counted viable?

That wasn't the main point I was trying to make. I was slightly kidding on that.

But Ally still beat Anther with Captain Falcon. The worst character in the game against Anther's main.

That's pretty kickass.

 

[Kitamerby]

That wasn't the main point I was trying to make. I was slightly kidding on that.

But Ally still beat Anther with Captain Falcon. The worst character in the game against Anther's main.

That's pretty kickass.

Anther used Sonic.

 

[Deathcarter]

Take any respectable, 32-man or greater tournament, and determine which characters tend to win them. Those are the viable characters.

NOTE: Do not mistake "population" for "respectability." Tournaments in Anime conventions can pull in upwards of 250 entrants, but you're not going to get an accurate measure of character viability from those. At the same time, it needs to be a decent size in order to make sure the character in question can stand the test of versatility and consistency in a large enough field of competition as well as ensure representation from a sufficient variety of possible characters.

I do agree with you on the issue on tournament size. I did not want to use 100-200 person tourneys as "decently sized" because they are much more uncommon. At the same time, I want a turnout amount that has a high likelyhood of excellent players in attendence. 70 is a random number I pulled out of thin air. What I explained above is more important.

OK, we need to back up. This discussion has gone through about 3 definitions of viable.
Viable = capable of successfully working/feasible. (That's the dictionary)
So, that leads us to:
"is it feasible for me to invest time learning [insert character] with the aim of competing successfully in a respectable tourney environment."

A viable character is any character that can support a main through a tournament. It does not mean that secondaries must be necessary or unnecessary because that comes down to preference and personal match-up difficulties.

For example, DK is more viable than Pokemon Trainer, almost everyone would agree. However, DK's got much harder counters than Pokemon Trainer has, due to the nature of Pokemon Trainer's auto-counterpicking thing.

An even more extreme example is DK's own bane, D3. By that same logic, D3 becomes a non-viable character. And wario, a character with very even matchups, is **** good, but more viable than DDD? Really? Saying that wario is more viable than D3 basically means that you don't know what the word "viable" means.

Personally, I feel like viability is a rating of a character if you take the tourney results, and then try to weed out the influence that popularity has on the numbers. Then, you'd have viability, pure and simple. I dunno how you'd do that, though.

At bolded part: I had the exact opposite way of thinking. I was thinking a viable character as one that could pull its weight as a main with minimal use of the secondary. If the secondary overshadows the main to the point that the main sees little to no playtime, the main in my opinion is not viable. Of course what I did not say was that a secondary in this situation is any character from Snake to Wario, great but not excellent enough to overshadow every character in the game (i.e. Meta Knight).

Viable = capable of successfully working/feasible.
That's the definition right?

So then now we have to decide...
Are we talking about characters that are Viable against Every character?
Or viable in terms of placing at Major tournaments?

gotta decide that before this thread goes anywhere. I can debate either one, =D

Viable in terms of placing at major tournaments. I should of emphasized that.

At the same time, being viable shouldn't mean that you have **** matchups against the top tiers, or should be able to win by "Underplaying" your opponent. Who consistently wins and underplays their opponents? That doesn't even exist. If the player is good enough, and picks a character that they can win with, the character is tournament viable, especially if the player uses that character to win most bad matchups. (Imo bad matchup doesn't always mean uneven...) *runs away*
A character like lucario's good because if your solid game is better than your opponent's, you should win (Except for the fact that lucario gets exploited like a drunk teen off stage...)

I know the game better than a lot of people, play as pika, and can win with him because of that, thus tourney viable. A lot of the times a lot of players with winable characters don't win just because they don't know the game as well as the guy that keeps placing above them.

At bolded part, that is an interesting notion and one that I agree with to an extent. The exceptions here are certain matchups like MK vs. ICs and DDD vs. DK that don't fit the mold, but otherwise are quite useable in a tournament.

 

[Kinzer]

That wasn't the main point I was trying to make. I was slightly kidding on that.

But Ally still beat Anther with Captain Falcon. The worst character in the game against Anther's main.

That's pretty kickass.

Someone already corrected you that Anther used Sonic, and I hope I do not have into detail and explain why the whole match was just a hoax, and if I tried hard enough/Anther felt like backing me up, he would/could/(should... please...?).

 

[Camalange]

...

Anther mains PIKACHU, NOT SONIC. Heck, he only used Sonic for fun really, except for that one tournament...and I imagine the scenario went down like this "Hey Ally, I'll go Sonic if you go Captain Falcon" thinking "Hm...my Pika just lost to his Snake...but he also uses Falcon...LOL, Falcon sucks, my Sonic will easily take him out" This could be completely false, so don't attack me and be like "LOL NO WAI TROLL"

Anther's Sonic is honestly mediocre at best. It has the basic fundamentals, but it ends there. Ally knows the Sonic matchup like the back of his hand. Seriously, he's played so many Sonics with his Captain Falcon. Not only that, the match up is about even (lolsonicsux) so I wasn't surprised when Ally beat Anther's Sonic with Falcon...

So that's not even a viable argument for this discussion.

<3Anther
We need to finish our Sonic ditto sometime...lol :D

 

[Anther]

Lain beats MKs all the time. They do just as well against him ... as they do against everything thanks to their stupulus grabs T_T.


If he wasn't living to like 300% it wouldn't have been so bad ;_;.
Hoax? that shiz was real!

Fundamentals is where it's at baby. I actually used sonic because I wanted to show peeps in the area that he's more tournament viable than everyone was letting on. It was upsetting me. I quit sonic mostly because people always counterpick their bad secondaries that have horrible approach games or get upset that I'm not using pika or lucario against them, since sonic's supposedly not tourney viable. XD

 

[Kinzer]

But... your baby Sonic... Ally's Sonic matchup experience with Falcon... Anther, you're making me sadface here.

 

[Anther]

XD, I didn't know his experience beforehand.

 

[Camalange]

XD, I didn't know his experience beforehand.

Thought so

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Name some.
In fact, I'd be surprised if you named 5 characters other than the ones that I mentioned that can win a tournament alone.

Marth - He only has one bad match-up Meta knight, three if you count Snake and King Dedede as bad ones to, none of these are bad enough to need a counter pick.

Lucario - His worst match-up(s) are 60:40, any character who only goes 60:40 for disadvantageous match-ups is viable.

Kirby - He goes neutral with Meta Knight, only has Snake, G&W and Marth as a 60:40 in the top tier area. And 60:40 is his worst match-up. Viable.

Game & Watch - His main worries are Snake and Marth, but neither are bad enough to need a counter pick.

Olimar - Peach, Luigi, and Metaknight are his worries, Marth is debatable. He can handle any of those three without the need of a counter pick.

Diddy Kong - Single banana locks, nice match-ups, he's viable.

Pikachu - 65:35's with Marth and Metaknight, bad, but not to the exstent he needs to counter pick.