Forum:The Tier Wars

This is... not Sparta. However, it IS the most controversial topic of Smash. Should tiers be used, or shouldn't they? There have been many heated arguments in the past, and there's even a "Tiers Are for Queers" movement now. Honestly, I'd have to say that tiers are for understandable, professional play, not queers. This forum asks one question: what do YOU think? - GalaxiaD 21:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tiers do not exist as people say they do, in my opinion. Smash is a very complex game, and while you may be able to say that someone is better than someone else, people are too different for these someones to be the same. Also, the list further popularises the characters at the top, leading more people to play with them, leading to them being at the top again. But, this is not to say that all characters are equal. I've said it before, i'll say it again, Tiers MAY exist, however, tiers are not the same for everyone (Cept for Ike, he is blatantly at the top-I'm joking)-Dr. Ike!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.184.143 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Tiers do not exist. They are made up by empty-skulled proffesionals who only play as Fox, who can be KO'd at low percentage by most up smashes. Tiers are not real. I do not say that they may exist, I say that they do not exist period, with no possible way for them to be, and that is final. XXXXX 00:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if we don't discus or develop a formal tier list there will be a statically significant difference between the success rates of characters that can be observed for any given combination of rules, stages, items, players, and strategies; the tiers are nothing more than a slight edge given to a player but the main determining factor in any round is and will always be skill, I mean look a Gimpyfish he plays a low tier character but is competitive because of his skill with bowser. I think many people are confusing the attempt to construct a tier list with a claim that only the character selected matters in the outcome of a match. Also the tier list being constructed is only really applicable to the ridiculously regimented and specific metagame of the tournament scene, there is a different (and discriminated against lol) tier list for say coin matches with smokeballs, fans, and bumpers allowed and the only level allowed is Warioware and there is another for no items but only wiimotes and constant curry breath and flowers on head of tiny characters on Big Blue. Case and point in Melee Mewtwo is the very bottom most tier in competition but if he has items to throw he is actually well still not great but by virtue of his excellent item tossing he is good enough to win me $100 by beating my friend's Marth (He made an arrogant and poorly worded challenge that allowed me to choose everything but the characters). But back to the topic at hand just because there is a tier list that is no reason for you to change how you play if you find it fun, if you enjoy playing Yoshi then play the damn dinosaur, we aren't going to scorn you, and if you get really good at him and win a competition then we will say you are a skilled player regardless of who you use to do so.Knifeblade (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Take away any possible hints or statements about tiers having a useful purpose in Smash, and you get my beliefs about this stuff. XXXXX (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the purpose of tiers as long as there is a relatively static rule set and a sufficiently large data set tiers will arise a statistical phenomenon that can be measured. 68.203.163.24 02:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course tiers exist. Explicitly? Probably not, but some characters are better than others. Mario, Ike, Pikachu, Ness, and Shiek are better characters than Ganondorf, DK, Wario, Climbers, and Link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S U D S (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Like this, which is why Nintendo wouldn't want tiers to be established. If tiers did exist, and I'm saying that they don't, Fox would be more popular. So Star Fox would get more sales than other games, like Legend of Zelda, which is, in my opinion, the supreme gaming series apart from Smash, because Link and Zelda are low on the Tiers, they wouldn't get as many new sales. By "new sales," I mean new buyers. If it evens out, than new customers get the games in a more even way, and we could say that there would be a higher chance of new customers buying two games from two different series, because if tiers didn't exist, there would be interest in most of the games represented as characters, and Nintendo would like that economy very much. So, you may not care about Nintendo or its money, which by the way is used partly as funding for games, meaning $=*** $$$=***** for games, but since I do, I'm sticking to my disbelief in tiers. XXXXX (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with you that Nintendo may not want tiers to exist, but that doesn't mean they don't. Just think of it from a statistical standpoint.  There are at least 5 (I'd contend even more) variables that give characters an advantage or disadvantage.  Now, it's impossible to know exactly how one advantage makes up for another or what the hierarchy of advantages is.  With that in mind, it is statistically unlikly that even two character created under this system would be perfectly balanced.  Extrapolate that to creating some 35 characters and the statistical probability of them all being balanced goes almost to 0.  And not, I'm not considering this as each character being given random attributes.  But even with attempts at balance, it is statistically impossible to create a perfectly balanced group of 35 characters in this system.  Clarinet Hawk (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Actually, there are 39 characters, not 35. Ari 18:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe in tiers. You believe tiers exist with a huge purpose. A compromise goes like this. Instead of no tiers, and instead of tiers from top to bottom, which is way out there, tiers from good to okay. The ones that are pretty good, and the ones that aren't quite as powerful, but can easily win with a certain ammount of skill. It also doesn't have ranks within groups like the current tier lists. I'll give you an example later, I've got a busy schedule today. XXXXX (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We definately need tiers. I didn't believe in tiers in Melee so much, but definately in Brawl. The characters are very imbalanced now. Many newcomers like Ike and Snake are overpowered, while almost all veterans have been nerfed beyond belief, like Mario and Link. I mean, I'll syill play as whoever I feel like, but tiers exist, no doubt.SonicROBTrainer (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's my example. This is not top, high middle low bottom, which was incredibly unreasonable. This is good to okay. Fox and Falco are on okay. And there are no ranks within ranks like I said before. It's not good but in last place, so almost okay. It's This character is on the bottom of the good list, so he/she is relatively as good as the one on the top list, and I just remembered the characters on the top list faster than I did on the bottom list. There is an exception to this list. Marth. He is on the Marth list, which is in between.

Good:

Mario

Luigi

Link

Zelda/Sheik

Ice Climbers

Kirby

Pikachu

Samus

Zero Suit Samus

Donkey Kong

Yoshi

Ike

Lucas

Ness

Toon Link

Wario

Red this dude

Pit

Meta Knight

C. Falcon (Even though I don't like him, he's still an good character)

Snake

Lucario

Mr. G&W

Wolf

Marth:

Marth

Okay:

Bowser

King "DDD"

Ganondorf

Diddy Kong

Fox

Falco

Peach

Sonic

ROB

Olimar (Who can still win easily)

Jigglypuff (It's on the okay list, but it can still win, which doesn't stop me from not playing with it)

You can criticize the placement of the characters, but you have to admit that tiers only have a small effect. Tires don exit. XXXXX (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, it doesn't matter how you call it. If a restaurant only has three sizes of drink, the smallest it calls 'large', the middle it calls 'huge' and the largest it calls 'enormous', it doesn't change the fact that there is one at the bottom, which is small compared to the others, and there is one at the top which is large compared to the others. Even if they are separated by only a few mililiters, it doesn't matter how you call it. In relation to characters, this is analogous in that there are some bad, and others good, because they are only relative to each other, but calling them 'good' and 'excellent' changes nothing. Yes, the balance is more even in Brawl, but some characters still stink.Semicolon (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the name. I'm talking about the number of ranks. The drink analogy has three sizes. It's not five. That would make small the size of half a cup of yogurt, medium the size of small, large the size of medium, and then Enormous the size of large, and Gigantic the size of a popcorn bucket. Or the other way around, with small being the size of a pill bottle. Five is too much tier wise, which I still say they don't exist. XXXXX (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It is inconsequential that you don't believe in tiers as their existence as a statistical phenomenon is observable Knifeblade (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

But if not having tiers is a statistical phenomenon, then so, in theory, is having them. It is unlikely that all characters will be equally balanced. So, it is also therefore unlikely, that all people will be equally balanced. There are also many things to take in about a person, not just a character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ike6481 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys aren't listening. I said that obviously, they aren't all balanced, but they aren't so unbalanced that there are five levels of tiers. Two levels, maybe. Non-existent, probably. XXXXX (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

SSB tiers: Yes SSBM tiers: Major Yes SSBB tiers: Kind of

I'm sure that eventually, some characters will be considered "better" than others. But it will take a long time to make an accurate tier list, which won't end up being that accurate. Brawl is pretty balanced. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There will be Teir Wars one way or another and Brawl is to balanced, and everyone is diffrent so Teir Lists were and won't ever be accurate, so they just jumble all the fast on the top and drop the heavy characters to the bottom, like they decided The bigger they are the harder they fall was the way to go, so N O no teirs for me. Dark Overlord (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that many people think that tiers are a solely arbitrary ranking of characters. In fact, a big part of tiers are statistical analysis of what character wins the most often. If this leads to faster characters being on the top of the tier list, then so be it. Do you think professional players don't try every single character to find the one that gives them the best chance of winning? Of course they do. For big time games, you don't pick a character because they have a cute costume or because they're popular. You pick the character that gives you the best shot at winning. So if fast characters become the top tier, it is because speed is an advantage that gives characters the better chance to win. For a high level player, picking your main is not taken lightly. You spend hours trying every character there is to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each of them. Fox wasn't top tier in Melee because the pros said "what the hell, lets all play Fox," but because most of the pros individually discovered that he gave them the best chance to win. That was then seen empirically in tournament results. Then a combination of statistics on tournament plus a judging of the raw potential of each character determined the tiers. Tiers are, therefore, not some system that was come up with because people wanted to say Mewtwo sucks and Fox is awesome, but a necessary byproduct of the rigorous training that players undertake to win at Smash Bros. Clarinet Hawk (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at facts Super Smash Bros is about KOs, not who can run to the bathroom first, most people who play find that to win who need power, and heavys ARE power, the pro decided that The BIGGER They Are, The Harder They Fall and don't know how to use real power! 70.69.141.95 01:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well based on what you say,Bowser should totally be the best since he can KO at low percentages!(No offense to bowser players,I'm a user of him as well)And it takes a pretty high percentage to KO him eh? However, thats where your wrong!Super Smash Bros is so much more than that its really if you can get the KO,Damage building abilities,Mindgames to trick your Opponent,etc. Hatake91 (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to say? Within your ramblings, I got the impression that you feel that the pros mistakenly picked lighter and faster characters even though heavier characters can do more damage with one hit. First, did you bother to read anything that I wrote above you? If you didn't, do it. Secondly, here's a little math problem for you. Lets say attack A does 20% damage and can be used once every 2 seconds. Attack B does 12% damage, but can be used every second. Which is better? Under your logic, you would say A, even though B does more damage over time. Or let's extend this problem. Attack A now does 35% damage, can only be used once every 3 seconds, and can be dodged by a good player four out of five times. Attack B does only 10% damage, can be used every second, and can only be dodged once every five times. If you still think that attack A is strictly better, don't quit your day job to play Smash professionally. It's like a haymaker in boxing. You need the quick jabs and speed to set up the knockout blow. You can win even if your finishing blow is weaker than your opponent's as long as you can create more situations to use it in. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, a character's placement is decided on how they place in tournaments. Once the rumor got out that Snake was "teh best", everyone believed it and started using him. Now he's top tier. Of course he is. If everyone uses the same character, that character is obviously going to win more at tournaments. That's why tier lists are so inaccurate.SonicROBTrainer (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiers should not be formed based on tournament placings. A whole lot more needs to be considered when forming them. If tiers were based on tournament placings, then Bowser would be high tier because Gimpyfish has won tournaments using him. Besides, the skill level of the other participants are unknown. If you have a great Snake player entering a tournament full of amateurs, then of course Snake will place first. However, will this prove that Snake is the best? NO! Unless a tournament is formed that has all the contestants at equal skill levels, which is highly unlikely, nothing can be proven from tournament placings. If you want to see MY theory on forming tiers, head to my user page. - GalaxiaD (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree there are flaws to it, the idea is that at the highest level of competition skill is controlled, allowing the only differences that would matter to be differences in the merits of characters. We know this to be insufficient for a variety of reasons but it is compensated for by the sample size (literally, hundreds of tournaments). That is why tier lists take years and not days. The method is flawed, but you can reduce the error by greatly expanding your sample size, and that can only be done with more official tournaments, which take place over time.Semicolon (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, even if there were tiers (And there aren't) it's completely impossible to measure them. The tournaments they use to calculate can't be done because the skill of the player varies. It's not the actual characters fighting. It's the player. Speed isn't everything, and the tier lists alone are inaccurate. Completely inaccurate. 1. They don't apply 2. It's a "Topsy Turvy" list. Please stop listening to the knuckle draggers that made the list. X X X X X  Talk to me OR ELSE!  15:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't even care about tier lists. I acknowledge that tiers exist, but that's not gonna stop me from creaming Snake as Sonic.SonicROBTrainer (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Tiers do exist. I think part of what makes people upset is that tiers can make others evaluate the characters just by how good their fighting abilities in Smash are instead of their other merits. There are people who hate Mewtwo just because he's the weakest character, while I'm sure there are those who stopped using Fox when he got nerfed in Brawl. I'm not against tiers, but I don't want people to diss whoever is going to be bottom tier in Brawl just because they are the weakest in that game like Mewtwo before him/her/it. Also, I don't want certain characters like Falco getting undeserved glory if they happen to be top tier. --TStick (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the skill of the players. How can you get the info from tournaments if it's the players, not the characters, doing the tournament? It's impossible to measure, if there was a measurement to do. X X X X X  Talk to me OR ELSE!  22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)