Again, Isn't the primary factor of Tier List's are Matchup's?
The primary factor of Tier Lists is the ability of the "character" in the game. This is a direct result of the goal of finding the tiers being "to find the absolute potentially best character in the game."
Match ups play a significant part and eventually seem like the main factor because at the highest level, which is reached over years of playing the game, the character match up becomes very important to winning the given match at the time. Match ups do play a very large factor in the tier list otherwise because it indicates how advantageous and how frequently the advantage will come to every individual character through the roster of the game. This takes a long time to develop therefore it is flawed on its own until the final stages of developpement.
Results of wins vs losses are also a significant factor. This is not only the most reliable factor over the course of long periods and the masses, but also becomes the most flawed and error influenced factor in the process. All of the data from every match at a high level could be recorded and put together, then through a filter of mathematics could become a very accurate tier list. More accurate than any other statistics could create.
Though, at the same time, this naturally would take in human error (which consists of everything from missed attempts to having a good day), difference in skill level (including the largest flaw in that one could play the same opponent multiple times and another one of the same level could play a different level opponent the same number of times yet have different results) and time (which conflicts with the developpement that takes place and that goes hand in hand with conflicting the actual out come once developped)
However, in the big, final picture, this only goes so far. Tiers exist in everything. An example would be hockey (this is a really easy example for me to use and Mmac and I are Canadian, so sorry if someone reads this and doesn't understand lol).
Match ups exist in everything, and hockey is something so it inevitably has match ups. Just last year Montreal was undefeated against Boston. 8-0 I believe during the regular season. Then in the first round of the Playoffs, Boston took the best of 7 series with them to 7 games. The match up was one sided until they found what worked. Their teams didn't suddenly drastically change, they just figured out the match up.
For years, there were match ups in melee that were in favor of one character until finally the match up was done enough to develop fully and show the true odds. In Brawl, we're in the first year and already major shifts have taken place. Expect this to happen for a long time as match ups continue to resolve.
Wins and losses can prove to be the best source of information on who is the best in the game. This takes every aspect into account and files it into one. For the most part, this can follow the growth of the game as well as anything but the mind and experience at the highest level itself. Sadly, this is the most faulty statistic in possibly existence (exageration)
Every season, NHL staff and analysts come up with a very good estimate of who will win the cup, who will make the playoffs and who will be the worse teams for the next year. Every year they are very accurate. Even after large changes are made in the off season. Much like someone in the smash community discovering a new chaingrab or tick. The way the next season can actually be even slightly predicted is from results of the previous season. Just like the way we can find the tier list of a game takes into account where it has come from. Though it has never been predicted correctly and yet they've been doing this since the beginning of the game. Much like our community.
Even in the middle of developpement, what we know as the current tier list can dramatically shift. An example would be a mid season trade or sudden uprising in skill level on a team changing their game. An example that fits this is the year after the lock out in the NHL. (I love this example because it's probably the best prediction I've ever made in my life. And I got $300 for predicting it lol)
At the trade deadline, the Edmonton Oilers were barely out of the playoffs and they traded for a goalie. The rest of the season was a close battle between various teams to fight for a spot in the playoffs. For Edmonton, it all came down to the goalie and if he would click with the team in time for the playoffs. The last few games of the regular season, they dominated and got the final spot. Then, in the first round, they beat the best team in the league. Edmonton went on to the final and in the 7th game, the very last game of the season, they lost.
This type of change happens frequently. Usually not as significant but still worthy to note. Sometimes it can be a new "trap" style of play implemented because it's found effective, or maybe it's wavedashing. Sometimes is character based like a new goalie or new knee combo. The game always changes, or at least the way it is played does. This will forever faulter the earlier results to a point where the final calculations can be nearly invalid. And surely, not everything is being taken into account when our statistics come to an end.
Every game, every thing really, has different factors with priority. Match ups and tournaments have the greatest athority in video games like smash bros. Though with the other statistical atributes that can be found through playing the game, nothing will resolve because of the many flaws in the data creating different out comes on all fronts.
These two things, along with everything else, then factor in with what is known outside of statistics. The thing that often clashes with statistics and ultamitely makes the final decision in clearing out flaws to form the actual found data, knowledge and concepts into a tier list. Our own minds.
Well, Pikachu does not have broken range on anything except Dsmash.
Wario doesn't have broken range either. Half the cast doesn't, they rely on other things. Range is only one part of the game. Pika isn't good because of his range, that's for sure.
Pikachu's kill moves are limited to thunder, Dsmash, Fsmash, and Usmash. Honestly, I'd put him right above Ice Climbers.
And Nair is quite usefull. The kill moves aren't important though. Look at Fox, he kind of has fsmash, uair, bair and usmash but it's almost rare to see him kill with anything but usmash unless it's an edgeguard or something along those lines. And those are the kills Pika gets because he simply doesn't have a fsmash like Luigis or dsmash like DKs to rely on. Above all, he doesn't need it.
And where are the ICs? Only recently have they even been noticed, they'll probably end up in high tier or at least close. You think Pika should be there too?
Honestly, I don't care where Luigi is but I would like him to at least be in the same tier area as Samus because I do not beleive Luigi out performs her in moveset and matchups by that big of a margin.
Fair enough. There's nothing really to discuss here. My guess for why he's higher than her right now (in terms of statistics because that's what I would guess is the deciding factor in your mind) is how the match ups they do have favor Luigi. In that he beats better characters than her. But I don't think this is why he is a better character, or is thought to be better right now.
Mario does have problems killing anyone with good spacing by means other than gimping due to few kill moves and poor range so he does not outperform Shiek in this regard by a terrible amount.
Shiek does have decent range on a few of her attacks (ftilt, utilt, uair), she has a less predictable projectile (Mario's is okay as an approaching tool, but it is much less useful on an aerial opponent)
This is why they are very close in ability/on the tier. Through match ups, they're very close again. Both have room to grow but Mario has probable potential that she probably lacks. Possibly because he can actually kill at low % somehow (better than no way) and Sheik can be killed quicker from simply a couple big hits and Mario has things like the cape that having really been exploited fully yet. Though who knows what will happen with jackets and fluud... :O
lol
Sonic has better range than Mario, can cancel all of his approaches, has innate comboing ability, has a golden recovery, has a much better grab game than Mario, and that is only a few things Sonic has over Mario.
His combo game isn't something he has over Mario. Mario owns in that department. His approaches are good sure, but Mario is very diverse that way too. Also, he's got a great defensive game which stops approaches. Simply put, Mario can kill, is more versitile and balanced as a character and holds lots of trixies.
Like I said, I don't care much about Ike and I do not want to start arguing against Yoshi mainers about his placement
Regarding Ike, don't listen to me. I think he's garbage and people just don't see it yet. He's still good, just you know...he's already too high on regular lists for his own good. >_>
Tourney results are the best tool to analyze the current metagame plain and simple. And this metagame says Meta is god, Luigi is VERY underplayed (Personally, I don't think he is special due to his matchups with higher tiers), and that Yoshi has not be played to his full potential as of right now.
This is partially true. Though that rankings list goes back to just after the game came out. It's actually VERY far from "current". The part that is not true about tourneys being a factor is because characters get underplayed (like Luigi) therefore are underrated (like Luigi, and we all know what happens when people shut themselves off from using their own brains and stick to their stats, just look at what happened regarding Yoshi debates) No character has been played to their FULL potential. Some characters are rarely played to match what can be called their CURRENT potential and some characters have more UNTAPPED potential than others because of this. This is where tourney records go extremely wrong and why this "rankings" system was never made in making tier lists until this game. It had been done before, but it's amazing that it has actually accumulated so much decision by the masses that it's a set in stone type of thing on how good characters are. It actually confuses me because it's so flawed. But I think I've had this discussion before recently. So I'm just going to not talk about it. >_>
Ripple speaks the truth. Lucas has odd aerials, odd everything really. For me, as a Random main, he was the last character I could ever compete confidently with in tourneys and have yet to use him for counter picking in the late stages of large tournaments. His slow smashes, wobbly air game and quick tilts make him awkward for me. None the less, all of the weird traits Lucas has, when together, form quite an impressive moveset.
He has everything from good spacers to multihitters to spikes in terms of aerials. They are just weird as everything. His spikes are a multihitting down air that has a moving hit box and his back air (of all things) with bizarre knockback properties that seemingly depend on his momentum and the momentum of the target.
His ground game is good. His jab is possibly the quickest and he can hit from a good distance with everything. Finishing isn't a problem often and his approach often will be at the same time as his camping because PKF is so messed up.
I don't like Lucas though (because he screws me up sometimes), so I'm actually possibly biased against him, Ike and Roy (glad Roy's not in Brawl cough lol). Still, he's a mid tier character...low mid >_>
.
