Who is tourney viable

[Falconv1.0]

-.-
Whats with all this bs thinking I dont know what tiers are.... And the gimpyfish example kinda proved my point. And why would you bring an example ?? There are tons of good people who played low tier chars.

...Good people. Yes. Bad characters, yes. And they have stated that not only that their character is bad, but that he/she isn't viable, they are just getting in that top 10 out of pure skill. We aren't determining viability by skill, we're determining by who in the end will win a tourney when two equally skilled players match up.

And wow, you missed the point about Gimpyfish entirely, which was that they wont beat someone as skilled as them, thus, making their character NOT VIABLE.


ph00tbag basically stated this perfectly, now go away. >.>

I am kinda questioning about PT's viability, seeing how non PT players say Squirtle is the best of the three, PT players claim LIZARDON is the best of the three, but all seem to agree the other two aren't that good. Adding 1 good character in the mix of 2 mediocre ones does not make a good mix up, math says so. I don't challenge math, then my head hurts.

Someone claimed everyone but Jiggly and Falcon are viable. Ehhh, Falcon>Ganon.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Eh, Sonic is like C.Falcon, but without any chance of winning.

You are joking right?

I am wondering if people stick their heads in the sand or something.
That goes for gingerr as well considering I tore her argument to shreds in the tier list topic.

*sigh*

you know what forget it, I am done.
I am not gonna bother arguing with people who stick their heads in the sand.


Moving on.
in Brawl I think the only tournament viable character would be upper mid tier and up.
Lower mid tier is a bit of a stretch but low tier and bottom tier definitely aren't tournament viable.

 

[Foxy_Marth]

-_-

Just because a low tier has won a tournament somewhere, doesn't make them equally as viable as any other character. Every single character is has a level of tourney viability, but by tournament viable, I think what the OP really means to say "If I wanted to maximise my chances of winning a tournament, who should I use?".

Ankoku's character ranking list is a good example of this. Sure, each character on the list shows their potential to do well, but there is a gaping difference between the top and bottom of the ranking that proves their is a variance in each character's viability to win a tournament. What is proved by Ankoku's list is that some characters are more popular as tournament winning characters Just because people main a low tier, doesn't mean they won't switch to a tournament winning character when they need to.

But some players will continue to ignore tournament viability, and play who they want, which is great. Some of this forum's most respected players play low tier characters at tournaments and do well because of their skill with their characters. However, this is not a level of playing ability that just everyone can pick up.

If people want to win tournaments, they're going to want to maximise their chances of winning. And this is done by choosing the characters considered most viable to win a tournament.

One reply to this: DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh

This is the biggest duh post thats actually replied to me. Yes you replied intellegently. But its almost like the other guy jumping to conclusions thinking im a scrub.

Funnny how you quoted the bottom line of my message but didnt mention QUARTER OF A YEAR AFTER RELEASE.

 

[Foxy_Marth]

I missed the Gimpyfish ball but... seriously I thought you were saying bottom tier chars could win?

What you shouldve said is someone whose really good with DK but can get counterpicked by a scrub DeDeDe or something

 

[ShadowLink84]

Use the edit button.

 

[Kitamerby]

Or said Yoshi could just be another azen <_<

HE'S OURS. GET YOUR OWN. D:<

Seriously, Yoshi has potential. Very little, but it's there.

Edit: Edds, you're right that it's a challenge to use them. At this very moment, I don't think that Yoshi can win under the circumstances right now, but later in the metagame, I think he's gonna be a tourney viable character. He does well against some of the high tiers than most that get wrecked by them. Plus, no one really hasn't gotten Yoshi to the true amount of what Yoshi can do. It's mainly up in the air for Yoshi.

Edit edit: Falcon, you could at least say that Yoshi's chances of winning a tourney are super slim. They're not impossible. <_< I hate it when people exaggerate so much like that.

Actually, yeah. It seems that Yoshi has at least SOME things going for him nowadays. I've never fought a good one myself, but I've heard tons of complaints from people who have fought one...

Ankoku's character ranking list is a good example of this. Sure, each character on the list shows their potential to do well, but there is a gaping difference between the top and bottom of the ranking that proves their is a variance in each character's viability to win a tournament. What is proved by Ankoku's list is that some characters are more popular as tournament winning characters Just because people main a low tier, doesn't mean they won't switch to a tournament winning character when they need to.

I'm not too sure about that "popularity" statement. Take Lucario. He's rare as hell, but the only reason he's up so high is because the very few Lucario users are **** good at him and ****** as they can. However, you have a point, as Toon Link, Lucas, and Luigi, who everyone knows are very good, are not as popular, and the few people who do use them just plain aren't good enough (yet) to truly **** the competition.

But some players will continue to ignore tournament viability, and play who they want, which is great. Some of this forum's most respected players play low tier characters at tournaments and do well because of their skill with their characters. However, this is not a level of playing ability that just everyone can pick up.

If people want to win tournaments, they're going to want to maximise their chances of winning. And this is done by choosing the characters considered most viable to win a tournament.

True. However, the definition of a "tournament viable" character is extremely fuzzy at this point. Once again, the game is too new to truly understand the definition of "tourney viable." There's a Mario user ****** the competition now where I live, and a Samus user who's absolutely wrecking all in his path.

I missed the Gimpyfish ball but... seriously I thought you were saying bottom tier chars could win?

What you shouldve said is someone whose really good with DK but can get counterpicked by a scrub DeDeDe or something

Good luck with that mentality. There are only a few TRUE hard counters, but even THEY can be overcome with enough skill. The funny part is that most of the "very hard counters" are based on chaingrabs or some other damage-racking combo that if performed perfectly will cause a stock-loss. The reality is that no n00b can hope to counterpick D3 against a good DK and hope to be on his way. The DK can and will exploit the D3's pathetic attempt at going for the grab and will completely own him. There was a story in another topic from a D3 main who tried it against a good DK and got owned hard. There are very few match-ups in which one player will beat another when there's an obvious skill gap, and with a high enough skill gap, even those can be overcome.

 

[Falconv1.0]

On a side note

Lucario is sexy. I'd main him if Sheik didn't exist.

EDIT:@Shadowlink: I was being sarcastic to see how long it would take for some guy to actually notice I said that.

High five. Or not, I don't care.

 

[isomorphism]

Being infinited by one character doesn't by itself make you not tourney viable, that's what counterpicks are for (e.g. someone using Falco vs. D3 and DK everywhere else). If you don't do well vs. most / all of the high tiers, though, you're probably in trouble.

 

[Morrigan]

Do you really have to act as if you were on PMS, Falconv? >_>

The guy is just stating his opinions, yes, anyone could probably be in favor or against him, that usually happens in forums, people discuss. But telling him to leave the thread...really?

 

[Falconv1.0]

The guy is just stating his opinions, yes, anyone could probably be in favor or against him, that usually happens in forums, people discuss. But telling him to leave the thread...really?

No, I don't need scrub spam. There is a huge difference between opinion and fact. Saying all characters can win is always said with real dumb supporting arguments, and is a debate that cant be won. Some characters aren't viable, because of how ***** they are by the big guys. Arguing that is just not smart.

Especially the "Any character is viable if your good enough" statement. That's just plain ignorant.

And lololololol PMS, this is what I'm like when I'm bored out of my head.

 

[Wildfire393]

I'd say the top three tiers of Japan's rankings are all characters that are tournament viable, no contest. So Snake, Falco, Metaknight, ROB, Fox, Diddy, Marth, Wolf, Game and Watch, Toon Link, and Pit. Their fourth tier is almost all tourney viable. Lucario, Zero Suit Samus, Ice Climbers, Olimar, and Pikachu are all good characters. Mario is just crap. Their fifth tier is composed almost entirely of characters I think should be in the first three or four tiers: Kirby, Sheik, DDD, Lucas, maybe Luigi, and Wario. Of their bottom three tiers, I think DK and Zelda, maybe Ike, should be a bit higher.

The rest: Sonic, Peach, Bowser, Ness, Link, Samus, Captain Falcon, Jigglypuff, Pokemon Trainer, Yoshi, Ganon, and Mario are the characters I would deem "unplayable". Or at least, non-viable in tourneys.

 

[Yukiwarashi]

Stop. Stop. STOP.

STOP REFERENCING THE JAPANESE LIST.

It's made up by a bunch of nobodies! No Japanese pro had any involvement in that list!

kthx.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I'm gonna edit the op so it's something along the lines of stfu and discuss.

 

[Adapt]

btw you are not posting the most up-to-date data from Ankoku's topic.... look under all the statistics and there's a updated list with no details:

S: Snake, Meta Knight, King Dedede
A: Mr. Game & Watch, Marth, Wario
B: ROB, Falco, Lucario, Olimar
C: Donkey Kong, Fox, Wolf, Kirby, Ice Climbers, Pit
D: Ness, Zero Suit Samus, Diddy Kong, Peach, Pikachu, Zelda, Toon Link
E: Samus, Bowser, Luigi, Ike, Jigglypuff, Lucas, Sonic, Mario, SheikZelda, Link, Pokémon Trainer, Captain Falcon
U: Ganondorf, Sheik, Yoshi

 

[The Halloween Captain]

So far I am hesitant to declare any character not tourney-viable, as even Captain Falcon's CPU never ceases to amaze me (I don't lose, but he is a lot tougher than a distracted F-smash spammer would think after all the negativity surrounding him from Smash Boards).

However, I only know of three characters who seem to have little potential at this point - CF, Ganon, and Jiggs. The reason I say these three is only half because of Smash Boards. Its also because CF has no priority and his moves don't string together, Ganon is a really slow-moving CF, and Jiggs has terrible priority for an aerial fighter. I hesitate even with these, as Jigg's down-b is significantly easier to execute in melee as in Brawl and for all its nerfing, it is still a good move, Captain Falcon is like a fast Ganon, and the Smash Back Room thought Ganon had potential.

 

[RDK]

True. However, the definition of a "tournament viable" character is extremely fuzzy at this point. Once again, the game is too new to truly understand the definition of "tourney viable." There's a Mario user ****** the competition now where I live, and a Samus user who's absolutely wrecking all in his path.

I wish people would stop saying nonsensical things like this. It's in fact you who don't understand the definition of "tourney viable", which is apparent in the way you throw it around. 1 Mario player doesn't mean Mario is tourney viable (although he is). 1 Samus player doesn't mean she's tourney viable.

There may be a million Snake users who are terrible and place consistently low in tournaments, but that doesn't mean Snake is not tourney viable.

This is why tier lists aren't only based off of character popularity. They're also based off hard data collected about the characters themselves.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I wish people would stop saying nonsensical things like this. It's in fact you who don't understand the definition of "tourney viable", which is apparent in the way you throw it around. 1 Mario player doesn't mean Mario is tourney viable (although he is). 1 Samus player doesn't mean she's tourney viable.

There may be a million Snake users who are terrible and place consistently low in tournaments, but that doesn't mean Snake is not tourney viable.

This is why tier lists aren't only based off of character popularity. They're also based off hard data collected about the characters themselves.

I actually agree with that. I believe it applies to melee as well.

 

[Kitamerby]

I wish people would stop saying nonsensical things like this. It's in fact you who don't understand the definition of "tourney viable", which is apparent in the way you throw it around. 1 Mario player doesn't mean Mario is tourney viable (although he is). 1 Samus player doesn't mean she's tourney viable.

There may be a million Snake users who are terrible and place consistently low in tournaments, but that doesn't mean Snake is not tourney viable.

This is why tier lists aren't only based off of character popularity. They're also based off hard data collected about the characters themselves.

...So, "tourney viable" does not mean that they can be used in tournaments with a possibility of winning? Or is it majority rule? Hmmm. Okay. Lucario. There're only a handful of good Lucario players who are winning all the tournaments, popping him in somehow into the "overused" category. So, just because there's only a handful of them, Lucario's not tourney viable? If 5 Samus users began dominating tournaments, would she be tourney viable?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Maybe what he means is if there are only two or three people in the world using a character with any success (coughGimpyfishcough), the character cannot be simply called viable because of really awesome exceptions to a general rule.

 

[betterthanbonds9]

i think it's easier to look at characters without viability because here's how i see it: Some characters just aren't doing well in the tourneys atm. Just look at zelda and toon link. I don't know anybody that would disagree that they have potential. But i dont want to talk about tier list, because I'm starting to go that way in this post, so here's the list of characters that i believe wont do well.

link
ganondorf
cap. falcon
PT
Jiggly
Samus/ZSS
sheik (inb4 falcon's :flame
Bowser

--and for my scrub moment: Idk why, but I've always thought that yoshi and mario feel like good characters and I'm surprised they dont do well. Also, i suck as snake and was surprised to see that he dominates .

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I personally think PT has potential. But I do use him as a secondary.

 

[Falconv1.0]

...So, "tourney viable" does not mean that they can be used in tournaments with a possibility of winning? Or is it majority rule? Hmmm. Okay. Lucario. There're only a handful of good Lucario players who are winning all the tournaments, popping him in somehow into the "overused" category. So, just because there's only a handful of them, Lucario's not tourney viable? If 5 Samus users began dominating tournaments, would she be tourney viable?

...It's like he just read his post and ****ing twisted it til all sense was dead and gone.

And I have hope for Sheik, **** you.

/wrists T_T

 

[Mega-Japan]

This is a rather interesting topic. As a Zelda main, I try to make a better name for her, as I go to local tournaments mainly located in New York City and I'm always stopped by someone like Bum or Cort simply because the difference in our skills (as of now) is too much.

I don't agree with people saying that Yoshi automatically fail. Honestly, I really don't care about him but I've found myself fighting a really tough Yoshi at one point. Again, I really don't care about the green dino.

I also believe that Ice Climbers have potential, a lot of potential.

 

[Steeler]

pt is alright. steep steep learning curve. give it some time.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Ice Climbers definitely have potential, lol.

 

[Swordplay]

IC in my opinion has most potential in the game....

CG possibilities unlimited.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Melee IC had the most potential in the game. Brawl's IC doesn't have as useful an AI for desyncing; its like melee's nana but harder to get rid of and it avoids fighting until their right next to eachother.

 

[ph00tbag]

I personally think PT has potentail. But I do use him as a secondary.

I think in the future, PT may become a decently viable character. At the moment, though, his viability is severely hindered by the stamina system. PT players are going to have to figure out how to work their wins. They might have to lose two stocks every match just to change pokemon safely.

 

[Talvi]

Any character that has won at least some major tournament can be considered tourney viable.

 

[infomon]

This term "tournament viable" is misleading and at fault. To the majority of people coming in here, it sounds like it means "can the character win tournaments". The answer to that question is, yes, every character can conveivably win tournaments. But some are generally considered much harder to win with than others, though, ie. they require an enormous amount of *extra* skill to win with; and that's what the question here is, yes?

It takes a lot of work to main Jiggs and defeat people who main MK; probably a lot more work than the MK guy is putting in. And I don't mean in a fight against each other, that can also be a matchup issue, but each of them against the whole roster, at say a tournament Even tho Brawl has only been out 6mo, I think it's long enough that there is general concensus that it's easier to win tournaments with MK than with Jiggs. It might not stay that way, but that's how it is for now.

A tourney viable character means that the character is more likely to bring a wider range of skill levels to tournament success. And no matter what you think about the influence of the skill of the player, the viability of the character plays just as important a role in ability to win.

There's another reason I think this definition is lame -- I'm not interested in how medium-skilled brawlers perform. I'm not interested in ranking the characters based on how well medium-skilled brawlers do with them. I'm much more interested in seeing what the absolute top-of-the-line pros are able to bring to the characters. If the world's best Jiggs can hands-down destroy the world's best MK, then I consider that more relevant, as far as rankings go, than what happens at smaller tournaments. This would mean that if you're using Jiggs, and you're losing to a MK in the area, the blame is on you and not the character. I guess I'm more interested in pursuing excellence with a few characters, and bringing them up to tournament-winning level (which is conceivably possible with the whole cast), than about finding a character that allows me to play mediocre and still win against people better than myself.

But I think my opinion on this matter is at odds with the majority... at least in this thread... >.>

Also, note that your personal style of play might mean you could go a lot farther with a Jiggs than you ever could with a MK. IMO. *shrug*

 

[infomon]

Any character that has won at least some major tournament can be considered tourney viable.

I think you're not disagreeing with their arguments as I assume you intended, but rather you are disagreeing about what the definition of "tourney viable" should be. I think you are using it in a way unintended by Falconv1.0.

 

[ph00tbag]

There's another reason I think this definition is lame -- I'm not interested in how medium-skilled brawlers perform. I'm not interested in ranking the characters based on how well medium-skilled brawlers do with them. I'm much more interested in seeing what the absolute top-of-the-line pros are able to bring to the characters.

Except no tourney except for invitationals (which will rarely have low-tiers appearing) is a vacuum of professionals. You will have a range from decent players to excellent players. If one of those excellent players is a Falcon main, they're probably not just going to lose to other excellent players. They'll also lose to a few of the decent players who are maining Snake or Falco. The Falcon's chances of winning are so low as a result, that you can come to the conclusion that Falcon is not tourney viable.

 

[Mr.Victory07]

Really every character is tourney viable. But only somee will be WINNING tourneys

 

[Crizthakidd]

basically falco,rob,snake,mk,dk,g&w,marth,wolf,lucario,wario,toon link are the ones most tournies will be won with.

the MYABES are fox,pika,diddy,zelda

 

[SmashBrother2008]

Yeah, it is true. If you use anyone lower than top tier, you will lose. It is a known fact of life. So get a life. I use anyone I want to in tournaments!

 

[The Halloween Captain]

We could really use a tier list. Other than Falcon, Ganon and Jiggs is bad, Snake, MK, and GW are good, no clear consensus exists. For example, while I feel Pika and Diddy are more viable than DK and Wario, Crizthakidd proposes that they are "maybes" at best.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Either way, there are a lot more viable guys than MK and Snake, and I'm glad that people are seeing that.

 

[Jigglymaster]

If Jigglypuff isn't tournament viable than how come I'm user jiggs in tournaments? I'd say who ever is your main is viable for tournaments. You should just use who your best with not everybody has to play snake, meta, or DDD.

 

[Falconv1.0]

If Jigglypuff isn't tournament viable than how come I'm user jiggs in tournaments? I'd say who ever is your main is viable for tournaments. You should just use who your best with not everybody has to play snake, meta, or DDD.

I used Ike in tourneys. Is Ike viable? Hell to the no.

You really dont understand this discussion at all.

And did you not get the beginning message, stop ****ing mentioning MK, Snake, or DDD, good God man. I mean people other than that who have solid match ups and dont suck. You know, like Marth, Falco, Lucario, etc etc.

Go away til you know what you're talking about.

 

[The Executive]

If Jigglypuff isn't tournament viable than how come I'm user jiggs in tournaments?

"Bad idea X becomes a good idea because I do it" is not an argument. There are so many holes in that it's embarassing.

And, yes, people should use their main in a tourney. That is the entire reason people have mains.