I'd say that one thing I seem to notice more than it is necessary is the asserted...well, opinions of certain people who deem their own beliefs as facts. I see it all too much around here, namely on this particular board. And while I won't delve into each and every instance of which I speak, this will mainly cover on in particular (and I will note and discuss it as such).
Before that, however, let me explain myself. I'm not new to Smash Bros, though I am rather new competitively. I am not incompetent. I have not established myself as a “master” of any particular character (though that's what I strive to do with my main(s) to be successful competitively). I do believe in the existence of a tier list (though I do believe it is somewhat cyclic, but that's a discussion for another time) and will never make a case to rise or lower the rank of a certain character until I've brought myself to a level both intelligence- and skill-wise to do so.
With that, let me begin.
The tier list seems to be a problem with some because their main isn't where they think he/she/it should be. It would be an understatement to say that some people think Zelda should be higher than where she is (not picking on Zelda mains, by the way). Which, of course, is no problem. People have a right to state their opinions freely as the rest of us have a right to agree or disagree with said opinions.
My problem is that a lot of these instances range from invalid to nonsensical. Rarely have I found a strong, valid case for a character to be moved in tier rank with just cause. Mostly because characters that many people feel the tiers represent poorly do not have much to stand up on.
I'm not going to be nit-picky, but what bothers me is that these people continue to assert their opinions as facts about their character and whine/complain/*****/moan/bother people (pick your poison) until they are discredited, overwhelmed and/or bored. What exact place does such discussion fit into the ways of tactical advancement. Does complaining about the Triforce tier truly solve anything?
But, I'm not here to rant. Instead, I'd like to reach out to some of these people and help them realize that, well, it is useless.
First, let's take a step back and look at something. Characters are put on the tiers based on their individual ability, usage, tournament placings, etc. Thus, it makes sense that Metaknight is at the top of the tiers because of his strong individual ability, robust resume of tournament places and all of the like. Likewise, characters that are lower on the tier list lack much of what make top-tier characters great and competitively-viable.
So, before you go making a statement as to why Link is so god **** awesome, ask yourself if you are actually justified in doing so. I'd bet you wouldn't be.
Realize something here. If a character was good, then they would be used more. If a character is good, they would win more. It's that simple. Characters that are good never go unnoticed because eventually people would learn how to use the character and realize that said character is quite viable as a main. It wouldn't make sense for a good character to never be used or never have something reflect his/her/its strength in the metagame because said character probably isn't good then.
Take Pikachu for example. Pikachu is in the B tier for his strengths and unique abilities with better matchups than many below him. While you could make the case that Pikachu doesn't deserve his place because no one really uses him, that doesn't take away from the fact that Pikachu is, in fact, a viable character for competitive play. Esam and Anther would like to meet you.
On the other hand, many others would also make the case that Captain Falcon deserves his place because no one really uses him because that doesn't take away from the fact that, in Brawl, Falcon (unfortunately) isn't very good. It adds to it, mostly. The difference is that while both Pikachu and Falcon aren't the most used of characters (and I use Pikachu because he isn't one of the most used high-tier characters in the game), Pikachu is certainly much better (on paper and in the metagame), more viable and a potentially stronger character than Captain Falcon.
To summarize, a character is reflected by his skills and those skills are reflected in things like tiers. Of course, every character is included in that “everybody gets one” rule, that each character has at least one person that is good with him/her/it. That doesn't necessarily make the character good, but instead, the player him/herself.
Here's what I'm really getting to. Realize this, the people that insist on the apparent absurdly construction of the tiers: you complaining won't make your character good. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
Instead, here's a solution. Prove us wrong. Prove us wrong and show us how good Zelda or Yoshi or Mario or Ganondorf really is. Show us what your character can do consistently at tournaments. Winning a small local tournament proves nothing. But, if you personally take it upon yourself to truly advance the metagame of your individual main, then something good may come of it. Recruit other mains of the character, too, and try to push your character ahead. You'll either hit the wall or break through it and there's no risk in trying.
Tl;dr: If you truly think your character is good, prove the community wrong and get your character were you think the character should be.
Remember, complaining on the internet usually does nothing. Complaining on the internet about how your low-tier character is much better than the tiers suggest almost always does nothing. But...defying the odds and truly representing your character and proving the community wrong...well...that may actually do something.
Or, your character may truly just suck and there is nothing you can do about it, so shut up.
EDIT: Essentially, I mean when proving people wrong, as in, advancing the metagame (which, I'd assume means playing well enough to win tournaments), not just "hey go win some tournaments".
As far as I know as well, it isn't fully based on results. But, I'm sure it has some influence. Even if it doesn't, if you get good with a character and want to show how good the character is, winning tournaments is a good idea.
Before that, however, let me explain myself. I'm not new to Smash Bros, though I am rather new competitively. I am not incompetent. I have not established myself as a “master” of any particular character (though that's what I strive to do with my main(s) to be successful competitively). I do believe in the existence of a tier list (though I do believe it is somewhat cyclic, but that's a discussion for another time) and will never make a case to rise or lower the rank of a certain character until I've brought myself to a level both intelligence- and skill-wise to do so.
With that, let me begin.
The tier list seems to be a problem with some because their main isn't where they think he/she/it should be. It would be an understatement to say that some people think Zelda should be higher than where she is (not picking on Zelda mains, by the way). Which, of course, is no problem. People have a right to state their opinions freely as the rest of us have a right to agree or disagree with said opinions.
My problem is that a lot of these instances range from invalid to nonsensical. Rarely have I found a strong, valid case for a character to be moved in tier rank with just cause. Mostly because characters that many people feel the tiers represent poorly do not have much to stand up on.
I'm not going to be nit-picky, but what bothers me is that these people continue to assert their opinions as facts about their character and whine/complain/*****/moan/bother people (pick your poison) until they are discredited, overwhelmed and/or bored. What exact place does such discussion fit into the ways of tactical advancement. Does complaining about the Triforce tier truly solve anything?
But, I'm not here to rant. Instead, I'd like to reach out to some of these people and help them realize that, well, it is useless.
First, let's take a step back and look at something. Characters are put on the tiers based on their individual ability, usage, tournament placings, etc. Thus, it makes sense that Metaknight is at the top of the tiers because of his strong individual ability, robust resume of tournament places and all of the like. Likewise, characters that are lower on the tier list lack much of what make top-tier characters great and competitively-viable.
So, before you go making a statement as to why Link is so god **** awesome, ask yourself if you are actually justified in doing so. I'd bet you wouldn't be.
Realize something here. If a character was good, then they would be used more. If a character is good, they would win more. It's that simple. Characters that are good never go unnoticed because eventually people would learn how to use the character and realize that said character is quite viable as a main. It wouldn't make sense for a good character to never be used or never have something reflect his/her/its strength in the metagame because said character probably isn't good then.
Take Pikachu for example. Pikachu is in the B tier for his strengths and unique abilities with better matchups than many below him. While you could make the case that Pikachu doesn't deserve his place because no one really uses him, that doesn't take away from the fact that Pikachu is, in fact, a viable character for competitive play. Esam and Anther would like to meet you.
On the other hand, many others would also make the case that Captain Falcon deserves his place because no one really uses him because that doesn't take away from the fact that, in Brawl, Falcon (unfortunately) isn't very good. It adds to it, mostly. The difference is that while both Pikachu and Falcon aren't the most used of characters (and I use Pikachu because he isn't one of the most used high-tier characters in the game), Pikachu is certainly much better (on paper and in the metagame), more viable and a potentially stronger character than Captain Falcon.
To summarize, a character is reflected by his skills and those skills are reflected in things like tiers. Of course, every character is included in that “everybody gets one” rule, that each character has at least one person that is good with him/her/it. That doesn't necessarily make the character good, but instead, the player him/herself.
Here's what I'm really getting to. Realize this, the people that insist on the apparent absurdly construction of the tiers: you complaining won't make your character good. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
Instead, here's a solution. Prove us wrong. Prove us wrong and show us how good Zelda or Yoshi or Mario or Ganondorf really is. Show us what your character can do consistently at tournaments. Winning a small local tournament proves nothing. But, if you personally take it upon yourself to truly advance the metagame of your individual main, then something good may come of it. Recruit other mains of the character, too, and try to push your character ahead. You'll either hit the wall or break through it and there's no risk in trying.
Tl;dr: If you truly think your character is good, prove the community wrong and get your character were you think the character should be.
Remember, complaining on the internet usually does nothing. Complaining on the internet about how your low-tier character is much better than the tiers suggest almost always does nothing. But...defying the odds and truly representing your character and proving the community wrong...well...that may actually do something.
Or, your character may truly just suck and there is nothing you can do about it, so shut up.
EDIT: Essentially, I mean when proving people wrong, as in, advancing the metagame (which, I'd assume means playing well enough to win tournaments), not just "hey go win some tournaments".
As far as I know as well, it isn't fully based on results. But, I'm sure it has some influence. Even if it doesn't, if you get good with a character and want to show how good the character is, winning tournaments is a good idea.
