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) {{{2}}}
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) {{{2}}}
- 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. -.- SapphireKirby777 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)
- 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. -.- SapphireKirby777 18:27, 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)