Talk:Tier list/Archive 5

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Archive.png This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Inaccuracy[edit]

I looked ad the Brawl tier list and noticed that it is not correct. wario is not 7th, he is 3rd, so diddy kong is not 3rd. King dedede is 6th, not 8th. etc. Kirby0h0 (talk) 03:12, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

There's an update. 98.117.158.220 03:12, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
The update was made today. Blue Ninjakoopa 03:37, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

i wish people KNEW what a tier is i know they are real but i still don't like the melee tier but that does'nt mean i don't believe it also im the guy who said the floor glitch is real but hard to do it's about 60% of the time i fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.21.80 (talkcontribs)

Please don't make an account if this is going to be indicative of the quality of the posting you do with it. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:13, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

I can beat a LV. 9 Meta Knight with Ganondorf. And I did a CPU Vs. CPU with Kirby Lv. 3 Vs. Meta Knight Lv. 9, and Sonic Lv. 3 Vs. Meta Knight Lv. 9, and Sonic and Kirby won. Thus I really don't think Meta Knight should be so high and Sonic and Kirby should be higher.

Did you have items on or something? In any case, you need more than three tests to prove your theory. Furthermore, you haven't supplied any proof of this feat. Finally, you haven't specified how they won, or even any other points of why MK shouldn't be as high. In any case, comments like these don't belong here. Please read the message at the top of the page. Sir Anon the great 02:08, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I did not have items on...non...and I did Kirby Lv.1 5 times, then Lv.2 5 times, then Lv. 3 five times and Kirby didn't lose a single time on Lv.3, and same thing for Sonic.

You must be mistaken somehow. I've tried it, and MK never lost. Mr. Anon teh awsome 03:26, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oh I forgot I did it on battlefield...If that helps...at all...

How did the CPUs win? Anon 03:32, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
All of this is completely irrelevant. CPUs are not programed to fully understand the metagame because they were programed before the metagame existed. Most decent players can beat any Lvl 9 character with any character they choose. Most pros can also beat me with any character they choose. So what? The tier list is designed for when skill is near equal between two human players. The computer has no idea how to play Meta Knight. This guy knows how to play Meta Knight. Also, from a purely statistical standpoint, a single game is meaningless no matter how it occurred. Any single event can be an anomaly. Even if the circumstances surrounding your example merited discussion about the tier list (they don't), having only a single example provides nothing to say we should change the tier list. Provide 1000 examples, and you start to get somewhere, but they still need to be relevant to the tier list. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 13:14, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Ok..............[edit]

I Dont see why this tierthing is so controversial, heres my take; the highest tiers arent the best characters, they're just the easiest to master, i mean think about it, Meta Knight is quite clearly easier to master then Ganondorf, but if you take time to master Ganondorf, then Ganondorf can be much better then Meta Knight, just saying.....

I know what you mean. I can't kill crap with meta knight but i use Ganondorf as an alternate.File:MG4.png|50pxEvilGRAHAM 0Mmmm Free Goo! 02:48, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

A tier list is basically peoples opinions of characters from different games. I do think that tiers don't exist and people should play whoever they main in order to win. Like some Wario mains actually beat Meta Knight and [Lengendary Pikachu]] beating a Meta Knight in teams. I also play Doc a lot better than Fox in Melee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.147.155 (talkcontribs) 00:13, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

If you think tiers don't exist, read this. Oh, and that last phrase you added (that has been removed) is often grounds for blocking. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png The Table Designer 00:20, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

If you think tiers exist, than go watch NEO, Taj, or Gimpyfish and you will see that Tiers don't exist. GET PWNED BY THE DOC KING!!!!!

Doc King, talk pages are for talking about problems with the article itself not about the the subject of the article, that's what the forums are for. 4DJONG (talk)

Sorry, I will stop talking about my opinions and rather talk about improving articles like this one (64.252.134.129 19:50, May 17, 2010 (UTC))

Clarifying info[edit]

In most peoples' experiences, tier plays little role in the overall outcome of the match, especially when a player is obviously more skilled than the competition. Tiers are simply a rating based on the winning consistency and potential one character has in the overall understanding of the game thus far. This is only touched in the anti-tier arguments, but this is also supporting of the concept of tier and should be mentioned in the summary. 74.194.224.252 20:41, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Balance over the controversy[edit]

Both arguments over tiers have a point. Some characters have better attributes than other characters. However, it also takes skill to do well with these characters. As many know, the tier list is not set in stone; it is more of a guideline. It is possible for a player using Ganondorf to beat another player using Meta Knight. A higher tier means that the character has an advantage over another character; it does not mean that a high tier character will always win. If a player has significant skill enough to consistently win with a low tier character, that (drawn from the logic of the tiers) player has more Smashing awesomeness than someone who always wins with a high tier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbell888 (talkcontribs) 14:59, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

It is made quite clear in this article and the treatise that skill matters more than tiers. Miles (talk) 20:18, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
your a dumb shit, it goes by the matchups. and wario WAS 3rd until they found out that he was not THAT good and u mostly see metaknights, snakes, and diddy kongs win tournaments. 1,2,3 and yes he is 3rd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.165.244 (talkcontribs)

Remember, no personal attacks, and skill matters more than tiers because, if you are skilled enough with Ganondorf you could beat M2K, when he is playing as Meta Knight. Also the tiers are for the characters that are more easily mastered than other characters, not who is better. User:4DJONG (talk)

Incorrect. The tier list only matters when all characters are mastered. If it was simply based on learning curve then characters such as Olimar would be at the bottom. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png eXemplary Logic 18:02, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

in my opinion Tiers are bullshit, I can agree with the ones higher up on the page that the tiers are not an explanation to the characters performance, but rather how easy they are to play and even master, I main meta knight and I have done so since the game was realesed since I have always liked him, and my second main is ganondorf and I am just as good with both of them, my friend and I play very offten and he mains link, and he haven't played the game half as much as I have, and it's quiet even when we plays he might even win more then I do. and I'm a real veteran on all smash brothers games, I have done my homework I am very good with almost every character in brawl, including zelda and ganonndorf, so why they are on the bottom of the tier list is just not right to be honest, probably becuse the once who did the tier list do not know how to play them, just a thought though considering I know how they shall be played.

conclusion: some characters are easyer to play yes, but as final verdict teirs are just bullshit thx for me ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.40.44 (talkcontribs) 07:19, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't anyone use talk pages for their proper purpose? Didn't you read the notice at top of the page? You also didn't sign your comment. I'm not going to get into an argument about tiers but you saying that characters higher on the tier list are easier to master is false. The Ice Climbers, Olimar, and Lucario are arguably the most difficult characters to play properly. If it really was a measure on how "easy" a character is to play, the characters I mentioned above would not be high tier, Mario would not be low tier and Pit would be top tier if it truly was a measure of this. Just because you are good with a character does not mean the character themselves are good when compared to others. I can play Ganondorf well but does that change the fact that he is the worst character? No, it does not. Sure, I can three stock my brother's Meta Knight with him but just because you can beat up your friends' characters with a bottom tier character doesn't mean they aren't bottom tier. Practically no one's competency list (how good they are with each character) is going to exactly match the tier list. So just because some people are terrible with Meta Knight or Snake does not mean they aren't the two best characters in the game and just because some people can play Ganondorf exceptionally well does not mean he's not the worst character. Also, how can every character be even when their statistics are not? Now before you post again, read this and think carefully before your next post. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 08:16, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

to be honest it's quite fun to see what a big deal these tiers have become, it's like teir wars three god, well it matters little, in my opinion tiers do not exist, that is my opinion and that is unlikly to change, and then there are others what beg to differ, ok then you may belive tiers exists, it's kinda lame though but sure, I only wanted to post my opinion before and omega tyrant sends me a link to prove me wrong xD, sorry mate but I use my own thoughts and experince to create my own opinion ^^ so I'll stick to my opinion on that tiers do not exists, it also makes it a bit more fun not to belive in tiers, it makes the game flow on as it should do when you play it with your friends,

I belive that when someone take a seat infront of the computer and spend hours to create a tier list, it has gone to far, so this is my last post on this place (though it is only my second but thats beside the point =)

as a nice end, why bother proving eachother wrong on a useless point such as this, god just play the game instead we all have different opinions and thats not going to change, so if you want to play a balanced fighting game play blazblue or sometihng and stop nagging eachothers ass off.

thx for me once more ^^

Tiers obviously fuck up how characters are supposed to be played. For example, if Mario is supposed to be a well-balanced character, then why the hell is he in the F tier instead of the C tier. That's why I hate tiers. They fuck up the way characters are supposed to work. Even though I haven't played the game, it's obvious that if trained enough properly, a character in the G tier like Zelda, Link or Ganondorf can beat someone in the S tier like Meta Knight. In short, all characters can be played evenly with some training. --Whackeyeye5 22:05, August 5, 2010 (UTC) --User was banned for this post

Read this. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png 22:08, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Why[edit]

Tiers are the most ridiculous things I have ever seen, characters are determined by skill of the player with these characters, not value. Meta Knight has a learning curve, along with every other character. I don't understand why Snake is so high, you have to consider cons along with pros, not just pros. Why do tiers even exist, who cares if they are incorrect, it takes skill to get good with the characters to take full advantage of them. For a tournament you use your best character, not whoever according to the tier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B-52 (talkcontribs) 16:40, July 24, 2010

First of all sign your posts using ~~~~ Second, read this. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) Dp99.png 16:47, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
And third of all, it says at the top, that type of discussion does not go here. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) Dp99.png 16:48, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
Why are Snake and Diddy 2nd and 3rd!? (I use a gamecube controller,so I say game cube controls) Snakes -> B means that he is in helpless posision untul the missle crashes or some one attacks him! and Diddy is third because of his BANANA PEELS!?!? That is...... wow. Mesuxelf (talk) 20:54, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Talk pages are to be used to discuss matters that pertain to the content of the article, not to discuss what your opinion is of what the article is about. Such matters can be discussed in forums, not on the talk pages. Omega TyrantTyranitarMS.png 21:05, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Debates about the existance of tiers[edit]

People keep on ranting about how tiers don't exist on this page even though it doesn't belong here. It says clearly at the top, yet people keep trolling here. Perhaps we should issue a temp ban on anyone who puts that kind of content on this talk page? Anon 00:15, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

It's not that big of a deal. Shadowcrest 02:24, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point myself The only thing the list proves is that Snake and Meta Knight are broken .The Corrupted One

The images are hard to read[edit]

I think it would be better if there were text instead of image thumbnails for the tier list.

First of all, sign your comments using ~~~~ Second of all, I can "read" the images fine and i use an iPod, so they dont need to be replaced with text. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) Dp99.png 01:10, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
If text is used it would be better than if images are used. that what it was like a year ago and it was better then.Poodoas (talk) 06:50, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Images are fine. No need to add text instead. That would make it more dull. Images are easy to "read".--MegaTron1XD:p 06:52, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
How about image and text?Poodoas (talk) 07:50, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Attempting to use text in the current format will give all the cells different sizes. Not good. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png 12:48, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Final Smashes and character balance[edit]

Evidence on the Dojo shows that Sakurai factored Final Smashes into the balance of some fighters. For example, take Jigglypuff. This is its description as a fighter on the Dojo:

Jigglypuff has neither a long reach nor a lot of power to its attacks. On top of that, it’s not a particularly fast runner and is extremely easy to KO because of how light it is. At a glance, Jigglypuff seems like an utterly flawed character, but the truth is that Jigglypuff has a few abilities that balance things out, like its superior midair capabilities.

He specifically states the fact that its weaknesses are (supposed to be) balanced out by "a few abilities". He names its "superior midair capabilities" as one of them.

<Down Special Move: Rest> - This is Jigglypuff’s other saving grace. Unleash Rest on an opponent when you’re overlapping him or her and watch ‘em go flying!

Another ability, Rest, is described as its "other saving grace". This indicates that, along with its midair capabilities, Rest is another ability that balances its weaknesses.

<Final Smash: Puff Up> - This is Jigglypuff’s saving grace number three. This move can be devastating if you fire it up in the right spot!

Puff Up is described as its "saving grace number three" - which shows that it, like Rest, is considered one of the "few abilities that balance things out". This is evidence enough that Jigglypuff's Final Smash was designed with the intent of balancing its flaws, and therefore designed as part of its balance as a fighter in matches. This also shows that Final Smashes are, for some characters at least, "saving graces" that aid in balancing them as fighters. Mako Shark (talk) 22:39, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both the line of reasoning and the concept. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png 22:53, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider this proof that final smashes were factored in to every character's balance. The only final smash that can be said to be made purposely less effective is the Ice Climbers' final smash per the trophy's description. Every character's final smash can be considered a "saving grace". Just seeing Sakurai saying Jigglypuff's final smash is one of its saving graces is not enough proof to confirm this. You would have to find evidence that shows that a character's final smash was purposely made less or more effective to balance the character out. The fact that smash balls can be turned off can be considered proof against final smashes being considered into each character's balance. If they were intended to balance the game, why would you give people the option to turn them off? Also, there are many high tier characters that have good final smashes while there are many low tier characters that have poor final smashes. Snake, who is considered the second best character in the game, has what is considered one of the best final smashes. Link on the other hand, is considered the second worst characters, yet also has what is considered one of the worst final smashes.
As such, Sakurai simply stating that a character's final smash is one of their "saving graces" is not proof that final smashes were factored into balance as this is the general purpose of final smashes. You would have to find evidence that explicitly states multiple characters' final smashes were purposely made more or less effective than other characters. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 22:58, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
Part of your argument is invalid. You cannot use tiers in an argument about game design, as the designers cannot predict or even acknowledge tiers. You also have to remember that the game was designed with items in mind - just because they can be turned off doesn't mean that's what they want you to do so. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png 23:08, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
That may be, but there would have to be evidence that shows that final smashes were purposely made more or less effective to balance the game. As for bringing up the tiers, I often see people use MK as an example as to why final smashes were intended to balance the game. So I brought up two examples to show that a character's tier position is irrelevant to their final smash effectiveness. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 23:15, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
I did say, some characters, not all of them. The fact that Jigglypuff's Final Smash is a definite yes proves that at least one character had their Final Smash incorporated into their balance as a fighter. So, while it's not possible to prove with solid evidence, I'd be willing to bet there are more, particularly in terms of "effectiveness of Final Smash versus agility of character" - the reward versus the likelihood of a given character managing to break a Smash Ball in a hectic match. Anyway, the point is, that's evidence enough for me, and I thought OT might be interested to read it too. I reckon the article flows better without the Final Smash example anyway. Mako Shark (talk) 00:39, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
Again, that is not proof that Puff Up was a definite yes to being factor in Jiggypuff's balance. As said before, every character's final smash is supposed to be a saving grace and they were all designed to be "devastating when fired correctly". Sakurai stating this for Jigglypuff does not mean it is factored into its balance. Also, I don't consider this interesting. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 00:48, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes me feel delightful. I'll definitely put the effort in next time. Mako Shark (talk) 00:51, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
No, but it's likely that final smashes has something to do with balance. For example MK has one of the worst Final Smashes, yet Ganon has one of the best. And how is Link's bad, btw? It's long ranged and does a ton of damage. I agree that the tier list won't be completely altered if we let smash balls in tournies, but they have are a factor in character balance. Mr. Anon teh awsome 23:03, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
Meta Knight's final smash isn't "one of the worst". BNK [E|T|C] 23:06, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
That is just speculation. Actually read what I said and come up with an argument that actually refutes mine instead of saying "no". As for Link's final smash being poor, it only can hit one character and many final smashes cause damage that exceeds 50%, so that is really not a defining factor that gives Link's final smash an edge over others. As for your other statements, it is likely just coincidence that MK has what is consider a poor final smash and Ganondorf has what is considered a great final smash. Like I said, find evidence that explicitly says MK's final smash was purposely made less effective or Ganondorf's was purposely made more effective for your argument to hold weight. Otherwise, you are just speculating and speculation does not belong on the Wiki. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 23:11, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
Link's Final Smash does work on one opponent, but it can hit multiple opponents at once and like BNK, it has very long range. It can also be a OHKO in most cases. Zeldasmash 00:53, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this discussion is over and there is no need to argue over the effectiveness of Link's final smash. However, it is far from being an OHKO. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 00:56, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
ZS. Know the meaning of a OHKO. It must defeat in ONE hit. Multiple hits are used in the Triforce Slash.--MegaTron1XD:p 05:12, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Is this serious?[edit]

Can somebody post a link or something to the "new" Melee tier list? I'm having a hard time believing it. Kperfekt Talk Is Cheap... But I Am Not. 18:16, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Melee list[edit]

While it is mostly a joke, should the "Gengar tier" at least be noted due to the line

"GENGAR Gengar (Master Hand and other glitches)"

simply as a point of reference for glitches? Smoreking(T) (c) 21:00, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

I noted the Gengar tier on the List of NTSC tier lists page; if you don't think that's enough you could add it here, I don't think it'd be a problem. Toomai Glittershine Data Node 21:08, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

Can we put Trivia on this? Doc King (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2010 (EDT)

The problem is Doc, there is over a hundred trivias related to tier list. "TR4Q is a popular saying for those who do not approve of tier lists. Fox is the only high tier character to have numerous disadvantage matchups.".--MegaTron1XD:p 23:56, 30 October 2010 (EDT)
Not rly. You can just jot a few up since it's a popular article. Doc King (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2010 (EDT)
Let's argue about this on IRC. Doc King (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2010 (EDT)
No. Leave it here. Jotting down a few would be biased and would make everyone who sees it that is not aware that it should have a few trivia, which would be biased, would add down something they found trivia worthy. Sometimes, no trivia is the best way to make an article.--MegaTron1XD:p 00:01, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
There's nothing wrong with Trivia at all, I'm just gonna leave it for now and have the rest decide on this. Good night Meta Knight. Doc King (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
There is something wrong with trivia. Too much trivia, not notable trivia, and duplicated trivia. This would fall under too much trivia. We can not be biased at all. We can not feature a trivia for MK and not Pikachu (SSB). We'd had to feature trivia such as MK has remained dominant, Ganondorf has his own tier, there is a 3 way tie for 1st in SSBM, etc. Just no.--MegaTron1XD:p 00:07, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
It was decided before that trivia is not good for the tier list article, and as Mega said, the trivia that is trivia worthy is mentioned in other pages. Omega TyrantTyranitarMS.png 00:08, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
Ya. Too much. ..... (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2011 (EST)
In theory, no Smashwiki articles should have any trivia at all. In fact, one of my projects is to integrate trivia information with the rest of their articles. Doc, if you have a piece of information that you feel is worthy for the article, actually put it in the article, not in a miscellaneous section. Mr. Anon (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2011 (EST)
Just like I told Mr. Dots, pay attention to the timestamps, this conversation is months old and was resolved. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 04:00, 4 March 2011 (EST)

Sakurai balanced all Smash Bros. games[edit]

I think that is something very important to add to the article. Read more details on this tidbit here: http://wii.ign.com/articles/117/1174416p1.html TorchicBlaziken (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

Tier lists are potentials of each characters. Besides, we have a whole treaty on that kind of thing. MegaTron1XD:p 17:55, 14 June 2011 (EDT)
While there's no doubt the games were created with balance in mind, it is irrelevant to the subject of the article. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 17:56, 14 June 2011 (EDT)
What I meant is that when it says "that it would be almost impossible for developers to balance a game of unlike characters, because the differing properties of each character produce a huge number of variables that cannot successfully be monitored and modified for the purpose of balance. Thus, developers cannot foresee top-level strategies, and even deliberate efforts will not balance a game at a professional level" it would be useful to add that only one person was put to the task of balancing them. Only the release of the next Smash Bros. will prove or disprove that the combined brainpower of SSB developers can successfully balance the game. TorchicBlaziken (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
The article is not about that though :/ MegaTron1XD:p 18:13, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
It's definitely more likely that having more developers leads to a better-balanced game, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'll be better balanced competitively - remember, Smash Bros. was never designed to be competitive. Toomai Glittershine ??? The Jiggy 18:31, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
I think everybody likes every character balanced. Some people like Isai and Mew2king for some reason, uses the "Top tier" characters although competitive people think Pikachu, Fox and Meta Knight are the best because there leading the their own tier list. ..... Right on. CaptainFalconHeadSSBB.png 19:43, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
That post would belong on a forum, not in this discussion. DoctorPain99 (Talk • Contribs) DoctorPain99.png 19:44, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

Individual Matchups[edit]

(diff | hist) . . m Tier list‎; 23:04 . . (-245) . . Omega Tyrant (Talk | contribs) (Undid edit by Doc King: Unnecessary, it mentions that individual matchups can affect a tier placement.)

It actually is necessary because mentioning that can show more detail on how tier list work. It would be an important thing to add to this article, especially when one of the games in the series has an overdominant character called Meta Knight. Doc King (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

If you read my edit summary and what you were editing, you would see that it already mentions that matchups affect the tier list, just that they don't determine it. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 19:29, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
Well, it's kind of hard to tell whether or not we should put this on there. I mean, Wolf's better matchup against MK did determine a little bit of his Tier placement (2nd biggest rise in Brawl history). Although if you mean determine by completely 100 percent making a characters placement, then it shouldn't be there. It really depends on what you mean by determine. Doc King (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
For your example, I disagree with saying Wolf's rise was due to a slightly disadvantageous MK matchup. Wolf has won the 9th most money in tournaments, and I guarantee that is most responsible for his great rise on the recent list. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 19:58, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
Well, I have read the Smash Boards forum of the tier list and it said Wolf rised a lot being the fact that his mk matchup is better than the characters he rised above. Although I find your reasoning on Wolf as an acceptable exaplanation as to why Wolf rised on the Tier list. However, there's one problem with that. Wolf could be winning the 9th most money in tourney because of mk and you see mks often in tournaments. This looks like something we should probably ask and/or debate on Smash Boards. Doc King (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
Did the BBR said that themselves, or is it just random people claiming that in their forum posts? I read what the BBR said in the OP when the tier list came out, and they mentioned nothing about Wolf rising because of his perceived matchup against Meta Knight. As for the MK matchup leading to his tourney success, that's irrelevant. We're looking at the tourney results, not possible factors leading to those results.
If Wolf's tourney success was mediocre, then I could possibly agree with using him as an example for how a matchup could positively influence his tier position. But as I pointed out, his tourney success is certainly not mediocre, and with that, his not so bad MK matchup is certainly not noteworthy enough to mention here. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 20:20, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=306431 if you look down to where it says Character movement explained, you'll see it written where Wolf's Brawl icon is. Also this was put on there a few days after the list came out. Doc King (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
It does mention that, but it points out the tourney success I mentioned, as well as his other above average matchups. As such, that one matchup is not the reason Wolf rose. There's also the fact that the example you were trying to add simply doesn't fit into the paragraph you were adding it to. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 21:23, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
You're right OT. Like he has a positive matchup against Olimar and it did mention about his tourney success. Doc King (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (EDT)