Talk:Tier list/Archive 6

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? Blin dcol ours 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 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. Mega  Tron1  XD  Decepticon.png 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  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 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.  Anon MatchupUnknown.png talk   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 [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] 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  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 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  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 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  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 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  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 15:45, 28 January 2013 (EST)
 * I'm not anti-tier, and it's stupid of you to just assume so. I can see the existance of tiers (whether I think it really matters is another thing). As I pointed out before, there's no source to back it up. The first thing they teach you in BASIC High School English is to ALWAYS provide sources for your facts. My other suggestion (after plenty of thought), is to just cut the section entirely. It doesn't add any important information to the article (it barely is related to the article anyways), and as CLEARLY shown here, it has caused far too much controversy. The second option is ONCE again to use neutral language, because the diction used here is more styled towards a persuasive essay and is completely inappropriate for a Wiki page. I hope we all are willing to negotiate peacefully. Smashbrother101 (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
 * "As I pointed out before, there's no source to back it up."


 * We have a "source", if you actually bothered to read this nice little article we have linked in that section. Besides that, there's common sense, logic, empirical results, and you know, the fact that it's accepted among all but a deluded fringe group that keeps diminishing in presence.


 * "It doesn't add any important information to the article (it barely is related to the article anyways)"


 * Yes, it does. It addresses the "tier war" controversy that was very prevalent in early competitive Smash, and it addresses how the anti-tier side was wrong. The article reports the tier lists, and other relevant information regarding their creation and reception.


 * "and as CLEARLY shown here, it has caused far too much controversy."


 * So we now have to cater to an easily offended fringe group that has all but disappeared outside a few very vocal people? No. The information here is factual, and "controversy" (especially when it's hardly prevalent anymore) is no reason to truncate the Wiki's content. Find something offensive because it contradicts your deluded beliefs? Grow a thicker hide or just accept you were wrong.


 * "The second option is ONCE again to use neutral language"


 * A second option that is also terrible, when it still truncates the facts and lends credence to a side that has only shown themselves to be deluded, and been completely proven wrong again and again. Like I said before, "anti-tier" wants to be presented as valid? They can come up with some new arguments that aren't refuted and countered by common sense.


 * Now if you're going to bring back up an argument that has been resolved months ago, try harder, and stop using ALL CAPS when shouting doesn't make your point any clearer. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 14:46, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

Hey Omega, I am willing to take on 3 level 9 Snakes with Ganondorf, your tier list just like you examples are pointless -Alucard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alucard (talk • contribs) 23:19, 11 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Do we really have to make it that obvious that using CP players invalidates the concept? Toomai Glittershine [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Trumpeteer 23:22, 11 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Oh hey, you can beat up cpus, good for you. You certainly have realised by now that level nine cpus are as good as a mediocre casual at best? And severely underutilise every character? Besides what Toomai said, you just strawmanned what I said. Perhaps read it fully and respond to what I actually said? Also sign your comments with four tildes ~ . Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 23:35, 11 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Wow I got 2 Moderators mad at me, well in order first Omega, quit being such a prick,the "deluded asses" as you call people who are against tiers have made valid points but you "deluded asses" think that any argument like the following "people play differently therefore the tier list does not exist because if the tier list was truly accurate and able to decide what the likely out come of the match will be, but it doesn't, it will never be accurate or even effective at deciding the utility and of each character" is stupid because it does not agree with you, you and every person who believes that the tier list is effective are deluded especially since any argument that any of you people can come up with is basically "we Think that the tier list is accurate and therefore any other argument is wrong", I can understand that you are set in your ways but stop pretending that you are right.
 * This is for you Toomai, I know CPUs are easy, I just rarely use Ganondorf, so why say I can beat anything but computers with him when I can't,so yeah.....Alucard --Nothing I shoot ever gets back up again 16:24, 12 June 2013 (EDT)
 * I'm not mad at you. But posts like the one you just made, where as far as I can tell you imply that pro-tier people are ignorant of anti-tier peoples' arguments, do not help anybody. If you agree that people are set in their ways then arguing is a waste of both sides' time. Toomai Glittershine [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Glow 17:18, 12 June 2013 (EDT)
 * "quit being such a prick,the "deluded asses" as you call people who are against tiers have made valid points"


 * Did you even read the treatise we have that fully explains how each anti-tier argument is bullshit? Come up with some new arguments that don't go against all common sense and logic, while not being so grossly defensive and stubborn, and maybe then you won't come off as an deluded ass.


 * "but you "deluded asses""


 * Ah nice, you're at a fifth grade level and can blindly spit back insults. You're looking really smart.


 * "people play differently"


 * If you're referring to ultra casual play with all items on and all wacky stages with 99 minute coin matches, you do realise that the tier list is applicable to competitive play only. If you're referring to different styles of someone making Ganondorf equal to Snake, then go enter some tournaments, and so show how your "different style" with Ganondorf allows you to win tournaments just as well as Snake. If you are correct, you should prove us wrong, and Kirbys in Melee and Ganondorfs in Brawl should have had tournament success by now.


 * "if the tier list was truly accurate and able to decide what the likely out come of the match will be"


 * Read the damn treatise and the full article before making terrible illogical strawman arguments that have been refuted and refuted. Firstly, the tier list assumes highest level play with all players at equal skill. It additionally is a ranking of each character's competitive capabilities and how likely they are to do well in a tournament. The tier list is not used for individual matchups. You beating up your little brother's Meta Knight with Ganondorf proves nothing, as you are not at equal skill, nor are you the highest level of play. Beat in tournament with Ganondorf, and then you could have some merit to your argument that Ganondorf is better than what everyone says.


 * "it will never be accurate or even effective at deciding the utility and of each character"


 * Look up tournament results kid, the best players of higher tier characters perform consistently better than the best players of lower tier characters. Here's the articles for Apex 2012,, SRT, and Apex 2013, the most prestigious Brawl nationals in the past year and a half. Tell me how many Ganondorfs and other low tier characters you see high up, compared to the amount of Meta Knights and other high tier characters. These tier lists are certainly accurate in their intended function of ranking how competitively viable each character is.


 * "is stupid because it does not agree with you, you and every person who believes that the tier list is effective are deluded"


 * You really are just in fifth grade, huh? Surely you can come up with something better than blindly parroting what the other person said towards you? Do you even know what the word deluded means?


 * "especially since any argument that any of you people can come up with is basically "we Think that the tier list is accurate and therefore any other argument is wrong""


 * ANNNDDDDDD you show right here you never fucking read the treatise, or anything else we said. Alright here's the thing, if you post again, strawman and parrot the same old anti-tier arguments, clearly showing you haven't read the treatise, you will be blocked for disruption. If you're going to seriously argue for anti-tier, read the damn treatise, don't strawman us, and come up with some new anti-tier arguments that haven't been refuted a thousand times already.


 * "I can understand that you are set in your ways but stop pretending that you are right."


 * Lets see, anti-tier's arguments have been refuted countless times and they haven't brought up a legit counter-refute ever, logic proves you wrong, empirical results prove you wrong, common sense proves you wrong. As I said before, if tiers don't exist and every character is equal, explain to me how Kirby is equal to Jigglypuff in Melee, and how Ganondorf is equal to Snake in Brawl, when the latter character can do nearly everything the former can do and more, while being statistically superior in about every way.


 * "I know CPUs are easy, I just rarely use Ganondorf, so why say I can beat anything but computers with him when I can't,so yeah."


 * Then you shouldn't be bringing them up in a tier argument just like a retarded anti-tier kid does. And flat out admitting you couldn't do what you claim significantly undermines what you have to say.


 * Also, use some damn punctuation, that post of yours was nearly unreadable, and showing no care to your punctuation and grammar reflects on you extremely poorly, lessening your already horrid credibility ever farther. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 18:26, 12 June 2013 (EDT)

Ban me I really could not care less, I will go to a sight where they can show at least some signs of intelligence, so all in all fuck you, nice day you grammar Nazi have fun with hypocrisy, and proving another point of mine, oh by the way nice use of the word retarded you immature little fuck, it seems like every tier lover cannot defend their stance they can only attack the other side so suck it bitches (by the way this is pointed at Omega Tyrant, I at least have some respect for Toomai)--Nothing I shoot ever gets back up again 18:46, 12 June 2013 (EDT)
 * "I can't refute you so I'll just attack you". Enjoy your vacation troll. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 19:41, 12 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Omega, I understand your points and I could see how you could be frustrated by this article and discussion. But calling people assholes and trolls is completely unprofessional, and as an admin, that's ridiculously shameful, not just for you, but for the wiki as well. You can make a point without using profound language and insults. Smashbrother101 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2013 (EDT)
 * Uh what? The word "asshole" has never been used on this page (except for in your post). And "troll" isn't even close to a bad word. Also if you didn't know, SmashWiki is not censored. S c r 7 Wolfsig.png 18:29, 25 July 2013 (EDT)
 * I'm not going to add my opinion to this discussion, but calling someone an "ass" is basically the same as calling someone an "asshole". Use common sense and logic, especially when it comes to policy violations. Awesome   Cardinal   2000  20:05, 30 July 2013 (EDT)
 * No not really dude, they are different words with different meanings. There's a reason why "ass" is freely allowed on tv while "asshole" gets bleeped. Surely I don't need to explain the difference? There's also no policy violation going on, so yeah, take your advice and use "common sense and logic". Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 20:32, 30 July 2013 (EDT)
 * It's common sense to figure out that when the IP typed "asshole", he probably misread or mistyped or wasn't paying attention and meant to write "ass" instead. And I never said that Scr7 or anyone was violating a policy, I was telling the "use common sense" to him so he would know next time something like this happens. Awesome   Cardinal   2000  21:02, 30 July 2013 (EDT)
 * "but calling someone an "ass" is basically the same as calling someone an "asshole"."


 * No, you were not at all saying "the user probably mistook ass for asshole", you were saying the terms are the same (and if the user did for whatever reason, Scr7 is fully in the right here still, as they are pretty different terms and it's quite an egregious error on the user's part). And if you're "not trying to say anyone is violating policy", why say "especially when it comes to policy violations", implying some sort of policy violation is going on here?


 * Really, what's your point in commenting here? Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 21:24, 30 July 2013 (EDT)


 * See what Scr7 said above, and you could have a point about calling someone a troll...if the person actually wasn't a troll (you know what a troll is, right?). Also, stop bumping this discussion every month or so with a useless post, the discussion has been long and done, let it rest already. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 17:55, 30 July 2013 (EDT)

+1 "I think we should delete the first two sentences about the controversy. It's not neutral." rewrite entire part. what else can i say? tier/non tier im neither and both and every new player wouldnt waste a thot about balance of character, but rather who they want to choose to play with. but thats just my opinion on discussion page with no value it doesnt matter. the fact is stated on the.. wait let me look..."http://www.ssbwiki.com"-wiki what a shameful name in regard of this discussion i know i know ur all more into tier vs non tier fight and im not really into rewriting wiki parts either maybe somebody will have a few mins to do that, since a wiki serves and represents all of the fandom and not just 1 half of them, who happen to be in some sort of powerful position at a wiki article page o.O *cough* abusing that power in their own favor *cough*(no srsly i think thats necessary in order to keep the page free from trolls but WITHIN REASON) i have 2 stylistic suggestions for rewriting person, 1 is 'There are arguments from both sides pro/contra blabla' and other is mentioning JUST the ones, that are in doubt about tiers. that would naturally be the case if tiers were commonly accepted by whoever wrote the entire controversy part, but writing in such a style and leaving it at that for a long time just makes me think, that the writers are in doubt themselves and on top of that they manage to infuriate educated fans while misleading the next generation and only because of their humongous ego. its not like changing the sentences into something, that looks more appropriate, would have any negative effects on any of the gathered data on tiers in any possible way. now for the validity - while i think, that not a single person would waste a second thinking about characters balance when starting the game, im pretty sure, that many people would spontaneously agree to saying, that the characters are balanced, if they were specifically asked or asked in a suggestive way. and thats natural, nobody needs to go all interested professor einstein pro gamer researching 5years just for a 5minute game, but it has little to do with the people, that are eager to prove the others wrong, call them tier/non tier or w.e, i call them humans, just like me n u. u would get or invent or w.e a quick agreement or result and abuse it to prove others wrong or yourself right, but what u should be doing instead is to always leave an opening for each type of opinion, it doesnt even need to be mentioned, but it should not appear just dead wrong in the first place. perhaps, the authors of the controversy part found it to be appropriate for whatever reason possible or they didnt care about that at all and were just trying to prove their point like a fanatic scientist(note fanatic, because even a sane scientist is capable of writing a wiki part much better than that). this issue covers questions of right/wrong and, game situations, weve all been in("i wanted that guy!"), but it isnt a game nor a debate of right or wrong, it is an encyclopedic article, that is supposed to inform the reader, who can be a potential tier dude or a non tier dude(non tier dude will certainly be angry reading hes wrong). and to make that clear, non tier ppl do not need to prove anything, because the people who participate in this discussion are primarily interested in the option of the doubt - that both partys can end up being right or wrong. the reader is either convinced by the evaluated test results or (s)he is not, but saying, that (s)he is wrong in 1st place is not going to contribute to anything positive. in case of tiers being entirely correct(which is not going to be provable not only due to human ineterest/mood/error/w.e, but also because many of the arguments tier/nontier have a certain validity in each of their situation, while the tiers themselves are more of a system than an argument and its quite obvious that both tier and non tier people come across issues within that system), the TIER GUYS have to make clear what on earth tiers are supposed to mean, THEY have to deliver recreatable proof, and THEY have to write the article in a reader-friendly way. there have been both tier and non tier ppl in this very discussion who proved to be competent enough to comprehend the importance of maintaining that neutrality within the article. despite the text, i hope u can see the +1, because thats the only argument, that matters, when arguing with fools - and everybody is prone to human stupidity, even geniuses or those who have contributed alot to society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.208.250.235 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 22 July 2013 (EDT)
 * Your spelling and grammar issues, in combination with your large wall of text that (as far as I can tell) doesn't say much other than "you should rewrite this to let the misinformed stay misinformed", make us uninterested in discussing things with you. Toomai Glittershine [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The SMASH-GINEER 20:22, 22 July 2013 (EDT)

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?--  P S I Wolf  ( 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.--WolfHeadSSBB.png  P S I Wolf  ( 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  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 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 [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Awesome 17:10, 20 October 2011 (EDT)
 * How do you make those icons anyway? Zelda  smash ZeldaSymbol.svg Talk  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. Toast Ultimatum   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 and  possibly equal in Melee, and how are  and  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)

A logical and irrefutable (I think) argument for once
My apologies if all this has been mentioned before, and if it has could you please point me to where it was awnsered and then just forget this whole thing.

I know all the arguments for pro-tiers. I know that on average, Meta Knight is going to beat Ganondorf. Just like he'll beat Zelda, LInk, Captain Falcon, etc. etc. but what are the situations that two players are EXACTLY equal? We also know that a good player will beat a bad one. And we know that a good Ganon will beat a bad Meta Knight. (I know this for a fact: when I played Omega Tyrant about 2 years ago I did'nt get more than 1 stock off every match in a 3-stock game with Meta Knight.) So, tier lists would really have a very small impact on the game, right? Since the Smash Community banned most luck-based things (items, big stages, staes with walls, Final Smashes, 3 or 4 player matches) we should have the better player win. The problem is that all the good, pro-drivin players look at the tier list and instantly choose Meta Knight.

This brings me to my second point: the changes we made. If final smashes were allowed, Ganon, Zelda and Link would be a lot better, while Meta Knight and Ice Climbers, not so much. Big stages would also help out the heavy hitters while hurting the small ones. Stages with walls would give Lucas and Ness huge boosts. And we all know how well Ike does in 4-player matches. It would also hurt Ice Climbers, Olimar, Falco, and most of all, Meta Knight.

My third point is the most effective anti-tier slogan yet. "All the good players look at the tier list, choose high-tiered characters, and get new strategies for them, reinforcing their position on the tier list." I know this is'nt anti-tier, but It makes sence considering the above two points. (I think this has been answered, but I forget where.)

My fourth point is about clones. Clones are slightly different than their origionals, and usually worse, but the still can do something good. For example, even though Falco's gun is better than Fox's, Fox can shoot faster, giving him a higher DPS. (This is also why I'm arguing only in Brawl terms: I don't think Kirby is in any way better than Jigglypuff in SSBM, so there are tiers there. I also know way more about Brawl than the other two, since I own Brawl and have only heard about Melee through guides by pro-tiers.)

My fifth point is about possibility. In Summoner Wars, the board game I stopped coming here for, there are around 100 possible cards in a 35 deck set. Add in Mercenaries (cards that you can add to any deck) the cards are over 150. With that many options, every card has 3 counters, pretty much nullifieng tier lists forever. It would be the same in Brawl if it were'nt for Meta Knight (see point 3), and he even has a even match with Pikachu, who could beat him more on average if point 2 were taken into effect.

My sixth point is about SSB4. All the things we could've done to stop tier lists in Brawl (points 1,2, and 5, and not doing point 3) could stop tier lists in SSB4. I seriously doubt it will work, givin the Prisoner's Dillemma, but we can try.

CONCLUSION: Tier lists would have such a miniscule effect it wouldn't matter if we would just play the game how it was meant to be played.

Thank you. Meta   Ike    11:18, 28 June 2013 (EDT)


 * Here's what i'm thinking


 * No, not all of the pros instantly chose MK. MK doesn't win every single tournament either, look at Apex 2013


 * Final Smashes, banned stages, 4-player matches outside of doubles, they're always banned/turned off in all tournaments. Yes,  lower tiers could be better in casual matches. But the tier list is based on only competitive play, so that point doesn't mean anything.


 * And there are also some professionals that dedicate themselves to mastering low tiers. Vermanubis, Gimpyfish, Mekos, etc.


 * Clones have nothing to do with tier positions. There are some clones/semiclones that were obviously designed to be worse than the original (Jigglypuff in Smash 64, Pichu in Melee). But slight changes can really change their tier position, I heavily doubt Roy was designed to be worse than Marth, but his badly placed sweetspots are really bad for him.


 * While there are some pros who use low tiers (like I said before), it's just so hard for them to beat top players using high tiers because of their matchups being really bad. So a top low tier player would have trouble beating a top high tier player because the matchup is almost always in the high tier player's favour.


 * I think the only thing that would stop tier lists is giving characters customizable movesets, but I doubt that that will be added to SSB4.


 * Also what do you mean by "play the game how it's meant to be played"? Yes the developers play it with items and all stages, but tournaments are about skill, so the randomness is always going to be removed.


 * Anyway that's my take on this Scr7Wolfsig.png 11:38, 28 June 2013 (EDT)


 * Here's what i'm thinking


 * No, not all of the pros instantly chose MK. [I never said that all pros use him, just most. And since most pros use him, he wins the most tournaments since most top pros use him.] MK doesn't win every single tournament either, look at Apex 2013 [This statement actually helps my case.]


 * Final Smashes, banned stages, 4-player matches outside of doubles, they're always banned/turned off in all tournaments. Yes,  lower tiers could be better in casual matches. [And they are.] But the tier list is based on only competitive play, so that point doesn't mean anything. [It means that low tiers were made worse when those elements were removed in competitive play.]


 * And there are also some professionals that dedicate themselves to mastering low tiers. Vermanubis, Gimpyfish, Mekos, etc. [There are also pros dedicated to mastering high-tiers too.]


 * Clones have nothing to do with tier positions. [They are a character, so they obviously influence tier positions.] There are some clones/semiclones that were obviously designed to be worse than the original (Jigglypuff in Smash 64, Pichu in Melee). But slight changes can really change their tier position, I heavily doubt Roy was designed to be worse than Marth, but his badly placed sweetspots are really bad for him. [Roy, on the other hand, hits way harder. They all have advanteges and disadvanteges. I'm better with Roy than Marth, personally.]


 * While there are some pros who use low tiers (like I said before), it's just so hard for them to beat top players using high tiers because of their matchups being really bad [, or the fact that their character's metagames are underdeveloped since no one else uses them. Or the fact that they're fighting better players.] . So a top low tier player would have trouble beating a top high tier player because the matchup is almost always in the high tier player's favour [because of the tournament rules].


 * I think the only thing that would stop tier lists is giving characters customizable movesets, but I doubt that that will be added to SSB4. [I think giving a counter to every fighter could work.


 * Also what do you mean by "play the game how it's meant to be played"? Yes the developers play it with items and all stages, but tournaments are about skill, so the randomness is always going to be removed. [I don't think randomness won't be removed, just that low-tiers would do better if it was.


 * Anyway that's my take on this Scr7Wolfsig.png 11:38, 28 June 2013 (EDT) the [ and ] added by Meta    Ike  MetaIke.png  13:51, 28 June 2013 (EDT)


 * The tier list only applies to competitive play. The fact that the tier list would be different if banned stages were allowed is trivial, since it no longer applies to competitive play. - Ceci n’est pas un Smiddle. 14:10, 28 June 2013 (EDT)


 * A few things:


 * Don't direct copy an paste a users edits and just put comments in parenthesis. That's bad style and makes you look stupid. Do what OT does and copy and paste a specific quote in italics and respond in a paragraph below.
 * Your argument is utter bullshit. What you said amounts to saying, "the tier list is wrong because tournament rules suck." The tier list is only made in the scope of competitive play. Yes, Free for Alls, final smashes, and items don't mean a thing when it comes to determining a character's competitive worth.
 * Why don't you fucking read this, and respond properly to it. Well made arguments tailored specifically to this are the only arguments that would be taken as "logical and irrefutable." Again, on behalf of OT, I will ask this. In the scope of competitive play (no items, final smashes, 1v1, 4 stock(melee)/3 stock(brawl) 8 mins, tournament legal stages only) how the hell can Melee Kirby be just as good Melee Jigglypuff or how can brawl Ganondorf be just as good as Snake? In fact you should really think about that first before responding to this.-- Brian Don't try me!Falco.gif 14:19, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

"My third point is the most effective anti-tier slogan yet. "All the good players look at the tier list, choose high-tiered characters, and get new strategies for them, reinforcing their position on the tier list." I know this is'nt anti-tier, but It makes sence considering the above two points. (I think this has been answered, but I forget where.)"

Dude, blindly repeating arguments that were refuted in the treatise is something I explicitly state not to do, and it is a banworthy offense. Now drop it.

"My fourth point is about clones. Clones are slightly different than their origionals, and usually worse"

The instant you say any character to be worse, is the instant you admit characters are not equal, and thus tiers exist.

2/10, your argument, while wordy, is just as bad as other anti-tiers'. Omega  Tyrant   14:48, 28 June 2013 (EDT)


 * Woah. I believe tiers exist. I always have. I'm just saying they're effect on the game is miniscule, or at least would be if the smash community wouldnt take them so seriously. My computer keeps on freezing and I can't log in so I'll write the rest later. -Meta Ike 76.14.31.161 16:45, 28 June 2013 (EDT)
 * You're arguing for nothing then. And if you think their effect was "so miniscule", you're clearly ignorant of the game. Look at some monetary data. Notice a trend? Yeah, the higher tier characters are raking in much more money (especially Meta Knight), while low/bottom tiers bring in hardly anything (and don't go saying it's because "everyone only plays high tiers", Olimar doesn't have much players yet he's one of the most successful characters, and the low tier characters still have a dedicated playerbase as pointed out to you). Also actually look at some tournament results (especially nationals), tell us how often you see the likes of Ganondorf and co. placing high, in comparison to higher tier characters. And if their effect was "miniscule", wouldn't have become of the best players in the world when he dropped G&W for the Ice Climbers, countless other players wouldn't have started placing better when they picked up Meta Knight, and low tier heroes like Mekos, Vermanubis, and Gimpyfish would be placing in the money regularly, instead of once in a great while squeaking out an almost money earning placing.


 * (Also don't go on about how that's only under competitive rules, because guess what, the tier list refers to competitive play only, and if you think no one should play with such rules and only crazy FFAs with items and wacky stages, we don't care, argue that on Smashboards).


 * You should just drop this, as you're just wasting yours and everyone's else time, especially if you don't even have a clear argument against tiers. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 17:23, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

I feel like dropping in just to blot out your initial fifth point, saying that "With that many options, every card has 3 counters, pretty much nullifieng tier lists forever". The competitive Pokémon world has hundreds of fully-evolved Pokémon available for usage, and there are currently a total of seven regular tiers based on commonness, metagame, and overall usefulness. Simply having more choices does not make tier lists less relevant. Toomai Glittershine Da Bomb 17:40, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

In relation to the above point, I'll also like to point out that characters higher up on the tier list are better because they tend to have more options, that are also usually better options. Meta Knight for example, is considered so far above everyone else, because for every option they have, he has three options that can beat theirs. Ganondorf on the other hand, is considered so poorly because for every option he has, almost every other character has two or more options that beats it. I didn't go into much detail, but hopefully you get the point that argument is null because not everyone has an equal amount of options and equal quality of options. Omega  Tyrant   17:58, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

Eleventh Melee Tier List
Here it is. S c r 7 05:09, 27 July 2013 (EDT)