Originally posted on AiB (http://allisbrawl.com/forum/topic.aspx?id=25256)
Tier list: A tier list is a ranking of each character's metagame, based on tournament settings. It is an indicator of how each character is expected to perform, under tournament settings, in relation to the rest of the cast. Thus, tiers measure the potential of each character based on all currently known techniques and strategies that have been shown to be useful in tournaments. (http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Tier_list)
Yes I realize that most people know what I tier list is
but if you need a reference I feel it could not hurt this argument. Unfortunately, it does not use very decisive language 
"Broken":A broken gameplay element (whether it be a character, stage, item, situation, etc.) is so overpowering that it ruins gameplay by supplanting other gameplay elements. (http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Broken)
People have been throwing this word out a lot recently. It almost seems to have a watered down meaning. Idk, probly my imagination.
For an example I will be referencing this here match up chart: (http://images.wikia.com/ssb/images/9/9a/Allcharactermatchupschart.PNG) Assuming this chart is fairly accurate. Which yes, it does have biases of course, but the biases of many researched experienced tournament players is logically to be assumed to be far more accurate than your brief experience with the game. (Although I had a similar thought during the development of the current Brawl match-up chart)
If you examine the chart you will see that not a single character is "broken". Not a singly character is so "overpowering that it ruins gameplay". BUT importantly, if certain characters were non existent such as Fox, Falco, and The Ice Climbers than Sheik would most assuredly be a broken element of the game. Or simply if Sheik was removed than Marth would more or less be considered a broken overpowering element of the game. Furthermore, if you were to remove all the characters higher in tier above Ganon, than Ganon would be be a broken character in the game. The point I am trying to make is that the broken factor, if you will, in the game does not matter about any singular character attributes, but in fact depends on the dynamics with all the other characters in the game.
But logically, at least to me and where I'm feeling many people are having a gap is, that tiers are based on the entire cast of characters. Let me explain what I mean...
->Fyi, this is not nescecary to read I just thought it was interesting <-
The Melee characters dynamics are in stark contrast to the fighter Street Fighter 3 Third strike. If you examine their match-up chart (http://www.eventhubs.com/guides/2007/dec/18/tiers-character-rankings-street-fighter-3-third-strike/) you can notice that even though the character Chun-Li has greater overall match-ups the character I would like to put attention on is the second called Yun. If you notice he does not have a single bad match-up and only a single even match-up. Making him almost entirely broken. The reason why I brought attention on this is because if you were to enter the tournament scene with this knowledge that with a character like Chun-Li you would have a slight more trouble with a character like Yun and with a character like Ken (3rd down) you would have slight more trouble with characters like Chun-Li while with Yun you would have no slight more trouble with any characters. Especially after considering that they are both most likely highly over played than the optimal choice to win tournaments would be to main Yun. The reason why this can be bad is that if people were smart knowledgeable enough to realize this than the tournament scene would mostly boil down to Yun on Yun action, leaving it more boiled down than it already is.
Oddly enough, a similar occurrence happens in Melee. The character Fox has a slight (and I mean slight) overall advantage over characters than Falco does, but Falco has only one slightly disadvantage against Peach, while Fox has two slight disadvantages against Marth and Falco. Furthermore, if you were to consider the frequency of Marth/Fox tournament goers compared to the Peach tournament goers or even how many many Marth/Fox's played at a high level of the metagame compared to Peach's, well Hell I'm not a tournament goer and I know the Marth/Fox's would grossly out populate the Peach's. And furthermore considering the overall population of low tier tournament goers and even how much having a big advantage to having a bigger advantage would even effect your tournament results,it seems that by a fair margin Falco is the best choice for having tournament success. The reason why I was a bit disappointed at how specific the definition for what a tier list is, is because it does not specify if having a superior chance at a tournament translates into having a higher tier placement. (Personally I think it should.)
->That's the end of that <-
The reason why I felt this was necessary to post is because I felt most people either didn't understand or didn't place enough value on the importance of character dynamics. An example that has particularly been bugging me is the claim that "Snake is broken". If by chance Snake had multiple bad match-ups, I can even name a few possibilities, lets see R.O.B., Falco, Dedede, D.K., Pikachu, Fox, and a few more less likely candidates, then BY NO MEANS would he be broken. So, until more data has been completed, people be needed to shut the **** up about it. Anyway, if your willing to look at it logically (unfortunately it doesn't look like many people are these days ) then you'll see that it ALL has to do with match-ups.
-> This is my second post on the forum. I felt that I may have done a good job overall summarizing what I was trying to say and was worth including <-
"You're all making things so fracking complicated. I'm not sure what you want to discuss in this here thread, or why you feel the need to clarify for yourself how competitive sports and games work. It's simple stuff. No essays required."
Except it's not simple stuff (apparently). I agree that I'm making this complicated somewhat, but only in an effort to make myself clear (if that makes sense lol =P.) I've tried explaining this in previous posts to a simpler extent, but very few people seem to be understanding what exactly I'm trying to say. I'm trying to discuss a different way of conceptualizing how fighting games work. You're character is only as good as the other characters in the game to summarize my previous post.
The basic example that inspired this "essay" goes similar to this: "Snake is BROKEN!!1!" Cries the oh to common poster. "How so?" I inquire back. "Well he's got like 20 killing moves and like lives forever and like range and projectiles!!" replies with an ever deflating argument (at least in my eyes), because all you are accomplishing is comparing Snake... to SNAKE!?!
Basically, CHARACTER ATTRIBUTES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH CHARACTER "BROKENNESS" So stop bringing them up! >_< But, I explained all of this in my previous post. If your willing to argue with the logic behind that premise of the post I would love to hear it. It could possibly help me refine the ideas even further. Otherwise I don't see a real point in posting other than trouble with understanding a point in a specific part of my argument.
-> Ended <-
Tier list: A tier list is a ranking of each character's metagame, based on tournament settings. It is an indicator of how each character is expected to perform, under tournament settings, in relation to the rest of the cast. Thus, tiers measure the potential of each character based on all currently known techniques and strategies that have been shown to be useful in tournaments. (http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Tier_list)
Yes I realize that most people know what I tier list is
but if you need a reference I feel it could not hurt this argument. Unfortunately, it does not use very decisive language "Broken":A broken gameplay element (whether it be a character, stage, item, situation, etc.) is so overpowering that it ruins gameplay by supplanting other gameplay elements. (http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Broken)
People have been throwing this word out a lot recently. It almost seems to have a watered down meaning. Idk, probly my imagination.
For an example I will be referencing this here match up chart: (http://images.wikia.com/ssb/images/9/9a/Allcharactermatchupschart.PNG) Assuming this chart is fairly accurate. Which yes, it does have biases of course, but the biases of many researched experienced tournament players is logically to be assumed to be far more accurate than your brief experience with the game. (Although I had a similar thought during the development of the current Brawl match-up chart)
If you examine the chart you will see that not a single character is "broken". Not a singly character is so "overpowering that it ruins gameplay". BUT importantly, if certain characters were non existent such as Fox, Falco, and The Ice Climbers than Sheik would most assuredly be a broken element of the game. Or simply if Sheik was removed than Marth would more or less be considered a broken overpowering element of the game. Furthermore, if you were to remove all the characters higher in tier above Ganon, than Ganon would be be a broken character in the game. The point I am trying to make is that the broken factor, if you will, in the game does not matter about any singular character attributes, but in fact depends on the dynamics with all the other characters in the game.
But logically, at least to me and where I'm feeling many people are having a gap is, that tiers are based on the entire cast of characters. Let me explain what I mean...
->Fyi, this is not nescecary to read I just thought it was interesting <-
The Melee characters dynamics are in stark contrast to the fighter Street Fighter 3 Third strike. If you examine their match-up chart (http://www.eventhubs.com/guides/2007/dec/18/tiers-character-rankings-street-fighter-3-third-strike/) you can notice that even though the character Chun-Li has greater overall match-ups the character I would like to put attention on is the second called Yun. If you notice he does not have a single bad match-up and only a single even match-up. Making him almost entirely broken. The reason why I brought attention on this is because if you were to enter the tournament scene with this knowledge that with a character like Chun-Li you would have a slight more trouble with a character like Yun and with a character like Ken (3rd down) you would have slight more trouble with characters like Chun-Li while with Yun you would have no slight more trouble with any characters. Especially after considering that they are both most likely highly over played than the optimal choice to win tournaments would be to main Yun. The reason why this can be bad is that if people were smart knowledgeable enough to realize this than the tournament scene would mostly boil down to Yun on Yun action, leaving it more boiled down than it already is.
Oddly enough, a similar occurrence happens in Melee. The character Fox has a slight (and I mean slight) overall advantage over characters than Falco does, but Falco has only one slightly disadvantage against Peach, while Fox has two slight disadvantages against Marth and Falco. Furthermore, if you were to consider the frequency of Marth/Fox tournament goers compared to the Peach tournament goers or even how many many Marth/Fox's played at a high level of the metagame compared to Peach's, well Hell I'm not a tournament goer and I know the Marth/Fox's would grossly out populate the Peach's. And furthermore considering the overall population of low tier tournament goers and even how much having a big advantage to having a bigger advantage would even effect your tournament results,it seems that by a fair margin Falco is the best choice for having tournament success. The reason why I was a bit disappointed at how specific the definition for what a tier list is, is because it does not specify if having a superior chance at a tournament translates into having a higher tier placement. (Personally I think it should.)
->That's the end of that <-
The reason why I felt this was necessary to post is because I felt most people either didn't understand or didn't place enough value on the importance of character dynamics. An example that has particularly been bugging me is the claim that "Snake is broken". If by chance Snake had multiple bad match-ups, I can even name a few possibilities, lets see R.O.B., Falco, Dedede, D.K., Pikachu, Fox, and a few more less likely candidates, then BY NO MEANS would he be broken. So, until more data has been completed, people be needed to shut the **** up about it. Anyway, if your willing to look at it logically (unfortunately it doesn't look like many people are these days
) then you'll see that it ALL has to do with match-ups.-> This is my second post on the forum. I felt that I may have done a good job overall summarizing what I was trying to say and was worth including <-
"You're all making things so fracking complicated. I'm not sure what you want to discuss in this here thread, or why you feel the need to clarify for yourself how competitive sports and games work. It's simple stuff. No essays required."
Except it's not simple stuff (apparently). I agree that I'm making this complicated somewhat, but only in an effort to make myself clear (if that makes sense lol =P.) I've tried explaining this in previous posts to a simpler extent, but very few people seem to be understanding what exactly I'm trying to say. I'm trying to discuss a different way of conceptualizing how fighting games work. You're character is only as good as the other characters in the game to summarize my previous post.
The basic example that inspired this "essay" goes similar to this: "Snake is BROKEN!!1!" Cries the oh to common poster. "How so?" I inquire back. "Well he's got like 20 killing moves and like lives forever and like range and projectiles!!" replies with an ever deflating argument (at least in my eyes), because all you are accomplishing is comparing Snake... to SNAKE!?!
Basically, CHARACTER ATTRIBUTES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH CHARACTER "BROKENNESS" So stop bringing them up! >_< But, I explained all of this in my previous post. If your willing to argue with the logic behind that premise of the post I would love to hear it. It could possibly help me refine the ideas even further. Otherwise I don't see a real point in posting other than trouble with understanding a point in a specific part of my argument.
-> Ended <-
