Mathematically Calculated Tier List. SECOND RESULTS IN! First post updated.

[NES n00b]

Most of those things you mentioned arent that bad like young link is a peach counter maybe not as bad as it says though and link and peach are pretty even but more in peaches favor i would say. Mario does have a slight disadvantage to doc. ETC ETC. Kirby and shiek is pretty ******** though and maybe a couple more are bad.

Did you read the part that said that Doc is just as hard to beat as Falco? Peach is a 6 against both Links really. Ness is not a counter to Link. He is not even with Mario. He does not own the low tiers.

Other comparisons like ICs and Samus are counters to Link is pretty bad. The main problem with this chart is that the matchups of low tiers vs whoever can be really wrong. The gigh tier matchups besides maybe Sheik vs Marth a fine, but the lower tier matchups aren't very well done.

Edit: Also, there is a part where it says that Sheik is easier to beat than Falcon with Samus.

 

[Vro]

Props for this endeavor. I attempted a similar project for Brawl, using the term weighted and unweighted. It's interesting how taking into people's response, the list changes dramatically.

 

[Blea Gelo]

i dont think that this can show the real character's power. Maybe some another type of tier list..

 

[battousai555]

Even though I feel that shiek is the best character when played perfectly for his ability to ghey and outprioritize fox and falco, his slight counter against marth, and counter against peach samus and cf.

So are you one of those people who think Zelda changes genders via magic when she transforms? Look at those hips! Sheik has to be a "she"! ^_^

 

[Matux]

Is this formula created only for NTSC matchups? Or will you publish a PAL version of your idea? I'm interested how would this list be.

 

[Mogwai]

uhg, I was hoping this thread would just die again when someone posted in it again.

I haven't done any work on this in a really long time and I've sorta stopped caring. It was interesting to me back when I thought I understood this game, but now that I realize that I really don't, I have no real interest in pursuing this further. The end result is basically that this idea is probably fine and would result in an accurate representation of a Tier List if an accurate matchup chart existed, but since we are totally lacking on that front, it's just best to let it go.

 

[Pikaville]

Hard times Mogwai?

 

[DanteFox]

don't give up, the tier list is flawed!

 

[Grunt]

2 many zombie bumps lately.

 

[Crizthakidd]

lol this one guy is making one for brawl too. i like these personally

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

saving my time a bit and not reading this entire thread, i will say that this method is flawed. the problem arises regarding the fact that a good 60% of the cast is unplayed because of their matchups vs the played characters. Sheik is not the best character in the game, but she is the counter to all those unplayed characters.

Once you start looking at the played characters you start seeing that sheik's matchups arent all that great. in the top tiers (Fox Marth Falco Sheik Peach) you see sheik's matchups are decent. fox and falco beat sheik, marth and sheik is fairly even though very slightly to sheik. sheik vs peach is a matchup i dont know too well. my only experience are sets between rob$ and wife and BigC vs Kels. both sets seemed very even. If you add in sheik's worst matchup, ice climbers, which have become one of the most popular characters recently, you see that sheik's overall tier ranking shouldn't be #1.

Fox on the other hand has no bad matchups. his worst two are marth and falco, which are both fairly even. Fox is the other reason that that 60% or so of the cast isnt being played. fox combos like mad and all aspects of his game (edge game, sheild pressure, control, ect ect) are all the best or one of the best.

Marth, who has the best range and priority in the game, is another character that comes to mind when you think of the best. His control and spacing can be the best in the game if used properly. His combos are also very good, which get led into by his defensive fair spacing and lead into kill moves (fsmash, dair, sheildbreaker) or edgeguarding. His biggest weakness is when you get in close on him, which is what sheik is very good at and why she was considered a bad matchup for him. the problem is, marth also combos sheik like mad and with moderate mindgames you can beat her approach.

Falco is the more recently popular character. In the last official tier list people greatly overestimated falco as being the 2nd best character. Falco is good, however he instantly became as king i think it was described it, the new sheik. everybody instantly learned how to beat falco in every way because he was instantly so popular. what happened was that he was really good for a short period of time then really bad. he is still definitely in the top few at least though. His combos are fairly good, a shine gets most characters instantly up to 50%+. his biggest downfall is just about any time he is off the stage is will probably die, not only due to the fact that his recovery is short, but also that it doesnt defend him at all (so he has to be near to the stage but completely unprotected). if he sideb's you can jab or simply punish the lag. sweetspot sideb gets dsmash/fsmash/whatever. any time he upb's he should die.

the last one is peach, but because this is taking a long time and i figure nobody is even reading this far, ill shorten it up. peach is good. dsmash, FC. nuff said.

basically, what im trying to say is that your method is flawed due to the fact that you are assuming every character gets played evenly. the fact is that there isnt as many YL Pikachus and roys as there are sheiks marths and foxs. to assume that gives the characters that dominate them and make them unreasonable tournament characters an unrealistic teir listing.

 

[GOTM]

good **** wes. those results didnt come out bad at all. although samus came out waaay to high, lol

 

[pockyD]

saving my time a bit and not reading this entire thread, i will say that this method is flawed. the problem arises regarding the fact that a good 60% of the cast is unplayed because of their matchups vs the played characters. Sheik is not the best character in the game, but she is the counter to all those unplayed characters.

Once you start looking at the played characters you start seeing that sheik's matchups arent all that great. in the top tiers (Fox Marth Falco Sheik Peach) you see sheik's matchups are decent. fox and falco beat sheik, marth and sheik is fairly even though very slightly to sheik. sheik vs peach is a matchup i dont know too well. my only experience are sets between rob$ and wife and BigC vs Kels. both sets seemed very even. If you add in sheik's worst matchup, ice climbers, which have become one of the most popular characters recently, you see that sheik's overall tier ranking shouldn't be #1.

Fox on the other hand has no bad matchups. his worst two are marth and falco, which are both fairly even. Fox is the other reason that that 60% or so of the cast isnt being played. fox combos like mad and all aspects of his game (edge game, sheild pressure, control, ect ect) are all the best or one of the best.

Marth, who has the best range and priority in the game, is another character that comes to mind when you think of the best. His control and spacing can be the best in the game if used properly. His combos are also very good, which get led into by his defensive fair spacing and lead into kill moves (fsmash, dair, sheildbreaker) or edgeguarding. His biggest weakness is when you get in close on him, which is what sheik is very good at and why she was considered a bad matchup for him. the problem is, marth also combos sheik like mad and with moderate mindgames you can beat her approach.

Falco is the more recently popular character. In the last official tier list people greatly overestimated falco as being the 2nd best character. Falco is good, however he instantly became as king i think it was described it, the new sheik. everybody instantly learned how to beat falco in every way because he was instantly so popular. what happened was that he was really good for a short period of time then really bad. he is still definitely in the top few at least though. His combos are fairly good, a shine gets most characters instantly up to 50%+. his biggest downfall is just about any time he is off the stage is will probably die, not only due to the fact that his recovery is short, but also that it doesnt defend him at all (so he has to be near to the stage but completely unprotected). if he sideb's you can jab or simply punish the lag. sweetspot sideb gets dsmash/fsmash/whatever. any time he upb's he should die.

the last one is peach, but because this is taking a long time and i figure nobody is even reading this far, ill shorten it up. peach is good. dsmash, FC. nuff said.

basically, what im trying to say is that your method is flawed due to the fact that you are assuming every character gets played evenly. the fact is that there isnt as many YL Pikachus and roys as there are sheiks marths and foxs. to assume that gives the characters that dominate them and make them unreasonable tournament characters an unrealistic teir listing.

it doesn't seem like you actually understand (and you even opened your essay with the disclaimer that you didn't read, which probably would have saved you some time)

on the initial iteration, it is assumed that all characters are played equally... however, on subsequent iterations, it is assumed that people flock to the better characters and abandon the lesser played characters

for example, consider instead that there are only two characters, A and B, where character A has a 6-4 advantage over character B from some supposedly accurate matchup chart


For the first iteration out of 100, they would each have 50 players

for the second iteration, however, the number of players for each character would shift, probably to (i haven't read this thread since the day it came out, so my memory on the details is hazy, but i get the concept) 60-40, or something in that direction at least

Of course with 2 characters, the list would stagnate rather quickly; with more characters however, the evolving percentage of players playing each character would influence the weights used to determine power levels for future iterations, so ultimately, it will be accounted for

obv the main thing is that making an accurate matchup chart is, in itself, exponentially harder than making an 'accurate' tier list directly, so this isn't a very realistic idea, but the logic is sound given an accurate matchup chart

p.s. why do people dig up these old threads =\

 

[Mogwai]

saving my time a bit and not reading this entire thread, i will say that this method is flawed. the problem arises regarding the fact that a good 60% of the cast is unplayed because of their matchups vs the played characters. Sheik is not the best character in the game, but she is the counter to all those unplayed characters.

Once you start looking at the played characters you start seeing that sheik's matchups arent all that great. in the top tiers (Fox Marth Falco Sheik Peach) you see sheik's matchups are decent. fox and falco beat sheik, marth and sheik is fairly even though very slightly to sheik. sheik vs peach is a matchup i dont know too well. my only experience are sets between rob$ and wife and BigC vs Kels. both sets seemed very even. If you add in sheik's worst matchup, ice climbers, which have become one of the most popular characters recently, you see that sheik's overall tier ranking shouldn't be #1.

Fox on the other hand has no bad matchups. his worst two are marth and falco, which are both fairly even. Fox is the other reason that that 60% or so of the cast isnt being played. fox combos like mad and all aspects of his game (edge game, sheild pressure, control, ect ect) are all the best or one of the best.

Marth, who has the best range and priority in the game, is another character that comes to mind when you think of the best. His control and spacing can be the best in the game if used properly. His combos are also very good, which get led into by his defensive fair spacing and lead into kill moves (fsmash, dair, sheildbreaker) or edgeguarding. His biggest weakness is when you get in close on him, which is what sheik is very good at and why she was considered a bad matchup for him. the problem is, marth also combos sheik like mad and with moderate mindgames you can beat her approach.

Falco is the more recently popular character. In the last official tier list people greatly overestimated falco as being the 2nd best character. Falco is good, however he instantly became as king i think it was described it, the new sheik. everybody instantly learned how to beat falco in every way because he was instantly so popular. what happened was that he was really good for a short period of time then really bad. he is still definitely in the top few at least though. His combos are fairly good, a shine gets most characters instantly up to 50%+. his biggest downfall is just about any time he is off the stage is will probably die, not only due to the fact that his recovery is short, but also that it doesnt defend him at all (so he has to be near to the stage but completely unprotected). if he sideb's you can jab or simply punish the lag. sweetspot sideb gets dsmash/fsmash/whatever. any time he upb's he should die.

the last one is peach, but because this is taking a long time and i figure nobody is even reading this far, ill shorten it up. peach is good. dsmash, FC. nuff said.

basically, what im trying to say is that your method is flawed due to the fact that you are assuming every character gets played evenly. the fact is that there isnt as many YL Pikachus and roys as there are sheiks marths and foxs. to assume that gives the characters that dominate them and make them unreasonable tournament characters an unrealistic teir listing.

I'm not going to sit here and say without a doubt that my methodology in this was perfect, but do at least try to understand what I did before making some sort of argument against it. Talking about how it is flawed based on there being an assumption that every character is played evenly just shows that you haven't even understood the method that I used and proposed from the first post. That's all well and good, but I know I've fielded questions like this before and just taking a few minutes to read the thread rather than posting the same argument again saves us all the trouble of misunderstandings like this. Besides, it really seems that you're arguing with the results, not the methodology, which means you haven't really thought about what made the results fall apart in your mind. In all the cases you're describing, the place that this process most likely fell apart at was the matchup chart, which, as said 1,000,000 times already, is just not accurate enough for this method to be successful at generating a reasonable tier list.

Anyway, Pocky's got a pretty good grasp on what's going on:

it doesn't seem like you actually understand (and you even opened your essay with the disclaimer that you didn't read, which probably would have saved you some time)

on the initial iteration, it is assumed that all characters are played equally... however, on subsequent iterations, it is assumed that people flock to the better characters and abandon the lesser played characters

for example, consider instead that there are only two characters, A and B, where character A has a 6-4 advantage over character B from some supposedly accurate matchup chart


For the first iteration out of 100, they would each have 50 players

for the second iteration, however, the number of players for each character would shift, probably to (i haven't read this thread since the day it came out, so my memory on the details is hazy, but i get the concept) 60-40, or something in that direction at least

Of course with 2 characters, the list would stagnate rather quickly; with more characters however, the evolving percentage of players playing each character would influence the weights used to determine power levels for future iterations, so ultimately, it will be accounted for

obv the main thing is that making an accurate matchup chart is, in itself, exponentially harder than making an 'accurate' tier list directly, so this isn't a very realistic idea, but the logic is sound given an accurate matchup chart

Thanks for writing this all out so that I didn't have to. <3 Pocky

p.s. why do people dig up these old threads =\

Yea, I have no idea how this thread got activated again...

good **** wes. those results didnt come out bad at all. although samus came out waaay to high, lol

there are a lot of problems with the results IMO. Fox, Marth, Sheik should all be above Falco and CF is definately WAY too low, but like, whatever, the matchup chart is just not right in a lot of places and if we could get those fixed, I'd stand behind the results generated by this methodology 100%.

P.TH. Thamuth ith just tho good at holding thtock, it'th no wonder thhe'th tho high on the tier litht.