AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Le Great Handsome Oppressor wrote:Yes it is. It's simple, really - a character alone doesn't matter. What matters is how he interacts with the rest of the cast. That's what makes a character good or bad: how he measures to the other characters.
Ike has bad match-ups up the wazoo! He doesn't have the advantage against many characters, and even then it's not by a lot. And even then, it's against overall poorly-ranked characters!

But this only truly matters if every single part of a character that has an effect on the game (speed, damage, knockback, reach, etc) are taken into account and compared to that of another character and all of them are determined to be worse. Even if one of those parts of a "lesser" character exceeds that of the better one its being compared to, the two cant give a factual statement after being compared, because everyone has a different fighting style, different strengths and weaknesses, and 2% more damage may end up being more important than 5% greater speed and 3% farther knockback. Only if every last thing that a character does that can affect gameplay is greater or worse than another character can the two be compared.

All people play differently and so results constantly change. The tier list itself changes every year. Anything subject to change can not be considered factual.

mine is 0045-0830-0286

my connection is probably bad, but i can still try and see how it goes

Good games guys.

I'll add you drownball, but I'm done playing for today, sorry.

Wordsmith wrote:

Le Great Handsome Oppressor wrote:Yes it is. It's simple, really - a character alone doesn't matter. What matters is how he interacts with the rest of the cast. That's what makes a character good or bad: how he measures to the other characters.
Ike has bad match-ups up the wazoo! He doesn't have the advantage against many characters, and even then it's not by a lot. And even then, it's against overall poorly-ranked characters!

But this only truly matters if every single part of a character that has an effect on the game (speed, damage, knockback, reach, etc) are taken into account and compared to that of another character and all of them are determined to be worse. Even if one of those parts of a "lesser" character exceeds that of the better one its being compared to, the two cant give a factual statement after being compared, because everyone has a different fighting style, different strengths and weaknesses, and 2% more damage may end up being more important than 5% greater speed and 3% farther knockback. Only if every last thing that a character does that can affect gameplay is greater or worse than another character can the two be compared.

All people play differently and so results constantly change. The tier list itself changes every year. Anything subject to change can not be considered factual.

Well, no, that's not true. You can take the power of a character as a whole and judge it against the power as a whole on another character. Sure, each character will have specific strenghts and weaknesses, and no one's saying that's not the case, but if between two equally skilled players, one character has an advantage against 75% of the cast, and the other character has an advantage against 25%, then the former is undoubtably the 'better' choice.

These tier lists are rigorously done and revised often. They HAVE been tested and strained and pressured thoroughly, and as they stand, they are accurate representatrions of each characters power vs. every other character's power.

EDIT: Also yes thanks a lot for the games Chekt and DND, they were excellent fun!

Le Great Handsome Oppressor, stop posting exactly what I want to post.

@Wordsmith: What you're saying are all arguments for the relative subjectivity of the "goodness" of a character. Yes it is true that we can't determine a character's combat effectiveness exactly, but we can give an estimate that can only realistically vary so much. Say that we rate Ike's powers as 'mediocre'. You could now argue that he is in fact 'good', using your arguments of subjectivity. However, you can't realistically try to say that Ike is 'great'. His weaknesses are far too great for that, and only a blind man would overlook them.

So when you say that Ike is overpowered, in other words stronger than any character in the game and in fact so strong he needs to be nerfed: you are wrong. It's as simple as that.

However, where you trying to argue that Ike is good and maybe needs to move up a tier, that's an opinion I could respect. Not necessarily one I agree with, mind you.

My best characters' tiers, in order from most-used (best with) character to least-used (worst with):

D C B A A

It seems I do not know how tiers work.

It doesn't mean because you are better with a character that that character is better in general. The situation the tiers are based on is if you have 2 evenly skilled players who use those characters as their mains. In other words, under optimal and even circumstances for both characters. Other circumstances, like level, are taken in to account as well btw, and there are even special guides for picking the map where your match up favors you most. There might even be maps where say, Ike is better as Metaknight. unlikely

Syobon wrote:It doesn't mean because you are better with a character that that character is better in general. The situation the tiers are based on is if you have 2 evenly skilled players who use those characters as their mains. In other words, under optimal and even circumstances for both characters. Other circumstances, like level, are taken in to account as well btw, and there are even special guides for picking the map where your match up favors you most. There might even be maps where say, Ike is better as Metaknight. unlikely

So tiers are entirely based upon the skills of the player.


So everyone should have their own personal tier.



Someone explain to me why people care about the tier system.

Because when you put two evenly skilled players against each other, one with Ike and one with MK, MK will almost always win.

Especially if both players are pros.

Edit: I want to clarify that I certainly don't think everyone should worship the tiers or something. I'm trying to explain their use. Also again, the problem we are having is that Wordsmith says that Ike is overpowered, he isn't just saying Ike is ranked too low in the tiers or something.

I agree that Ike is cheap within certain respects: he has like zero learning curve and can absolutely murder the shit out of everyone in 3-4 player brawls. I learned to counter him one-on-one though, because he's really easy to predict and exploit. It just depends how experienced the player is.

Syobon wrote:Because when you put two evenly skilled players against each other, one with Ike and one with MK, MK will almost always win.

Especially if both players are pros.

Edit: I want to clarify that I certainly don't think everyone should worship the tiers or something. I'm trying to explain their use. Also again, the problem we are having is that Wordsmith says that Ike is overpowered, he isn't just saying Ike is ranked too low in the tiers or something.

That's because Ike is slow as fuck and Metaknight moves quickly.


Like people who bitch when they pick Ganondorf and lose to Pikachu.

Clearly the one who doesn't pick the ungodly slow character is a cheater.

I'm not saying MK is a cheat dude.

I'm trying to explain the tier system, that was just an example. You could replace MK with any top tier character.

Why is it that every Smash Bros. thread I see on a forum ends up becoming a tier discussion? I just want to play the game.

I may post my FC later. Maybe...

i still haven't beaten the boss challenge in intense

I beat it in very hard

But i just can't in intense

I can reach Tabuu, but i always get Koed before i even get 1/4 of his health down

(derailing the tier topic)

Anyone up for a few matches?