Just pick a top tier.

[rpgfighter]

Sanford is not a smash player, he doesent know whats going on. He is just using it as an example.

I mean he plays MVC2 so I understand what he is coming from lol.

IMO tiers in any game dont matter much, but you must know them so you know what matchups you need to worry about the most. Overall tiers are just a list to see how hard you have to try.

And Matchup charts>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tier lists.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

Matchup charts ARE more useful... but they generally correlate to the tier lists themselves, and cannot by nature incorporate factors such as tournament representation. And you're somewhat correct that tiers indicate "how hard you have to try," but you're pretty much sh*t out of luck if you're against someone who put in the same amount of effort into a higher tier character.

@Shadic: Lol. It is BECAUSE of the game mechanics that Link is garbage in 64. The only top Link player you're going to find that beats out good top tier mains is Isai, but he beats everyone with Samus, so really, it's not reasonable to include him in matchup discussions. In fact, I would find it more likely for a Link main to win in Brawl since the game overall punishes less hard for lag and mistakes (or character flaws). You're not going to get 0->death for a missed Z-cancel in Brawl.

And Link is top of low tier in Melee.

 

[Shadic]

Most people could get 0-deathed in Smash64 for a missed cancel in Smash64, so that's not much of a point.

You give me a tournament-level video of Link beating an MK, and I'll be very, very impressed.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Some people are just naturally better with one char than another. Some people don't like the style of some top tier chars and they perfer low tiers.

 

[BIGM1994]

this blog is ******** alot of ppl like to be different take challenges and have fun and not be like everyone else..alot of characters are able to have top tier ability at there best

 

[Terodactyl Yelnats]

This thread has inspired me to use Ganon.

 

[TechnoDreamer]

Link is pretty much in the same place in the tier list in every game he's in. Link is more "viable" in 64 because in all likelihood, you won't be facing people who've got 0->deaths down (or in Link's case, Bthrow him off the stage with any character at 0% and lol at his recovery).



Infinite number of games? The difference between skill usually shows itself within one tournament game, at most two if you've got astronomically bad luck.

Actually, I don't know much about poker. The point is just that it is not completely random, and their is enough skill involved that some people consistently win money and some people do not.

The point is just that if I am the worst poker player, and play the second worst poker player for an infinite number of games, he will win infinite money after we're done. Any skill differentiation, no matter how minute (as long as it is nonzero) can be observed with enough repetitions. Although in practice, the number of repetitions even for something luck-based like poker, I assume is not very big.

There aren't many games that are completely random, maybe something like choosing on which side a coin will land.

 

[CasualGamer93]

ITT: Top tier trolling by low tier users.

 

[RATED]

srsly even if I main Snake bcuz IMO he's my favorite character to use and I use only him in tourneys. I think most non-top or high tier has a chance. wow has u seen tourney lvl Toon Links? Peach( she's freaking High tier IMO) ? Zero suit samus? Luigi ? . bcuz idk but IMO the tier list is kinda weird... look at the placing of ZSS! and TL WTF! same with Peach even if its true that Peach gets kinda shut down against MK she does pretty good against other MUs like ICs , Snake, DDD , Diddy. TL can do awesome against a lot of MUs too especially Diddy and ICs.

but even though I hate when non top high tier players that john bcuz of top tier mainers... srsly if u do that don't even post against this bcuz is yourself that enjoy that character and is not top tier mainers problem.

 

[Zaffy]

I don't pick a top tier as 1. I don't enjoy playing them. 2. I suck as them

 

[SmashChu]

Matchup charts ARE more useful... but they generally correlate to the tier lists themselves, and cannot by nature incorporate factors such as tournament representation. And you're somewhat correct that tiers indicate "how hard you have to try," but you're pretty much sh*t out of luck if you're against someone who put in the same amount of effort into a higher tier character.

No and No.

First, the line makes no sense. How, by nature, do they ignore factors like tournement representation. A tier list is a ranking of all characters and match ups are how two characters fair with each other. Tournement representation can affect both of these factors. Secondly, tournament representation is going to be reflected by the tier list and match-ups. If a character is never played, they will have a weak metagame, and vis-versa. Also, if the representation of the characters and their placement in the tier list don't correlate, there could be a problem with the tier list (this points out that a character is being played a lot, meaning the character could be good, especially this late in the game. The tier list can misrepresent that character). Also, tournament ranking are what really should make up a tier list as you know which characters are actually winning, meaning those characters are likely better. So these factors play a big role in the game. They are relevant to discussion.

Also, "someone who put in the same amount of effort into a higher tier character," means nothing and shows you don't understand tiers. Tiers are basically if both players are of equal skill, the higher tier character will win. This is effected by a lot of things

1. The players must first be of equal skill
2. assuming the match-up does not deviate from tier placement (Sagat in SF4 has a 50:50 with Akuma, but he is much lower then characters with 60:40 in Sagat's favor)
3. That neither player knows the match-ups better then another
4. That varying play styles don't throw off the match.
5. And other external factor (disqualification, mistakes)

Effort has nothing to do with it, for the most part. I could put a weak player with a strong player, and the strong player not care and the weak player giving his all. The weak player can still lose just because his opponent is so much better then him. The factor here is skill, not effort. Effort plays a role though. If one player isn't putting enough in, he can still lose, but skill is going to be the biggest determinate next to things like match-up knowledge.

Also, the tier list isn't 100%. It can be wrong and can change.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

Brawl's metagame has largely stagnated, so the underrepresentation leading to incomplete matchup data argument is for the most part worthless. In this way, matchup charts do not really acknowledge character representation.

I'm not talking about effort vs. skill. I meant the effort necessary, for instance, to learn matchup, frame, and hitbox data. The primary argument for people who play low tiers is the possible advantage you may obtain vs. someone who is oblivious to the character, since it is not likely for a top/high tier character to pay much attention to learning bottom tier matchups. If however, they DID put forth that effort... you lose almost any worthwhile reason for playing that character (under the assumption that you are playing competitively).

Why even bother mentioned players of differing skill if one of your own conditions for tier list consideration is that their skill levels be equal... It is blatantly obvious that if you have two players of equal skill with a matchup that is 50:50, the player who put more effort into learning the matchup, either via research or experience, will be in a clearly advantageous position.

 

[SmashChu]

Brawl's metagame has largely stagnated, so the underrepresentation leading to incomplete matchup data argument is for the most part worthless. In this way, matchup charts do not really acknowledge character representation.

All of this stuff is an art, not a science. For all you, know, the match up data can be wrong, Falcon is the best character but know one knows how to use them.

Most characters are not seen in tournaments, so I would not be surprised if a lot of stuff about those characters is unknown. I also doubt the notion that the metagame is stagnant.

Why even bother mentioned players of differing skill if one of your own conditions for tier list consideration is that their skill levels be equal... It is blatantly obvious that if you have two players of equal skill with a matchup that is 50:50, the player who put more effort into learning the matchup, either via research or experience, will be in a clearly advantageous position.

The comment was that the winner is the won who puts in more effort, but tier as not judged based on effort, but by skill. Like I said, skill is relative and what tier look at. Effort isn't clear. One player could put in more effort, but be less skilled, despite putting more into a top tier character. Effort is inconstant at this point, and can not be used to determine tier or even the winner. Only skill can be (but this can be changed based on effort).

The reason for the whole spiel on tier is because you did not understand the idea of tier. It has nothing to do with effort, how much effort you put in with a character, or how that effort effects your game. It deals only with skill. Also, tier list are ever perfect and can be thrown off or changed due to many a factors. I was just pointing that out.

 

[Dream Chaser]

If tier lists are supposed to reflect a certain metagame. As such the tier list should be identical to the rates of character tournament placings for a particular point in time (the time that the list is issued).
If this is the case, then voting on the tiers is unnecessary (the tier lists can be created by keeping track of characters' success through tournaments). By nature, voting introduces bias, which are variable in the perceptions of those who are voting.

Ideal tier lists are not perfect and are subject to statistical variations.
Tier lists created by voting on the part of players are not ideal because they introduce another variable (the bias of players, influence of a respected players' opinion on other player etc, and differences in experience of using and facing different characters)

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

Ankoku does have a character rankings chart that is based purely on tournament results. Take a glance and you'll see a lot of things wrong with it though for purposes of a tier list, due to general representation. Like Fox is retardedly low due to the fact that no one plays him here. And that Marth is so high because of how many people play him. These aren't metagame reflective. Marth isn't good enough to be 4th and Fox sure as hell isn't next to bottom tier.