Forum:Any other serious anti-tierists out there?

I'm sick of the assumption that anyone who plays this game seriously actually believes that some characters are innately better than others. Not to mention the current tier list is a joke. To prove that fact, I will issue an open challenge to anyone who actually believes in tiers. Either we can play randoms, or I'll take it a step further and you can play as Metaknight (the supposed number one) and I'll play as Falcon (apparently the worst).

Tier lists are ridiculous and I've earned my salt in tournaments and league play by using many of the characters assumed to be of a lower calliber. Skill comes first people.

And I hope I'm not alone on this. I want to make the anti-tierist voice heard in the maintstream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnaveofHearts (talk • contribs)

First, please after you are done, sign your comments with four tildes. I promise you, they won't bite.

As to your other comments...whew, I'm glad I got here first. I was afraid that I wouldn't get an opportunity to troll you! So here's how it's going down: I'm going to mock your position without actually arguing, and you are going to read this.

So, let's go through the points. Your position is:


 * Ridiculous
 * Ridiculous
 * Ridiculous
 * Ridiculous
 * Ridiculous

And last but not least:


 * Ridiculous

The treatise will address any of your substance. As for your challenge to play, the problem is that whether you can beat people with lower tiered characters or not isn't an argument. It doesn't prove anything. Sure, skill does come first. But tiers exist. Those are not mutually exclusive. See, I've earned my salt in tournaments and competitive play both with lower and higher tiered characters, so your point is useless. And please, before you come back, if you come back, read the treatise. Please. I wrote it for people like you. Run along now. Semicolon (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the tildes thing... And I did already read that treatise, in fact, it was most of the reason I posted what I did. It didn't convince me. It just seems silly that in a game, where many, many strategies have yet to be invented and seen, that people can rank each character in any kind of order. Yes, I can admit that there are some characters who are simply not that good when compared to others (so far anyway) and some matchups will favour certain characters, but it seems absurd to place these characters into tiers based on what? A few people (many of whom, the videos I've seen anway, are not even very good) winning with certain characters in tournaments? I firmly believe that a good player will make use of any character, against any character. In fact, I know that if someone were to play a higher tiered character, that they could be easily beaten by any character lower down the list. Until someone proves to me that this current tier list is valid, I will remain skeptical. KnaveofHearts (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You "can admit that there are some characters who are simply not that good when compared to others"? Your skepticism is at odds with your rationalism. I suggest you employ both at the same time rather than exclusively. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so this is an interesting predicament. You say it didn't convince you. Fine. Where's your counter argument? Oh. You haven't posted one. You're asserting what you assert...because you assert it.

Let's deal with you making the admission that some characters are better against others. Great! That's a good first step. Take this, then: why wouldn't the highest tiered character be the one who has the most favorable matchups? Wouldn't that be the best character, then?

These 'few people' are better at smash than you. It's just that simple. They make money on the game...constantly. If you're better than them, go to SMYM, or Evo, or a huge tournament, and show them that you are better. Beat them. If you do, then show me the Smashboards thread where it says you won a major tournament, and I'll begin to consider that you're a good player. Good thing that doesn't have a bearing on your ability to argue, though.

You can believe whatever you want about what a good player is. It doesn't mean that you're right. I don't care, honestly, what you believe. I care what the truth is. Show me an argument! Show me facts, details, something! Don't just come here, say something, then when faced with a valid and sound argument, keep saying it. If you don't agree with it, fine. You're wrong, but fine. Argue with me. Don't just say what you believe, repeatedly, in different ways.

"Until someone proves to me that this current tier list is valid, I will remain skeptical."

...

...

...

This statement is silly. (1) This implies that you agree with the existence of tiers, unless they need to prove that to you at the same time (2) Nobody has to prove anything to you; I hate to break it to you, but nobody in the Smash Back Room cares about what your opinion is on tiers, mostly because it's wrong, I'd think (3) So is this about the existence of tiers, or do you just not like the placings of your favorite characters/mains, because that isn't an argument for their lack of existence. I've addressed this; it's a normative argument, which is invalid to begin with. Try again. Semicolon (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you're right, I don't have a valid or sound counter-argument against tiers. And no, I haven't paid a single bill with money that came from playing smash. And short of doing a whole research paper on the game mechanics and physics, I won't likely have an argument for you to refute the existence of tiers. If that's what you want, I can't supply it. Congrats, you've won there. However, you've made the assumpion, with zero evidence, that these professionals are better than me. Perhaps this I can disprove.

I don't have any charts or stats to show you, all I have is the skill to show you that I can beat any of these "innately better" characters with pretty much anyone else on the list.

And you're argument isn't sound just because people happen to agree with you. In fact, short of people winning with certain characters, what evidence do you have that justifies your tier list? If you want I can fly you over here and we can sit down for a few days and go through every single intricacy of the games mechanics. If after that, it turns out you were right, I'll apologize and give the idea of tiers my full support. That's really the only way either one of us will prove our point I'm afraid. KnaveofHearts (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm...okay you clearly didn't read the treatise. You'd see that there were several arguments in favor, and you haven't addressed ONE of them, which demonstrably had evidence and logic in their support. If you're so inclined, sure, come on over. Fly out here and we'll play 2 weeks of me playing Marth/Fox/Falco/Sheik/Peach and you playing Pichu/Mewtwo in Melee, me playing Pikachu and you playing Link in SSB64, and C-Hawk would have to take Brawl. I don't do so well there. Honestly, if you can answer this question in a satisfactory way, I'll let you leave without mocking everything about you. I promse. So. Here goes: How can a character who hurts himself with most of his moves, is one of the lightest and least powerful and has low priority, be as good as a characters who have no such impediments? There's your real answer. I'm serious though. Come out here. I dare you. Semicolon (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... You didn't have to bring Pichu into this... Okay, he sucks. He sucks bad and it can be unanimously agreed upon that he is an innately worse character, but as I said, I accept that some characters are innately worse, my beef doesn't come there, it comes when people assume that there are select bunch of characters that are innnately better. I see Brawl as a couple of crappy characters (well, I can't use them very well, they may not be crappy) and a whole bunch of others who are all equally able to hold their own. So aside from that, you have 30+ other characters who are all fair game and should be considered as more or less equal, where the outcome of the game isn't who picked the higher tiered character but purely dependant on the person who is holding the controller.

That and most of the characters I main are in the bottom tiers so there's a little personal bias there ;) KnaveofHearts (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So...you believe in tiers, but just not these tiers. I think that deserves a fail. Semicolon (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if I do believe in tiers it would be one tier, of more than 30 equally rated characters and one tier of 2 or 3 lesser characters. Kinda defeats the purpose but if that makes you feel better... What I mean is that there are a couple characters who are not great, but that doesn't justify ranking the other 30 or so who are.KnaveofHearts (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this. You take the time to actually figure out what it is you think about tiers, because you're fluctuating more than Rosie O'Donnell's blood pressure. Then, come back, preferably either agreeing with me, or with an argument as to why you disagree. You're disagreeing with tier placement. I'm not programmed to argue about tier placement. I argue about tier existence. I think you're just shifting positions to make this easier on yourself. Take care. Semicolon (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I'm going to class anyway. In the near future I will compose my argument refuting the existence of tiers. I look forward to fighting about a fighting game with you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by that knave guy whose name i won't spell (talk • contribs)


 * I am amused that you even think that there's an argument in support of your position. Semicolon (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How many arguments is that, Semicolon? I mean ones that you've won...  Blue  Ninjakoopa  23:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that number is equal to the number of times I've referenced either Rosie O'Donnell or Helen Keller. Semicolon (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Semicolon, if I ever go to court, you're going to be my lawyer.--Meta-Kirb (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC) (kidding, btw)

Ok, this is elevating fast. But still, I too disaprove of tiers. About Pichu (poor dude), he may be the one who can't last forever, but remember, he is the one and only character who has a 1-hit KO move that is wide ranged, that helps to balance him. Plus with his agile speed, that helps to counter balance. A person could probrably win a tornament with Pichu AS LONG as they practiced with him to get a good technique with him. I've seen people whip my BEhind with Jigglypuff online. Truth is, tiers are only some form of logical explanation of a character who SHOULD supposedly be better then a character by looking at his/hers/its statistics and comparing and contrasting his/hers/its with another character. But in the heat of battle, these mean NOTHING!!!! (yelling now) A player's skill will be determined on how the battle will turn out!! NO teir list tells on how a battle list will turn out, and most people think this when choosing a character. Learner4 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, my challenge still remains, if anyone still wants to support tiers, I'll let them choose any high ranked character and I will be someone lower down the list. If getting constantly beat doesn't change your opinion on tiers, at least you will have proved the power of human ignorance.KnaveofHearts (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "If getting constantly beat doesn't change your opinion on tiers, at least you will have proved the power of human ignorance." Uhhh... no. The fact that Chu Dat can mop the floor with me with his Pichu (I've played his Pichu a number of times and he consistently 3-stocks me) doesn't mean that Pichu is better than, say, Falco. Statistical proportions deal with long-run probabilities and theoretically infinite numbers of independent trials, they do not apply in the individual case (where, in this case, skill outweighs tiers). If you'd read Semi's treatise, you'd have noticed that it specifically states that skill can easily bridge the gap between tiers. Also, if you admit the existence of characters that are innately bad, in so doing, you admit the existence of characters that are inherently better, relative to the ones that are bad. Once you admit the existence of relative differences, the next step is the existence of tiers denoting those relative differences. You can't have inherently bad without inherently good. –  Defiant Elements   +talk  03:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

...oh Semicolon!  Blue  Ninjakoopa  03:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so take metaknight. What if I were to take a good metaknight player and theoretically say I beat him with every other character in the game. Ditto with Snake, and so on. Would that disprove it? KnaveofHearts (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Because even though that's most certainly possible, it's less likely than the reverse.  And that logic is based off of tournament results and matchups.  Miles ( talk)   03:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if you're still better than he or she is. Although the empirical evidence from which tiers are derived don't originate from matches between players of identical skill, because they represent a huge number of independent trials, the data can be said to approximate matches between players of theoretically identical skill with all variables like stage picks accounted for via randomization/replication. Unless you can show me a video of you beating a player of identical skill in such a manner, anything you do is meaningless. – Defiant Elements   +talk  04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's nigh impossible to measure the "skill" of a player. All you can do is look at game results and statistics, though these aren't necessarily valid measurements to determine skill. Very much the same way you can only "rate" characters based on tournament results, which may not be valid. I would argue that 2 players of identical skill, should be able to pick random, and granted they both showed their A games, the results should be consistently very close, showing that character selection, or at least the predisposition that some characters are automatically better, is trivial and false.KnaveofHearts (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Unfortunately it's nigh impossible to measure the "skill" of a player." Of course it's impossible to measure skill on an absolute scale, we're talking about a hypothetical situation here.  "All you can do is look at game results and statistics, though these aren't necessarily valid measurements to determine skill. Very much the same way you can only "rate" characters based on tournament results, which may not be valid."  Alright, so I've got semi-questionable, but definitely empirical statistics, and you've got what exactly?  "I would argue that 2 players of identical skill, should be able to pick random, and granted they both showed their A games, the results should be consistently very close, showing that character selection, or at least the predisposition that some characters are automatically better, is trivial and false."  And you would argue that based on...?
 * Also, you've failed to provide a rationale for why the statistics aren't accurate indicators.
 * Oh, and while I'm at it, you've disproved your own argument by admitting that characters like Mewtwo and Pichu are inherently worse. Once you admit imperfect balance, tiers naturally arise.  –  Defiant Elements   +talk  04:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiers are based of off tournaments and matchups, like Miles said. Plus, do you think that the statistics can decide your outcome? There is a finite, though possibly large or small, chance that one of the many events can occur in a match. There is never an infinite chance. Have faith and confidence and you maybe liable to win. -.-  SapphireKirby  777  18:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No one ever said statistics determined the outcomes in individual matches; in fact, I'm fairly certain that just about everyone, myself included, has said the opposite... so... uh... yea. –  Defiant Elements   +talk  19:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI
I'm glad this hasn't devolved into a flame war, but this debate isn't really going anywhere. People who choose a side tend to stay there. I don't really want to step in and stop this, but I'm afraid something bad is going to happen. I suggest those involved to discuss this someplace more private in order to discourage others from causing problems. - (U • T • C ) 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We should make this a policy. I'm tired of everyone coming here, b!tching about the tier lists, then making their own. This needs to be stopped.  Blue  Ninjakoopa  21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the placement of the characters in the tier list, I'm arguing the futility of tiers in general. That should be allowed I think. We shouldn't have to blindly accept the fact that the tier list is justified.KnaveofHearts (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You see, the thing is that it is much easier to prove that they do exist than the actual placement. You've not provided a single argument against any of the justifications of tiers that have been written.  Either do that or go away.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've already said, short of personal experience in my league and hundreds of hours playing the game I don't have any facts to show you. I know that won't hold up in court but I'm also not about to spend the next few days analyzing the entire game mechanics just to prove this point. I'd rather just keeping proving my point on the battlefield... But if it is so important to you guys to keep your little list and ban certain characters (the pinnacle of noobness right there by the way) I'll be willing to leave it at that and let you all sit here in ignorance, thinking you know this game...KnaveofHearts (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You've basically just given up the argument and PA'd C. Hawk. The game's been out for almost a full year, dude! We don't have tonecessarily "know" it, but we do know how it functions.  Blue  Ninjakoopa  23:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So we're agreed then - you've got nothing. Okay.  GLHF.  –  Defiant Elements   +talk  23:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This could be the first of many forums to be protected. It'd be just like a real forum! lol I'm going to put up a protect request.  Blue  Ninjakoopa  23:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did I ever say I wanted to ban any characters? All I ever said is that tier exist and that you can't prove otherwise. Don't give me the whiny argument that it would take you too long to prove your point, but we should just except that you're right. Truth is, you're not. But I don't really care what you think, and as that's the only grounds for your claims, they too are meaningless. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Kid, you very clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Do you not understanding that you beating me, Ken, a first timer, or anybody else, proves nothing about the existence of tiers? I merely would prove that you were able to beat someone. Proving 'on the battlefield' as you call it would merely be an anecdote. Taking that, and then pretending to spin it into an argument is a logical fallacy. You need a large sample size in order to tell anything about that, and you need to control for skill. Your method of 'proof' leaves skill as a very uncontrolled factor. Also, if you really shoot for it, you could give us a more exotic fallacy in 'the exception that proves the rule.' Also, you come here and say that you're not arguing about the particular placements, when you've already been up and down that position a dozen times on this very same forum. You're talking about how some characters are worse than others...which means that some characters are better than others. You also basically even admitted that you believe tiers exist, and now you're back to not believing in them. Do what I told you to do last time. Take some time, find out what you actually think, or at least a good story with lots of plot twists, and then come back with an argument, not an insistence that we brawl you, because that doesn't prove anything about tiers. If you want to prove that you are better at Smash than me, whatever. Fine. Don't care. But if you want to prove that tiers don't exist, I suggest you go find a magic lamp, rub it a couple times, then wish for a different developer for Smash 4. Sincerely, Semicolon (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Protect plz. This user has no chance against your WoTs, lacks logic, and will probably end up personally attacking you :\  Blue  Ninjakoopa  05:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't protect simply because one user is not arguing or might PA. If he does, he just get's banned.  This is a very legit topic on Smash forums, the only problem is that there is a right answer.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 06:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me child step for a second. You believe that if two players were hypothetically identical in skill level, that the player who picked the higher tiered character would win? Or at least be heavily favored to win?KnaveofHearts (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said heavily favored, I said favored. My arguments to this point (mostly in the treatise) have simply proved an existence.  And it's not always an advantage that can't be overcome.  For example, let's say we're playing Gears of War 2.  All I have in a snub pistol, and you have four frags, a lancer, a sniper, and a boltock pistol.  You're obviously favored in that scenario, but there are ways that my skill, strategy, etc. could overcome that disadvantage.  Likewise, I'm not saying that Meta Knight beats Shiek every time.  In fact, I've disassembled Meta Knight with Shiek in a tournament.  Nonetheless, it was clear that Meta Knight had the better advantage on paper.  But to be frank, that part about Meta Knight goes beyond this argument.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 16:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I find tiers almost like Smackdown vs Raw games. If I picked, IDK some new guy with like 78 Exp. and played another person identical to my skill level who picked The Undertaker, he has a pretty clear advantage. But, in that sense, SVR games are set to have higher skilled characters. Super Smash Bros. is not. On the other hand, I main Ganondorf, second to last on the tier list (despite how much I think it's wrong...). Say my friend is equal to my skill level, and they have only ever used one character (Fox, for example). If I play that person, and I played as Ganon and they pick Meta Knight for the first time (best on the list), who would win? Probably me, because I have a better meta-game. But, if that person continued using Meta Knight over a period of time, I would eventually end up getting my ass handed to me. IK it sounds tough to understand... Essentially, I'm saying the outcome of the match goes like this: 50% Tiers, 40% Metagame, 10% Skill. After reading Semicolon's big page about tiers, I think he would agree with that.  Kperfekt  BURN!!!  Revert That! 10:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is going to be the third time this is mentioned. Tiers are used in tournament matchups! So, KnaveOfHearts, unless you're in a tournament with the usual tournament rules, tiers shouldn't matter to you! If you're playing a normal battle with items, tiers shouldn't matter to you. Unknown the   Hedgehog  16:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It warms my heart to see SmashWiki coming together for a verbal hazing :). Semicolon (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think, even despite my aversion to protection, it might be time for it. It'd certainly be easier than banning like 5 people for trolling/disruption. -- Shadow  crest  17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've yet to see anyone who deserves a ban. Some questionable comments, yes, but it really hasn't gotten out of control...  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think I'm trolling? I've been civil and logical. :( I thought we were having a legitimate argument here, aside from the fact that it's like ten on one and I've managed to gain very little support. Basically the basis of my argument comes from the fact that I've likely put more hours into smash than most people posting against me. Now either you guys are of such a high caliber beyond my level that I simply just don't grasp the concept of tiers but I don't think that's the case. Ideas get stronger by being challenged. I'm not here to piss people off, I'm arguing this out of actual concern. I don't think people who come here should have to immediately accept the fact that tiers exist. From experience, I find Smash (Brawl more than the first two) to be a very balanced game. There are NO characters who are given an innate advantage. Certainly none are ban-worthy. Can you imagine a tier list in a game like Starcraft? No, because it's balanced enough that any matchup is decided by the player with the best strategy not who picked the "better" race as mentioned in the treatise. Sure, some matchups will favor certain characters, but think of it like an expanded version of paper-scissor-rock, where each character has weaknesses but also has equal strengths, essentially making them all even. True, I have said that there are characters I personally think are worse but that can just as easily be accredited to my lack of training with them and that doesn't mean someone else can;t use them better than I could ever hope to. But do you really believe that a new game can't come out that can be balanced? This is how I view Smash. It's one of the only games where every time I find a new opponent, chances are they are maining someone different. That must say something about the balance in the game. Also, if this tier list really did exist, why doesn't every high skilled player use Metaknight? Wouldn't that make sense since he's the "best"? In fact, for all you fervent supporters, if you were really serious about winning, wouldn't it be a tad hypocritical to use anyone but Metaknight? Of course I'm being sarcastic but really, why doesn't every pro use metaknight? Probably because they have found someone they can use better. But doesn't that throw off the list?

Hypothetical here. If I were to win a major tournament with Captain Falcon, and then next year someone else won with Link, and then another won with Ganondorf, and this trend (low placed characters winning) continued, would the tier list change? I'm under the impression that the list is not written in stone, that it is always changing correct? So theoretically EVERY character in the game has the potential to be placed at the top. If that were to happen, would that not prove the game to be balanced and therefore eliminate the idea about tiering? KnaveofHearts (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Read my last message. Unknown the   Hedgehog  20:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only reply to this guy by trolling him, so let's wait for Semicolon or until the page is protected.  Blue  Ninjakoopa  20:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Civil you've been. Logical...not so much :(. This is the first thing that might, sort of, be construed as an argument. Thanks :). Let's get to it, shall we?


 * No characters are ban worthy, but some definitely have an advantage. You've admitted that some characters are better than others. You said: "I see Brawl as a couple of crappy characters (well, I can't use them very well, they may not be crappy) and a whole bunch of others who are all equally able to hold their own." I could end my argument there, but I won't because I think you deserve better.
 * Thank you for proving that you absolutely did not read the treatise. I mentioned why StarCraft cannot have a tier list. Look, the bottom line is that StarCraft isn't balanced (I write for StarCraft fansite Teamliquid.net occasionally; conventional wisdom is T>Z Z>P P>T). It's just balanced to the point where nobody complains, as you said, but that doesn't mean that there aren't advantages. Yes, you have said a lot of this, but you aren't taking it far enough. As with StarCraft and Smash Bros, what these small advantages mean is that some characters are better than others. Terran ALWAYS has the advantage on Zerg. Meta Knight ALWAYS has the advantage on Captain Falcon, intrinsically.  Captain Falcon has no priority. His moves have bad lag.  He doesn't do much damage.  Meta Knight has ridiculous priority.  His moves are very low lag. They do a lot of damage. Equal skill assumed, Meta Knight will always beat Captain Falcon. Always.
 * "But do you really believe that a new game can't come out that can be balanced?" Yes, provided they aren't basically equal in their design. It's not possible because it's impossible for the developers to foresee all the strategies, techniques, moves, and skills that dedicated players can accomplish. This is simply a fact. Additionally, game developers often don't go into detail about balance because it's very expensive to make games. Wasting resources on complete balance is not a good economical decision.
 * "Also, if this tier list really did exist, why doesn't every high skilled player use Metaknight?" Same reason everyone doesn't play Terran in StarCraft (conventional wisdom says that P>T, but I did a direct analysis on this, and the rate is very close to 50%, meaning that Terran has the overall advantage). I don't play Terran in StarCraft because I'm better at Zerg. They fit my style, and I have pretty good ZvT. I don't play Meta Knight because I don't like his play style and I've worked on the matchup a lot to the point where I understand it very well as Marth.  I don't like Marth that much, but I have to play him because Pit doesn't cut it because he's not good enough.  One can beat Meta Knight as Snake, even though Meta Knight is the better overall character.  The difference between those characters is small enough that nobody complains in that matchup. The answer to that question is pretty obvious :(.
 * "But doesn't that throw off the list?" No.
 * "Hypothetical here. If I were to win a major tournament with Captain Falcon, and then next year someone else won with Link, and then another won with Ganondorf, and this trend (low placed characters winning) continued, would the tier list change?" Yes.
 * "If that were to happen, would that not prove the game to be balanced and therefore eliminate the idea about tiering?" Of course not. You don't really understand the concept of a tier list do you? Semicolon (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, just to help you out on your initial question, which is if there are any of other serious anti-tierists here, the answer is no. Sad day for you. Sad. :(. Semicolon (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch, Semicolon, that was pretty harsh.  Fried beef  1    Love   01:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, you know what Semicolon? Stop being a jerk. You've been a bit caustic since this started. I suggest you stop while you're still ahead. And you're wrong. I acknowledge the existence of tiers, but I don't like them, I don't support them, and I sure as hell don't think people are at that much an advantage if they choose a character that's "top tier" instead of "mid tier". Now stop this bickering and let's end this discussion. [[Image:SDFnW_SmashWiki_sig.gif]] - (U • T • C ) 07:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ...I wasn't talking to you, but if this is some kind of acknowledgment that you in fact the 'Knaveofhearts' then all I have to say to you is 'Say no to sockpuppets!' Otherwise, if you want to reprimand me for my conduct, that of being blunt, yet truthful, then I suggest you find some other concrete grounds. Semicolon (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OK Rita, this is what the problem is. We spend time constructing a logical argument in favor of the existence of tiers. Then this guy waltzes in and says "tires don exits" and we respond for him to read our argument. His response? "I don't have time to construct a counter argument but my view should be taken as fact because I've played the game more than you. How do you know I've played the game more than you?  Well, anyone who comes to the conclusions that you've come to obviously hasn't played the game as much as me." He's basically contending that he is right because anyone who disagrees with him can't have the experience that he has. That's what's called circular reasoning. If anything, he is the one being a jerk in that he's not reading other peoples arguments and just saying that anyone who believes in tiers is a n00b. Oh, and no one cares if people like tiers. They still exists. I don't like antisemitism, but that doesn't stop it from existing. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh; I don't necessarily agree with anyone, but I thought I'd be the first to at least offer Knave some kind of support for trying to argue his point while "outclassed". Zixor (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Argument and repetition are not synonymous. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 19:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, they're becoming to be synonymous. Smoreking (T)  (c)  19:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that their methods of argumentation are insufficient in proving much of anything; but I also know how hard it can be to convince anyone of anything :). I could be mistaken, but I would think that this person is less for completely disproving the existence of tiers, and more stating their opinion that they aren't really that important (which I would agree with). I mean after all, this is simply a discussion forum. Ill formed as they may be, they're hardly forcing their views on anyone.


 * I'm generally not one to point out such things, but I have to wonder why so many people are "ganging up" on someone who they aren't even able to converse with on the same level. If Knave's argument style remains insufficient, why do you continue to dignify, and insult them? If you've said your piece, and the conversation isn't going anywhere, why prolong it? -I'm not chastising; merely asking. Zixor (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We're arguing against him because he came into a forum and started the argument. You don't get it both ways.  If you enter a forum, expect your arguments to get dissected, and don't think that people will back off just because you want them to.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright; if you say so. -In any case, I've said my piece, and will no longer be prolonging this argument. : ) Zixor (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight what I should have done was spent time constructing an argument rather than reading the treatise and then posting based on being pissed off. You are right there, but I still stand by what I have said. Upon rereading the whole thread I can see how I might have been a little off in the style of my argument but not my points. What do you have that proves the existence of tiers? A few tournament results. Granted that is more than I have presented but I don't think it's nearly enough. Obviously this isn't going anywhere. If it were up to me, one thing would be changed. The line that states "The unanimous consensus of competitive players is that tiers do exist" should be changed. That simply perpetuates the thought that there is no alternative to this belief system that has very little evidence to support it.

And as for Semicolon, I stopped arguing with him after he showed how little he knew about Starcraft...KnaveofHearts (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You. Me. Right now. Bo9. I can promise you I know more about StarCraft than you ever will. Do you even know who sAviOr is? NaDa? BOXER? Edit: Since you're not, in fact, on, we'll do it this way. Tomorrow, at 23:00 hours Wiki time (find it in the recent changes) we will play either on ICCUP or Battle.net in U.S West, both in a channel called 'smashbros'.  If we doing Battle.net, you will allow an observer in the game to ensure you are not hacking.  If we are meeting on ICCUP, I will make 1v1 games.  The Bo9 map lineup will be this: Python, Blue Storm, Lost Temple, Andromeda, Othello, Medusa, Colosseum II, Destination, and Python again.  If you have any revisions to these terms you would propose, we will discuss them in the channel.Semicolon (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, I came back at an awkward time... Knave, do you play brawl competitively?   I mean, are you on AllisBrawl or some other match-making site like that?  If not, you need to do so, and then come back and say that tiers don't exist.  It's one thing to say "My Captain Falcon is the $#it" when you're playing with computers and your friends, but another to say that after playing a pro.   Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * AllisBrawl has nothing to do with tiers, Cheezperson. You can't just make someone go and do something they refuse to do. That reply made no sense at all, dude.  Blue  Ninjakoopa  01:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My Falcon isn't my best. I was just saying that Falcon can beat Metaknight. As for my play history, I am involved in a league that is run through my university. It has 18 players and I am currently sitting at second place. Since I live in Canada and I'm a broke ass student, I can't really afford to get to any of the big tournaments in the US, as much as I would like to. I have competed in a couple closer to home though, I won the Melee tournament they held at the PNE in Vancouver a few years back and I was runner up in the Brawl release tourney that EB Games had. So no, I don't have a lot of impressive credentials but I'm also not just sitting in my basement bashing computers pretending to be hard. I play the game a lot and as I've said, and before you all attempt to crucify me again, I know that personal experience isn't enough to base an argument on but if anything, it shows that not all people who play the game fervently follow and adhere to this tier list that has been released by a few gamers who feel as if they are "the elite", forgetting that there are MANY people like myself out there who haven't had exposure as "professional" players.KnaveofHearts (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * !!!!!!!!!!You're personal experience is ALL you're basing your supposed 'argument' on!!!!!!!!! You don't have an argument. You continually assert what you assert because you assert it, and that's it. You have no evidence, no logic, no idea what you're talking about so just leave. Now. Semicolon (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The tier list was made by people with constant exposure to professionals, and tournament results show that Meta Knight and Snake are high above the rest when it comes to succeeding in tournaments. Does it mean that a good Falcon player will never beat a good MK player?  Absolutely not.  I've seen it myself, MK can lose to CF, and CF can succeed in tourneys, as can any other character.  Heck, check out AiB's winter ladder listings.  MK isn't even in the top 5 (his best placement is 8), and Fox, a lower-tier character, is number 2!  However, that's just one example.  MK and Snake are more successful elsewhere.

Trust me, you're not the first, nor are you the last, person to disagree with the existence of tiers. Though Semicolon has explained the situation very well, there will always be some who disagree. If you want exposure to higher level play, go to Allisbrawl.com (no www.) and sign up, or go to another match-making site and challenge a Meta Knight main.  Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 03:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All is Brawl has nothing to do with this argument, nor does it have anything to do with tiers. Stop please.  Blue  Ninjakoopa  16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, All is Brawl could have a lot to do with tiers as it is a tournament organizer service and tacks results and characters. That information could easily be included in SBR discussions about tiers.  Also, I'd find it hard to believe that something as popular as AiB isn't having some influence on the metagame.  Also, it does have a lot to do with the argument.  Knave is laiming he could beat anyone, he  just doesn't have the chance.  Well, here's his chance.  And on that subject, I agree with the below comment even if it was horribly tactless and inappropriate in the way it was written.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yo Knave, here's something for you to suck on: If you no play with the pros you can't be as good as them as you havent had experience with metagame. Look, the guy who invented Ken Combo, fucking genius. Did you invent Ken Combo. Nope, that's my argument. GTFO moron. 13375poolR (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This bad boy is full of win. I'd'a told him this myself if I existed then.  Solid Dragenah (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, stop it. Semicolon (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

...So, any inappropriate comments aside, how did the game of StarCraft turn out?--Meta-Kirb (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

He never showed. I still want to play him, same rules, everything. Just when he gets around to it, perhaps? Semicolon (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This so freaking entertaining to read! --74.13.90.244 19:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like tiers, but mainly because they get me down. I play as Zelda, and when I see her rated in a low tier I find it offensive and slightly depressing. It feels like an insult to your choice of character somehow. JUG (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not an insult in the slightest. The tier list is simply a measurement of how each character fares in tourneys, and against other characters.  Meta Knight is top for stellar matchups and tourney results, while Ganondorf is bottom for awful tourney results and absolutely terrible matchups.  This is coming from a person who seconds Ganondorf.  Any questions? L33t   Silvie  I see wat u did thar... |undefined
 * Its more like a compliment, really, since your good as a character most people suck as. Paradox Juice (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Bump