Talk:Tier list/Archive 6

current talk page

Archives

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5

Simplified version of the below: Don't edit this page unless you have something to contribute about what the SBR said and the content of this article. We don't care if you disagree with them or tiers in general; that's for the forums.

We understand that tiers are a point of contention among members of the Smash community. However, this page discusses the tier lists that the Smash Back Room (for Melee and Brawl) have posted. These are accepted by almost every high level player, and as such are important and notable content to this wiki. Discussion on this talk page should be limited to the content of the page, not a debate on the existence or ordering of tiers. Those should both be addressed in the Forums (Forum for Brawl, forum for Melee).

new SSB64 tier list

I would like it if smash back room would update it. ..... The secret number well? 22:49, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

I'd love to see that happen too, but that's ever gonna happen...Melee was lucky to get its latest tier list, and no one plays 64 competitively anymore. :/ ReiDemon 22:53, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Did you read the tl;dr? Blindcolours TONDA GOSSA. 23:59, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

No, it was somewhat a legitimate question: Asking if the SSB64 tier list will be updated. Still, I'm not sure whether it fulfills SW:TALK. In any case, I'll answer. Smash 64 has been out for more than a decade, and its metagame has been pretty well solved through years of Isai dominating with Pikachu, Fox, and Kirby, with his Pikachu in particular being virtually undefeated. In addition, the game is simple enough so that it has been possible to figure out who is the best at KOing, recovering, etc. That doesn't mean there won't be another tier list, just explaining why updates are rare. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Kinda offensive...

I think we should delete the first two sentences about the controversy. It's not neutral. Here are the sentences: "It is a common misconception among new players, and even some experienced players, that all the characters in the series are equal. It is thought amongst them that the strengths and weaknesses of characters balances them out."

I'm anti-tier, and I find this quite offensive. ForgingIron (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

It may not be neutral, but it is true. Characters are attempted to be balanced out, but that is impossible in most fighting games. MegaTron1XD 18:35, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

The sentence is true, just honestly tell us how Kirby is equal to Jigglypuff in Melee, or how Ganondorf is equal to Snake in Brawl (in both cases, the latter character is better than the former in nearly every way, doing what they can do, and so much more).

Also, we don't care you're "anti-tier" and find this "offensive", we report facts on this Wiki, and it is fact it is impossible to perfectly balance a game with such diversity. Omega Tyrant 19:22, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Note that the precence of certain clones such as Jigglypuff and Luigi in SSB64 and Pichu in Melee, who very much appear to be intentionally worse than their originals, is certainly a counterexample against the claim that the games was meant to be 100% balanced. Mr. Anontalk 20:38, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

I wouldn't say Luigi was ever designed to be worse than Mario. Jigglypuff (SSB) and Pichu are arguable, but remember that the series isn't designed for just two-player matches with no items - as possibly suggested on one of Pichu's trophies, they were designed to be played with more importance on letting the other opponents duke it out while poking in and out with needling attacks and items. That's not being intentionally underpowered, that's being designed with strengths that tournament conditions deny. Toomai Glittershine The Steppin' 23:12, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

I wouldn't call being designed to have to rely on random items to be a strength, but an intentional underpowering. It's not like Pichu was designed to be more capable at wielding items than other characters. Omega Tyrant 23:36, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

I'm not in favor of deleting the lines, but I would like to suggest a change of the word 'misconception'. In the wikipedia article about neutrality, it says to 'Prefer Non-Judgemental Language.' The word 'misconception' assumes that the anti-tiers' view is incorrect. This is not neutral for an article. I apologize for lacking knowledge on linking to other websites, but for reference, here is the link to the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV Just as a footnote, I am in favor of tiers. Yiran (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2012 (EST)

It is fact that characters aren't perfectly balanced, and anyone who says otherwise is pretty much delusional :/ Omega Tyrant 10:05, 3 January 2012 (EST)

Well, I believe it is a fact, but a notable amount of smashers (or it wouldn't be noted in the article) disagree with us and the other notable portion of smashers. Yiran (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2012 (EST)

To give an example: If a large amount of people say Sonic is unlockable in Melee, do we go ahead and suggest the possibility that they may be correct, even though it's a clear fact Sonic does not exist in Melee?

Likewise, it's a clear fact characters aren't perfectly balanced. You compare characters side by side, and you'll see that Melee Kirby is completely outclassed by Melee Jigglypuff in nearly every way, likewise for Brawl Ganondorf and Snake. Trying to say that those characters are equal would either be a severe lack of knowledge of the game, or delusion.

It's really not a matter of if you "believe" in tiers anymore, rather than a matter of acceptance. Until someone comes along that can provide a coherent, rational, and irrefutable argument that supports tiers don't exist and characters are perfectly balanced, this Wiki will not suggest in any way that "anti-tiers" may be right. Omega Tyrant 11:21, 3 January 2012 (EST)

Fair enough. Yiran (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2012 (EST)

It's not a matter of right and wrong. The section is just ill-written and biased. All you really need to say is some believe in tiers, here is why, and some don't (and here is why). If you want to say something like the general community has come to the conclusion that tiers DO exist, that's fine, as long as you have a source to back it up. Otherwise, this really does need to get changed. Smashbrother101 (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2013 (EST)

When the so-called "anti-tiers" can come up with a rational and coherent argument, and stop looking a bunch of deluded asses, maybe then this suggestion can actually be taken seriously. It's not a matter of "believing" in tiers anymore, it's an objective fact they exist, and it has been shown to be the case countless times. The existence of a fringe deluded minority that wants to keep on shutting their ears and refusing to accept it does not mean we have to present their "view" as an equal consideration. If you're an "anti-tier" yourself, accept the facts, or refute this, as well as explain how Melee Kirby can possibly be equal to Melee Jigglypuff, and how Brawl Ganondorf can possibly be equal to Snake. Omega Tyrant 15:45, 28 January 2013 (EST)

Hey Omega, I am willing to take on 3 level 9 Snakes with Ganondorf, your tier list just like you examples are pointless -Alucard

Icons

I think the icons for the tier lists should be remade. The current ones also show a part of a stage and sometimes the heads are a bit turned. We could use the character selection screen icons, for example. I can make screenshots of them, especially Brawl's. Is that a good idea?-- PSIWolf (T • C • E) 05:40, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

I would like to post an addition here:

The quality of the icons could be far better, and everything has to be at its best on SW. That's our goal. At least better than SmashWikia, who also uses that icons.-- PSIWolf (T • C • E) 05:45, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

The current images used aren't difficult to identify, and in my opinion, they're more interesting to look at than the character select portraits. Omega Tyrant 12:27, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

I'm in agreement with OT; the character select images by themselves would be pretty bland. : /

That said, I would suggest changing the icons to be larger, to the size of the Melee and 64 icons. Brawl icons look pretty small now that I think of it. ReiDemon 15:35, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

I believe the reason the Brawl icons are of that size is because then they match the stage icons given by the game. So we'd have to redo all those as well. Toomai Glittershine The Awesome 17:10, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

How do you make those icons anyway? ZeldasmashFile:ZeldaSymbol.pngTalk 19:56, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

I think the descision has been made, but I'll oppose just in case. It's nice to see something more different, instead of just the normal artwork. ToastUltimatum Complaints Box 08:23, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

A note for anyone who may complain about the percieved lack of "neutrality"

A few people have complained about this article not being "neutral" to anti-tiers, and while the Wiki would normally try to present both sides to an issue as potentially valid, this is not the case here. For one, this issue is objective, tiers either exist or they don't, there's nothing but right or wrong to it, unlike the subjectiveness of what's the better game between Melee and Brawl. The Wiki is decidedly "pro-tier" and fully recognises that yes, characters aren't equal and tiers exist. We have a full treatise written out on why tiers exist and fully refutes the anti-tier argument. Additionally, the vast majority of players recognise characters aren't equal, including even casuals (while they may have horrible ideas about how good each character is, they still recognise the basic concept that characters aren't equal). Evidence, from comparing characters side by side and from tournament results, show that characters are far from anything resembling being equal. And it's just common sense; the chances of so many radically different characters with so many variables to them all adding up to be completely equal to each other is so miniscule as to be nonexistent, and the idea of that actually happening is completely ridiculous. Tiers exist, and doing anything but to fully state that it's the case is muddling the facts and disservicing the reader.

Although, it's not like we never gave the "anti-tiers" a chance. We have a neat and organised argument against them here, and we invited them to refute it and argue their case on its talk page. However, look at the treatise's talk page and its archives, as well as this talk page and its archives; you'll see why their position isn't treated with credence. Out of all the people who came on those talk pages to argue against tiers, only one person was reasonable, rational, didn't come off as over-aggressive/delusional/whiny/trollish, and actually presented some sort of argument that wasn't just a repeat of specific arguments already completely refuted in the treatise. Even then, this one rational anti-tier wasn't really arguing against the existence of tiers, but rather the concept of tier lists, and never responded back to Semicolon's thorough refute. So as you can see, when the anti-tier position has nothing backing them and are like this, can you really expect the Wiki to present their side as being anything but wrong?

As I also stated in this page before, I'll reiterate; it's not a matter of "believing in tiers" anymore but a matter of accepting them. Logic, evidence, and consensus, dictate the existence of tiers as an accepted fact. As such, the Wiki will present it fully as fact, and the existence of a fringe minority that does not accept it and cannot argue to save their lives does not mean we present their view as being possibly correct.

Now for any "anti-tiers" that wants to dispute this, do the following:

• Completely read this, maybe twice, and provide refutes for the arguments presented in it. Whatever you do, do not repeat the same exact arguments the treatise refutes. Doing so will greatly discredit you, remove any chance of users on the Wiki taking you seriously, and pretty much shows you didn't read the treatise or just ignored what was actually written in it.
• Stay reasonable, rational, and do not be over-aggressive, whine, or get trollish. The Wiki will give you a fair chance if you can appear as a reasonable and rational person.
• Fully and clearly answer my own test question regarding this: If tiers don't exist and every character is equal, how are Kirby and Jigglypuff possibly equal in Melee, and how are Ganondorf and Snake possibly equal in Brawl, when the latter character can pretty much do everything the former can better, as well as doing so much more and pretty much completely outclassing the former character in every relevant statistic?

Fulfill all three of those, while providing arguments that aren't easily refuted, and then you would have a legitimate case for the Wiki to present your side as anything but wrong.

TL;DR: Tiers are fact, the Wiki fully supports that fact and won't muddle it up to suggest otherwise, and if anti-tiers want us to treat their side as legitimate, they must provide logical and irrefutable arguments for once. Omega Tyrant 21:57, 31 January 2013 (EST)