2013 Community Tier List

[FerrishTheFish]

A character should only be ranked if we can justify their ranking with evidence. This doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss other characters, it just means that we shouldn't try to extend our reach and indulge ourselves with the belief that we can realistically compare the viability of Mewtwo with Fox.

Mewtwo is a bad example. Taj has busted out his Mewtwo vs. top players on many occasions.

I'll wager it's pretty common for top players to have a low-tier(s) they use frequently in friendlies or MMs or locals against other good, if not top, players. (This is true of the top players I personally know, at least.) Just because they aren't played by top players in major tournaments doesn't mean they aren't played by top players at all, or that top players have no clue how they stack up. Yeah, you could argue that friendlies/MMs/locals are different from nationals, but if these players felt that their low-tiers were capable of excelling in nationals, they'd be using them in nationals and exploiting the uncommon MU factor.

Yes, I feel some other games work similarly. Dominant play and counter-play. I think there might be more theoretical research on this somewhere but I cant remember it much.

I think you mean Brawl.

 

[Tagxy]

I think you mean Brawl.

Actually I think I heard about it from a league of legends player regarding LoL. But Im sure its relevant in games with one or few dominant characters.

 

[1MachGO]

@ 1 1MachGO

Its dishonest in the sense that the list would not reflect the full understanding we've gained from characters. Just because M2K didnt spend the last 2 years entering tournaments with Mewtwo doesnt mean we can't use our understanding of the character and analysis to shape a fairly accurate depiction of his viability, and as it compares to Fox.

Obviously we dont want the poor analysis to shape this depiction in the way you described, but you seem to imply no one besides yourself is capable of recognizing that opinions become old and our understanding of characters needs to be updated, which we can do as we improve our knowledge of the game, its mechanics, and its characters. There is plenty of data, information, and analysis to work with without having to commit top level players to entering tournaments with a string of unviable characters.

Lastly, acknowledging we didnt explore things thus far not deemed worth exploring should imply there is no definitive fact. Definitive fact wont ever exist so its not worth considering, which again is why tier lists are said to be based on the current meta-game, not the definitive meta-game.

In any case, you seem to want a tier list that reflects results instead of a character's value. In which case Ill state again, youre better off creating an algorithm and inputting data. We dont need people for that.

Okay, let me ask you this.

Prove to me that Fox is number 1 in the game in the current, 2014 meta. Can you give me top level gameplay, strategies, etc? Can you find MU data? What are his placings at top 32s when the best competition is present? Can you justify his placing without resorting to speculation/opinion?

Now prove to me that Mewtwo is (insert rank) in the current, 2014 meta. Use the same parameters as you did with Fox.

The comparison isn't fair because of the information available to us. So yes, M2K or any other player capable of playing top 32 at a major tournament not playing Mewtwo is hurting our understanding of said character.

Furthermore, I never said that definitive fact exists or that the tier list should reflect that. All I am saying is that we should only put up information we can prove. If a tier list is meant to reflect the current meta game, then all it should contain is information relevant to that meta (the meta being reflected by high and top level competition at major tournaments). Characters that aren't present in this meta are either not relevant or not understood.

And I am not trying to imply I have some kind of infinite wisdom, I just understand that the tier lists are disjointed and we are maintaining that through tradition. The top half of the tier list is provable fact and the bottom half is typically theory or speculation. (Which, again, if you are saying that the tier list should reflect the current meta, then we shouldn't rank low or bottom tiers). I actually made a tier list recently which ranked Mario at 9th entirely based on theory. I realize now that is pointless because getting a consensus on that is futile without concrete fact/current meta backing that claim up.

As for a result based tier list not requiring people, this isn't necessarily true. Unless the algorithm is very complex, people would be needed in the cases of Armada's Young Link. This is a situation where a character is at high level competition but is only be utilized in a specific MU. Furthermore, people are still needed for the conversation a tier list creates.

Mewtwo is a bad example. Taj has busted out his Mewtwo vs. top players on many occasions.

I'll wager it's pretty common for top players to have a low-tier(s) they use frequently in friendlies or MMs or locals against other good, if not top, players. (This is true of the top players I personally know, at least.) Just because they aren't played by top players in major tournaments doesn't mean they aren't played by top players at all, or that top players have no clue how they stack up. Yeah, you could argue that friendlies/MMs/locals are different from nationals, but if these players felt that their low-tiers were capable of excelling in nationals, they'd be using them in nationals and exploiting the uncommon MU factor.


I think you mean Brawl.

I am specifically talking about the modern meta and major tournaments. Last time Taj went Mewtwo in a major match was like Genesis 2 IIRC.

Regardless, you can swap Mewtwo out with Ness, or Roy, or Pichu, etc. the point still stands. Saying that low tiers get used in friendlies, locals, MMs, etc. is a moot point because it isn't the highest level of competition which is what the tier list pertains to.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Okay, let me ask you this.

Prove to me that Fox is number 1 in the game in the current, 2014 meta. Can you give me top level gameplay, strategies, etc? Can you find MU data? What are his placings at top 32s when the best competition is present? Can you justify his placing without resorting to speculation/opinion?
...
The comparison isn't fair because of the information available to us. So yes, M2K or any other player capable of playing top 32 at a major tournament not playing Mewtwo is hurting our understanding of said character.
...
Regardless, you can swap Mewtwo out with Ness, or Roy, or Pichu, etc. the point still stands. Saying that low tiers get used in friendlies, locals, MMs, etc. is a moot point because it isn't the highest level of competition which is what the tier list pertains to.

Your requirement that a character consistently place in the top 32 vs. the top level players before it can be ranked is nonsensical. It requires a character to compete at the highest level before we are allowed to conclude that it cannot compete at the highest level or estimate to what degree it cannot compete at the highest level. You seem to be confusing "highest level" meaning the level of play required to compete against top players with "highest level" meaning a character's potential. The tier list pertains to the latter. You cannot arbitrarily ignore the possibility that certain characters lack the potential to get wins over top players and can only compete in locals.

 

[1MachGO]

Your requirement that a character consistently place in the top 32 vs. the top level players before it can be ranked is nonsensical. It requires a character to compete at the highest level before we are allowed to conclude that it cannot compete at the highest level or estimate to what degree it cannot compete at the highest level. You seem to be confusing "highest level" meaning the level of play required to compete against top players with "highest level" meaning a character's potential. The tier list pertains to the latter. You cannot arbitrarily ignore the possibility that certain characters lack the potential to get wins over top players and can only compete in locals.

It would only be nonsensical if we rated characters "bottom tier" if they have no top 32 results. I am saying that any characters that aren't repped at that level should go as unlisted; the highest average performance of a character in top level play would determine, not just their entry on the list, but also their potential viability.

Tentative example of what the tier list could look like:

Spoiler

If we are going by 2014 results, the tier list would probably be like:

S < Can get top 5 w/ little or no CPing
1-2. Fox/Falco
3-4. Marth/Peach
5-6. Sheik/Puff

A < Can get top 8 w/ little or no CPing
7. Pikachu
8-9. Ice Climbers/Falcon
10. Samus

B < Can get top 32 w/ little or no CPing
11. Yoshi
12-13. Doc/Luigi
14. Ganon

Honorable mentions/insufficient data tier:
Young Link (Armada)
Mario (Don't know A Rookie's results off the top of my head)
G&W (I think QERB got 25th at CEO or some other big tournament)

IMO, this format provides a far more concrete, informative, and wayyyy less arbitrary method of organizing character viability.

Keep in mind, taking data from top 32 means we are setting parameters for players not characters. As you can see, the list would still demonstrate a character's highest potential, but its doing so with the variable of player skill being (somewhat) regulated. Furthermore, the top level meta is the most "modern" and influential making it more significant to a tier list.

In closing, I am not arbitrarily ignoring the possibility certain characters lack the potential to get wins over top players. The parameters I have laid out actively explain why certain characters are being disregarded: they either don't have a top player using them (thus they have no one making them relevant in modern meta), or they literally do not have the potential to get to that level of competition (at which point, it'd be speculation to rank them and pointless to say that they can compete at "low level" since there are less constants at that level of play)

 

[FerrishTheFish]

It would only be nonsensical if we rated characters "bottom tier" if they have no top 32 results. I am saying that any characters that aren't repped at that level should go as unlisted; the highest average performance of a character in top level play would determine, not just their entry on the list, but also their potential viability.
...
The parameters I have laid out actively explain why certain characters are being disregarded: they either don't have a top player using them (thus they have no one making them relevant in modern meta), or they literally do not have the potential to get to that level of competition (at which point, it'd be speculation to rank them and pointless to say that they can compete at "low level" since there are less constants at that level of play)

You say it's nonsensical to rate characters "bottom tier" if they have no top 32 results. But that's exactly what you're doing: if you disregard characters, you are essentially creating an "unlisted tier" that, regardless of intent, is functionally indistinguishable from "bottom tier." Your parameters actually fail to explain why certain characters are disregarded, because unpopular characters are lumped in with unviable characters with no means of differentiating the two. And it is worth differentiating between unviable and unpopular characters.

Just because no one is currently making certain characters relevant in the top 32 of nationals doesn't mean no one will ever make them relevant in that environment, and there is no reason to cripple that chance by refusing to list them. Furthermore, the top 32 of nationals isn't the only competitive environment. By only considering those results, your tier structure is wholly catered to the 50~100 players who least need a tier list to tell them how to play. How will your tier structure be better for new players if it is designed to ignore the environments they compete in?

 

[1MachGO]

You say it's nonsensical to rate characters "bottom tier" if they have no top 32 results. But that's exactly what you're doing: if you disregard characters, you are essentially creating an "unlisted tier" that, regardless of intent, is functionally indistinguishable from "bottom tier." Your parameters actually fail to explain why certain characters are disregarded, because unpopular characters are lumped in with unviable characters with no means of differentiating the two. And it is worth differentiating between unviable and unpopular characters.

Your asserting a point entirely based on your personal interpretation of what unlisted means. All we would have to do is label "unlisted = insufficient data to rank".

Just because no one is currently making certain characters relevant in the top 32 of nationals doesn't mean no one will ever make them relevant in that environment,

This is literally why I want the tier list to be like this.

Spoiler

Honestly, our tier lists should be based on contemporary tourney results.

Jigglypuff, Pikachu, and Yoshi are all perfect examples of how speculation has failed in the past. We should stop asserting the potential viability of characters we have limited information on and just let the facts speak for themselves.

As for ordering, the mock tier list I put like 6 posts up is how we should organize it. A character's highest average placing at major tournaments will determine their respective rank and grouping.

Speculating viability is pointless when we can't foresee any changes in the meta.

and there is no reason to cripple that chance by refusing to list them. Furthermore, the top 32 of nationals isn't the only competitive environment. By only considering those results, your tier structure is wholly catered to the 50~100 players who least need a tier list to tell them how to play. How will your tier structure be better for new players if it is designed to ignore the environments they compete in?

How are we crippling their chances by refusing to list them? That literally makes zero sense. Are you saying we aren't crippling the chances of Pichu by writing him off as the worst character in the game? If anything, a result based tier list is more positive because its saying that unlisted characters have unexplored potential in top level play.

Saying that the tier list is being catered to the top 50-100 level players is also silly. The tier list has always been an encapsulation of the current meta and the top 50-100 are the ones who shape it. Saying that a tier list based off top level play isn't relevant to new players is like saying that new players shouldn't watch top level matches/tournaments because it isn't relevant to the "environment they're competing in".

 

[Circle_Breaker]

Scrub question: Is everyone really totally sure that Fox is the best? Is 20XX a real thing? Is it possible that at TAS level play there would be characters (I mean Marth) that could actually beat him in the neutral and win the MU?

Less scrub question: are all the tier lists with Peach in top4 due to Armada? I thought she had losing matchups vs. all the old top 6.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Your asserting a point entirely based on your personal interpretation of what unlisted means. All we would have to do is label "unlisted = insufficient data to rank".

Because stating that good players refuse to play certain characters in no way implies that the characters are bad, right?

Besides, there wouldn't necessarily be "insufficient data" if you weren't so fixated on burning everything prior to your personal SWF join date. When Armada chose YL as a counterpick to HBox's Puff, he didn't pull the name out of a hat. He did so based on data and MU analysis that was years old. He even told me that he didn't have any good Puffs in Europe to test the MU in the current metagame. "Old" is not synonymous with "bad."

How are we crippling their chances by refusing to list them? That literally makes zero sense. Are you saying we aren't crippling the chances of Pichu by writing him off as the worst character in the game?

Because writing off one character is just as stagnating as writing off 2/3 of the cast, right? Under your tier structure, if Puff gets pushed out of top 32 nationals by the overabundance of Foxes and becomes unlisted, there is no way to tell her viability is any different from Kirby's even though it clearly is. Your "improvements" to the tier structure have made it less informative.

Saying that a tier list based off top level play isn't relevant to new players is like saying that new players shouldn't watch top level matches/tournaments because it isn't relevant to the "environment they're competing in".

Congratulations, you have successfully combined a straw man with one of the most dishonest comparisons I have ever heard. +3 deception.

A character's placement on the tier list should be based on the highest level it can hope to compete at given optimal play. That's what the tier list is all about. Yet you want to arbitrarily enforce this pointless cutoff at the top 32 of major nationals. Just because the highest level a character can compete at might not be that high, or there simply is no player to rep them at their highest potential, doesn't mean we should ignore them. And you are kidding yourself if you think character choice/MU knowledge are as relevant as player skill when it comes to winning sets at local tournaments.

You have wholly catered to the top 50~100, not by basing the tier list off of their play, but by purging it of any information not relevant to those players. DK and G&W aren't used in top 32 nationals, but where they stand on the tier list is no doubt of interest to the local tournament attendees I wreck using them. Way to give them the finger by denying them an answer based on available information.

 

[1MachGO]

Scrub question: Is everyone really totally sure that Fox is the best? Is 20XX a real thing? Is it possible that at TAS level play there would be characters (I mean Marth) that could actually beat him in the neutral and win the MU?

Less scrub question: are all the tier lists with Peach in top4 due to Armada? I thought she had losing matchups vs. all the old top 6.

I personally think Falco is best, current results say Fox is the best.

As for TAS level play, I think its too hypothetical to gauge since its paradoxical for two players to be making perfect decisions at the same time.

At peak human play, I think Marth can beat Fox, and some would contend that Marth already soft counters him. (Mango believes Marth has the edge just because Fox might have to approach at some point)

@ FerrishTheFish I feel like you are getting too offended by this discussion

Because stating that good players refuse to play certain characters in no way implies that the characters are bad, right?

It more definitively states that character is unpopular/stagnating in meta developmemt. As seen with Yoshi/Pikachu

Besides, there wouldn't necessarily be "insufficient data" if you weren't so fixated on burning everything prior to your personal SWF join date. When Armada chose YL as a counterpick to HBox's Puff, he didn't pull the name out of a hat. He did so based on data and MU analysis that was years old. He even told me that he didn't have any good Puffs in Europe to test the MU in the current metagame. "Old" is not synonymous with "bad."

LOL a join date remark. I've been lurking/involved in Smash way longer than I have been posting on SWF. My smashmods account is 2010-2011 IIRC. Took a while to make a smashboards account but I am not a newbie.

I never explicitly stated that old = bad. MUs and tier placements are also two different things.

Because writing off one character is just as stagnating as writing off 2/3 of the cast, right? Under your tier structure, if Puff gets pushed out of top 32 nationals by the overabundance of Foxes and becomes unlisted, there is no way to tell her viability is any different from Kirby's even though it clearly is. Your "improvements" to the tier structure have made it less informative.

Again, "writing off" is just your implication when I have explicitly stated I am not doing so. I simply desire to not make any speculative conclusions about we don't have new, concrete info on. Incidents like Puff, Yoshi, Pikachu, etc. have repeated itself too many times, IMO.

Your hypothetical scenario with Puff is another instance where you are making assumptions as to how I would treat unlisted characters. Since Puff is different from say, Roy, or another character we've lacked high level data on for ages, we'd still be able to rank her until a significant amount of time has passed (definitively over a year). At that point, it would be evident that her meta has stagnated to the point where it would be unfair to compare her to progressed characters we are still receiving information on.

Congratulations, you have successfully combined a straw man with one of the most dishonest comparisons I have ever heard. +3 deception.

Don't understand how that analogy is a strawman. How is a tier list based off top level play not helpful/influential to new players? Also, why the hostility?

A character's placement on the tier list should be based on the highest level it can hope to compete at given optimal play. That's what the tier list is all about. Yet you want to arbitrarily enforce this pointless cutoff at the top 32 of major nationals. Just because the highest level a character can compete at might not be that high, or there simply is no player to rep them at their highest potential, doesn't mean we should ignore them. And you are kidding yourself if you think character choice/MU knowledge are as relevant as player skill when it comes to winning sets at local tournaments.

Why do you continually call it arbitrary when I have outlined my parameters/reasoning several times? I'll say it again, top level play represents progression of the meta and, thus, valuable data.

You have wholly catered to the top 50~100, not by basing the tier list off of their play, but by purging it of any information not relevant to those players. DK and G&W aren't used in top 32 nationals, but where they stand on the tier list is no doubt of interest to the local tournament attendees I wreck using them. Way to give them the finger by denying them an answer based on available information.

It isn't catering. If the tier list is supposed to reflect the modern meta, then we must look to the actual people progressing the meta (the top players).

Any characters present at that level of play is simply a result of whatever players of that caliber choose to main. As I've stated, this is something the current and past tier lists don't account for. How is it fair to compare Fox with Roy/Pichu when the same level of data isn't available? Top level players are progressing Fox's meta. Can we say the same for Roy/Pichu? In the year 2014, wouldn't ranking Fox as 1 in 2014 be based off evidence, and ranking Pichu as 26 be based off speculation?

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I feel like you are getting too offended by this discussion

Well, pardon me. I don't like it when people put words in my mouth, especially when the words are as stupid as

...a tier list based off top level play isn't relevant to new players...

That's a straw man argument because I actually said

How will your tier structure be better for new players if it is designed to ignore the environments they compete in?

Including data from locals and regionals does not mean excluding data from nationals.

Why do you continually call it arbitrary when I have outlined my parameters/reasoning several times? I'll say it again, top level play represents progression of the meta and, thus, valuable data.

Look, I agree that data from the top 32 at major nationals ought to trump all other available data sources. But you are making a huge leap in deciding that all other data sources are therefore completely invalid, presumably based on the notion that it's impossible to consider multiple data sources if one is superior to the others. I call that arbitrary because it isn't true. It is easily possible to consider data from multiple data sources with unequal uncertainties. I work in physics (I actually specialize in data processing and error analysis), and even when experiments are revisited decades later with vastly superior technology, the old data from the old instruments is weighted, not automatically thrown out.

Frankly, the players who were invited to vote on the official tier list are not stupid. They know friendlies aren't as valuable as tournament results. They know old national results aren't as valuable as current national results. But they understand that less valuable data still has its place in the analysis, and they use the best data sources at their disposal for each character. And yes, their understanding of the game and the top players gives them some leeway when it comes to filling in gaps. Incomplete data can be simulated---look up the EM algorithm or the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm.

In the year 2014, wouldn't ranking Fox as 1 in 2014 be based off evidence, and ranking Pichu as 26 be based off speculation?

In 2010, I bought a bookshelf and used a measuring tape to determine it was about 3ft tall. Four years later, I have access to an electron microscope. Is my measurement of 3ft now a speculation?

 

[Tagxy]

Okay, let me ask you this.

Prove to me that Fox is number 1 in the game in the current, 2014 meta. Can you give me top level gameplay, strategies, etc? Can you find MU data? What are his placings at top 32s when the best competition is present? Can you justify his placing without resorting to speculation/opinion?

Now prove to me that Mewtwo is (insert rank) in the current, 2014 meta. Use the same parameters as you did with Fox.

The comparison isn't fair because of the information available to us. So yes, M2K or any other player capable of playing top 32 at a major tournament not playing Mewtwo is hurting our understanding of said character.


Furthermore, I never said that definitive fact exists or that the tier list should reflect that. All I am saying is that we should only put up information we can prove. If a tier list is meant to reflect the current meta game, then all it should contain is information relevant to that meta (the meta being reflected by high and top level competition at major tournaments). Characters that aren't present in this meta are either not relevant or not understood.

And I am not trying to imply I have some kind of infinite wisdom, I just understand that the tier lists are disjointed and we are maintaining that through tradition. The top half of the tier list is provable fact and the bottom half is typically theory or speculation. (Which, again, if you are saying that the tier list should reflect the current meta, then we shouldn't rank low or bottom tiers). I actually made a tier list recently which ranked Mario at 9th entirely based on theory. I realize now that is pointless because getting a consensus on that is futile without concrete fact/current meta backing that claim up.

As for a result based tier list not requiring people, this isn't necessarily true. Unless the algorithm is very complex, people would be needed in the cases of Armada's Young Link. This is a situation where a character is at high level competition but is only be utilized in a specific MU. Furthermore, people are still needed for the conversation a tier list creates.

Ferrish had a great analogy so Ill just borrow it from him:

In 2010, I bought a bookshelf and used a measuring tape to determine it was about 3ft tall. Four years later, I have access to an electron microscope. Is my measurement of 3ft now a speculation?

We've known Fox was the best character for years. We dont need his 2014 success to be able to understand that. We have plenty of information on all sorts of characters, and while it might not be as thorough as what we have for Fox it still gives us a very good guess. Theres nothing wrong with making very good guesses as long as we're clear about what it is.

In any case, the real problem is youre definition of the meta-game. You want to restrict it to results when we have all sorts of knowledge and information that extends beyond that. If tomorrow everyone quit fox for a year, would he be the worst character in the game? No. While a list that reflects results alone is interesting and useful, its limiting when we can use that in addition to the vast amount of other relevant information to work with (frame and mechanical data, video and MU analysis, top player testimony, etc.). For instance, heres some outstanding analysis that can shape a tier list that you wouldnt have with results alone:

what i'm proposing is that Melee has been pushed to the point where, with a few exceptions***, approaching and jumping towards your opponent have become bad.

***to prevent any confusion, i'm going to elaborate on the exceptions to this rule. the exceptions are Fox, Falco, and Peach (and perfect Yoshi, i suppose). what do these 3 characters have in common? godlike, unparalleled shield pressure that is unorthodox for a Melee character. Fox/Falco/Peach's abnormally good shield pressure stems from their abilities to pump out frame advantage attacks on shield twice as fast as other characters (hence, people lol at attempts to shieldgrab these 3 characters). Fox/Falco have aerial -> shine, while Peach has float-cancelled aerials. take a minute to compare this to other characters' shield pressure. most characters aerial the opponent's shield, then either jab or dashdance around their opponent in an attempt to mindgame them. Fox, Falco and Peach hardly have to mindgame their opponents while they shield pressure them. their shield pressure is, for the most part, autopilot. as a result, playing offense is certainly a viable option with Fox/Falco/Peach. defense is still just as deadly with these characters, though.

Additionally as Ive mentioned you can create a result based tier list without people. Yes we could do it with people too but there wouldnt be much of a point if were trying to avoid anything with a hint of opinion or speculation, no matter how relevant it may be.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

So I don't have much issue with the order of the tier list (it is after all an aggregation and my personal nitpicks are irrelevant as a result), but the tier separations are extremely misleading and dishonest about the disparity in strength of the characters. I think it'd be much better if we didn't kid ourselves and put the entire top 8 in a single tier, among other issues.

Suggested tier separation (based primarily on numerical gaps in OP):
[collapse=list]
S Tier:
Fox
Falco

A Tier:
Sheik
Marth
Jigglypuff
Peach

B+ Tier:
Captain Falcon
Ice Climbers

B tier:
Dr. Mario
Pikachu
Samus
Ganondorf

C+ Tier:
Luigi
Mario

C Tier:
Young Link
Link
Donkey Kong
Yoshi

D Tier:
Zelda
Roy
Mewtwo
Mr. Game & Watch

E Tier:
Ness
Bowser
Pichu
Kirby[/collapse]

I agree with you, it is bad to group the top tiers so broadly. I recall making a graphic with more detailed tier separations, but apparently I didn't think it was appropriate to put in the OP? Its in this thread somewhere, I'll try to dig it up. Might be on a hard drive somewhere. I think the reason I left it this way was to avoid confusing new players, since they are the ones that actually get the most use from the list.

 

[1MachGO]

Well, pardon me. I don't like it when people put words in my mouth, especially when the words are as stupid as

Your quote in its original context was far more confusing. You claimed that my tier list was only applying to the top level players and seemed to be implying that it wasn't applicable to lower level players. I think you can forgive the misunderstanding and chill out, man.

Anyway, its irrelevant now. As for the bookshelf metaphor, (and this applies to @ Tagxy as well) the comparison you are alluding to is a case of apples and oranges; a physical measurement of a static book shelf can't be compared to a character's competitive expectations because those expectations are ultimately determined by players. Individual meta game, overarching meta game, social trends, etc. are all very organic, ever changing attributes which go into determining placement. This isn't to wholly discredit theory and concrete aspects such as frame data, but the fact remains that we aren't fairly/equally assessing the potential of every character in the game.

However, I think if any of us care/are going to progress with this dialogue, we should make it clear as to what our personal definition of a tier list is. Is the tier list supposed to represent theoretical potential? Current potential? Something else?

I used to be big on the "theoretical" tier list, but I think its not achievable given how skewed our data is and Puff/Pikachu/Yoshi are only testaments to that. I'd rather create a list that takes a snap shot of the current meta, can be proven by concrete facts, and doesn't impose itself on new players with speculative placings.

 

[Tagxy]

@ 1 1MachGO
The analogy works on a more basic level. In that having inferior tools can still provide an adequate assessment of measurement. Of course if you feel a tier list is dynamic then this wouldnt apply, but the only useful dynamic tier list I can think of would flow around results.

In any case, even though it took up a relatively small portion of my posts, I tried to emphasize that its possible to create different types of tier lists. I actually think one based on results is useful and itd be nice to have one with some sort of automated, constantly updated system for it.

Ive said this before, but my favored tier list is "theoretical" and based around the current meta-game. Meaning the summation of all knowledge and data we have, which includes results but also other information. There's a tacit acknowledgement that when referring to the current meta, the list is not definitive and future information could change things.

In that sense, the tier lists that existed in years past with pikachu, puff, and yoshi below their current potential were not wrong in the context of their creation, they just reflected the current understanding of the meta at that time. In the same way Einstein's refined understanding of physics did not invalidate the utility of Newton's. We acknowledge that for its time its great, but that future iterations are likely to be better and more precise assuming we've had an improved understanding.

 

[1MachGO]

@ Tagxy I just feel like we're assessing characters like Fox with MRI scans and behavioral studies, while Pichu is being looked at with Freudian backwardness. Its this kind of disjointedness that makes theoretical tier lists somewhat futile, IMO. You pretty much have to go into it knowing you have little frame of reference or the ability to competitively contextualize multiple characters.

While there is some merit to the theoretical tier list, I don't really see how it is objectively more useful than a result oriented one. Even the categorization is vague.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

[A] physical measurement of a static book shelf can't be compared to a character's competitive expectations because those expectations are ultimately determined by players. Individual meta game, overarching meta game, social trends, etc. are all very organic, ever changing attributes which go into determining placement.

The comparison is valid because the height of my bookshelf has changed about as much in the last 4yrs as the Kirby metagame. You don't need better tools or new measurements to evaluate either of them.

This isn't to wholly discredit theory and concrete aspects such as frame data, but the fact remains that we aren't fairly/equally assessing the potential of every character in the game.

So what? We can't assess every character's theoretical potential to an equal degree, so let's not assess any of them? Guess what, the road to knowledge is paved with uncertainty.

BTW, are you implying results from top 32 nationals "fairly" assess anyone who isn't Fox or Falco?

@ Tagxy While there is some merit to the theoretical tier list, I don't really see how it is objectively more useful than a result oriented one.

A results-oriented, top 32 nationals-based tier list gives you current info on Fox, Falco, a handful of other characters and **** all on everyone else.
A theoretical tier list gives you that AND a summary of our working knowledge on all the other characters, too.

You decide which is "objectively more useful."

 

[Circle_Breaker]

The trouble with theory is that you don't know what level of play to assume. Nobody will ever be frame perfect but where do you draw the line? How do you actually make a theoretical tier list? Also, the lower you go in the tier list the higher the tendency for matchups to be really polarizing, which brings up another whole complicated choice in the philosophy of tier lists.

Personally I think tier lists should be based on top32 results from all monthlies and majors of a certain size, but the results should be weighted by how big the tournament is and the percentage of tournament players overall using the character. So if there's only one Yoshi that even gets into a top32, but he makes it to top8 consistently at large tournaments, it would be enough to considerably affect his tier placing. It would also hopefully account for capt. Falcon's popularity but relatively low placements.

Obviously the system isn't perfect and maybe the community would collectively decide that a few of the placements needed adjustment but I honestly think it would be easier and better than trying to theorycraft a list. I mean I think the best we could possibly do is a list based on results with some theory used to fix the obvious mistakes - like if ICs didn't have any placements for the year of said tier list.

Basically lower tiers will always require more theory but you can assume at least that they are for sure in the lower tiers or else someone would have made them work at some point along the line - like amsa or Axe/anther. The possibility of this rise happening with more characters gets slimmer every year though.

 

[1MachGO]

The comparison is valid because the height of my bookshelf has changed about as much in the last 4yrs as the Kirby metagame. You don't need better tools or new measurements to evaluate either of them.

You are trying to compare the physical measurement of a static piece of furniture to the competitive ranking of a character within the context of a community driven environment. The factors which determine the elements to be measured are not similar.

So what? We can't assess every character's theoretical potential to an equal degree, so let's not assess any of them? Guess what, the road to knowledge is paved with uncertainty.

I specifically said potential; not theoretical potential.

BTW, are you implying results from top 32 nationals "fairly" assess anyone who isn't Fox or Falco?

Never said it was perfect, just said it was more reliable because its providing a somewhat predictable context.

A results-oriented, top 32 nationals-based tier list gives you current info on Fox, Falco, a handful of other characters and **** all on everyone else.
A theoretical tier list gives you that AND a summary of our working knowledge on all the other characters, too.

You decide which is "objectively more useful."

I've already demonstrated that a result based tier list would comprise 14 characters at least; over 50% of the cast shouldn't be considered a handful, imo. (Correlating to 93% of players based off that registered main list)

And if some of that "working knowledge" is incredibly dated and dubious hearsay, its hard to still view it as meaningful.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

You are trying to compare the physical measurement of a static piece of furniture to the competitive ranking of a character within the context of a community driven environment. The factors which determine the elements to be measured are not similar.

Well, my poor bookshelf endured unpredictable conditions like varying humidity and temperature, different altitudes, bangs and bumps, uneven floors, and a heavy bookload for 4 whole years. But let's take a look at your factors, shall we?

[A] physical measurement of a static book shelf can't be compared to a character's competitive expectations because those expectations are ultimately determined by players. Individual meta game, overarching meta game, social trends, etc. are all very organic, ever changing attributes which go into determining placement.

Individual metagame? Who has been advancing Kirby's metagame?
Social trends? What social trend has caused players to flock to characters that Kirby has good MUs with?
Overarching metagame? How does refining our knowledge of the top tier MUs affect Kirby?

It's like you think that Foxes are getting so good at Fox dittos that pretty soon Kirby will have a favorable MU against Roy. That's not what people mean when they say the metagame is a circle.

Literally all I'm getting from you is:

We can't use old or regional results or non-result based metagame because they can't assess all characters equally.
But you can use top 32 current nationals results, even though they don't assess all characters equally (Fox/Falco overrepresented, many characters not represented at all).

We can't rank characters who don't make it to top 32 nationals regularly, because that's speculation.
But you can use characters with only one or two strong players, even though that's speculation (underrated character, or player with exceptional skill overcoming inherent weaknesses?).

We're supposed to take your word on what data is allowable or not allowable (even tho you are unqualified as a player or scientist/mathematician).
But you can freely ignore the players who voted on the official tier list, because that's just dubious hearsay.

Etc.

It's just laughable how you completely dismiss entire arguments because someone put an extra word or used an analogy you could purposely take too literally. I'm honestly curious as to what you think the difference between "potential" and "theoretical potential" is, because aside from electrodynamics I've always heard them used interchangeably. When Zero told me I had the potential to become as powerful as him in Mega Man X, I kinda figured he didn't mean that I could have beaten Vile (first battle) if I wasn't such a scrub, but that I could theoretically incorporate other robot powers that would allow me to win.

 

[1MachGO]

Individual metagame? Who has been advancing Kirby's metagame?
Social trends? What social trend has caused players to flock to characters that Kirby has good MUs with?
Overarching metagame? How does refining our knowledge of the top tier MUs affect Kirby?

This is what I'm talking about. Questions that can't be answered for character x can't be so easily answered for character y. If there is massive data inequality, I fail to see what is to be gained from contextualizing a character we know little about with one we know lots about.

Literally all I'm getting from you is:

We can't use old or regional results or non-result based metagame because they can't assess all characters equally.
But you can use top 32 current nationals results, even though they don't assess all characters equally (Fox/Falco overrepresented, many characters not represented at all).

I already addressed this. There is no perfect system but this system creates some level of reliability and context. Furthermore, if we are only looking at the highest result of each character then we are ignoring popularity and comparing them with semi-equal weighting.

We can't rank characters who don't make it to top 32 nationals regularly, because that's speculation.
But you can use characters with only one or two strong players, even though that's speculation (underrated character, or player with exceptional skill overcoming inherent weaknesses?).

A top/high level player is a top/high level player. Main switching at this level has shown that movement has been predominantly lateral. Granted, Hax has progressed, but he has gone on record saying that he has been practicing way more with Fox than he ever did as Falcon. He has improved as a player; not just picking a better character.

We're supposed to take your word on what data is allowable or not allowable (even tho you are unqualified as a player or scientist/mathematician).
But you can freely ignore the players who voted on the official tier list, because that's just dubious hearsay.

People voted on it, it must be empirical.

If you think there is a more effective way to collect data, I am all for it. My only concern is that tier list placements are provable and reliable. The exact method or who does it is not my concern.

It's just laughable how you completely dismiss entire arguments because someone put an extra word or used an analogy you could purposely take too literally. I'm honestly curious as to what you think the difference between "potential" and "theoretical potential" is, because aside from electrodynamics I've always heard them used interchangeably. When Zero told me I had the potential to become as powerful as him in Mega Man X, I kinda figured he didn't mean that I could have beaten Vile (first battle) if I wasn't such a scrub, but that I could theoretically incorporate other robot powers that would allow me to win.

If potential and theoretical potential are the same then why bother saying "theoretical"? Isn't that just redundant to label something already theoretical as theoretical?

I see potential as being literal/proven and theoretical as being predicted. We have lots of evidence to say that Fox/Falco have the potential to get top placings in tournaments but we can't really gauge the actual potential of Kirby/Pichu/Roy etc. because we have extremely underwhelming data on them to make that kind of claim.

 

[Bones0]

The tier list simply needs to take popularity into account. If the list puts Kirby at last but, right next to his placing, specifies he has <1% of the community to draw data from, people can intuitively understand his placing has less meaning than a top tier. I'm not sure how it would be best to visually convey this data though. Taking popularity into account also provides a buffer for overrating the most common characters: "Fox and Falco are always in the top 8, therefore they must be by far the best characters." This is obviously flawed logic because almost any character in the top half of the cast is able to get the same placings with an absurd level of popularity. Anyone who thinks we would not consistently have Pikachu mains in the top 8 if all the Fox and Pikachu players swapped mains doesn't understand this game.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Yes, first round pools isn't really indicative of "good" play, but Big House 4 had 500+ entrants. Top 32 is a very small demographic to take data from. There were a lot of really amazing players that made the bracket, but didn't make top 32. For that specific tournament I would say the entire bracket (192 man) should be taken into account. If you take data past first elimination round, you've eliminated (at least) the bottom 50% of the tournament pool, which should be all the noobs/scrubs/etc that you are trying to avoid including in your data.

First elimination round is after round robin pools or after the first round of loser's bracket.

The tier list simply needs to take popularity into account. If the list puts Kirby at last but, right next to his placing, specifies he has <1% of the community to draw data from, people can intuitively understand his placing has less meaning than a top tier. I'm not sure how it would be best to visually convey this data though. Taking popularity into account also provides a buffer for overrating the most common characters: "Fox and Falco are always in the top 8, therefore they must be by far the best characters." This is obviously flawed logic because almost any character in the top half of the cast is able to get the same placings with an absurd level of popularity. Anyone who thinks we would not consistently have Pikachu mains in the top 8 if all the Fox and Pikachu players swapped mains doesn't understand this game.

I agree that we can overrate the characters we put more motivation/energy into learning to win with, but this is 12+ years after release: we know what the good characters are. Fox and Falco are popular because they are unanimously considered the best characters. People should be playing their best in tournament. So it follows that most people will use the best characters. It doesn't make sense that the user base of Fox and Pikachu would ever swap, anymore than the user base of Sheik and Mario swapped. Even if somehow that magically occurred, I don't think we would see Mario or Pikachu in top 8 because they will lose to people they would've beat with Fox or Sheik.

 

[Bones0]

I agree that we can overrate the characters we put more motivation/energy into learning to win with, but this is 12+ years after release: we know what the good characters are. Fox and Falco are popular because they are unanimously considered the best characters. People should be playing their best in tournament. So it follows that most people will use the best characters. It doesn't make sense that the user base of Fox and Pikachu would ever swap, anymore than the user base of Sheik and Mario swapped. Even if somehow that magically occurred, I don't think we would see Mario or Pikachu in top 8 because they will lose to people they would've beat with Fox or Sheik.

Yeah, we know what characters are good NOW. Just like how we KNEW Sheik was obviously the best character in '02. And how we KNEW Jiggs was mid-tier before King. Or how we KNEW Yoshi would never be able to properly utilize parrying to any meaningful degree. If we "know" so much about the game, then why do we even bother with tier list discussions?

Fox and Falco have been popular since the games release because they have fun playstyles. They have cool, canned combos (waveshine/pillar), fast and aggressive movement, and a very high tech ceiling (something that competitive gamers often find appealing regardless of utility). These are the same reasons Jiggs has been historically unpopular. These days, I agree that Fox and Falco maintain their popularity largely due to people considering them the best, but this only demonstrates the cycle I'm trying to describe. Spacies are popular -> Spacies place better -> Spacies must be good -> Spacies become more popular.

The only difference in opinion you seem to have is that you believe spacies being better was the start of the cycle. To me, simply comparing results to tier list opinions is clear enough evidence that the general community has a very flawed perspective of the efficacy of using spacies. They are, like you said, almost unanimously agreed upon as the top 2, but they don't have the results to back that up, and the unanimity (lol) extends to even the lowest skill level where players have little to no perspective on the game.

As far as Mario or Pikachu not being able to get top 8 with Fox level popularity, I'm surprised you disagree. I thought Pikachu was an especially apt comparison because he is so very similar to Fox. Their differences aren't all in favor of Fox, either. Pikachu's survivability from combos and gimps compared to Fox's is hardly a small advantage at top level play where Foxes get decimated by single touches all the time.

 

[1MachGO]

Yes, first round pools isn't really indicative of "good" play, but Big House 4 had 500+ entrants. Top 32 is a very small demographic to take data from. There were a lot of really amazing players that made the bracket, but didn't make top 32. For that specific tournament I would say the entire bracket (192 man) should be taken into account. If you take data past first elimination round, you've eliminated (at least) the bottom 50% of the tournament pool, which should be all the noobs/scrubs/etc that you are trying to avoid including in your data.

First elimination round is after round robin pools or after the first round of loser's bracket.

Well the problem with a larger sample group is the disparity in how we value data. The way I see it, if you are proven, high/top level player, you're results are meaningful because you are at the forefront of the meta. To elaborate, if you are a great DK player like Phish It or Green Ranger, you might be the best example for demonstrating that character's capabilities, but its hard to say if you also compare to top 32 players in raw skill.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Yeah, we know what characters are good NOW. Just like how we KNEW Sheik was obviously the best character in '02. And how we KNEW Jiggs was mid-tier before King. Or how we KNEW Yoshi would never be able to properly utilize parrying to any meaningful degree. If we "know" so much about the game, then why do we even bother with tier list discussions?

What don't we know? The things you are describing are advances in what we considered "humanly possible". We also used to think Powershielding consistently was inhuman, but then we practiced and it turns out thats not true. What advanced strategies are there in the game that aren't being utilized to nearly a TAS level now?

Fox and Falco have been popular since the games release because they have fun playstyles. They have cool, canned combos (waveshine/pillar), fast and aggressive movement, and a very high tech ceiling (something that competitive gamers often find appealing regardless of utility). These are the same reasons Jiggs has been historically unpopular. These days, I agree that Fox and Falco maintain their popularity largely due to people considering them the best, but this only demonstrates the cycle I'm trying to describe. Spacies are popular -> Spacies place better -> Spacies must be good -> Spacies become more popular.

The only difference in opinion you seem to have is that you believe spacies being better was the start of the cycle. To me, simply comparing results to tier list opinions is clear enough evidence that the general community has a very flawed perspective of the efficacy of using spacies. They are, like you said, almost unanimously agreed upon as the top 2, but they don't have the results to back that up, and the unanimity (lol) extends to even the lowest skill level where players have little to no perspective on the game.

What results don't they have? They are hands down the most winning characters in the metagame. Find me a grand finals set in the last year that didn't have a spacie in it. You really need to organize facts and figures before making bold claims like that.

Do you honestly believe that M2K has spent the better part of a decade studying every detail of the game but overlooked a hard counter for fox/falco/sheik/marth/... in the low tiers? Its not like he doesn't play those characters, he definitely does. Then multiply that by the hundreds and hundreds of other minds like his that have been put towards trying to take this game to the furthest. It really doesn't make any sense.

As far as Mario or Pikachu not being able to get top 8 with Fox level popularity, I'm surprised you disagree. I thought Pikachu was an especially apt comparison because he is so very similar to Fox. Their differences aren't all in favor of Fox, either. Pikachu's survivability from combos and gimps compared to Fox's is hardly a small advantage at top level play where Foxes get decimated by single touches all the time.

Fox players can struggle to make top 8 because he is the most popular character, but he overcomes that because he is the best character. If Fox were less popular, then less people know the little perks of the matchup. Then on top of that, Mario/Pikachu are as popular as Fox, thus everyone will know the matchup as much as people know our Fox matchup. But Mario/Pika aren't nearly as solid overall characters a Fox. They will get destroyed by all the good Sheik, Fox and Falco players, because those characters have 1) winning matchups and 2) tons of experience in those matchups.

So yeah, I really doubt Mario or Pikachu would be making top8 in those conditions.

Spacies are popular -> Spacies place better -> Spacies must be good -> Spacies become more popular.

Players want to win -> Players pick the best character
Players see spacies win -> Players pick spacies

The trend has been working this way for years, and slowly people are realizing that is very difficult to place at tournaments without using one of these characters. Popularity is increasing because consensus is made

 

[1MachGO]

What results don't they have? They are hands down the most winning characters in the metagame. Find me a grand finals set in the last year that didn't have a spacie in it. You really need to organize facts and figures before making bold claims like that.

*current metagame

Bones0 is probably referring to most major tournaments before 2013. Fox/Falco dominance was not NEARLY as prevalent back then as it is today.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Yes they have been. I compiled the Character Ranking List in 2010, where Fox almost DOUBLED the points of the next closest character.

Edit: And for reference, Puff was in the top 3 back then SOLELY because of mango's performance at Genesis1. Falco got a pretty good boost from that, too.

 

[Bones0]

What don't we know? The things you are describing are advances in what we considered "humanly possible". We also used to think Powershielding consistently was inhuman, but then we practiced and it turns out thats not true. What advanced strategies are there in the game that aren't being utilized to nearly a TAS level now?

SDI, powershielding, shield dropping, pivoting, aerial interrupts, multishines, waveshines OoS, grounded shines out of dashes, catching projectiles, Ganon chaingrabs, etc. The number of techniques being underutilized is actually quite staggering considering how powerful some of them are. These are just tech skill tools that haven't been optimized though. The game isn't all about tech skill tricks. Even if someone could play like a TAS, they still wouldn't have an all-encompassing understanding of the strategy it takes to outplay another human.

One of the most surprising breakout characters in the past was Puff. She didn't start seeing success because of some crazy new tactic that enabled her to do something that was previously impossible. King, Mango, and Hbox just revealed that she had effective strategies people had yet to tap into. There's no reason to believe this same surprise can't occur with another character in the future. Your belief that we "know everything now" is the same one people held back before Puff's metagame evolved. The parallel to technology or politics in society is also pretty clear. People always like to think that their country is immune to the government vs. revolution cycle that has plagued every society ever, and yet, it always seems to happen, and just as predictably, the next generation always seems to think it could never happen again.

What results don't they have? They are hands down the most winning characters in the metagame. Find me a grand finals set in the last year that didn't have a spacie in it. You really need to organize facts and figures before making bold claims like that.

Well first of all, you've committed the very common error of lumping both spacies together. Saying "name a GFs without a spacie" is equivalent to me saying "name a GFs without a Peach or Sheik." A character's results need to be evaluated individually or else you end up insinuating things like "well if Fox wasn't in the game, Falco would be winning all of the nationals!" (Not trying to strawman you because I know you didn't say this, but that's how it SOUNDS after you hear "spacies" used as if they are the same character a million times.)

My second point is one you probably already realize, but the scope of "Grand Finals" is terribly narrow and does very little to determine character potential. Surely you don't think Fox and Falco would be bad all of the sudden if Mango and PP quit/changed mains.

Thirdly, Infinity and Beyond 18 was 2 months ago and had M2K and Wobbles in GFs.

Lastly, you've completely missed the whole point of my post which is that spacies place high more frequently than other characters because they are more popular. If we took popularity into account when discussing placings, I'm very doubtful Fox or Falco mains would have a higher % of success than most other top tiers (offhandedly, I'd guess that ICs are probably the most winningest when taking popularity into account).

Do you honestly believe that M2K has spent the better part of a decade studying every detail of the game but overlooked a hard counter for fox/falco/sheik/marth/... in the low tiers? Its not like he doesn't play those characters, he definitely does. Then multiply that by the hundreds and hundreds of other minds like his that have been put towards trying to take this game to the furthest. It really doesn't make any sense.

I'm a pretty big M2K fanboy, but you can't be serious when you say he has studied every detail of the game... lol Anyway, none of the top tiers have a hard counter. That's why they're top tier... Not really sure what your point was with this tangent.

Fox players can struggle to make top 8 because he is the most popular character, but he overcomes that because he is the best character. If Fox were less popular, then less people know the little perks of the matchup. Then on top of that, Mario/Pikachu are as popular as Fox, thus everyone will know the matchup as much as people know our Fox matchup. But Mario/Pika aren't nearly as solid overall characters a Fox. They will get destroyed by all the good Sheik, Fox and Falco players, because those characters have 1) winning matchups and 2) tons of experience in those matchups.

So yeah, I really doubt Mario or Pikachu would be making top8 in those conditions.

Matchup unfamiliarity is a very real thing, but I guess you think it has a much larger effect than I do. *shrug*

Players want to win -> Players pick the best character
Players see spacies win -> Players pick spacies

The trend has been working this way for years, and slowly people are realizing that is very difficult to place at tournaments without using one of these characters. Popularity is increasing because consensus is made

If this were the case, why wasn't there a surge of Puff mains during Mango's absolute dominance with Puff?

What players have realized it's very difficult to place at tournaments without spacies? Hax is the premier example of a top player switching, but his results are noticeably worse than when he mained Falcon. Armada tried Fox, then switched back almost immediately. HFox... well... LOL... Fox and Falco being the top 2 has been the nearly unanimous consensus since at least 2010 just based on tier lists, and now that 2 of the top players capable of winning a national main a spacie, people go "OH SEE, THEY (finally) HAVE RESULTS!"

 

[Bones0]

*current metagame

Bones0 is probably referring to most major tournaments before 2013. Fox/Falco dominance was not NEARLY as prevalent back then as it is today.

Falco's results have actually been extremely lacking the past year or so. The only notable Falco mains are PP, Westballz, and Zhu, but only PP has really seen consistent success. Fox mains have definitely gotten some more solid placings than in the past, though. I'd be really interested in seeing a statistical breakdown of how characters perform at large scale tournaments like Evo, MLG, and Apex. Ideally we'd have listings for character usage for all entrants, but you rarely see that info even for all bracket players. Any amount of comparison would be nice though. It's just annoying there are no reliable stats as far as character popularity is concerned.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I'm not going to spend the rest of my week trying to explain things to you Bones. You have a terrible nack of not reading and not staying on point. Lets go back to what we are arguing about:

"Fox and Falco are always in the top 8, therefore they must be by far the best characters." This is obviously flawed logic because almost any character in the top half of the cast is able to get the same placings with an absurd level of popularity.

This is not flawed logic like you say. The top 8 of a tournament is the Best of the Best. You seem to believe that Fox players make top 8 by luck. The populous argument goes, "There are hundreds of fox players, so one of them is bound to make top 8". But if thats the case, why is it Hax and Leffen in the top 8 all the time and not Sveet and Bones once in a while? They make top 8 because they have pushed the game the absolute farthest. They have been tested by the hundreds of other players in attendance and came out on top. Having 200 other people at the venue playing Fox doesn't affect their victories in the least (in fact, it makes it harder for them, since there is so much fox practice readily availble).

It makes complete sense to see Fox and Falco in the top 8 of every single tournament and at least make a conclusion that they are among the best characters.

 

[Bones0]

I'm not going to spend the rest of my week trying to explain things to you Bones. You have a terrible nack of not reading and not staying on point. Lets go back to what we are arguing about:



This is not flawed logic like you say. The top 8 of a tournament is the Best of the Best. You seem to believe that Fox players make top 8 by luck. The populous argument goes, "There are hundreds of fox players, so one of them is bound to make top 8". But if thats the case, why is it Hax and Leffen in the top 8 all the time and not Sveet and Bones once in a while? They make top 8 because they have pushed the game the absolute farthest. They have been tested by the hundreds of other players in attendance and came out on top. Having 200 other people at the venue playing Fox doesn't affect their victories in the least (in fact, it makes it harder for them, since there is so much fox practice readily availble).

It makes complete sense to see Fox and Falco in the top 8 of every single tournament and at least make a conclusion that they are among the best characters.

Let's say the community is 1,000 people. 50% of the community are Fox mains and the other 50% are equally spread amongst the other top half of the cast (12 chars). If there are 8 players who get top 8 at every single tournament, one would expect there to be ~4 Fox mains among those 8 players. It would be the same 4 Fox mains at every tournament, but there's also 496 Fox mains failing miserably. Meanwhile, there are a measly 41 Pikachu mains total, and one can only expect 1 Pikachu main, if any, to be in that pack of top 8 players.

In this example, each individual Fox main has the same chance of winning as each individual Pikachu main (read: Pikachu is just as good as Fox and vice versa). However, because of his popularity, you're more likely to see people who main Fox placing high. Obviously I pulled these numbers out of my ass, but the general idea still translates to the actual community. The more popular a character is, the more chances there are for a high-placing player to come out of that character's community.

This is also skewed further if we accept that people who want to win more are more likely to pick Fox (which is something you seem to agree with). If Pikachu was viewed as the best character and Fox was viewed as mainly "for fun", even if Fox was a better character, Pikachu would see more tournament success because the players interested in winning would pick him and there would be more Pikachu mains from which an amazing player could arise.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

In this example, each individual Fox main has the same chance of winning as each individual Pikachu main (read: Pikachu is just as good as Fox and vice versa).

Pikachu is not as good as Fox, so how is your example indicative of reality?

If 250 entrants at BH4 played pikachu, still wouldn't have seen a pikachu in top 8.

 

[Bones0]

Pikachu is not as good as Fox, so how is your example indicative of reality?

If 250 entrants at BH4 played pikachu, still wouldn't have seen a pikachu in top 8.

Well you seemed confused by the idea that popularity among the top 8/16/32 was at all related to base populations of the general community. It's entirely your opinion if you want to believe ~4 Pikachu mains around Axe's caliber would have no shot of getting top 8, but to me that is gross overestimation of how relevant character choice is in this game. Especially when you realize Axe himself was 1 win away from top 8...

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

It's entirely your opinion if you want to believe ~4 Pikachu mains around Axe's caliber would have no shot of getting top 8

Pikachu loses to Sheik, Fox and Falco by a measurable amount. Axe is amazing, but he gets a lot of free wins from people not being ready for his tricks and strategies. The people who know the match-up and are near his skill level beat him consistently. If you increase the popularity of the character, the understanding of the match-up in the general population goes up in an exponential relationship.

When you think about your "what if" scenarios, you can't imagine a single tournament in a vacuum because that isn't reality. These imaginary pikachu players have friends and a local community that practice with them. They have some sort of history with the community, even if its just 6 months or something.

If every local community started having 5 pikachu players, people would have to learn the pikachu match-up. Under those conditions, even if 4 Axe clones were put in BH4 pools, I wouldn't expect any better showing from pikachu in the top 8 section of the bracket. More than likely, since the pikachu matchup is better know, Axe would've had a harder time and lost earlier.

 

[1MachGO]

@ Fortress | Sveet , your list only contributes to the popularity argument and its so obvious how user-base has skewed your results.

More players = more results

Notice how the "total" data for Puff is a fifth of your total data for Fox yet she ranks at 2nd. Fox outranked her through the sheer strength of popularity. I fail to understand what those rankings show other than that popularity provides more data.

Look at the actual top 8s for majors that year. The Fox representation at that level pales in comparison to what it is now.

Falco's results have actually been extremely lacking the past year or so. The only notable Falco mains are PP, Westballz, and Zhu, but only PP has really seen consistent success. Fox mains have definitely gotten some more solid placings than in the past, though. I'd be really interested in seeing a statistical breakdown of how characters perform at large scale tournaments like Evo, MLG, and Apex. Ideally we'd have listings for character usage for all entrants, but you rarely see that info even for all bracket players. Any amount of comparison would be nice though. It's just annoying there are no reliable stats as far as character popularity is concerned.

Yeah, it'd be interesting to see the correlation between popularity and placement with actual numbers.

As an aside, I have a theory pertaining to Fox/Falco since we seem to be the only two people who give credence to popularity being a major contributor to their success (or at least the only two people really vocal about it), I'd figure I'd ought to run it by you and see what you think about it.

Do you think the adversity of a technical character breeds better players? I've noticed that when most other games have their "technical" character equivalent, that character is usually like Ice Climbers; some abnormality makes them technical and rewarding, but unpopular as a result. Despite that, you'll still see good representation of these characters at high/top level (as we do with ICs).

Fox/Falco seem to be abnormal in the realm of "technical" fighting game characters because they are so popular; we see the Ice Climber effect on a larger scale.

In other words, not only can the likelihood of good players using character x correlate with popularity, but technicality as well. I mean, it seems obvious to point out that a hard working player is going to be a better player, but the effect compounds when that player uses a character that REQUIRES hard work.

 

[Bones0]

Pikachu loses to Sheik, Fox and Falco by a measurable amount. Axe is amazing, but he gets a lot of free wins from people not being ready for his tricks and strategies. The people who know the match-up and are near his skill level beat him consistently. If you increase the popularity of the character, the understanding of the match-up in the general population goes up in an exponential relationship.

When you think about your "what if" scenarios, you can't imagine a single tournament in a vacuum because that isn't reality. These imaginary pikachu players have friends and a local community that practice with them. They have some sort of history with the community, even if its just 6 months or something.

If every local community started having 5 pikachu players, people would have to learn the pikachu match-up. Under those conditions, even if 4 Axe clones were put in BH4 pools, I wouldn't expect any better showing from pikachu in the top 8 section of the bracket. More than likely, since the pikachu matchup is better know, Axe would've had a harder time and lost earlier.

I never claimed players didn't know the mu better in my hypothetical. While people know the mu better, there are also more Pikachu players to build upon the character's metagame. It's a two way street. Whether the advantages of being a lone character main outweigh the disadvantages is debatable, and would largely be mu/player dependent, but I certainly don't see it being the huge disadvantage that you make it out to be.

 

[john!]

in the old SSBPD they had an "average elo" statistic for each character. it was pretty random among the top 10 or so (IC's had the highest average, i think). this seems to indicate that there's a strong correlation between a character's popularity and their average strength at all levels of play. whether that applies to the top level of play is debatable.

also, two characters with equally strong results are equally difficult to play, assuming no outlying players. difficulty is defined as a measure of how much talent a player needs to achieve a certain result, and there's no significant difference between the average talent level of all players of a given character (personally i think IC's and puff players are slightly more talented on average, but not enough to have a tier-list changing effect)

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

@ Fortress | Sveet , your list only contributes to the popularity argument and its so obvious how user-base has skewed your results.

More players = more results

Notice how the "total" data for Puff is a fifth of your total data for Fox yet she ranks at 2nd. Fox outranked her through the sheer strength of popularity. I fail to understand what those rankings show other than that popularity provides more data.

Look at the actual top 8s for majors that year. The Fox representation at that level pales in comparison to what it is now.

I don't think you understand that list, then. It only gives points to top8 placings, and the amount of points it gives is directly related to the size of the tournament. Puff is 2nd because Mango won the largest tournament (by a very large margin) using Puff and Falco. If you take that single data point out, puff would've had less than half of her points. The list also takes into account all the small locals and regionals and everything in between.

Spoiler

Using Ankoku's method:
The math behind the list is as follows:
Base values are
1 for top eight
4 for top four
7 for second
10 for first

Base values are then multiplied by number of entrants and entry fee, then divided by 160. This helps account for larger tournaments being more relevant than smaller ones. If two characters are listed, both gain half the points. On that note, PLEASE ONLY PROVIDE MAINS. I don't care if you randomly picked Pichu for a random game in your first round if you spent the rest of the tournament as Fox.

I am not advocating the list type to be the "best" tier list method, just citing data unlike what Bones does.

 

[Bones0]

@ Fortress | Sveet , your list only contributes to the popularity argument and its so obvious how user-base has skewed your results.

More players = more results

Notice how the "total" data for Puff is a fifth of your total data for Fox yet she ranks at 2nd. Fox outranked her through the sheer strength of popularity. I fail to understand what those rankings show other than that popularity provides more data.

Look at the actual top 8s for majors that year. The Fox representation at that level pales in comparison to what it is now.



Yeah, it'd be interesting to see the correlation between popularity and placement with actual numbers.

As an aside, I have a theory pertaining to Fox/Falco since we seem to be the only two people who give credence to popularity being a major contributor to their success (or at least the only two people really vocal about it), I'd figure I'd ought to run it by you and see what you think about it.

Do you think the adversity of a technical character breeds better players? I've noticed that when most other games have their "technical" character equivalent, that character is usually like Ice Climbers; some abnormality makes them technical and rewarding, but unpopular as a result. Despite that, you'll still see good representation of these characters at high/top level (as we do with ICs).

Fox/Falco seem to be abnormal in the realm of "technical" fighting game characters because they are so popular; we see the Ice Climber effect on a larger scale.

In other words, not only can the likelihood of good players using character x correlate with popularity, but technicality as well. I mean, it seems obvious to point out that a hard working player is going to be a better player, but the effect compounds when that player uses a character that REQUIRES hard work.

Yeah, I think I already said something to this effect actually. Players who are really competitive tend to look for characters that have room to improve and push past the current metagame. However, I don't think this necessarily translates into better results because there are obvious benefits to playing easier characters. Not only are you less prone to mistakes, but a character like Sheik, Marth, or Puff seems much more conducive to developing fighting game fundamentals than spacies who have more abstract fundamentals when it comes to positioning. A new Fox player can focus on spacing, but there's so much other stuff to also focus on that it probably hurts their overall play for longer than other characters. I know I have personally always loved how Falco has so many tools to optimize, but I also realize I spent a lot of time learning "tricks" and a lot less time focusing on strategy.

I am not advocating the list type to be the "best" tier list method, just citing data unlike what Bones does.

I'm sorry I don't have advanced statistical data about character populations on hand... Either way, my general observation that Fox and Falco are more popular seems about as groundbreaking as your data showing they place higher more often than less popular characters. I never denied that or really even acknowledged the data you linked because it's so obvious. Everyone knows spacies play well. The debate is concerning the reason for their high placing. I feel it's largely in part of their high popularity while you seem to believe it's because they are inherently better characters. There is no right answer, so I'm not sure why you keep acting like there is. I'm just trying to convey my perspective because everyone else seems set on accepting Fox and Falco as SS+ God tier because Mango and PP win so many tournaments.