Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
If ratings have a large gap between them, then you can use that as a tier. Either way, it's all going in based on your judgment. If you're having a hard time with tiers, you could just put them all in one big list, just as long as the numbers are in order.
Or you can do both a tier list organized list and a list organized by ratings.
You should not organize it by tier list. This is a study that is separate of the tier list. The tier list should have no bearing on placement at all, even for organizational purposes. Even categorizing them into tiers of usage is questionable, because it would show inherent bias that may or may not be intended.
its just like that so everyone knows where to look for a character. and so I know where to look when adding more data. I know the tier list hands down but doing that to a constantly changing list is impossible
its just like that so everyone knows where to look for a character. and so I know where to look when adding more data. I know the tier list hands down but doing that to a constantly changing list is impossible
Wait what kind of formula are you talking about in this case?
I'm using the average because:
- A split between characters gives too low of a value, especially if players have a tendency to use lots of characters in tourney.
- A non-split between characters gives too high of a value, because in that case, we assume each character used by multi-main players was used 100% of the time.
- So the average between the two seems like the best measure of potential in this case.
Okay, first off, my schedule has taken a drastic turn for the worst(aka if I'm late to any of 4 of my classes which start early in the morning, I fail), so I'll be updating this on weekends from now on.
IDK, can you really say ICs didn't matter at pound? It's not like Marth VS Razer, where he was up both a game and a set, and won previously with MK. It was against someone who he had lost to with both of his relevant characters, and couldn't afford to **** around because he was in losers.
IDK, can you really say ICs didn't matter at pound? It's not like Marth VS Razer, where he was up both a game and a set, and won previously with MK. It was against someone who he had lost to with both of his relevant characters, and couldn't afford to **** around because he was in losers.
I second this point. It's possible for Ally to have won with MK, but he obvious used ICs because he felt that it was his best option, not as a joke character.
Interesting how in the last poll about banning MK, he had 22% usage and 25% of money won, and now he is at less than 19% and has over 37% of money. Or should I use the statistic that says 45%? I can't decide which is more accurate.
But also at that time, Snake was 13% in usage, and now is less than 8%. I guess the metagame was just more centralized in general then. Seriously, according to statistics, MK has gotten more broken since that poll. Peculiar...
Interesting how in the last poll about banning MK, he had 22% usage and 25% of money won, and now he is at less than 19% and has over 37% of money. Or should I use the statistic that says 45%? I can't decide which is more accurate.
But also at that time, Snake was 13% in usage, and now is less than 8%. I guess the metagame was just more centralized in general then. Seriously, according to statistics, MK has gotten more broken since that poll. Peculiar...
Oh my word, that's a lot worse than I thought it was. I was under the impression he was at ~30% at the time of the 4th ban debate. I'm defo. gonna be raising some hell about this for sure, now.
Also, could you link me to where you got your information? I could definitely use it.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh, and the reason why I haven't updated yet is because I'm still waiting on http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=300882, but here's the update info from last week for now:
It said that MK held 22% of all tournament placings, but I interpret that to mean tournament usage. Same for the Snake statistic.
The current statistics are from this thread, if that wasn't blatantly apparent.
Epix, that's really interesting. That means that, instead of a tournament winnings increase of 7%, as I initially thought, it's now 16%! That's very... how shall I put it... "decisive" news, as it were.
Anyway, here's the update. I never received any word from the tournament I couldn't identify, so I just left it out. Update info is up above, so I'm not gonna bother reposting it.
Anyway, enjoy!
Update Commentary
- Meta-Knight breaks $12000.
- Zero Suit Samus loses her viability again.
Oops, nvm, he WAS at ~30% winnings. Where did I get 25% from? I could have sworn... I checked the thread again, but still can't find 25% anywhere in it. I feel like I got it from the last 40 or so pages, which I skimmed through at school. Hmmm...
Update Commentary
- Meta-Knight breaks $13000.
- Mr. Game and Watch and Fox have both lost their viability!
- Zero Suit Samus regains her viability for the umpteenth time!
- Captain Falcon finally made some money!
Oh fine... just seems like a waste in my case, but w/e, I'll manage.
Maybe it'd be a good chance for me to note down some additional information from tournaments that I was not previously able to acquire because I started taking it too late.