The MBR average tiers

[SmashBroPro]

Okay Firaga has some good points on questioning Tiers, so I’ll respond.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re saying that a true Tier system can’t exist because the situations are always changing. You point out Bowzer having an advantage against DK (which I disagree with but that’s besides the point) and having a disadvantage in FD (I’d say only against characters with good projectiles).

These two points are called Counter Characters and Counter Stages and both are extremely important on determining the outcome of a match.

Let’s start this with an example of Fox.

Counter Level: Jungle ****
The fact that the water is so close to the edges makes Fox’s comeback especially awkward and the time he has to spend charging up makes him pretty easy bait for the crocodile.

Counter Character: Peach
Peach’s down smash out prioritizes so many of Fox’s attacks its sick. Peach’s up throw is just poetry in motion against Fox. And Peach’s b.a. in air neutralize both of Fox’s comeback meaning Peach can do some ugly things to Fox.

Now I’m sure some people disagree with my choice of Counter Level and Counter Stage, but that’s besides the point. The point is a character’s position on the Tier list is affected by what stage is played and who that character is facing. So Tiers don’t exist right?

Dead wrong. Tiers are meant to be a basic overview of a character’s total potential. For example I think Fox is a superior character to DK and I’m sure most people would agree with me. However, in Flatzone I’d give DK the advantage provided each player had fairly similar mastery of their player. Does this mean that the assertion that Fox is a better character than DK is false? Of course not. This stage is an exception to an otherwise solid rule. One need only look at how many tournaments Fox has won or placed highly in compared to DK to see this point in action. Nearly every rule you see in English or Math has an exception, this is just another case.

So when someone says Fox is Top Tier they aren’t saying that Fox is as good as or better than any character on any level. They are saying that provided the two players are of similar skill that on most levels and against most characters Fox will be equal or superior.

Anyone who plays cards understands what I’m saying. For example in BlackJack the goal is to as close to 21 as possible without going over with number cards being worth their value (3 of spades, diamonds, clubs, or hearts = 3pts), face cards worth 10 (King, Queen, Jack), and the Ace being worth the players choice of 1 or 11 points. Now any Black Jack player will tell you an Ace is undeniably the best card in Black Jack. However, there are situations were a player would rather not get an Ace (player having 11 points before getting the Ace for example). Does this mean the Ace is poor card to have in Black Jack? As a casino that and they’ll pay for your plane ticket so you can hand them your money at the tables.

So in conclusion a Tier System is simply a shallow, but still fairly accurate way to measure up a character. You could go into an infinite amount of detail to make this more accurate (listing counter characters, counter stages, item preference, play style, etc), but why make something more complicated than it need be?

 

[firaga01]

I think that Smash and I are trying to make the same point clear; there should be a tier system, but we disagree on how detailed it should be.

In response to Smash's last question, the answer is quite simple. Sometimes, details are much more appreciated than general statements.

If I told you that jumping off a few stories wouldn't critically hurt you, you wouldn't go jumping off the Sears Tower because you thought that it wouldn't hurt, right? Only real determined people would take my explanation to the limits.

Well, the same applies here. True, tiers SHOULD remain general enough for newbies to get started with characters, but more experienced players like to have a detailed list of pros and cons for each character and who can outmaneuver who. However, experienced players usually figure this out by playing continuously and accomplishing the age-old strategy of "trial and error."

If you're having trouble relating to my explanation, think of Pokemon. Water-types, for example, completely decimated Rock types, but rock types anhiliated Fire types.

Well, imagine not knowing all the strengths and weaknesses of your Pokemon. You would be half-blind, correct? However, you really do not need to know all such specifications of your pokemon because some types appear more than others. But as you progress on in the game, you keep encountering new and more exotic strains of Pokemon you never saw before. It helps to know all the weaknesses and strenghts of those Pokemon now, right?

 

[Deleted member]

"Well, imagine not knowing all the strengths and weaknesses of your Pokemon. You would be half-blind, correct? However, you really do not need to know all such specifications of your pokemon because some types appear more than others. But as you progress on in the game, you keep encountering new and more exotic strains of Pokemon you never saw before. It helps to know all the weaknesses and strenghts of those Pokemon now, right?"

Heh, a lot more than half blind in a higher level of play, but you are right. That's why many people learn their opponents weaknesses early. A good fighter is half their style and half their character. Obviously you can at LEAST get the characters down before it catches you in round 3.

"So when someone says Fox is Top Tier they aren’t saying that Fox is as good as or better than any character on any level. They are saying that provided the two players are of similar skill that on most levels and against most characters Fox will be equal or superior."

True, but you STILL shouldn't take that for granted. Despite the superiority of Fox, Marth, Mario, ect., you can ALWAYS get surprised. This may amaze some of you, but Fox and Shiek don't ALWAYS win every tournament. I won a tournament with Ness thanks to lots of L cancelling, Power Shield, and a heavy side-step dodge. Any character can do it, sure, but it's completely amazing how easy Sheik becomes to fight after enough practice.

I play Shiek, but I don't think she's better than Fox. Almost ALL Shiek players do the exact same things. It gets really easy to see the Shiek Slap coming, and getting trapped into the tilts or smashes is a matter of stupidity. Mistakes happen. Shiek does too, and more players than you'd expect can predict Shiek's every action. Like I said earlier, Shiek is easy to learn. Most EVERYONE can tell what you're about to use, because they'd do the same thing if he/she were playing Shiek. Fox maintains enough style to remain a random and unpredictable opponent.

 

[FaTaliTy57]

How is dr. Mario down there everybody said that he was one of the best and the computer doc is pretty good. Im pissed
well atleast fox and falco r up there :D

 

[SilencedViolence]

"So when someone says Fox is Top Tier they aren’t saying that Fox is as good as or better than any character on any level. They are saying that provided the two players are of similar skill that on most levels and against most characters Fox will be equal or superior."

True, but you STILL shouldn't take that for granted. Despite the superiority of Fox, Marth, Mario, ect., you can ALWAYS get surprised. This may amaze some of you, but Fox and Shiek don't ALWAYS win every tournament. I won a tournament with Ness thanks to lots of L cancelling, Power Shield, and a heavy side-step dodge. Any character can do it, sure, but it's completely amazing how easy Sheik becomes to fight after enough practice.
[/B]

You contradicted yourself. You won the tournament with ness... but that just shows you were skillfull... it does not disprove the equal skill concept. What ever happend to the PFS concept anyway (Perfect World Standard) where it was said that you measure tiers by comparing how characters do when everyone is equally skilled.

What happened to doggysmitch's ideas of uncapability of tier measurement? You have to realize that the was tiers are thought of today are based on today's playing style. Also, what happened to "no one is equally skilled at their character as some1 else is with another for an observer to be able to determine tiers"? Just look up the tier debates everyone. This has already been repeated... surely even within this topic, although I don't feel like re-reading.

anyway... I mostly wanted to point out that contradiction\ in your attempt to disprove the equal skill concept.

I'm so bored...

 

[BIGTOM]

I don't agree that with equal skill the characters, I have a different theory regarding that. Hypothetical( im not saying these figures are true) Say Shiek requires 20 skill points to use at an average level and Bowser requires 100 skill points to play at an average level, that would mean that a person with 20 skill points uses Shiek and a 100 skill point player uses Bowser then there would be a 50% chance that one would win, so it would continue like a 30 skillpoint player with shiek would be equal to 110 skill point player with Bowser and so on. Now that would make some character seem to be better than other characters wouldn't it. It also makes sense in regard to tournaments since if everyone is around say 80 skill points players using shiek have gone way past average and have mastered alot of shieks abilites. But if you use Bowser you would have no chance since you aren't at average abilites in comparison to shiek. The way to win at Bowser would require massive amounts of skill in comparison to others winning with shiek.

So those that go into tournaments would use someone that you can master and actually compete with others since most of the top players are gonna be equal skill so having the lowest requirements for learning would mean you can move on to mastery faster wouldn't it. Picking someone like Bowser would be stupid in a tournament as unless you have huge amounts of skill compared to everyone else then the battle wouldn't be equal. Even if one player has more skill it doesn't necasarily mean he will win because his character doesn't allow that skill to be used as effectively as another character.

There is also the thing that some characters have a specific style to them that if you don't excel at you are fighting a losing battle the whole time(Mewtwo). Those characters that can win with many different styles of combat, or even those that most people have will have higher levels of play attached to them.

Plus When those characters that seem to be better are recognised by many people then there will be greater debate going on around them, more people will use them and as a result there are more people giviing out tactics or finding out useful things in comparison to other characters that are not seen to be as good, less people will use them and they will be discussed less and have less people finding out tactics and that sort of things. It starts a cycle as those that appear good early are more likely to be taken to their potential in comparison to those that aren't as good early on. If lots of people use a character, it doesn't matter how good they are they will add to the communities knoledge of that character, so if a lot of people use them since they appear good and win tournaments the communities knowledge of that character will grow much greater in comparison to the supposedly less good characters ince not as many will use them or use them to the same searching as if a character seems worse then you will use them for fun and won't delve as deeply into their potential.

So in conclusion i think that characters that excell early on will turn out to be seen as better . Yes sometimes someone finds a useful ability that turns one character from "bad" to "good" but the chance of that happening is much less. The more people trying to use a character to their full potential the faster they will get better than other characters since their every secret is trying to be revealed by many instead of a few for the less "good" characters. And the way to have more people trying to use a character to full potential is to have a character look like a good investment of your abilites so unless they are good or look like they could be good early on they won't invest their skills and abilities into those characters. Tiers are a good indication of who will win but it is not because they are better.


i was just saying how a characters abilites can be limited by things such as people thinking a character sucks to start with. If a character doesn't appear good to start with they will have a harder time showing they are equal. I wasn't saying the tiers were wrong i was saying that the tiers aren't neccasariy and indication of the best and worst character. If bowser looks bad to start with less people will use him which in turn leads to less mastery of him whci leads to less knowledge being known about him. If one hundred people try to use a character to maximum ability in comparison to 1 million then the knowledge and strengths and stuff like that about that character are much more well know and will keep getting improved on from many people instead of a few.

Say there are two calculators, one is easy to use and the other is hard to use. Many will pick the easy calculator and few the other. It doesn't matter to most people that the harder calculator is actually better since they won't know. And out of those that buy the harder one alot will say it is bad and will get the other since it takes a bigger investment of time to work it to the same degree the other one has. Most will say its too hard and get the easier one before they buy the harder one. The easier calculator wil be seen as superior since many can use it well in comparison to a few using the other better, but they had to invest time into something that won't definately pay off. So if it takes a month to learn Bowser, even if he is better he won't get recognised for it since most think he is bad since he doesn't look as good as the others early on, and those few that do get good at him, even if they make him better than other characters will either be laughed at for using such a "disadvantaged" character or won't believe he is better. So if one person in the worldcan win with Bowser against anyone on any conditions nearly all the time then it doesn't matter since other people don't know.

The limitations in skill can come from little experimentation and all the stuff i said before. I said if a character appears bad to start off with he will not get the benefits of many people finding out stuff and using him so he will suffer in comparison to those that have many using and testing a character. Tell me if nobody picks a character does the communities knowledge of that character grow. Yes some people pick him but their is gonna be way more people picking other character and advancing faster plus even though they are picked they will not be played as hard as the other supposedly better ones.

 

[SomethingLeet]

I agree with BIGTOM.

It seems like the faster characters are the easiest to play and to get used to, so those characters are played the most, and characters that are played the most are considered good.

 

[NJE789]

Hey BIGTOM, I don't think too many people read anything past that first paragragh. It's not about which character is harder to master(which, by the way is Shiek. Bowser doesn't have very many combos and his poor speed limits his options in most situations, making it obvious which move is the right one to use, if there IS a right move, sometimes there isn't with Bowser). It's about set LIMITATIONS in skill. I think this has been explained several times already in this topic..

 

[FaxCo]

I'm new to the site, but I know a good deal about the game. Although for beginners, Roy seems like one of the best characters (did to me way back too), he lacks skills that Marth has.
I couldn't agree more with the top tier. Shiek, Fox, and Falco (I think when utalized to their full potential) are the three best characters in the game.

Fox is all around character, but lifted. He has blinding speed and carries a heavy aresenal with him too.

Falco, similar to Fox, but lacks speed. What he lacks in speed, he makes up for with his jumping height, his power, his weight, and his spikes.

Shiek is annoying to fight because of his ability to juggle, if used correctly. I think they did a pretty accurate job on the listings.



Zelda does seem inflated a bit hehe.

 

[Warlock*G]

I think I'll bump this... someone wanted to see the list, so I think maybe new users (like me! ) would want to see it too...

 

[Lemon Drop]

Dang, who knew Mario was so dang good.

Overall the tier list has evolved but characters that were consider the best were all ways at the topic.

Zelda is rather suprising being that high back in the day.

Also I was suprised this topic wasn't locked.

 

[Magik0722]

Holy crap thats a huge bump. And what a coincidence i was just looking at this thread yesterday.

 

[Grunt]

I agree for the most part, BUT WHAT ARE YOU DOING PUTTING MEWTWO AT THE BOTTOM, HE SHOULD EASILY BE AT THE TOP IF YOU USE HIS FULL POTENTIAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Other than that, it's pretty darn accurate, but Mewtwo should be WAY up there at the top.

I lol'd.




...oh yeah stop bumping stuff.

 

[slartibartfast42]

^^^

I lol'd a ton at that too XD, I was planning on quoting that at the end of the topic.

The old tier list is at smash wiki, so you could have easily just copy pasted it or linked to it and started a new topic for discussion of the evolution of the tier list.

It's annoying having all these really old topics bumped, but interesting at the same time :/ Like the awesome one about the evolution of the smash metagame from like 3 years ago that was bumped a while back.

 

[Grunt]

it makes you wonder, with this new AT found in Melee, what will happen now? C.Falcon even better because of an amazing wavedash? It makes me all fuzzy inside to see Melee is still evolving.

 

[Ja]

Sorry if this has been said, but it's a long thread. What exactly do those numbers mean? How much better is a 4.0 to a 3.5? And why is Zelda so high?

 

[slartibartfast42]

Zelda is high because this is the first tier list and terribly outdated.

 

[Mariofan12]

Mario is high up there, in 5th! I like this.

 

[Siglemic]

lmao @ m2k's first post in this thread

also nice thread revival lol

 

[Merkuri]

Well, we MBR guys have all given our personal view of tiers, and respectful member Eoraptor has made an average out of them. Here it is, the average tier, made out froma ll the tier views in the MBR:

4.9 Sheik
4.8 Falco, Fox
4.4 Marth
4.1 Mario
4.0 Zelda, Samus, Luigi
3.9 Peach
3.8 Dr. Mario
3.5 Ice Climbers, Ganondorf
3.4 Pikachu, Link
3.2 Captain Falcon, Young Link
3.1 Jigglypuff, Ness
2.9 Yoshi, Donkey Kong
2.8 Roy
2.1 Kirby
1.8 Mr. Game and Watch
1.6 Pichu, Bowser
1.3 Mewtwo

Thanks eoraptor. I didn't check the calculating but i'll trust your math here. And now, you lowly rats, discuss.

Lol this list has got to be a big joke. Mario above Puff, Falcon, Peach, Ganondorf and ICs? Lol.

 

[t3h Icy]

You kids are all idiots.

 

[NJzFinest]

Donkey Kong...

 

[Kanelol]

omg guys this tier list is stupid FOX ISNT ON TOP

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

when i first read this i thought it was a new updated list

i was like

 

[CloneHat]

There's no way Kirby, possessing less useful moves than there are fingers on a human hand, is better than Pichu, M2, or Bowser.

 

[NJzFinest]

I'm assuming Zelda's kick spam was broken in 2002

 

[TheManaLord]

zelda was so good back in the day. umbreonmow LOL!

 

[NJzFinest]

lol, I remember Mow saying something about going to tourneys just to MM people with Zelda, dunno if it was that way back though.

I do remember that Azen ***** everyone with Link back then. Also, all Falco players did was like, laser to smash (Anden lol).

In 2003, Ken started winning those item tournaments with ridiculous stage rules.
Took forever for the Midwest to get with the times and ban items >_>

I think someone should write up a year by year smash history log haha.

 

[Rubyiris]

lol, I remember Mow saying something about going to tourneys just to MM people with Zelda, dunno if it was that way back though.

I do remember that Azen ***** everyone with Link back then. Also, all Falco players did was like, laser to smash (Anden lol).

In 2003, Ken started winning those item tournaments with ridiculous stage rules.
Took forever for the Midwest to get with the times and ban items >_>

I think someone should write up a year by year smash history log haha.

Oh my god, please do! @_@

 

[Let It Riot]

What it does show you is that some characters had obvious strengths (fox, falco, marth, and sheik), while others took more time to develop and evolve to show their true potential worth.

 

[Phoenix~Lament]

Wait, is this serious?

LOL.

 

[Hax]

I agree for the most part, BUT WHAT ARE YOU DOING PUTTING MEWTWO AT THE BOTTOM, HE SHOULD EASILY BE AT THE TOP IF YOU USE HIS FULL POTENTIAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Other than that, it's pretty darn accurate, but Mewtwo should be WAY up there at the top.

this is so epic

 

[Эикельманн [РУС]]

I love smash history. <3

 

[AXE 09]

OMG

Even way back then... How could they think that Zelda was that good??? Ridiculous lol

 

[Anth0ny]

I agree for the most part, BUT WHAT ARE YOU DOING PUTTING MEWTWO AT THE BOTTOM, HE SHOULD EASILY BE AT THE TOP IF YOU USE HIS FULL POTENTIAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Other than that, it's pretty darn accurate, but Mewtwo should be WAY up there at the top.

LOL this is amazing

 

[giuocob]

OMG

Even way back then... How could they think that Zelda was that good??? Ridiculous lol

Well, she has a somewhat spammable projectile, a special move which, albeit quite slow, has a very large hitbox, her recovery is one of the better ones, and although the metagame was quite young back then, I'd imagine they could have devel-LOLKICKSLOLKICKSLOLKICKSLOLKICKSLOLKICKSLOLKICKSLOLKICKSLOLKICKS

 

[KirbyKaze]

The Zeldas never really let go of LOLKICKS so it's not surprising since LOLKICKS slays crappy players pretty easily.

 

[NJzFinest]

I can actually kinda see how Mario was so good backt hen. It's not like peoples DI was any good back then, so he had decent KOing potential.

Spaced Fsmash, cape predictable recoveries, and CC/jab to dsmash all day.

 

[THeDarKnesS]

Well, we MBR guys have all given our personal view of tiers, and respectful member Eoraptor has made an average out of them. Here it is, the average tier, made out froma ll the tier views in the MBR:

4.9 Sheik
4.8 Falco, Fox
4.4 Marth
4.1 Mario
4.0 Zelda, Samus, Luigi
3.9 Peach
3.8 Dr. Mario
3.5 Ice Climbers, Ganondorf
3.4 Pikachu, Link
3.2 Captain Falcon, Young Link
3.1 Jigglypuff, Ness
2.9 Yoshi, Donkey Kong
2.8 Roy
2.1 Kirby
1.8 Mr. Game and Watch
1.6 Pichu, Bowser
1.3 Mewtwo

Thanks eoraptor. I didn't check the calculating but i'll trust your math here. And now, you lowly rats, discuss.

WTF who is this dumb? mewtwo is way better and so is ****ing DK. ****in noobs

 

[THeDarKnesS]

Well, we MBR guys have all given our personal view of tiers, and respectful member Eoraptor has made an average out of them. Here it is, the average tier, made out froma ll the tier views in the MBR:

4.9 Sheik
4.8 Falco, Fox
4.4 Marth
4.1 Mario
4.0 Zelda, Samus, Luigi
3.9 Peach
3.8 Dr. Mario
3.5 Ice Climbers, Ganondorf
3.4 Pikachu, Link
3.2 Captain Falcon, Young Link
3.1 Jigglypuff, Ness
2.9 Yoshi, Donkey Kong
2.8 Roy
2.1 Kirby
1.8 Mr. Game and Watch
1.6 Pichu, Bowser
1.3 Mewtwo

Thanks eoraptor. I didn't check the calculating but i'll trust your math here. And now, you lowly rats, discuss.

This list is hella wrong.