Talk:Tier list

Archives

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8

NOTE: 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 and other similarly-authorative sources 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 to debate on the ordering of tiers, we report the tier lists, we don't decide them. If you want to discuss the tier lists or argue tier placements, take it to another website, not here. Additionally, do not use this page to argue about the existence of tiers. If you firmly believe tiers do not exist and are intent on changing the Wiki's stance about it, go see the argument we have on it on this page here, and thoroughly refute the treatise on its talk page, do not argue it here.

Simplified version of the above: Don't edit this page unless you have something to contribute about what our tier list sources have said and the content of this article. We don't care if you disagree with them or tiers in general.

Where is Ultimate's tier list?

It may take long but I didn't really expect it to be thIS long.

Maybe 2020 because smash 4 tier list came out in 2016 two years after the games came out in 2014 Thegameandwatch (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2019 (EST)

I found a really trustworthy one on r/smashbros that factored votes and tournament results. SS: Peach, Pichu, Lucina, Inkling, Pikachu S: Wolf, Olimar, Ike, Palutena, Fox A: Marth, Wario, Chrom, Snake, PKMN Trainer, Cloud, Roy, Link, Yoshi, Young Link, ROB B:Donkey Kong, Ness C: Shulk, Megaman, Simon, Mewtwo, Greninja, Falco, Luigi, Mario, Lucario, Bowser, Sonic, Zero Suit Samus, Meta Knight, Lucas, Mii Swordfighter, Toon Link D: Shulk, Pit, Dark Pit, Bayonetta, Jigglypuff, Diddy Kong, Ryu, Ganondorf, Corrin, Captain Falcon, Samus, Isabelle, Villager, King K Rool E: Zelda, Ridley, Incineroar, King DeDeDe, Wii fit Trainer, Dr Mario, Pac Man F:Robin, Game and Watch, Ice Climbers, Rosalina, Shiek, Duck Hunt, Mii Brawler G:Bowser Jr, Kirby H: Little mac

KillerIncineroar (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2019 (EST)

Sorry if its weirdly formatted KillerIncineroar (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2019 (EST)

Currently, the problem with SSBU tier lists is that the meta is still heavily undecided. SmashCentralOfficial has been doing monthly tier lists based on tournament plays (aka: non-subjective opinion), and they've been changing quite a bit each month. 46.238.6.59 08:27, March 18, 2019 (EDT)

yeah, its been 5 months (or around that time) since super smash bros ultimate came out, I think a tier list should have released. 98.127.69.195 00:12, May 28, 2019 (EDT) (:)

Smash 4's Smash Backroom tier list wasn't released until February 2016, well over a year after Smash 4 was released. Even then, it was controversial since Corrin and Bayonetta were unreleased. Ultimate, therefore, would most likely have to wait until the final DLC is released and out for a few months before an official tier list will be attempted. CookiesCreme 21:02, August 23, 2019 (EDT)

Here's the most recent tier list I could find reliable on r/smashbros (ordered, as of 4.0.0): Top (SS, S), High (A, B), Middle (C, D), Low (E, F) and Bottom (G) SS: Joker, Peach/Daisy, Snake, Pikachu S: Pokemon Trainer, Lucina, Inkling, Palutena, Wolf, Wario, ZSS, Olimar, Roy, Fox, Chrom A: Greninja, Pichu, Shulk, R.O.B., Mega Man, Mario B: Young Link, Pac Man, Bowser, Cloud, Ike, Yoshi, Ken, Ness C: Link, Marth, Diddy Kong, Mr. Game & Watch, Luigi, Falco D: Captain Falcon, Toon Link, Ryu, Duck Hunt, Meta Knight, Lucario, Wii Fit Trainer, Sonic, Simon/Richter, Hero, Ice Climbers, (Dark) Samus, Rosalina & Luma E: Villager, Bayonetta, Lucas, Robin, Ridley, Incineroar F: (Dark) Pit, King Dedede, Sheik, Mii Brawler, Mewtwo, Corrin, Donkey Kong, Mii Swordfighter, Mii Gunner, Zelda, Ganondorf, Dr. Mario G: Piranha Plant, Bowser Jr., Isabelle, Jigglypuff, Kirby, Little Mac, King K. Rool TigerZ ligerZ (talk) 19:59, September 14, 2019 (EDT)

We don't use Reddit's tier list, since it's not the official one released from Smashboards. CookiesCreme 20:01, September 14, 2019 (EDT)

For now, could we just include a reason for a lack thereof like with Smash 4 before it received "official" tier lists?

"There is no widely accepted or widely referenced tier list for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate at present. Reasons for this include the game receiving balance patches every few months and the addition of downloadable content characters, meaning that the competitive metagame is currently too unstable for the creation of a proper tier list." ~Marlotix (Talk·Contributions) 14:09, September 16, 2019 (EDT)

I guess it's fine, we did that before the Smash 4 one came out. CookiesCreme 15:25, September 16, 2019 (EDT)

As of the recent tier list for 7.00 my opinions. Top (S, A+, A) High (A-, B+, B) Upper Mid (B-, C+, C) Mid (C-, D, E) Lower Mid (F) Low/Bottom (G) S: Joker, Pikachu, Peach/Daisy A+: Lucina, Snake, Pokemon Trainer A: Palutena, MG&W, Mario, Fox, Shulk, Pichu, ZZS, Inkling A-: Roy, Ike, Chrom, Young Link, Wolf, Greninja, Wario, Yoshi, Pac-Man B+: Cloud, Bowser, B%K, Olimar/Alph, Link, Ness, R.O.B, All Hero Alts B: Marth, Luigi, Terry, Ken, Falco, Duck Hunt, Lucario, Diddy Kong, Mega Man B-: Ryu, Byleth, Sonic, Toon Link C+: Meta Knight, Ice Climbers, Mewtwo, Simon/Richter, Wii Fit Trainer C: Zelda, R&L, Samus/Dark Samus, Lucas, Captain Falcon C-: Shiek, Pit/Dark Pit, Mii Gunner/Sans D: Mii Swordfighter, Villager, Robin, Jigglypuff E: Bayonetta, Corrin, Mii Brawler, Isabelle, Piranha Plant F: Bowser Jr., Incineroar, Ganondorf, King Dedede, Donkey Kong, King K Rool G: Ridley, Dr. Mario, Kirby, Little Mac Just saying. Just my thoughts. Been over 2 years already in 2020. No official smash ultimate wiki has come out. Howplayz 10:34 AM, March 24 2020

the website already discussing this topic Forum:Tier list debate 2020: Part 1 Thegameandwatch (talk) 14:00, March 24, 2020 (EDT)

Just wondering, why is/has Lucina so said to be so broken? I play her and I found her no better then Marth (who I play as well) as she has much more consistent kill power and edguarding for sure, but unless you get hit by a back air or forward/up smash she can have trouble killing, which Marth doesn’t have as much due to his kill potions being less consistent but much more widespread, and also I find her incapable of getting any relatively early kills. Unlike Marth, who can kill at Ganondorf percentages. So why is she so broken? She is a good character for sure, but how come people think she is so broken? MetaKnightX6 (talk) 17:16, July 5, 2021 (EDT)

I don't get what you are saying, nobody is calling Lucina broken? Lucina is generally considered a top tier character and is widely regarded as a better character than Marth competitively. The recent Marth buffs are moderate at best and take time to tell how much it affects the character. NPM Morr!? 23:46, July 5, 2021 (EDT)

First, this is not the proper use of talk pages. They are for discussing matters on the wiki and not why people think one character is "broken."

Second, Lucina isn't "broken," but she is more consistent in killing. Although Marth has tippers that can create early KOs, they are rather (and still infamously) inconsistent to the point where many people generally overlook him over Lucina. Now, their viability aren't that different in my opinion, but unfortunately Marth's representation compared to Lucina is abysmal, which is why people often rank Lucina higher.

Also, in what world would Lucina have trouble killing? Neutral air, Dolphin Slash, and even Dancing Blade are all rather effective ways for her to take a stock. CookiesCreme 00:04, July 6, 2021 (EDT)

information that can change tiers

post information here that can potentially change the tiers of characters. (use technical data as much as possible, and not personal bias)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.255.30 (talk • contribs) 00:15, September 12, 2018 (EDT)

project m?

I know I know it's a mod, but it is the most popular one by far. It is also featured in many high level tournaments and they just had their biggest one at the even bigger balc. Doesn't it already have a tier list too on their main page? I think project m should also be on the navigation screen, but maybe that's just me idk. Sweetstu24 (talk•contribs•logs) 12:01, 12 July 2018 (EST)

I agree, it should be there Patzui (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2018 (EST)

It’s in the mod article in this wiki Thegameandwatch (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2019 (EST)

2021 melee tier list/Ultimate tier list

I just noticed a new tier list for Melee from a different source that aggregated players' opinions on viability, which was one possibility from the tier list discussion to use since the usual source has been dormant. Was there a part 2 of the tier list discussion that only happened privately, and if so, are there any aggregated tier lists for Ultimate being considered to put here the same way one was put here for Melee? 72.219.72.215 22:49, June 22, 2021 (EDT)

Part 2 hasn't happened yet. The only reason we have the current tier list for Melee is because there were the opinions of many top players and created through a rather trustworthy source (PGStats), so there was little to no opposition for its inclusion on the wiki.

As for Ultimate, DLC hasn't ended yet so I doubt we'll get any legitimate tier list, aggregated or not, for at least another year or so. CookiesCreme 23:17, June 22, 2021 (EDT)

Should we create a section about online tier lists and the differences between online and offline tier lists

I initially added it, but an admin called Miles removed it and explained that such a significant section should be first discussed.

I think we should, as they are EXTREMELY different as Ganondorf and all the glass cannons out there literally own online due to them being way harder to punish and edgeguard whilst the fast agile top tiers are heavily hindered by the gameplay alterations.

If we decide to add this section, I would like it to be worded like this:

“Due to increased input delay and gameplay differences online, the 2 types of tier lists are completely different.

Notable examples can be Ganondorf and Joker. They are generally seen to be as bottom and top tiers offline, respectively, but due to input delay, Ganondorf is far less punishable, and can pressure shields far more easily, and struggles less against faster characters, with people often saying that he ‘owns’ online. However Joker, is more towards the lower tiers online, due to his combos being harder to perform, his edgeguarding potential worsened, and his shield breaking potential still not being impressive despite the increased pressure possible to apply, and has more trouble pressuring opponents in general.”

MetaKnightX6 (talk) 14:41, July 5, 2021 (EDT)

The difference between online and offline is too subjective to be reliable. Ultimate also doesn't have a tier list, making the proposed section pointless. Hitbox Enthusiast Zeck (talk) 17:42, July 5, 2021 (EDT)

Ganondorf isn't magically top tier online, lol. Lag doesn't change a character's viability. Aidan, the Rurouni 18:06, July 5, 2021 (EDT)

There is a lot wrong with what you have up there, so I'll break it down:

"Ganondorf and all the glass cannons out there literally own online due to them being way harder to punish"

Except, they don't own online. Aside from Game & Watch, who himself is already widely considered a top tier offline, most glass cannons still see little to no results. You point out Ganondorf as an example, but not only does Ganondorf have no representation at all on the current Wi-Fi Warrior Rank, but even in the online SWT qualifiers, which features some of the most stacked online tournaments ever, Ganondorf is rather uncommon and has more losses than wins. Even if you ignore SWT, Ganondorf still sees little representation at the major online tournaments. For example, the S-tier tournament The Airlock only has 2 Ganondorf players in top 48 and none past top 24. If Ganondorf truly does "owns" online, then we'd see Ganondorf players place consistently in top 16 at major tournaments like The Airlock.

"the fast agile top tiers are heavily hindered by the gameplay alterations"

Pikachu and Roy are fast, agile top tier characters, yet they still continue to do very well online. In addition, even though Peach and Joker are seen as worse than their offline counterparts, they aren't suddenly low tier due to the input delay. What about Samsora, who despite having a bad time online still managed to rank in the top 50 on the most stacked online season yet? Or Sharp, who has pulled out Joker as a secondary and co-main at several WWR-ranked tournaments and seen success?

"Due to increased input delay and gameplay differences online, the 2 types of tier lists are completely different"

Kind of a reiteration on my point, but the input delay, while affects characters, does not really affect their viability. Strong online characters such as Ness, Game & Watch, R.O.B., and Min Min are still strong characters offline. On the other hand, while weak offline characters such as Little Mac, Jigglypuff, and even Ganondorf have their good Wi-Fi Warriors, they still have overall abysmal performances online. Despite the common perception, for the most part the characters who are good offline are still good online, and the characters who are bad offline may have a bit more benefits online, but are ultimately still bad online.

Finally, with DLC ongoing until December, we won't see an actual, "good" Ultimate tier list until at least a year later, so even if we do consider an online tier list, we won't be adding one anytime soon. CookiesCreme 23:09, July 5, 2021 (EDT)

Auto-generated Tier list?

I'm not savvy in much of the possibilities of wiki data, but I have been wondering if it is possible to set up an auto-generated "tier list" that is created using the results of confirmed tournament play, restricted within a major update period (ie: a moveset update would result in a new tier list being generated to be accurate to the present while the past version could be able to show the real shifts over time of how the updates are affecting the gameplay at higher play)? As there is only one DLC character left, and there could well be only one more moveset update after that point (to re-balance gameplay after they are tested in the wild).

It could be based on character vs character results, adjusted by stock difference/match duration (but not based on total victories, beyond determining their match-up against a particular character, as popularity alone would drive that number higher)? At the least, it would only be based on information that should not be affected by bias (beyond that of the players choosing which characters to use at the time). While early on it would surely show many less-popular characters as "low-tier" merely due to reduced usage (as there is a LOT of characters), it could start giving a real idea of how they really do match up, and over time it would start to show. Jarie Suicune (talk) 16:48, September 4, 2021 (EDT)

First, what you describe is honestly very complicated to the point where the effort may not be worth it (it also requires actual coding and data structure rather than wikitext, something that most users on here most likely do not know). Even if we were able to do that, it is still not an accurate representation of the current metagame. Remember, representation is just one (albeit, major) part of tier lists. There's also their overall strengths and weaknesses as well as matchups against other characters, which can't easily be measured solely through competitive matches. If we base it solely on representation in tournament, then the current top 3 would be R.O.B., Roy, and Palutena, a top three that almost no one would agree with. Furthermore, even if there is a character considered top tier, if the character doesn't have great representation, they aren't ever going to be ranked that high. For example, Pikachu is widely considered a top 10 character, with some going as far as to say the best, thanks to its good frame data. However, Pikachu is only ranked 23rd for usage in 2019 and is barely in top 30 for usage in 2021; both placements aren't considered top tier. CookiesCreme 17:23, September 4, 2021 (EDT)

Well known ultimate tier lists?

Could we post well known ultimate tier lists or ones done by popular YouTubers/streamers? Like MKleo’s and pro guides? Or would that break some sort of rule? (XxP1NKxX (talk) 19:07, October 2, 2021 (EDT))

Tier lists here are supposed to reflect what the entire community currently thinks. Adding a tier list from only one player does not reflect what the entire community thinks. CookiesCreme 19:09, October 2, 2021 (EDT)

Okay, what about one from pro guides (or something similar) that is stat or system based instead? I can understand problems from just picking some professional players (XxP1NKxX (talk) 19:13, October 2, 2021 (EDT))

Pro guides has been infamously unreliable from what I know in the past. Other stat and system-based tier lists are also generally not as reliable. We're currently doing an overhaul/major change to what tier lists we report, and with DLC being completed by the end of the year, I'd doubt we have a concrete tier list here for at least another year or so. CookiesCreme 19:18, October 2, 2021 (EDT)

Okay, cool. I just thought that I’d put my thoughts out there. (XxP1NKxX (talk) 19:20, October 2, 2021 (EDT))

New Brawl Tier List

Recently, the Brawl Bois community (basically the hub of SSBB discussions, who's player rankings have been accepted by the wiki) have worked on creating a new tier list. It has involvement from currently active players, former pros, and other respected players. As such, I think it'd be suitable for replacing the wiki's currently used tier list, but I'd like to make sure. If it does get accepted, I'll be available to edit any pages that need to be edited. Ehnkr2beboh (talk) 9:41, 16 September 2022 (EST)

Tier list debate 2020

I've been waiting years for the follow up to the tier list debate from 2020 (https://www.ssbwiki.com/Forum:Tier_list_debate_2020:_Part_1), and then suddenly there's a new Ultimate tier list posted to the page without any discussion. 76.84.37.87 23:46, March 22, 2023 (EDT)

There was a discussion about it here. In short, during the time period in between, PG stats stepped forward as a replacement for the SmashBoards tier list organization, as in fact they were the organization responsible for the current Melee tier list. However, PG stats' tier list was cancelled due to several controversies with the organization, then in the end UltRank stepped up to take their place. Ultimate Toad, the Toad Warrior. (I'm the best!) 00:33, March 23, 2023 (EDT)

Dandy’s world

Dandy’s world 106.128.100.2 07:03, October 24, 2024 (EDT)

This is irrelevant. GreatSmashFan2011 (talk) 13:13, February 19, 2026 (UTC)

Question

I had no clue where to ask this, but are there any Ult characters who you would say are going through a decline, and thus, would fall significantly on the 3rd tier list (significantly as in like a 8 or more spot drop) Thx in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLegendaryBrick (talk • contribs) 01:46, December 27, 2024

There definitely will, but that would be something to discuss when the third list releases. CookiesCreme 10:59, December 27, 2024 (EST)

Other question

Do representation rankings by easyfreezie count towards tier lists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLegendaryBrick (talk • contribs) 02:20, December 27, 2024

Those aren't actual tier lists, though that being said I have been using Easy/OrionRank's character data when it came to discussing representation on the wiki, so maybe we could have a page for them in the future. CookiesCreme 10:59, December 27, 2024 (EST)

Placements

Recently, I made a chart showing character placements on the tier list, rounded to the closest whole number. I used the same formula as Mikey D. (which is also placed on the chart). While most of the "best/worst placements" for each character are true, there are a few discrepancies between what the wiki says and the chart I made:

• Captain Falcon is actually at his best in Smash 64 (82), not Melee (80).
• Mewtwo is actually worse in Ultimate (16) than in Melee (24).
• Charizard is actually ranked worse in Smash 4 (23) than Pokémon Trainer is in Brawl (25 without Shielda accounted for, 24 with them accounted for).
• Lucario actually ranks slightly better in Brawl (72 without Shielda and 73 with) compared to Smash 4 (70).

And some others that might not be helpful (especially since most of these numbers are rounded) but might still be worth noting:

• Mario ranks slightly worse in Melee (44) compared to Smash 64 (45).
• Link ranks slightly worse in Brawl (8) compared to Smash 64 (9).
• Zelda ranks slightly worse in Smash 4 (2) compared to Brawl (3), though this admittedly only accounted for Zelda being worse than, rather than tied with, Ganondorf.

Now yes, the current wording (especially regarding Lucario) does imply that the characters are at their best in those games, but here's the thing: the current wording ranks characters based on their placement, not their viability. This is probably the most famous with Pit, who's best placement in Brawl is often considered to be his least viable. Other examples include Ness, Dr. Mario, and Ganondorf's drops from Smash 4 to Ultimate despite being made more viable. Thoughts, and can I update the pages to reflect this? I am ROB (talk) 21:19, April 19, 2026 (UTC)

As much I know, the tier list actually rank characters from their strength, weakness and viability, so I think, it’s otherwise inconsistent 194.230.160.143 14:05, April 20, 2026 (UTC)

Your chart just opens the door for so many errors, when people can just do the math. Proportionately, and relative to the total characters, 3rd out of 12 is the same as 6th out of 24. Captain Falcon is 6th out of *26* in Melee. Therefore, he is - again, relative to the total characters - higher rank in Melee than in Smash 64. And it's not always looked at in terms of "relative to the total characters". You often have to take tier grading into account also. Thus far, the total fighters has only increased as the Smash series has gone on. This seems to be the proper way to be looking at it. 135.23.41.56 02:07, April 24, 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively (and perhaps more accurately) you could take the numeric value below each characters rank and adjust it for the total characters. So for Captain Falcon, for example, in Smash 64, he has a 3.42. In Melee, he has a 5.82. Since you have to double it and then some (to properly adjust for the total characters, in this case): 3.42 becomes 6.84+. Therefore, Captain Falcon in Melee is higher, if you are specifically looking at it *relative to the total characters*... Again, this seems to be the proper way to be looking at it. 135.23.41.56 02:57, April 24, 2026 (UTC)

Also, to add to the topic: You sometimes have situations like Pikachu, where in Brawl and Smash 4 it is a B tier, yet in Melee it is a B+ tier, while also technically in its worst placement in the series in Melee *relative to the total characters*. All the while, B+ tier is an objectively higher tier than B tier. There is also things such as "SS" tier in Brawl, which skews it even more. This is why looking at it relative to the total characters doesn't always work, each game isn't balanced identically to the other, and sometimes it's better to just call it a "similar placing [to a different title] in the Smash series" and leaving it at that. 135.23.41.56 07:11, April 24, 2026 (UTC)

As I said, yes, this does not grade how viable characters are. For instance, Luigi in Smash 64 is still more viable than his Brawl counterpart despite being ranked lower (relative to the amount of characters there are). And yes, while the math for Captain Falcon seems to imply that it is technically ranked higher in Melee compared to Smash 64, the placement formula does not match that. In case you're wondering, the formula, created by Mikey D., is ((fighters ranked-fighter rank)/(fighters ranked-1))*100. This means that characters ranked first (like Brawl Meta Knight) get a perfect 100 points, while characters ranked last (like Melee Bowser) get 0 points. Now yes, grading systems can differ, but in respect to the range between the best and worst fighters, I think that the case of Captain Falcon being ranked higher in Smash 64 compared to Melee still stands. As for "tier grading", if this was put into effect for ranking characters, this means that Ganondorf in Smash 4 would be even worse than his Brawl counterpart, while Ike's worst is in Smash 4, and Toon Link's "worst" placement in Ultimate would be his "best" placement viability-wise, as he was ranked C+ in Brawl and C in Smash 4 while he was ranked A- in Ultimate despite being ranked lower relative to the total amount of characters. Remember that this formula is used to calculate placement, not viability. I am ROB (talk) 16:10, April 24, 2026 (UTC)

I already explained how it's obvious that Melee Falcon is relatively higher than 64 Falcon. You are not going to get everyone in the world to be like "okay, let's go with I am ROB's ranking chart". They are just going to do the math themselves. Those formula's (which are arbitrary, by the way) also don't seem to be accounting for the numeric value below the ranking of each character, which very specifically places them in relation to each character, and isn't just a number based on the total characters, and left at that. You could easily just do the math wrong for everyone. 135.23.41.56 18:15, April 24, 2026 (UTC)

This isn't my formula. This was created by Mikey D. to determine the 10 best (and worst) fighters in the series. I do understand the number calculation and how the tiers are calculated, but placement measures characters based on their relative placement, not tier, absolute number, or absolute tier, mostly in regards to how they fare against other fighters in the same game, which is why Smash 64 Luigi is seen as being placed worse than Brawl Luigi despite being in a higher tier and fewer spots from first place. Also keep in mind that different games have different tiers (like how 64, Brawl, and Smash 4 have unified B Tiers but it is split in Melee and Ultimate), and tier names can change (like how there was a J tier in early Smash 4 tier lists, under the "tier name" logic Brawl Ganondorf shouldn't be the worst character in the series, as at least 4 other characters are worse). Speaking of which, what formula do you use to calculate placement? Because my formula provides an equal point for first place and last place, which is important for placement, not necessarily not tier they are in, their number below, or their viability. I am ROB (talk) 18:34, April 24, 2026 (UTC)

The roster has been expanding each release. Therefore, placements relative to the total characters is *also* expanding. If a character is 2nd out of 10 in a game, and then there is a sequal, with 20 total, that makes 4th out of 20 relatively the same placement, relative to the total characters. I already explained it above and don't feel like explaining it again. There also sometimes just has to be an informed explanation to clarify, based on knowledge of the metagame, that even though numbers say one thing, in practice, it is something else (such as with Brawl Pit). 135.23.41.56 19:05, April 24, 2026 (UTC)

I misspelled "sequel" but I also wanted to follow up to say that the "G" tier in Smash 4 is the most blatant inconsistency in the letter grade system for tier lists, based on Brawl Ganondorf being widely deemed the worst character in the entire Smash series - and it should probably be adjusted to an F tier in the appropriate way, along with the above tiers properly adjusted for (but I doubt it will be). 135.23.41.56 21:58, April 24, 2026 (UTC)

I totally get where you're coming from. However, this formula that you're using doesn't work for rankings. For example, if Pikachu was 2nd place in a Smash 2 with 24 characters, I doubt that would be equivalent to his 1st place placement from the first game. Similarly, using the same method you used to argue that Captain Falcon is ranked his best in Melee, then Meta Knight in Brawl would be ranked lower than not only Steve in Ultimate, but also Sonic from the same game (1/82>2/82>2/76 (or 74 without Shielda accounted for)=1/38 (or 37)). Your method looks at the midpoints between points, while my method looks at the points themselves, so Pikachu/Fox/Meta Knight/Bayonetta/Steve all have values of 100, and Luigi/Bowser/Ganondorf/Jigglypuff/GanonDUOrf all have values of 0. Same endpoints, but with each point per game being equidistant from each other, Captain Falcon ranks higher in Smash 64 than in Melee. I am ROB (talk) 23:23, April 24, 2026 (UTC)

1: Characters *are not* "equidistant" from one another. Representing them as such by any made up formula for content is, again, *arbitrary*. 2: Characters are also not first, or last by the exact same margins. 3: The added decimal places are there to represent by how much the character earned their rank, to show how near to 4th they are for example, such as the case of Captain Falcon in Smash 64, and also how much higher they are than an actual flat 6th rank, such as Captain Falcon in Melee. I've done enough explaining thus far, re-read what I've already said or take it up with the moderators. 135.23.41.56 03:12, April 25, 2026 (UTC)

I know what you're trying to say but you are thinking about character viabilities. Placement does not take that, or tier listings, or the number value into account. Just how a character ranks in the tier list. That's it. Yes, they might not be exactly equidistant, but when comparing rankings between games, equidistance is the only thing that matters as it allows an easier comparison between character placements, which is also true for making the 1st-place ceilings and last-place floors the same. I know that Ultimate Steve has an advantage against more people than Smash 64 Pikachu, but if they are seen as better than everyone else regardless, it doesn't matter. Exactly the same with character placements; a character can be ranked better or worse than other characters, but their absolute placement doesn't matter; their relative placement compared to the rest of the cast does. And as I said, this isn't a formula I made; it was made by Mikey D. to calculate the average placement of a character, and I'm only using it to calculate placements between games, using both the best and worst characters per game as the same endpoints for a more accurate comparison, with the distance between the fighters being the same within the same game. When Pikachu and Fox have the same ceiling, and Luigi and Bowser have the same floor, it's clear where Captain Falcon is better. I am ROB (talk) 20:10, April 26, 2026 (UTC)

Insofar as the math checks out -- Smash 64 Falcon: ((1200-342)-((1200-100)*100= 78. -- Melee Falcon: ((2600-582)-(2600-100)*100= 80.72. -- Even if you run the same formula adjusted for precise placements based on the given decimals, it doesn't work regardless. And it is still an arbitrary calculation. 135.23.41.56 00:55, April 27, 2026 (UTC)

Properly written: ((1200-342)/((1200-100))*100= 78. ((2600-582)/(2600-100))*100= 80.72. 135.23.41.56 01:18, April 27, 2026 (UTC)

And no, I'm capable of omitting the aspect of viability, and only considering placement. I said *relative* *relatively the same*, *relative to the total characters*, plenty of times, and you still landed on "I doubt that would be equivalent". You're not even trying to do the same thing that the youtuber who made up the formula was doing in the first place. He was doing it in regards to Nintendo's flagship characters across the series, as their own entities, to see who carries strengths throughout Smash the best, roughly speaking. People are capable of perceiving this particular thing, specifically about two different Captain Falcon's, which is totally separate, very simply - multiple people have already gone over it. I already said you can re-read what I've written and take it up with the moderators. You're probably going to get farther trying to convince them anyways. 135.23.41.56 03:11, April 27, 2026 (UTC)

You are using the numbers used to rank the fighters below, while I am using the absolute placement of the character (for example, Brawl Olimar is ((38-3)/(38-1))*100=approx. 95). While using the bottom rank number is fine, it is, after all, only the number used to judge rankings and tier splits (which by itself is a whole can of worms I don't want to open). Not to mention that Ultimate uses a different viability ranking system from the other four games, so that method won't work there. Captain Falcon in 64 is ((12-3)/(12-1))*100=approx. 82, while him in Melee is ((26-6)/(26-1))*100=80. And as I said, the ceilings are the same (anything divided by itself and then multiplied by 100 is always 100, like Brawl Meta Knight is ((38-1)/(38-1))*100), and so are the floors (0 divided by anything is still 0, like Melee Bowser is ((26-26)/(26-1))*100=0). And no, I do not mean for this to be a 1-on-1 conversation with you anyways. This is a talk page for a subject, so I invite others to share their suggestions on this. I don't see your ranking system as valid, and that's fine. You don't see mine as such, and that's also fine. But I would like to hear how other users see both of our ranking systems (or Mikey D.'s in case of mine), rather than let a 1-on-1 dictate how characters' placements are ranked. I am ROB (talk) 14:10, April 27, 2026 (UTC)

That decimal point does not represent "viability".... It's how a bunch of votes from many different people averaged out to have characters end up where they are. "Viability" is a largely subjective assessment which can vary greatly. The characters got their placements because those decimals round to that amount, based on the characters. It represents how often they were ranked lower or higher. All of that goes into their rank... That's how these official tier lists were formed. That means it has everything to do with their placement (look at Smash 64 Puff and Mario) otherwise they would exclude it. And even still, it's not hard to omit first and last no matter what system you try to use (even though as I've already said, characters are not equidistant... they aren't first or last by the exact same margins...) A character could be first in *two* different games, and still be better in one, *relative to the total characters*, in a way that isn't only based on just "that ones better than more characters"... And aside from another dumb inconsistency (like the "G" tier), with the way Ultimate did it, you see by how much a character is the best by *looking at the decimal values*. *And* it can still be done in Ultimate. SSBWiki already clearly has its way of determining "technically" best, and "technically" worst placements in the series, and one is probably just simply the inverse of the other... I am the one who said a long time ago sometimes it's better to just call it "similar" in rank, and leave it at that (although, clearly multiple people already interpret 3/12 and 6/26 in a similar way)... and I am also no where near invested enough in this to go on and on about it. 135.23.41.56 20:59, April 27, 2026 (UTC)

Well, as for your "better" characters, in terms of viability and how many characters they win/lose against, then yes, this is absolutely valid. However, when looking at placements alone, even if a character that is the best in multiple games is better in one, they are still placed the same. Case point? Brawl Ganondorf's page says that he is ranked the same as Ultimate despite being more viable in the latter, showing that the wiki sees both the floors and ceilings between games as the same. And as you said, you aren't invested in it. If you don't want to continue this conversation, that's fine. But I still want to see how other users think about this. I am ROB (talk) 23:11, April 27, 2026 (UTC)

On a related side note, this is also sometimes inconsistent. As such, we should maybe let it, as other people would argue about that 178.82.27.142 16:32, April 24, 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, calculating the exact best placement is a bit trivial. Similar to what ROB said in his initial post, what matters is a character's viability in regards to the rest of the cast (so despite both being ranked as the worst character in their game, Ultimate Ganondorf is superior to Brawl Ganondorf). It's better to just say whether they are roughly the same placement instead of pointing to the decimal points, as well as clarifying that a character could fare worse in a subsequent game despite being unobjectively better than their previous counterparts, and vice-versa. CookiesCreme 16:44, April 24, 2026 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that while Ganondorf is currently dead last in both Brawl and Ultimate, in Brawl, he is an F tier. In Ultimate, he is an E tier. if the letter grade system were doing its job properly, this would make possible an interpretation of who is worse, or more viable. But of course, the entire "G" tier in Smash 4 throws a wrench into looking at it that way. There are other, less blatant examples of the letter grade system screwing up making loosely accurate interpretations like this, but this one is probably the worst example of it. It should be fixed and be considered in the future when making tier lists. 135.23.41.56 20:09, April 25, 2026 (UTC)

I don't know too much about how the letter grade system works in other games, but at least in Ultimate, it's meant to group characters based off k-means clustering (Now granted, I haven't seen the data itself so I don't really know how many clusters they decided to go with, but I assume it's still reasonable). I think it was similar with Smash 4 as well. Hence, why there's "inconsistent" letter grading. CookiesCreme 20:32, April 26, 2026 (UTC)