Forum:How Tiers Should Be Formed

Yes, I know there are people who are against tiers. For those of you who support tiers, how do you believe tiers should be formed? Should they be based on tournament placings? Should they be based on a character's stage specific advantages? What do you think? - GalaxiaD (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that is a good question.I think it should be based on advantages over other characters and when played to the max of their ability how powerful(EX:in combing and KOing) they are.Which is why it'll take a long time for a tier list to appear... Hatake91 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I was thinking. In my opinion, only constant factors like a character's advantages, disadvantages, and meta game should be taken into consideration when forming a tier list. Stage advantages and tournament placings are random. It's not guaranteed that a character's best stage will be picked, since most tournaments have the stages picked at random. Therefore, if a character's best stage is picked, but then their worst stage were to follow, it would prove nothing. Likewise for tournament placings. They too are random. If a skilled player wins one tournament, but then loses another, it proves nothing. However, a character's meta game can't be affected in any way, therefore making it constant. If we compare every character's meta game to one another, it will give us the most accurate results. - GalaxiaD (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah,you nailed mine there as well,Which is why I get irritated when people say only fast characters are high tier because all the pro's use them.when its really only because they have an advantage over many characters in this kind of metagame.But since brawl is alot more balanced that could easily change. Hatake91 (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, metagames are in constant flux. It refers not simply to the highest level of play for that character, but to the level of play that give that character the best chance of winning in the tournament environment. For example, let's say that technique X is considered the best method of play in June because it counters technique Y, which was the technique of choice in May. But technique X is vulnerable to technique Z, which wasn't used in May because it was weak against technique Y. While there may be some technique Q that sucks no matter what it is used against, most techniques are a "rock paper scissors" like entity. They beat one technique but lose to others. This forces the metagame to constantly adjust as players discover new techniques to beat what is the current standard.

As for the best way to determine tiers, you need to take a look at the results of high level tournaments. Not some back yard stuff, but what characters the top pros are playing. Then you combine this with an analysis of the potential of each character. Included in this should be a thorough play test of each and every character many times. My crew spent over a month working out ours. Each day, while we were playing Smash, we would discuss the tiers. Keep a written record of all of your changes so you can track them. Then test your tiers many times. Don't become attached to keeping Bowser low just because you don't like him. Also, only judge the ability of the top player in your crew of each character because, after all, tiers are about characters being played at their top potential. Do not, however, fall victim to the trap of thinking that top potential means that, say, Ike hits every attack every time and never gets hit himself. You also need to consider that the opponent is also playing to their full potential. Think about all of these things, get a group of people who have combined proficiency with every character, and then spend some good time analyzing the game. That's how SLAPAHO came up with this. Clarinet Hawk (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You realize you guys are asking for grief with that tier list, right, SLAPAHO? Unless you got it protected. In any case, I think that the way to determine tiers is who is best, and worst, against the most characters. Let's say, just for the hell of it, that Snake is awesome against Link, Ganondorf, Wario, and, G&W, but sucks against Metaknight, Sonic, and Ness. Good against 4, bad against 3, 4-3=1. Snake's tier score is one. This is obviously specifically wrong (Snake is awesome against a lot more people than that) but its pretty true in general terms. Obviously, if Snake is friggin AWESOME against Wario and only a bit better than Link, then he gets a bigger plus from the Wario matchup, but you get the idea. Runer5h (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Runer5h

Clarinet Hawk's explanation is a prime example as to why tiers change. While a character's individual meta game is a constant factor, the bigger meta game that revolves around every match does change. The reason for this is because as the meta game becomes more advanced, new techniques and advantages are discovered for each character, which in turn changes a character's spot on the tier list. This is why the Melee tier list has gone under eight revisions since its debut. These changes also reflect the performances in top level play. A lot of people started to main Sheik at first, but as the meta game grew and developed, there has been an increase in Fox mainers. The pros simply went with the flow of the ever-changing meta game, thus spawning the current tier list. Even now, this tier list is subject to change. - GalaxiaD (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bump