Why do you people main a mid tier or lower?

[Deleted member]

A lot of mid, low, and bottom tier characters have trouble winning, yet there are people playing them anyway. Why is that?

 

[LoZ00]

It depends. Can we consider to be a low tier character? If so, I play as her for a lot of different reasons. First I like her playstyle, it blends well with my own playstyle. Then I play as her because she is one of my most requested fighters for Ultimate. Finally, I love the idea of defeating my opponents with such a cute character.

 

[Sari]

Because I like the characters for how they play and couldn't care less about tier lists.

 

[Nah]

The vague, broad answer that applies to the majority people answering this question would be: people have a myriad reasons for playing this game, and it's not always about winning all the time

As for the answer specific to me, I'll quote a small part of a post I made in a different thread some time ago:

I am garbage. Garbage is garbage no matter what it plays. So I might as well play a character I like, and for those it's not immediately obvious to, I like Fire Emblem.

 

[Lamperouge]

I play the characters that appeal to me. If they turn out to be competitively viable, great, but I never make that a priority of mine when deciding who I should use.

 

[Deleted member]

Love the character itself. Share a handful of things in common with personality traits. Like the franchise. Memes.

 

[Crystanium]

Because not every high or top tier is appealing.

 

[CrusherMania1592]

Because I like the characters for how they play and couldn't care less about tier lists.

Pretty much this

There are characters that fits us better than the high tier characters. There's nothing wrong with what we prefer either

 

[PsySmasher]

As someone who plays more competitively than casually...

I prioritize how well I play a character and how much I like them over their tier placement.

If I do better playing lower tiers like Ridley, Bowser Jr and Plant over higher tiers like Peach, Lucina, and Snake, then I'll play the lower tiers.

In Ultimate, pretty much any character can be viable with lots of practice, including bottom tiers.

So in the end, you should just play who you want to play.

 

[Xelrog]

The incredibly, incredibly vast majority of players aren't good enough for tiers to matter. There are towns with entire competitive scenes whose players aren't good enough for tiers to matter yet.

I would even go so far as to say that 9 times out of 10, whenever tiers are discussed in the context of ANY game, they're being discussed by people who don't need to be worrying about them yet. People who aspire to be pros have a tendency to think tiers matter way more than people who are pros. Which is not at all to say they don't exist or don't matter at very high levels of play, but lower level players dramatically overstress their importance. I often see a "wish upon a star" mindset that the reason one isn't doing better is the fault of their character, and if they ask enough people, they'll find the secret character that trumps all others and they'll suddenly be amazing at the game. For most players, thinking about tiers in this way will do them more harm than good.

You'll have a much better game experience, and usually much better results, playing a character that meshes with your natural playstyle than trying to force yourself into a conflicting playstyle. Forcing it will manifest in hesitation, easy to read habits, misinputs, and so on and so forth. A player whose natural tendencies mesh perfectly with a mid-tier character is likely to reach a higher threshold of performance with that character than if they played a higher tier that didn't mesh with them as well--especially if they enjoy the character, because that means they'll be motivated to play them more.

 

[Predatoria]

There was this one post I remember commenting on a while back that asked a similar question. I may go ahead and bring my old reply back here, as I thought it was quite good:

I think a lot of people likely chose low tier characters not because they're low tier, but because they wanted to play that character or enjoyed the playstyle or moveset the character offered. Often times it is despite the low placement on a tier list that a player will continue playing a character, rather than because of it.

For my case, I wanted to main Ridley well before I had any idea where he'd land on the tier list. I'm definitely committing myself to doing my best with him despite his tier placement as well. I won't switch mains because I want to play him more than I want to play Peach, Pichu, Wolf, or any of the other high tier characters. I'd, to be brutally honest, likely sooner play another game than abandon my main for a high tier alt just to try and win at locals or tourney settings, if it became that frustrating of an experience to me to try to win at any cost.

I would love it if Ridley suddenly got buffed in patch 4.0 or something and became a bit higher in the competitive scene, but I'm thankful he's here, love playing him, and am happy to see him show up when he does at the competitive level.

Most low tier mains are likely character loyalists who want to play that character and succeed with them, tier lists be damned, as I've already read many other posts here that suggest as such.

To answer your question about it being frustrating to lose to higher tier characters. I'm not honestly sure yet. I've yet to really step out into the competitive scene beyond friend groups of mine that I regularly play with. I do know that when I do lose, I can often analyze my play and pick up on numerous errors, mistakes, or other things I'm simply doing poorly, doing wrong, or not doing at all that would enhance my gameplay well beyond what swapping characters would do for me. I never blame my character for losing a match for me. There's always a way to get better and improve and come back another day.

((Ahh the greatness of this revelation, "I would love it if Ridley suddenly got buffed in patch 4.0 or something"))

The incredibly, incredibly vast majority of players aren't good enough for tiers to matter. There are towns with entire competitive scenes whose players aren't good enough for tiers to matter yet.

I would even go so far as to say that 9 times out of 10, whenever tiers are discussed in the context of ANY game, they're being discussed by people who don't need to be worrying about them yet. People who aspire to be pros have a tendency to think tiers matter way more than people who are pros. Which is not at all to say they don't exist or don't matter at very high levels of play, but lower level players dramatically overstress their importance. I often see a "wish upon a star" mindset that the reason one isn't doing better is the fault of their character, and if they ask enough people, they'll find the secret character that trumps all others and they'll suddenly be amazing at the game. For most players, thinking about tiers in this way will do them more harm than good.

You'll have a much better game experience, and usually much better results, playing a character that meshes with your natural playstyle than trying to force yourself into a conflicting playstyle. Forcing it will manifest in hesitation, easy to read habits, misinputs, and so on and so forth. A player whose natural tendencies mesh perfectly with a mid-tier character is likely to reach a higher threshold of performance with that character than if they played a higher tier that didn't mesh with them as well--especially if they enjoy the character, because that means they'll be motivated to play them more.

Tier lists are often a snapshot of character performance at the uppermost extremes of competitive play. That snapshot is one-dimensional. A character's efficacy is actually going to be a function of the level of play they're experiencing. Some characters are monsters at lower levels of play, but have weaknesses that can be exploited heavily by professional-tier players. Many heavies have a efficacy curve like this, where their heavy-hitting attacks and weight give them advantages in lower-level play that ultimately work against them at higher levels of play in the form of being easy to combo and having below-average frame data. Other characters are the opposite, such as Olimar or Peach. They have advanced mechanics (pikmen and turnips) that many beginners will struggle to make meaningful use of, but these same mechanics can be very effective in the hands of an adept player. For this reason, tiers aren't always the best representation of character efficacy at an arbitrary skillpoint.

 

[MrGameguycolor]

Because we like them...
They are fun...
We like the characters...
Etc...

 

[Necro'lic]

Tiers are not for the majority of players. Tiers are meant to roughly gauge how likely a character is to win the average match in a tournament setting. That last part is important, because it implies that both participants are experienced in their fighter's techniques, weaknesses, strengths, etc. and are using them effectively.

The sad truth about how tiers are done in this game is that they don't even do that much. Tier lists in Smash are not actually based on results, but on both results and theorycraft, meaning they are fundamentally flawed for the purpose I just stated. Because of this a character with a low skill ceiling is favored over one with a high skill ceiling due to the ease of use for the average tournament player. Conversely, high skill floor characters are devalued due to their high entry fee to get them to work in a tournament setting for the average tournament player. Due to these discrepancies, someone who has reached the peak of a high skill ceiling and high skill floor character like Ice Climbers will most likely be fine, if not advantageous against a low skill floor, low skill ceiling character like... Palutena or Wolf? (maybe not low skill ceiling, but you get the idea)

At this point, the general tiers don't work, and can be ignored, at least until high level tournament tier lists are seen only as aggregate measurements of how likely a character is to win, rather than how likely a high level player THINKS they might win.

 

[NerFox]

There was this one post I remember commenting on a while back that asked a similar question. I may go ahead and bring my old reply back here, as I thought it was quite good

Yeah that was my post haha. I remember your response

I think many people already said what I was going to say. Low tier mains might just like the character and/or the playstyle. Like Xelrog and others said, I don’t think tiers matter that much except on a top level of play. Some characters are objectively better than others though but every character can be viable if you practice long enough. I’ve seen a Piranha Plant beat top tiers like Olimar in a tournament video. Even though Olimar is mostly considered high tier and PP low tier.

Besides even though Smash is a competitive game for most people, you should always have fun while competing and if that is with a low tier, so be it. Low tiers are mostly perfectly able to beat some “high tiers” if the player is skilled enough.

 

[Deleted member]

Many heavies have a efficacy curve like this, where their heavy-hitting attacks and weight give them advantages in lower-level play that ultimately work against them at higher levels of play in the form of being easy to combo and having below-average frame data. Other characters are the opposite, such as Olimar or Peach. They have advanced mechanics (pikmen and turnips) that many beginners will struggle to make meaningful use of, but these same mechanics can be very effective in the hands of an adept player.

This exactly is why low tier mains puzzle me. Why main a flawed character? I dropped King K. Rool for a reason. He's arguably the most or 2nd most flawed character in this game, and I wanted so much to main him.

 

[Xelrog]

This exactly is why low tier mains puzzle me. Why main a flawed character? I dropped King K. Rool for a reason. He's arguably the most or 2nd most flawed character in this game, and I wanted so much to main him.

There's a difference between "mid tier" or even "low tier" and "absolute bottom, complete garbage, don't even attempt" tier.

 

[Deleted member]

There's a difference between "mid tier" or even "low tier" and "absolute bottom, complete garbage, don't even attempt" tier.

Then how did a King K. Rool player win an Australian major?

 

[Xelrog]

Then how did a King K. Rool player win an Australian major?

I'm just saying that you wouldn't be seeing as much resistance if you weren't lumping about 40 viable characters into a discussion about K. Rool, Bowser Jr., Plant, and Little Mac. There are a select few characters that have been pretty universally recognized as the bottom of the barrel, and they're a very poor example to use when trying to argue why someone shouldn't main, say, Donkey Kong or Mario.

 

[TheDuke54]

They really don't need a reason if they just like using the character. It's a game after all.

 

[Predatoria]

There's a difference between "mid tier" or even "low tier" and "absolute bottom, complete garbage, don't even attempt" tier.

Yeah....

A friend of mine had to give up on Krool just to play with our Smash friend group. Even at our relatively casual level, we'd just beat him to death like a bag of meat every fight, combo him brutally, and gimp his recovery over and over and over again to the point where he just called it quits and picked up Bowser.

I felt kind of bad to be honest, but couldn't help but enjoy the irony. When Smash Ultimate released, Krool was considered like top 10 or something, and Ridley (my main) has always been hovering round low tier / lower end of mid tier on a good day kind of levels.

 

[Deleted member]

Yeah....

A friend of mine had to give up on Krool just to play with our Smash friend group. Even at our relatively casual level, we'd just beat him to death like a bag of meat every fight, combo him brutally, and gimp his recovery over and over and over again to the point where he just called it quits and picked up Bowser.

I felt kind of bad to be honest, but couldn't help but enjoy the irony. When Smash Ultimate released, Krool was considered like top 10 or something, and Ridley (my main) has always been hovering round low tier / lower end of mid tier on a good day kind of levels.

Kind of makes the current Krool mains seem deluded or insane for choosing to stick with him.

 

[Xelrog]

Kind of makes the current Krool mains seem deluded or insane for choosing to stick with him.

Are you trying to win a bet with someone or something? All of your posts seem very leading.

 

[Deleted member]

Are you trying to win a bet with someone or something? All of your posts seem very leading.

I'm mainly looking for a reason to want to play my non-viable characters while I wait for their buffs.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

Nobody needs a reason to main a character. People are beginning to call Dedede a low tier again but I'm still going to main him since I love playing as him.

 

[NerFox]

Kind of makes the current Krool mains seem deluded or insane for choosing to stick with him.

Or just not lazy and loyal. Tbh I think K. Rool can be good in the hands of a good player.

 

[YoshiandToad]

In my case because Yoshi feels right to me regardless of tier and I've mained him since Smash 64. I know he's considered an okay pick these days but there was a time he was considered garbage.

I'm not really a competitive player despite entering the odd tournament. Still fun to see the reactions of people who don't play Yoshi often when I do get the upper hand.

The look of surprise and sudden "oh wait, this isn't the cake walk I thought it'd be" crossing their face is sometimes more rewarding to me than the actual victory. That probably sounds odd.

 

[soyperson]

I play a lot of Pac-Man, because he's fun and I enjoy his play style. It's not all about tiers and metrics and which characters are the "best"; sometimes it just boils down to personal preference.

 

[Xelrog]

I'm mainly looking for a reason to want to play my non-viable characters while I wait for their buffs.

You've gotten many responses in this thread about exactly that. If you disagree with the points in any of these posts, by all means, outline the points you disagree with and explain why. That's how discussion happens. Continuing to say "man I wish someone would give me a reason" suggests that you're not actually reading any counterarguments, and are just waiting to hear someone agree with you.

 

[Deleted member]

So I play Kirby. What, am I supposed to “drop” characters that are the “worst” and have nothing? Characters like Is being played for a reason. Why? Players like his playstyle. Even if he is presumed to lose against everyone, success has still been found (Fonz winning a legit tournament, Ganon Gauntlets). People like the King of Evil’s personality. It serves like a foil to the traditional.

I have chosen to stick with since Brawl. Do I choose to be a competitive player like a PGR? No because I love the Pink’s personality. Hard work put into this star warrior, cute traits, and seeing the many hats into this character give me joy. Every character has a fair share of fan base. “A character is a character, no matter how unpopular”

 

[KneeOfJustice99]

Well, personally, we prefer to enjoy the experience of playing a character rather than choose a character for the sake of winning. Now, we're no EVO contenders, but we do play in some small competitive tournaments local to us, and it seems not to just be us.

The thing is, it only seems to be a construct at the top leagues of Smash. At our little tournaments local to us, we see all sorts of mains, and people are getting good results with characters like Kirby, Link, Donkey Kong, Ganondorf and Incineroar. Mains are important, from a competitive standpoint, as it allows the individual to use a specific toolkit to combat opponents, but who that main is... is up to you.

There's actually a few reasons that this construct of tier-based mains is so common. Look at, for example, Melee. The main characters that most people associate with high tier results and effectivity are Sheik, Fox and Marth. As such, everyone makes counterplays for these three, but that doesn't work so well in that tournament when someone was playing Yoshi. (We forgot exactly who, we're sorry about that.)

Another point is that, although they're low tier, there are some crazy combos that can be pulled off with some characters, and astoundingly creative ways to use them. Pac-Man, Mega Man and Duck Hunt are good examples, having very versatile moves that allow some interesting and unpredictable set-ups.

Then again, we main Captain Falcon, Corrin, and Toon Link. Why? Not so much because of crazy combo potential, or insane stats at EVO, but because we enjoy playing them. We find Falcon's overdramatic, acrobatic style fun and involving. We find the graphic style of Toon Link interesting, and an effective contrast to the sometimes gritty world of Smash. (Looking at you, Shadow Moses) We find Corrin's design in Smash Bros and her toolkit unique and engaging. Sure, these characters might not be god tier, but we find them fun, so we play them.

Smash Bros, at the end of the day, is supposed to be fun.
Gaming, at the end of the day, is supposed to be fun.

If you prefer playing a character for the sole reason that others are winning as them, then that's okay. Then again, if you find a different character more interesting, play them. It's stuff like this that annoys us, because there's over 70 characters in Smash, and yet people treat the game as though there's only, like, 10, but then complain because there's not enough characters... and yet, from a lot of pros, you'd probably find some, no, a lot of characters wholly unplayed. It's sad that people seem to look at Smash and only see numbers, when Sakurai's creation is so much bigger than a lot of people realise.

Anyways, hope this was of help to you guys.

 

[Xelrog]

On the topic of tiers, I wonder how the back rooms are coming along. We still don't have any sort of "official" tierlist for Ultimate (in the same capacity as previous Smash games, anyway). Just a handful of completely different one-man lists from a handful of players, which have varied rather heavily save for a few common faces at the tops and bottoms.

 

[Predatoria]

On the topic of tiers, I wonder how the back rooms are coming along. We still don't have any sort of "official" tierlist for Ultimate (in the same capacity as previous Smash games, anyway). Just a handful of completely different one-man lists from a handful of players, which have varied rather heavily save for a few common faces at the tops and bottoms.

I’m not sure. I think several of the discord’s have been posting matchup charts. Collecting them all and creating a tier list out of it may be a reasonable way to go.

 

[Call_Me_Red]

On the topic of tiers, I wonder how the back rooms are coming along. We still don't have any sort of "official" tierlist for Ultimate (in the same capacity as previous Smash games, anyway). Just a handful of completely different one-man lists from a handful of players, which have varied rather heavily save for a few common faces at the tops and bottoms.

It's been mentioned before, but we have the top and the bottom pretty solidly figured out. Everything in the middle though is a complete blunder. I think there needs to be some community discussion on this. Maybe if we had some sort of forum, or boards, to talk about Smash. We could post a poll for all to participate in to get a more solid idea of the middle tiers.

 

[Nah]

On the topic of tiers, I wonder how the back rooms are coming along. We still don't have any sort of "official" tierlist for Ultimate (in the same capacity as previous Smash games, anyway). Just a handful of completely different one-man lists from a handful of players, which have varied rather heavily save for a few common faces at the tops and bottoms.

I've not heard (or remember anyway) any plans to form a backroom and construct a Smashboards tier list for Ultimate so far, but I'd imagine that asking certain staff members might yield faster results.

It might just take a while for there to be one. In Smash 4, the first official Smashboards tierlist wasn't posted until Feb 2016, about a year and a half after S4's release. Ultimate isn't even a year old yet, so it's not too strange that there's not one yet.

 

[Wigglerman]

Fun factor, play styles other characters don't possess, sometimes a challenge to do better with a 'worse' character and so many other reasons. Lots of characters I've enjoyed in every fighting game I've ever played happen to be 'low tier' but are the most fun to play to me. I know if I chose a better character I'd do better overall but I cannot play a character for extended time frames if they just don't feel enjoyable.

 

[Xelrog]

It's been mentioned before, but we have the top and the bottom pretty solidly figured out. Everything in the middle though is a complete blunder. I think there needs to be some community discussion on this. Maybe if we had some sort of forum, or boards, to talk about Smash. We could post a poll for all to participate in to get a more solid idea of the middle tiers.

There's a reason there are committees of seasoned players involved rather than a poll for everyone. If everyone's opinions were factored into a list of competitive potential, Olimar would wind up much lower and K. Rool would be much higher. The fact is that by numbers, there are way more bad players who don't understand many game mechanics than good players who do.

 

[Deleted member]

You've gotten many responses in this thread about exactly that. If you disagree with the points in any of these posts, by all means, outline the points you disagree with and explain why. That's how discussion happens. Continuing to say "man I wish someone would give me a reason" suggests that you're not actually reading any counterarguments, and are just waiting to hear someone agree with you.

As of this post, I've decided I don't want to main anyone anymore, and just play who I feel like playing. Should they get creamed however (I like playing heavies and superheavies the most to kill early and live longer), I switch to my pocket Joker.

Despite what you may think, Joker is fun to me, and not just because he's easy to win with, but because of Eiha/Aigon and Arsene. He still isn't as fun as playing as someone like, say, DK or Ganondorf, who play in ways that I love, but struggle to avoid getting combo'd to death, especially DK.

Losing isn't fun, but I'd rather lose in a close match than get 3 stocked. That's why I pocket Joker, and only use superheavies until they happen to get creamed by my current opponent. It may sound like the "maining" process, but I'm not putting myself through the stress of learning every detail about a character anymore.

 

[Call_Me_Red]

There's a reason there are committees of seasoned players involved rather than a poll for everyone. If everyone's opinions were factored into a list of competitive potential, Olimar would wind up much lower and K. Rool would be much higher. The fact is that by numbers, there are way more bad players who don't understand many game mechanics than good players who do.

Y'know, fair point. The only problem with that is, even if you get the top 100 players in the world, there's still a high chance that some characters won't be deeply understood by these players. Like, I doubt MKLeo knows much about where Isabelle falls on the tier list. I doubt ESAM has put hundreds of hours into the Zelda match-up. Etc etc.

TL;DR Top players can make a more accurate tier list, but even then, with so many characters it will be impossible to make a perfect tier list without public opinion.

 

[Wigglerman]

As of this post, I've decided I don't want to main anyone anymore, and just play who I feel like playing. Should they get creamed however (I like playing heavies and superheavies the most to kill early and live longer), I switch to my pocket Joker.

Despite what you may think, Joker is fun to me, and not just because he's easy to win with, but because of Eiha/Aigon and Arsene. He still isn't as fun as playing as someone like, say, DK or Ganondorf, who play in ways that I love, but struggle to avoid getting combo'd to death, especially DK.

Losing isn't fun, but I'd rather lose in a close match than get 3 stocked. That's why I pocket Joker, and only use superheavies until they happen to get creamed by my current opponent. It may sound like the "maining" process, but I'm not putting myself through the stress of learning every detail about a character anymore.

It's always fine to have a 'pocket' character if your main isn't cutting it in a particular match up or against specific players. I find it wise to have a pocket character. This is often the case with my selection of Incineroar and Pac-Man. Incineroar does better a majority of time against fellow heavies and even well against some zoners that my Pac just struggles with (Either due to bad match ups or just discomfort/unfamiliarity). So do what works for you. It's OK to solo or multi-main. There's also no shame in solo-maining a 'low' tier either. Losing sucks but learning is important also. I take each loss in stride now. Whomever I choose to play each night I try to stick with my entire session to get the match ups down, learn mistakes/bad habits and get better with said characters.

 

[Xelrog]

Y'know, fair point. The only problem with that is, even if you get the top 100 players in the world, there's still a high chance that some characters won't be deeply understood by these players. Like, I doubt MKLeo knows much about where Isabelle falls on the tier list. I doubt ESAM has put hundreds of hours into the Zelda match-up. Etc etc.

TL;DR Top players can make a more accurate tier list, but even then, with so many characters it will be impossible to make a perfect tier list without public opinion.

The top 100 players in the world have a better understanding of John Smash's main than he himself does and will make a better tier list than ten million John Smashes.