Why aren't tiers more statistically based?

[PanzerOceania]

someone should make a chart with stats, a list of all moves with their

delay
damage
knockback
speed

then the characters overall speed, hight of one jump etc. and build off from that.

 

[LunaEqualsLuna]

I could tell Zaza was a science student (like myself) before i even read the last line of his post since when i read his post he pretty much said every single thing i was thinking. Are you a grad student?

Its a interesting idea to want to mathematically determine tiers But it won't lead to anything useful that we don't know already, but as they say the journey is often more important than the destination so no harm is done in attempting it, even if the destination is 'nowhere'.

 

[Eden]

Give it atleast a season, if not a year to make tier lists. There must be something broken that the developers are laughing about; that we haven't seen it yet.

Or can tally up raw stats and see which out weigh each other. Better to just wait though to see what the metagame is like.

 

[Zaza]

I could tell Zaza was a science student (like myself) before i even read the last line of his post since when i read his post he pretty much said every single thing i was thinking. Are you a grad student?

Nope, just a 4th year undergrad. I saw your posts. I felt bad you didn't get enough support out of people.

If you don't quite understand what I was saying people, read Luna's posts too. They have nearly identical content.

 

[Finn Macool]

i think that smashladder is planning on collecting these types of statistics of of the people playing competitive matches on there

 

[IGN Forums]

i still don't get it!!!

 

[Same-Move Sammy]

There are so many reasons why this "more statistically based tier list" wont work that I barely know where to begin.

You want to create a list that is based off of hard data so that it is more concrete. I get that. But how are you going to convert those numbers into a ranking system and still preserve the concreteness of indisputable data? You can't. You would have to create a mathematical function to do so and there is no such intrinsic function in existence. You would need to create one yourself, and thats where subjectiveness comes in. We could all make our own function independently and no two would be the same. Not only that, I can guarantee that creating an accurate function would take an unimaginable amount of work. Seriously. I don't even want to go into the details of how hard it would be but trust me.

Here's the kicker though. There's no way to verify that the function you create is correct except but comparing it to the tier list based off of tournament results. Because the real tier list is the only trustworthy standard.

Besides, the tier list is very good at what it does. Not only that, it is the best conceivable way to rank characters. It really is.

It was a noble thought to create a new and better list, and its understandable that you didn't have the knowhow to realize it can't be done. But it cant be done.

I may not know as much about smash as some others, but I know my science and statistics.

Just because you can't conceive that it can be done doesn't mean it can't be done. If Smash Bros. were a perfect information game (and with enough computing power), it would be possible to design an algorithm to determine the best strategy in any match. Smash Bros. is a finite game when time limits are imposed on it.

Consider this: Deep Blue was able to beat a chess world champion in 1997. The computer knew nothing about chess strategy, but was able to see very far in the moves-future. People thought the game of Go was too complex for computers to beat the top players, but people recently developed an algorithm that, if improved, will do the same.

Smash is no exception. If we go by moves, there are only so many frames available in any time-limited match. There are only so many available move combinations in Smash Bros. per frame. Using any combination of characters, it is possible to see all the possibilities in a match. This is exactly the type of data that can be used to rank characters.

In the future, with the right algorithm, computers will be able to read a disc like SSBB and figure this out. A limiting factor for this might be chaos surrounding otherwise dominating strategies (i.e. a strategy that is too hard for a human to pull off or something that requires better reaction time than available), but the chaos cannot be evaluated until the data is gathered.

Imagine being beaten in Melee by a computer that can wavedash, L-cancel, tech, and edgeguard better than you.

 

[LunaEqualsLuna]

Consider this: Deep Blue was able to beat a chess world champion in 1997. The computer knew nothing about chess strategy, but was able to see very far in the moves-future. People thought the game of Go was too complex for computers to beat the top players, but people recently developed an algorithm that, if improved, will do the same.

Smash is no exception. If we go by moves, there are only so many frames available in any time-limited match. There are only so many available move combinations in Smash Bros. per frame. Using any combination of characters, it is possible to see all the possibilities in a match. This is exactly the type of data that can be used to rank characters.

What you are proposing to do is COMPLETELY solve a game. Which is different from just programming a computer to play it.

Comparing games like chess and go to smash bros or pretty much any modern video game is quite silly really. The amount of possibilities in a game of smash brothers are so huge that a computer wouldn't be able to track every single one. With 60 frames per second, and taking into account ONLY movement in 4 directions, after one second there will be about 10^36 possible moves (1 followed by 36 zeros)

After 2 minutes there will be 4^7200 moves. A number orders of magnitude about the number of known particles in the entire UNIVERSE. (and this is dealing with movement alone! not even taking into account attacks moving stages, items) So even if you could use every single particle in existance you STILL couldn't store all the possible outcomes. Good luck finding a hard drive ( or any magical future technology you can dream up) to store that.

The sheer impossibility of what you suggest astounds me but even more so that you think that anyone on these forums could actually do this. Games FAR simpler than this aren't even considered to be solvable. To solve them would require the most fundamental of laws of physics to be wrong. Some how I have more trust in the laws of physics than the ability of some smash bros player.

Additionally its very easy to create CPU that can defeat a human at ANY video game by just giving it access to the actual code running the game (eg code that determines hitboxes etc.) It would be trivial for the game programmers to just allow the CPU to perfect block/parry every single move you do (some training modes in fighting games implement this blocking already) and just hit you with the best damaging combo every time an opening appears. Such a CPU would be very boring to play against and they aren't programmed that way for a reason.

A million years in the future who knows we might be able to even 'solve life'! I can make seemingly irrefutable theoretical assertions too!

Either way Mr John E. ComputerGeek in his basement with his quad core processor isn't gonna be solving smash bros brawl anytime soon. Though you can do a lot worse to waste time than trying to 'solve brawl' computationally (like argue on forums ) so i won't really bother try dissuade anyone who think its possible, go ahead and do it and show us your results.

Good Luck!

 

[ph00tbag]

The tier list for Melee was based on statistical data. It was based on tournament results. These results accurately reflected both the popularity and viability of characters in the contemporary metagame, which is exactly what the tier list was supposed to be a representation of. Why base on arbitrary statistics and values what is already perfectly accounted for by hard data.

The SBR didn't even have to vote on a character's viability in an area. IMO, it's less flawed than the ESPN list.

 

[eLantern]

Allow me give you all an exaggerated example of why it's a possiblity to create a statistical ranking system...
Theoretically, lets just say there is character X which happens to be statisticaly the best in all catagories considered helpful to winning. This character has the most powerful moves in the game. All of his/her moves work as great setup moves for awsome finishers, which this character has more of then any other character in the game. Character X is the most heavy benefiting his/her survival, is the fastest in top speed & acceleration in all catagories (including attacks and every other thing). Has the best recovery and no lag after anything. Basically this character ranks #1 in all effective statistical catagories we can come up with which should help lead a character to victory. This ultimately would mean this is probably the best character in the game, however, that doesn't mean that a noob playing with character X will beat a much better player (a pro perhaps) who could statisticaly speaking be playing with the worst character in the game. Though, in a perfect world lets say two players with exact equal skill levels happen to use these extremely different characters I would say that the more effective killing machine (character) should come out on top, don't you think? That is all that this topic is saying... figure out where characters rank within specific catagories which you can easily obtain information for, find out how these catagories can be more helpful verses others (then give those statistics more value) and calculate it all with a sophisticated formula develped by someone with a bright mathimatical mind.

 

[LunaEqualsLuna]

and calculate it all with a sophisticated formula develped by someone with a bright mathimatical mind.

A formula which will have to be subjectively defined empirically based on what people thing are the most important features deliberately skewed to agree with what current tier lists already, thus serving no valuable purpose.

Someone with a 'bright mathematical mind' but a 'dim scientific mind 'might attempt it though.

edit:
Oh i just saw your topic on that... that person appears to be you

anyway if you enjoy doing it, its not a total waste... just don't neglect your GF too much over it

 

[eLantern]

A formula which will have to be subjectively defined empirically based on what people think are the most important features deliberately skewed to agree with what current tier lists already, thus serving no valuable purpose.

Of course it serves a purpose. Its first purpose is to gathering all the character data from the game and that right there is valuable information to a lot of people in the smash community. If you don't think so, that’s fine, but all those people who created & read all of the character guides developed for Melee probably thought information/knowledge on characters held some value to them.
Also, no one ever claimed anywhere in this thread that the scientifically based ranks were to be set in stone, did they? Obviously, it would be questioned and subjected to scrutiny but that’s what happens with anything in these forums. The part that can't be denied though is the hard numbers themselves, those are what they are, and it helps create a base to begin with. The scrutiny begins with deciding which categories deserve more value added and this is fine, because just like with a tournament based tier system, it will with time undergo change over and over again until the smash community feels it is close. People will continue to find new ways to use characters, there is no denying that, especially since this is the beginning of Brawl. The real difference I see is that where the tournament based tier system will originally be based off of the popularity of characters and how proficient the better players are at using them quickly verses a tier list based off of hard numbers. Eventually and hopefully the two tier lists should begin to look similar because why wouldn't people prefer to use the obviously better characters in tournaments. Just remember a good tier list which will truly reflect Brawls character potential won't be accurate for a long time but the debate will go on all the time, your beyaching can't stop it.

Someone with a 'bright mathematical mind' but a 'dim scientific mind 'might attempt it though.

edit:
Oh i just saw your topic on that... that person appears to be you

anyway if you enjoy doing it, its not a total waste... just don't neglect your GF too much over it.

My thread is nothing more than a collection of data, not a mathematical formula created in order to use that data to create a ranking system. There isn't even close to enough data collected yet to begin thinking about doing that. Obviously, you don't understand what this thread is really talking about so perhaps your rants should just be ignored from here on out. Oh and I will try not to neglect her over it too much, but thanks for worrying.

 

[House M.D.]

ok, LunaEqualsLuna and Zaza, i'm a "physics and philosophy" major at an ivy-league university, so look, i have authority too!

1) of course this would be subjective. statistics are only as meaningful as the thought that goes into their application, but the mathiness of statistics does not make the objective.

2) given that, this would be a different way to make the tier list. as mentioned, the sbr method is to analyze tournament results data, but this somewhat skews the results because popularity of character comes into play. many people believe sheik's metagame was underdeveloped because she was deemed gay/cheap. and let's be honest, few people like wario, so it will take a while for him to develop.

3) this method can be effective. we would base our analysis on a character's ability to combo, effectiveness of recovery, edgeguarding ability, etc. deciding on what value to assign each character would require a group of dedicated, knowledgeable smashers (that's where subjectivity enters, although with such a group and a willingness to have serious, rigorous discuss, we can get good results)

4) this could be useful. early in melee, sheik dominated. however, objectively, fox was a better character (this is disputable). his combo ability, shine, and many other factors make him a force. however, he was difficult to play, and so sheik was king. however, a project like this would expose fox as being potentially better than sheik, and that is useful. the sbr method did eventually converge on this conclusion, but it took them 8 tier lists to do it.

impossible is the opposite of possible

 

[Ojanya]

If anyone could bring any of this up, I would love to see it. Statistics make sense, but subjective character evaluations do too.

 

[Zaza]

Just because you can't conceive that it can be done doesn't mean it can't be done. If Smash Bros. were a perfect information game (and with enough computing power), it would be possible to design an algorithm to determine the best strategy in any match. Smash Bros. is a finite game when time limits are imposed on it.

Consider this: Deep Blue was able to beat a chess world champion in 1997. The computer knew nothing about chess strategy, but was able to see very far in the moves-future. People thought the game of Go was too complex for computers to beat the top players, but people recently developed an algorithm that, if improved, will do the same.

Smash is no exception. If we go by moves, there are only so many frames available in any time-limited match. There are only so many available move combinations in Smash Bros. per frame. Using any combination of characters, it is possible to see all the possibilities in a match. This is exactly the type of data that can be used to rank characters.

In the future, with the right algorithm, computers will be able to read a disc like SSBB and figure this out. A limiting factor for this might be chaos surrounding otherwise dominating strategies (i.e. a strategy that is too hard for a human to pull off or something that requires better reaction time than available), but the chaos cannot be evaluated until the data is gathered.

Imagine being beaten in Melee by a computer that can wavedash, L-cancel, tech, and edgeguard better than you.

Ok, yes. All of that is true, despite being incredibly unreasonable. However it's not what I was describing nor what dark hunter was describing. This thread was devoted to creating a ranking based off of known parameters. What you describe is something different altogether. Chess and Go don't have analogous "character parameters". Using a computer to analyze all possible moves and outcomes of a match for the purpose to ranking characters is simply a different method (one which, again, is wildly unreasonable for smash) than what was being discussed.

On a side note, those of you who still want to try creating this ranking list based off of weight, run speed etc...I suggest you sit down and try it. You imagine in your mind that it should be possible and it some sense it is. Just add a characters run speed to their weight and thats one hypothetical index you can use to rank the characters. But clearly that is not a good method. So you come up with a better one, and then a better one and so on. But how do you know when you have created the best one (assuming one exists)? You look at real life results because that's the only standard that you can compare your results to. So what have you created? All you've done is poke around in the dark until you have recreated the tier list. Either that or you've just created a "mathematical version of your opinion" which I'm sorry to say have no more credibility than your plain old opinion. The purpose of math is to weed out opinion, not insert it. So fine, argue on the boards all you want, but please don't waste your time on this.

 

[M3tr01D]

Don't the tier lists already calculate character stats and abilities anyway? They aren't totally based on tournament wins from what I understand. Because consider this for Melee, if without changing anything about the current game or the strategies in place Pichu suddenly started winning every single tournament, he would not instantly jump to top tier because he is not statistically as good as the other characters. Characters like Sheik and Marth would be higher on the list.

 

[Corner-Trap]

In the street fighter community tiers are based upon match ups. Match ups are organized on a chart where they are scored from 0 to 10. Characters can either have a bad(0-3), fair(4-6), or good(7-10) match up against another character. All the points are then counted up, and depending on their overall score is where they are placed on the tier list. Here's an example of a match up chart.

http://www.super-turbo.net/sbc/data/diagrama/diagrama.html

 

[antimatter]

tiers arent more statistically based for one reason. tires don exits.

 

[ComradeSAL]

Don't misapply mathematics... it usually just ends up wasting your time =D

I'm a graduate statistics student, and I say: this man speaks the truth. Still, it's an interesting question, so I'd like to contribute some of my thoughts on this as well.

*

First off, a lot of people have their terms here heavily confused. We already use "statistically based" methods to formulate tiers: the number of tournaments won with each character is a pretty clear statistic, and is the most accurate and relevant single statistic that we have at our disposal (given that the tier list is, you know, a guess about a character's ability to win tournaments).

In reality what the OP is trying to say is that we should somehow be quantifying individual parts of a character and using these individual parts to create a kind of a priori rating of the character.

This is impossible for two reasons: one practical and one theoretical.

The practical part has already been well documented by LunaEqualsLuna, so I won't go into that here. Just reread his posts.

However, there are also theoretical grounds for why this will never be as accurate as simple tournament results. The problem lies in the fact that there are no tier lists independent of player skills. Rather, tier lists always assume two expert but fallible players of equal skill. No tier list assumes perfect play. So, merely looking at a character's raw characteristics and ignoring how well a player can play him is clearly only looking at one side of the equation, and is an exercise in futility.

 

[ComradeSAL]

.

freaking servers

 

[ComradeSAL]

<-- ignore this ******

 

[AquaTech]

It seems like many stats aren't that dynamic as far as their impact on a match goes.

 

[Corner-Trap]

tiers arent more statistically based for one reason. tires don exits.

Why is it that the smash community is the only fighting game community to still have debates upon the eligibility of tier lists? Almost every other fighting game community has accepted the fact that tier lists due exist, while acknowledging that they aren't absolute.

 

[Zink]

Why is it that the smash community is the only fighting game community to still have debates upon the eligibility of tier lists? Almost every other fighting game community has accepted the fact that tier lists due exist, while acknowledging that they aren't absolute.

the smash community has by far the biggest influx of new members. ergo more scrubs. rare as they are, they simply appear more often here due to Smash's huge popularity.

 

[House M.D.]

zaza responded to a bad argument. i'd like to see him reply to mine (see my last posts). i understand that a) a single person doing this would just be mathematizing his opinion and b) the other tier list must be consulted.

however, a group (not unlike that working on ( the sbr list) could eliminate personal bias. and more importantly, of course the new list (lets call it the trait tier list since it is based on character traits) would have to resemble the tier list, because we believe that the tier list is pretty accurate, but we might be able to get ahead of the curve.

sheik is easy to play, and thus won many early tournaments and ended up atop the tier list. it took 8 tier lists for fox to take the top spot, because it was much harder to become skilled with fox. however, the quantifiable effectiveness of his moveset had been known for a long time. it's not too unreasonable to say that a trait tier list could have predicted this earlier. of course sheik would have been near the top, s/he actually is a good character, but fox would have been the best character; this knowledge would have been useful

 

[everlasting yayuhzz]

Why is it that the smash community is the only fighting game community to still have debates upon the eligibility of tier lists? Almost every other fighting game community has accepted the fact that tier lists due exist, while acknowledging that they aren't absolute.

Because the Brawl boards ruined SWF.

 

[Zaza]

zaza responded to a bad argument. i'd like to see him reply to mine (see my last posts). i understand that a) a single person doing this would just be mathematizing his opinion and b) the other tier list must be consulted.

however, a group (not unlike that working on ( the sbr list) could eliminate personal bias. and more importantly, of course the new list (lets call it the trait tier list since it is based on character traits) would have to resemble the tier list, because we believe that the tier list is pretty accurate, but we might be able to get ahead of the curve.

sheik is easy to play, and thus won many early tournaments and ended up atop the tier list. it took 8 tier lists for fox to take the top spot, because it was much harder to become skilled with fox. however, the quantifiable effectiveness of his moveset had been known for a long time. it's not too unreasonable to say that a trait tier list could have predicted this earlier. of course sheik would have been near the top, s/he actually is a good character, but fox would have been the best character; this knowledge would have been useful

The tier list does the job that no other ranking can do. People can say they knew fox was better than sheik before the tier list placed fox above sheik but people say a lot of things, many of which did not come true. You can say a "trait tier list" of melee would have predicted fox as better but that's just hindsight bias.

Whether it's a group creating this "trait tier list" or a single person doesn't matter. It's just the difference between many people's opinions averaged or one person's opinion. You still have to ask yourself: How do I know that my new tier list is right? The real tier list has an answer: experience tells me so. The "trait tier list" has no answer other than: The real tier list tells me so.

edit: I think what many of you are struggling with is the difference between the existance of a ranking function and being able to find it. The necessary function for ranking characters by their traits may exist (and I even believe that it does) but at the same time may be impossible to find.

 

[Corner-Trap]

I still think that the Smash community should make a tier list the way every other fighting game community does, by match ups.

 

[LordLocke]

I still think that the Smash community should make a tier list the way every other fighting game community does, by match ups.

They have- Shiek came out on top, by a LOT, because of how badly she wins certain matchups against Lower/Bottom characters. Shiek's a large reason why half the cast is unplayable- characters like Pikachu, and Ness have absolutely no way to deal with Shiek, since she can chain-grab most of the middleweight and floatier characters from low percentages to death. Regardless of how well they can look against some of the others, these characters can't really break in because one good Shiek is pretty much a brick wall preventing advancement. (See: Pikachu)

(Note that this phenomenon isn't unique to Shiek- Fox/Falco are similarly guilty of basically removing Yoshi from competitive play single-handedly. Shiek just does it to a much larger number of characters then anyone else.)

Problem is, in a competitive scene, you're going to see ten or more Foxes, Marths, and Falcos for each Bowser you face. So being able to completely slaughter a low-end character doesn't mean jack in the competitive scene, hence why Shiek isn't ranked as #1- among the top and upper tiers, she has no real dominating matchups, and one (admittingly, Shiek's only) disadvantaged one in the Ice Climbers. Due to her relative dominance against the rest of the cast, as well as some minor advantages against a number of the characters who DO see competitive play, she still usually gets put at #3, which out of 26 isn't bad.

 

[pirkid]

Tiers are not how good a character is. It's how well players use them in a tournament against other players.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

House M.D. brings up a good point in saying that a statistical tier list COULD help reveal the potential of characters, but that is not what a tier list is for. Tier lists exist to map out how characters tend to perform against one another. They exist to show the trends that exist, character wise, in competitive play. Tier lists are all about theoretically showing "which characters are performing the best thus far?", not "which character has the most potential?"

Because in reality, potential doesn't mean jack-**** when it comes to ranking characters. Suppose in melee pichu had some hidden incredibly complex combo that if performed properly could zero to death any character on the roster. However, lets also suppose this technique was impossible to be performed consistently, or even at all for that matter. So, pichu now theoretically is the best potential character in the game. So what? If no one can fulfill that potential, pichu still blows and shouldn't be top tier. Top tier characters are the characters that have the greatest realistically attainable potential, and the only way to prove that any potential is in fact realistically attainable is for some to ATTAIN it. As such, real results are the only way to go when constructing a tier list. If a character CAN do something, that doesn't mean the players can, or will, and when it comes down to it its what the players do that builds the game's metagame, not what the coding will ultimately allow if pushed to its limits.

Player's make the characters, and as such, human handling of said characters should be the basis for their ranking, NOT misconstrued, potentially irrelevant pieces of data.

 

[Maveritchell]

Just want to point out that it is certainly statistically viable to take factors like movement speed, relative strength, quickness of attacks, etc. into consideration in terms of making some kind of relative scale of character "potential." However, there are a number of statistical confounds that you haven't thought up (or that simply don't have) ways around.

For example, you must weight each category. Is it better to have a (arbitrary number here) strength of "8" or a speed of "8?" Like someone mentioned earlier, does a Bowser with a speed of 1 and strength of 10 == a Sonic with a speed of 10 and strength of 1 (assuming all other variables are equal)?

Additionally, you've mentioned trying to include certain fairly intangible or immeasureable characteristics, and anyone who's worked at length with statistics or crafting analyses of this type will tell you that things like that are death to research. How can you make a comparative analysis between two things that are highly limited (i.e. character-specific or generally rare)? Can you compare Peach's hovering to Fox/Falco/Wolf's ability to shine? How can you compare them? They're not even measureable statistics.

That being said, of course there are going to be errors in this analysis of character data. There are errors in using simply tournament-based results and there are going to be errors or potential failures in any statistical analysis of any system more complex than a lightswitch. I just think that it's important that you recognize that while you may be promoting an interesting alternative, you're certainly not promoting a viable replacement for the current system.

 

[House M.D.]

ah. i think the main difference between my and zaza's position is that i think a large group discussion could warrant a good approximation of the ranking function, although perhaps the problem is less tractable than i think.

 

[LunaEqualsLuna]

The approach of 'solving' Brawl as proposed by sammy and maybe a few others is to ridiculous to even bother mentioning again.

I can agree with the approach house MD is making to a certain extent, although it wouldn't be a tier list but a list to find the potential of a character (as someone mentioned). It would require a LOT of effort and doesn't seem to have much of a payoff, even if successful.

It would also be pretty difficult to prove just how useful the statistical tier list is as well. I think most would agree that in the short term ,the best case scenario would be that the statistical list disagrees quite significantly with a traditionally made tier list and that the statistical list proves to be more accurate in the future.

And even if this happens there are possibilities of bias in that because the statistical list was announced everyone tried the char that the statistical list said was better and as a result new techiques etc were discovered and the char rose up the tier list as a result. Also it is most likely that further play would have independently found out what the statistical tier list said eventually anyway and maybe just accelerated the process by some weeks/months. It could also be wrong and cause a truly stronger char not to be picked because it ranked low and that chars potential not discovered as quickly.

My view its one of those problems/projects that seem seductively simple and useful when you conceive the idea and initially start working on it. But somewhere along the line usually unfortunately after one has sunk a lot of time into it, you realise major difficulties and disappointingly have to acknowledge time was wasted and move on.

Some people like eLantern are convinced its a brilliant idea so good luck to him I say, unfortunately its clear most people who support the idea (with the exception of House) don't seem comprehend the potential pitfalls of such an attempt to make a statistical tier list and anyone who rushes blindly into a problem without understanding potential pitfalls most likely won't produce sensible results anyway

I'm not so closed minded NOT to want to be proven wrong though i predict the silence on this topic a few months from now would do just the opposite.

 

[LuLLo]

Well I agree with the OP, that there could be 2 lists...
A Tier List and a Statistics List.
And I intentionally did not say 2 tier lists, because statistics are not tiers.

Why not have 2 lists, one Tier List for the pro's, a good, solid list of character match-ups, for those who ''believe'' in tiers.
And one with only statistics, only solid numbers like attack percentage, weight, fall speed, jump speed and hundreds of other numbers and digits, and based on those number make an average of which character is better (IN THEORY)...

In the end though, those 2 lists will probably be very similar to each other, and it may provide some more proof to those ''non-believers'' that maybe Fox really is the best character...qua statistics AND metagame

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

Dunno if this has been posted here yet, M3D wrote it some time ago in the Melee boards, I think, though I'm not sure. It details how tiers are created.

Hello everyone. I'm M3D, the staff member and moderator in charge of the Smash Back Room. I'm here to dispel the myth and rumors about how a tier list is made:

First of all, a tier list cannot be made immediately after a game comes out because developing an accurate list requires that tournaments and serious competitive play are taken into account. So when Brawl comes out, don't expect an official tier list for a little while. Just pick your favorite characters, play, compete, have fun and try to win in tournaments and in online play.

That said, here's how we create a tier list:

1. First, a game like Melee or Brawl is released and people immdiately begin discussing things on the forums. Tricks, combos and tactics are spread via the internet and by playing with friends and eventually major tournaments happen all over the country. The top players demonstrate their tricks and show off how effective (or ineffective, as the case may be) their favorite character is. Other people take what they learn from those tournaments and important matches, copy them, counter them and go back for more matches. Through this process, the "metagame" is formed. This idea of a metagame really means "how the game is commonly played using optimal tactics in a competitive environment." This helps us to understand the basics of what characters are good, which ones are bad and how various characters do against the rest of the cast.

2. All of this information, including tournament results, is collected by members of the Smash Back Room. It is analyzed and discussed over and over again, as the members begin to formulate ideas of which characters are the most effective and which ones struggle to compete at a high level of play. If there are any inconsistencies in the information or if there are questions about how certain moves or stages work, members of the SBR will test it repeatedly until the truth is found. For instance, when the IC infinite grab combos were first being discovered, we had players test a variety of methods of escape and methods to execute the grabs to determine exactly how it would work and if it would be a broken method of competition. All of this information is kept in mind as we all continue to compete and develop the metagame.

3. Eventually a kind of rough list begins to form in the SBR which classifies characters by levels of power. From there, members debate more specific matchups and look for critical weaknesses or strengths that could effect a character's placement in the final list. We get very, very specific here and cover a lot of tiny little details. From here, we get a better idea of which characters really stand out at each level.

4. Once we've gone through this entire process several times, taking into account recent tournament results and new tricks and tactics, a moderator calls for the first vote. Members of the SBR vote on the number of tiers and which characters fall into those tiers. A moderator will collect those votes and publish a first draft of the list. This first draft absolutely settles the issue of how many different tiers characters will be placed into.

5. A second vote is called, this time with the number of tiers set. Members then get to vote which characters will fall into the tiers. The votes are tallied and a final list is compiled. This is the list you see published by a mod.

6. Periodically this process is repeated in the Back Room and the tier list is adjusted to reflect the current metagame. For instance, Ice Climbers climbed a few tiers when some of their more advanced techniques were discovered. To the contrary, the Luigi game didn't evolve as much as the rest of the the cast, so he gradually sunk down a tier.

Obviously, tiers can not be absolute, because we continue to learn more about the game all the time. However, if you look at the current SBR Tier List, you can see that it is very similar to the one we've been working from about 2004. I think its clear that the SBR has consistently made accurate lists.

All of that said, if you want to have a hand in the creation of the SBR Tier List for Brawl, then get involved in the community, host tournaments and/or become one of the best players in the country. Only the members that make the biggest contributions get invited into the room. If you want to make sure that your favorite character gets represented well, make sure to post all your tricks and videos and compete regularly in tournaments to demonstrate just how great he/she/it is in competitive play.

Sorry that I don't have a link to the thread.