Talk:Tier list/Archive 7

current talk page

Archives

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Controversy subsections

Hey guys! First I am wondering if it's okay to talk here at all because it looks like not a lot is going on while everything else got pushed into archives. If it's okay, I'd like to begin splitting the tiers controversy section into two parts: One subsection over the existence of tiers, and another subsection discussing how much character popularity contributes to the shape of the tiers and vice-versa, weaving in some data from the unofficial census by GreatGonzales (Smashboards is down at the time I am writing this.) I think I could help make it sound less charged (not to imply it actually is, just that I could make it more approachable and compelling) and more concise. It's a wall of text at the moment and some parts are redundant or in the wrong place. --Quilt (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2013 (EDT)

I feel this paragraph is not necessary because 1. People commonly choose their character based on how viable they are in competitive play. 2. As the metagame evolves, the true power of each character and their tier placement is discovered, meaning that character popularity has little effect on a character's tier placement, especially the current ones. Awesome Cardinal 2000 10:15, 27 August 2013 (EDT)

I think you should point out what paragraph you feel isn't necessary. In case you're curious, there is data suggesting that casual players play the same characters just as much as tournament players. This could imply several things. I still think this whole section needs to be rewritten to be more factual and less as a rebuttal. --Quilt (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2013 (EDT)

Project M tier list

Should we include the Project M tier list on this page? ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is a never lover boy 21:18, 26 March 2014 (EDT)

No, it's on the Project M page itself. Miles (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2014 (EDT)

I'm sure it's obvious from the recent changes spam, but I'm adding the tier list placements to the character pages as well. Ryxis (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2014 (EDT)

Should characters with the same score be considered to be ranked at the point of the tie, or at the position where they're ordered? I.e., 3 characters have score x (but are still ordered), would it make more sense to put them all at the same position, or at the position where they're placed? Those ties aren't broken alphabetically. They're put in an actual order that doesn't appear to be arbitrary. Ryxis (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2014 (EDT)

If they're listed as a tie, we should list them as a tie (so MK would be at placing 3-5). We did this back when SSBM's beta 10th tier list (the last list with much ties) was the most recent, so we should do it here too. Toomai Glittershine The Chronicler 10:01, 27 March 2014 (EDT)

Am I the only one around here who thinks Pokémon Trainer's Pokémon should be ranked seperately on Brawl's tier list?

Me personally, I think it's the best of ideas :) GET ON IT, SBR! 86.174.94.2 03:28, 4 April 2014 (EDT)

Please read SW:TALK and the notice at the top of this page. Miles (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2014 (EDT)

Talk pages are not to be used to post your own opinions on the subject of the article. Awesome Cardinal 2000 17:35, 4 April 2014 (EDT)

Re: Project M Tier list

So I know that this has been discussed previously a few months ago in "Project M Tier List" and the answer was a deliberate "No". But why not include it on this page? I realize that Project M isn't an official Nintendo game as it's a hack but at the same time tier lists aren't even official to Nintendo. Just asking for a bit more clarification thanks :D Nullatrum (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2014 (EDT)

The key here is not that PM isn't a real member of the series - the key is that a PMBR member specifically said that the PM list we have is "unofficial" and "not to be used", implying we should wait until the PMBR comes up with an official list beforehand. Toomai Glittershine The Incomprehensible 18:42, 4 June 2014 (EDT)

hi there, email me plz

my email is <email address removed>

ok wario at one time I saw was in 1st place, wtf? snake who is very good lost 2nd place and is at 6th which makes no sense and ice climbers? really??? also pichu in melee who is terrible for getting hurt is now not in last place anymore, wow you tournament nerds think you can beat anybody with meta knight, lol of course since he is so cheap.why do you guys keep changing the fricken list if you say that its right??? if seems you people have NO idea what you're talking about, lol. email me if you do k? :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.21.213 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 14 June 2014

The reason why these changes within the years is because it is the Smash Back Rooms that made the tier lists to keep up with how well all the characters is doing in tournaments up to date. Also, sign your comments with ~~~~ and use proper grammar. Dots (talk) The Peaceful 12:24, 14 June 2014 (EDT)

First off, before you go about debating the tier list, it's for the best that you learn the basic nuances of grammar, spelling, and capitalisation; if you can't understand basic English, what makes you think you can understand the tier list?

Second off, very top of this page:

“

Discussion on this talk page should be limited to the content of the page, not to debate on the ordering of tiers, we report the tier lists, we don't decide them.

”

If you want to enlighten the world on how your views are correct, use this or this. Better yet, read this so that you won't go about making yourself look like an uninformed, clueless child as you debate something you clearly do not know a lot about.

Third off, the tier list changes because of how the metagame changes. Since you were presumably busy bitching instead of doing this thing I like to call "basic research of a subject so that I don't look like an uninformed, clueless child in a discussion", I'll post a quote from the page that you obviously have not read:

“

In response to the fact that the tier list changes, pro-tiers state that the anti-tiers' argument does not weigh against the existence of tiers, because the tier list must change as the metagame changes and new strategies previously unknown are discovered; while an individual tier list may not stay accurate forever, as explained in the previous paragraph, it does not discredit the existence of tiers.

”

Fourth off, sign your comments with four tildes. Seriously, the unsigned template is a pain in the ass to post, so try to save me some trouble, okay?

I think that's about all.

Have a nice day.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 12:30, 14 June 2014 (EDT)

LOL

It still doesn't make any sense that wario was once in 1st place. Email me why did you guys remove it? Seriously?71.35.21.213 18:46, 17 June 2014 (EDT)

For your own safety. Posting controversial opinions and then your e-mail is quite the dangerous move.

Oh, and this is still not a place to discuss the validity of tier lists. Please take your inquiries elsewhere. --Timson622222 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2014 (EDT)

Why is Pokémon Trainer as a whole ranked on one slot?

Surely Squirtle, Ivysaur and Charizard should each be ranked seperately, right? 109.156.133.214 12:14, 21 August 2014 (EDT)

Because people have difficulty sticking to one PT Pokémon. Like Pokémon change automatically when one dies. Also we do not come up with the tier list, Smashboards does. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is bad for me 12:19, 21 August 2014 (EDT)

You can't use one separately throughout an entire legit match. Along with being forced to switch after losing a stock, the stamina gimmick is also a huge factor; it pretty much requires you to switch at times so you don't remain extremely weak. Scr7(talk · contribs) 12:20, 21 August 2014 (EDT)

Idk if this belongs here or whatever but it's still important

So on my userpage I have tiers based on how good I am at a character, and I made one for SSB4 (with anticipation of newcomers). But when I clicked on Sheik's icon to get to her page, it took me to Sheik (SSB4-U), which, obviously, isn't a page. The icons are named "File:SheikIconSSB4-U" (with Sheik replaced with other names, obviously), so to make the tier work, you have to put "SSB4-U" as the game. Which also affects the link. So, long story short/TL;DR, can we either 1) rename the icons to be just SheikIconSSB4 (which is unlikely, because we'll probably have icons from the 3DS version eventually) or 2) make redirects like Sheik (SSB4-U) or Bowser Jr. (SSB4-U)? The latter is a lot of work, and I would've done it without asking, but I wanted to make sure they weren't going to be deleted for being unnecessary. ...a new Nuttais approaching... 21:40, 27 August 2014 (EDT)

SSB4 Tier

SSB4's been out for a while now. Where's the tier list for that? Pgj1997 (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2014 (EDT)

It took several months for Brawl to get its first tier list. Be patient. Toomai Glittershine The Chronicler 17:46, 18 September 2014 (EDT)

I think that the community should wait until Apex 2015 before starting up a tier list. A week is definitely not a while. Scr7(talk · contribs) 17:47, 18 September 2014 (EDT)

You know, I wonder the same question. But I don't really care about tiers (not that much of a competitive player myself); that's not saying I think all characters are equal. Aidan the Intermediate Gamer (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

One-sided Controversy Section

The controversy section seems to be heavily pro-tier. Would it not be better to provide both sides of the argument? I'm not pro- or -anti- tier, but in the name of fairness, it would be a lot better to provide a pro- paragraph and an anti- paragraph, neither of which try to refute the other. 75.105.227.219 14:07, 1 November 2014 (EDT)

That would be a good idea if it was possible for the anti-tier position to be correct. But since it isn't, as demonstrated by the linked treatise, there's no real need to go further in-depth on poor arguments. Toomai Glittershine The Spectrum 14:15, 1 November 2014 (EDT)

Objectivity is an important part of being a source of information. Even if you disagree with a viewpoint you should still cover it fairly. Plus using a treatise as a source that specifically supports one side of an argument over another is hardly balanced. 216.227.245.50 15:49, 21 November 2014 (EST)

This is like sports. Everyone can have an opinion as to how good team X is and why, but at the end of the day, the results are the only thing that matters. The anti-tier argument is fundamentally similar to "Yeah team X is 5-38, but they're still good enough to make the playoffs and win it all" - the stats outweigh the opinions. Toomai Glittershine The Different 15:58, 21 November 2014 (EST)

That's exactly how I feel about tiers, really. I've never really given a damn either way about tiers, but I have noticed certain flaws in certain characters, and those flaws can leave openings to better characters. I can say "Sanic's teh best character" all I want, but what happens to him in tournaments ultimately cancels out whatever I have to say. Aidan the Gamer 16:01, 21 November 2014 (EST)

You realize the credibility of your article goes to shit with the insane rant at the end using straw man tactics, and improper rebuttals right?

I think it needs to be removed, and a simple disclaimer placed at the top citing the source of the tiers. With an explanation to what they are in a clear language. As the bulk of the friction seems to come from a misunderstanding of what a tier list is. 70.114.222.190 02:21, 2 December 2014 (EST)

(1. The source is the Back Room of the respective game,(e.g. N64BR) which is clearly stated above the said Tier list.

(2. This is a big enough debate to have a section on it. If you've seen the kind of debates that go on within the community you'd understand.

MintyGuy700 (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2014 (EST)

Smash 4 tier list

Why do we need to wait for the SBR tier list before putting any information up on this article about tiers in Smash 4? The page feels blank without any information about it, and we can at least put information that is widely accepted and notable among the community: that Diddy Kong, ZSS, Sheik, and Yoshi are some of the best characters in the game. Japan has even released its own tier list already. Why not include that in the article as well? Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:15, 19 January 2015 (EST)

The content that I put on the page was not speculation. The SBR is not the sole authority in determining who the best characters in the game are, the players decide for themselves and as a community as well. Speculation would be on the lines of predicting exactly what each character would be ranked as on the next tier list. That, however, is not the case in this section; it presents a fact about something widely accepted by the community. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:19, 19 January 2015 (EST)

It's reddit. Anyone can make a tier list. I won't deny any of the characters you listed being some of the best, especially considering how I main one of them, but we report what the SBR has to say. We haven't had any other source for a tier list, if I'm not mistaken (hey, I've only been here for a year and a half. Cut me some slack.) BlueStreak Speeds By 21:24, 19 January 2015 (EST)

It's true that anyone can make a tier list, but it's widely accepted that those characters are among the best in the game. SmashWiki reports not only on what the SBR says, but also from unofficial sources, such as the community at large. It's different from some random person making up a tier list because a very large number of players in the community think so, and a lot of these players are professionals at the game. Before there were things such as SSBMRank, players like Mew2King and Mango were considered to be among the best Smash players in the world, even though there was no official ranking to label them so. It's the same thing here.

The reddit source I listed attached a link to a forum in Japanese, which I guess is the tier list produced there. A Google search of "smash 4 tier list japan" or something similar yields a lot of posts about a tier list in Japan. Also, there are articles on SmashWiki of tier lists of other regions, such as Japanese tier list and Brazilian tier list. Awesome Cardinal 2000 22:47, 19 January 2015 (EST)

I'm well aware that we have those pages here. And, again, I'm well aware that the community holds those opinions. But this page is about the SBR's tier list, not the Japanese one. I am one who has no objections to you putting what you put on this page over here, but I'd honestly wait on an admin's approval on that one. BlueStreak Speeds By 22:50, 19 January 2015 (EST)

This page is not supposed to be exclusively about the SBR tier list, and if it is, it shouldn't be that way. This article is about tiers and tier lists in general; the SBR tier lists are put here because they are the ones most widely accepted by the community; even people in Japan and Latin America usually refer to the SBR's tier lists. If the Japanese tier list was the most widely trusted source, it would be listed here instead of the SBR tier list.

I'm also more concerned about adding the community's opinion on the Smash 4 tier list onto this page, than adding the Japanese Smash 4 tier list. Awesome Cardinal 2000 22:56, 19 January 2015 (EST)

We're better off having no section than a "well people say these characters are good" section for the time until we get an actual SBR tier list. Japanese tier list info belongs on the page for that. Miles (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2015 (EST)

It's better to say something about there not being a tier list yet then having no section at all. And when the competitive community has a consensus on which characters are generally considered good, it's worth mentioning them as well, regardless of how early the metagame may be. --Timson622222 (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2015 (EST)

And how exactly do you plan on making that supposed consensus demonstrable? Miles (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2015 (EST)

You completely ignore what I just said about how we don't need the SBR tier list to put something here, and the only reason the SBR tier list is used is because it is widespread and accepted by the community. The fact that Diddy Kong etc. is one of the best characters in the game is widespread and accepted by the community. Look it up on a forum on Smashboards, or look at the Japanese tier list. Look at tournament results as a well, where a large number of professional players are playing Diddy Kong, and he frequently wins large tournaments. Awesome Cardinal 2000 07:42, 20 January 2015 (EST)

The only information that can go on an actual page is facts. Whilst in this case, all the facts are statistical representations of a community agreement, they are just that - statistical. Let's take the Eurovision Song Contest as an example. It would be incorrect to say that "song X is in a strong position in the community" as it is not provable, not falliable and subject to iminent change (For example, 2014's favorite to win actually placed quite a way down, and one that was put down for a low position finished 2nd). It's only after the scores have been announced that the standings can be said. It's the same here. ScoreCounter 07:50, 20 January 2015 (EST)

In the Eurovision Song Contest, people's beliefs are clearly divided and opinions are scattered throughout the community; look at all the dislikes on the YouTube video of the winning song, as well as people's anger and disappointment towards the results. In the Smash community, however, the opinions on "best characters in the game" are clearly defined and beliefs are shared among the vast majority of the community. The statement "Diddy Kong is seen as one of the best Smash 4 characters in the community" is provable. Ask any pro Smash player and they will tell you that Diddy Kong is one of the best characters in Smash 4. It's different on SmashWiki; not everything is provable with statistics, and not everything on the wiki needs to be provable with statistics. Look at the Category talk:VIP argument a while back ago. It was decided that the category would be kept even if there was no objective way to measure who is a VIP. The SBR tier lists are just based on the votes of a bunch of pro players, if you want to look at it that way. Once again, it is a fact that a lot of people in the community think that characters like Diddy Kong are the best in the game. Pro players have even discussed this; in this post, Mew2King, renowned as one of the best players in the world, discusses how people think Diddy Kong is the best in the game. If something's subject to imminent change, then we change the information accordingly, and we're not going to leave something out simply because it changes.

If the only things that are facts are "statistical representations of a community agreement," then you might as well get rid of the entire top section of this page that explains what a tier list is, as there's no "statistical representations of a community agreement" to prove this. Just because something doesn't have statistics to back it up doesn't mean it's not true, and you don't need to look at everything in an objective manner. Awesome Cardinal 2000 19:54, 20 January 2015 (EST)

Why the hell are you going to undo all of my actions without even discussing it on the talk page? Other people have criticized you for this behavior; you should listen to them. Awesome Cardinal 2000 06:51, 23 January 2015 (EST)

I've already explained this, and didn't think it needed repeating. There is one source that we accept for tier lists. It's that simple. Miles (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2015 (EST)

And I told you how we don't need information from the SBR to put information here. Read what I wrote. Don't abuse your admin powers to shut down a conflict to end in your favor. Awesome Cardinal 2000 08:56, 23 January 2015 (EST)

Looking back at page history, back when Brawl had no tier list yet, we had a section with nothing but "There is no widely accepted and/or referenced tier list as of July 2008. As the competitive scene develops, tiers will undoubtedly form." (and repeatedly removed any tier lists people kept adding). Then stuff was added like "Once a tier list is released by the Smash Back Room, it will be placed here. According to a thread on Smashboards, the Smash Back Room is currently discussing tiers.", before the first tier list was officially released. I see no reason to continue along that line of action - remember when people said Snake was super-duper top tier in Brawl? Toomai Glittershine The Celeritous 09:03, 23 January 2015 (EST)

We report on what the community thinks; if the community thinks that Snake is super duper top tier, then we should put that here. The only reason we use the SBR tier list here is because it's the most widely accepted tier list. Since there is none right now, we report on the opinions of the community (the tier lists are just summed up opinions of the community anyways). If the community views change, we change the article to reflect that. Awesome Cardinal 2000 16:04, 23 January 2015 (EST)

In addition to that, people thought Sheik was at the top of the tier for years. Facts can change over time.

Also, Ac2k, Miles isn't abusing his admin powers to "shut down a conflict to end in his favor". He's simply supporting his side of the argument with factual evidence. BlueStreak Speeds By 09:12, 23 January 2015 (EST)

This paragraph is going to be temporary until there is widespread and accepted version of the tier list. It's not going to last forever. If a different character suddenly becomes the best character in the game, then we change the paragraph to reflect that. I would prefer Toomai's version over having nothing at all (though I would still prefer listing how people think Diddy Kong is the best in the game). In addition, the view that Sheik was the best character in Melee was held for several years, long after the first tier list was made (until a year before Brawl came out).

Also, Miles only commented twice in this whole discussion, and neither comment posted any "factual evidence"; look at past discussions with people like Omega Tyrant, and you'll see that he frequently shuts things down while simply refusing to debate the issue. I actually applaud you for presenting your arguments in a proper and rational manner unlike Miles. Awesome Cardinal 2000 13:37, 23 January 2015 (EST)

I don't have much patience for those whose method of debate is the wall of text. That aside, though, I don't particularly understand why you're so desperate to get this paragraph added. This is a page on tier lists, not a page on general competitive viability. If you want to add notes to Diddy Kong (SSB4) regarding his prominent successes in tournament settings, with citations to appropriate major tournaments with heavy Diddy usage, that's one thing. But that's not within this page's scope. Miles (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2015 (EST)

A tier list literally ranks competitive viability, and it's important to discuss top tier characters on the article. Each game's section should not just be the SBR tier list; every section should have additional information regarding the game's tier list. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, and an encyclopedic article should contain relevant encyclopedic content, and discussing the top tier characters in game is relevant encyclopedic content.

If you don't like to argue with people who use walls of text, that's fine. But that doesn't mean you can win it if you can't refute any of the arguments. Awesome Cardinal 2000 14:31, 23 January 2015 (EST)

While tier lists are obviously related to competitive successes of characters, this page isn't for general discussion of competitive viability. It isn't even for discussing how the evolving metagame affects tier rankings; that's more appropriate on articles like List of SSBB tier lists (NTSC).

And I'd like to remind you that wiki talk pages aren't a zero-sum debate of winning and losing. We're all (presumably) here with the common goal of improving the wiki. It's not a competition, it's a collaboration. Miles (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2015 (EST)

When you say that a character is "the most competitively viable," that's the same thing as saying "it's a top tier character." I don't understand, what is wrong with simply stating who the top tier characters are? And the way it is now, your idea of "collaboration" is me taking my idea and turning it into yours. Why should I be forced to "collaborate" with you and do everything your way if you're not presenting any arguments? Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:38, 23 January 2015 (EST)

You are conflating non-equivalent things. Tier lists represent rankings of characters relative to each other, which is related to but not equivalent to overall competitive viability. This is especially true in SSB4 where the general impression seems to be that much more of the roster is viable than in the previous games. Also, your choice to disregard my points doesn't make them non-existent. Miles (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2015 (EST)

"Tier lists represent rankings of characters relative to each other, which is related to but not equivalent to overall competitive viability."

What are they ranked to each other based on? Although there's no factual evidence for it, tier list ranks each character based on how competitively viable they are relative to each other. When a character is ranked higher on a tier list, it means it's considered to be more competitively viable than the character below it. When a character is "the best in the game," it means it's the most competitively viable in the game.

"This is especially true in SSB4 where the general impression seems to be that much more of the roster is viable than in the previous games."

The characters are definitely not equal with each other; look on Smashboards, reddit, or other forms of social media, and you'll figure out quickly that a large amount of people think that Diddy Kong is the best character in the game.

It is a fact that the community thinks Diddy Kong is the best top tier character in Smash 4. We should put this in the article, or else we're excluding from this article an important facts about tiers.

You also disregarded what I said in bold earlier: What is wrong with simply stating who the top tier characters are? Awesome Cardinal 2000 16:04, 23 January 2015 (EST)

What's wrong with it is that we have a singular authority whose tier lists we accept. You are not in a position to decide for yourself who the top tier characters are. And again, there is a difference between "this character is competitively strong" and "this character is a top-tier character". It's difficult to understand how this isn't clear. Miles (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2015 (EST)

"What's wrong with it is that we have a singular authority whose tier lists we accept."

It is the singular authority because it's the most widely accepted and used by the community. We report on what the community thinks, so we state whatever's most accepted by the community. We don't just use the SBR's tier list because it is the status quo.

"You are not in a position to decide for yourself who the top tier characters are."

Read what I wrote, the community decides who the top tier characters are. Ask any competent Smash 4 player and they will tell you that Diddy Kong is one of the best characters in the game.

"And again, there is a difference between "this character is competitively strong" and "this character is a top-tier character"."

What's the difference? Is a "top tier character" just more competitively viable than a character who is "competitively strong?" Explain to me if I'm missing something, you previously gave a vague description of the difference between being "competitively viable" and "top tier." Awesome Cardinal 2000 17:27, 23 January 2015 (EST)

And where do you draw the line? Even if somebody agrees that Diddy is a very strong character in the competitive setting, what do we do with that without a formal tier list? Just say "Diddy is good"? That's not representative of the overall relative strengths of the roster. How many characters do we say are top tier, and how many do we leave out? And on whose authority if not the SBR? You can't just throw around "the community says so" and expect that to stand on its own.

And I feel I have to re-iterate: this page is about tier lists. You seem to be assuming it has a much broader scope than it does. Miles (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2015 (EST)

"Even if somebody agrees that Diddy is a very strong character in the competitive setting, what do we do with that without a formal tier list?"

"Just say "Diddy is good"? That's not representative of the overall relative strengths of the roster. How many characters do we say are top tier, and how many do we leave out? And on whose authority if not the SBR?"

This is not some random "somebody" who thinks that Diddy Kong is the best character in the game; there is a widespread consensus in the Smash community that Diddy Kong is one of the best characters in Smash 4. If you bothered to look in the competitive community every once in a while, you would see all the posts about people complaining about how OP Diddy Kong is, and people making their own tier lists with Diddy Kong at the top. Mew2King even posted addressing the people complaining that Diddy Kong should be banned from tournaments. You'd also learn that there are a bunch of other characters people think to be top tier just under Diddy Kong: Sheik, Yoshi, Zero Suit Samus, and Mii Brawler. Most of the other characters are considered to be not top tier and on a significantly lower level than the others. The community basically decided the top tier characters, not myself or SmashWiki. SmashWiki does not determine what the best characters in the game are; we report on what the community thinks. An encyclopedia sentence would be "Diddy Kong is the best character in the game," it would be "A large amount of Smash 4 community members believe that Diddy Kong is the best character in Smash 4." Not everything needs a tier list to be factually accurate. You can judge this based on the huge community response. Do you see any other characters frequently being called out as the best character in the game other than Diddy Kong?

"And I feel I have to re-iterate: this page is about tier lists. You seem to be assuming it has a much broader scope than it does."

The fact that many community members think Diddy Kong is a top tier character is related to the tier list. Stating who people think the top tier characters are is a fact about the tier list. The SBR tier list literally discusses the characters people think are the best in the game. Saying "Many people think..........is a top tier character" is discussing the characters people think are the best in the game. Why should we arbitrarily exclude anything that isn't an "official" SBR tier list? Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:02, 23 January 2015 (EST)

I'm not particularly interested in joining this debate, but Mew2King, ZeRo, Anti, ESAM, Jtails, and quite a few other top players believe that Sheik is actually the best character, so citing M2K's side of the debate might not be the best approach here. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2015 (EST)

We can change the article to reflect that then. Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:55, 23 January 2015 (EST)

You did not address either of my points whatsoever. I'm not disputing Diddy's competitive success. What I am disputing, however, is the idea that we should report that outside the context of an actual tier list. Again, where do you draw the line? Do we list the top three characters? Top five? Top ten? Who do you cite as a source? How are you determining your consensus on the subject? You even mention Mii Brawler, and yet many tournaments have blanket bans on Mii Fighters altogether. There's massive amounts of ambiguity and reporting such an incomplete, hazy picture as if it were definite is a hugely bad idea.

Also, "so-and-so is a top tier character" is not relevant to a tier list. A tier list includes all characters in the roster ranked relative to their competitive viability, successes, and potential. Attempting to define a character as "top tier" outside of a complete tier list is meaningless. Miles (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2015 (EST)

"You did not address either of my points whatsoever. I'm not disputing Diddy's competitive success."

You completely misunderstood my argument. You have repeatedly stated that you think I'm deciding who the best characters in the game are, so I presented you evidence that the community as a whole, not just myself, believes that certain characters are the best in the game.

"Again, where do you draw the line? Do we list the top three characters? Top five? Top ten? Who do you cite as a source? How are you determining your consensus on the subject?"

Read through the tier lists people make on Smash websites and on social media outlets. You'll see that there are several characters that are consistently ranked as "top tier." My plan was to list all the characters people consistently rank as "top tier." We can include all the characters and list the worst characters in the game if you really wanted to. Our "source" for "top tier characters" can be the general consensus of the community members, including people who are professionals and consistently win money at large tournaments. If you bothered to look through the competitive community every so often, you would see that there are characters consistently ranked as top tier, and that equates to a consensus in the community.

"You even mention Mii Brawler, and yet many tournaments have blanket bans on Mii Fighters altogether."

Banning a character from tournaments does not keep a character off the tier list; MK was banned for a period of time in Brawl in 2012 after people thought he was too overpowered. Being banned from a tournament doesn't stop people from thinking a character is top tier.

"There's massive amounts of ambiguity and reporting such an incomplete, hazy picture as if it were definite is a hugely bad idea."

If you bothered to look through the competitive community every so often, you would see that there are characters consistently ranked as top tier. Include the ones people usually think are top tier and leave out the rest. Or include the tier levels of every character in the game. It's true that there's not a clear picture who the worst characters in the game are right now, but it is definitely clear that there's a consensus on who the best characters are. This is not "definite," as we are saying what the community thinks, we are not putting in our own opinions on the tier list and treating it as fact.

"Also, "so-and-so is a top tier character" is not relevant to a tier list."

Is there an article on "top tier" or even "tier?" No, they both redirect here. Would it be reasonable and logical to treat each of these "different subjects" on a separate page?

"Attempting to define a character as "top tier" outside of a complete tier list is meaningless."

Saying "XXX is a top tier character" is not defining a top tier character outside of every other character in the game; when you say "XXX is a top tier character," you're implying that the fighter is being compared to all the other fighters in the game. There's nothing on the other games' tier lists that shows how much better the #1 character is compared to the bottom character either. Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:55, 23 January 2015 (EST)

reset indent You're missing my point completely. You keep talking about "the community" as if it is some monolithic entity with a single opinion that is thoroughly established, which is completely ludicrous.

• the community as a whole, not just myself, believes that certain characters are the best in the game.
• My plan was to list all the characters people consistently rank as "top tier."
• Our "source" for "top tier characters" can be the general consensus of the community members
• This is not "definite," as we are saying what the community thinks,

Do you not see the problem here? And if you don't understand the point about the difference between "so-and-so is good according to Professional Player" and "so-and-so is ranked Xth out of 50 according to established committee", I don't know how else to explain it to you. Miles (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2015 (EST)

Did you know that the people who vote on the SBR are all professional players? Did you know that professional smashers are the most knowledgeable smashers in the community? Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:12, 23 January 2015 (EST)

Sigh, this discussion is getting on my nerves that this needs to fill the recent changes. But anyways per Miles, I don't even think we should address that fact that Diddy Kong is "the best character in the game" just yet (despite the fact that I main with him and he has quite some broken attributes that makes the community agreeing that he's the best). It's still very early within the metagame and it hasn't even been 6 months since the release (I could expect the first tier list to be announced even after a year since the game released). Who knows? What if there are some ways to counter Diddy Kong with certain characters which will make him lose viability? Also, instead of taking word from the community, I prefer to take word from the professionals of the community, so I am going to say that it is possible that Sheik is arguably the best character in Smash 4 like PokemonMasterJamal3 said despite that fact that she's one of the two top tiers along with Sonic that isn't in my first or second tier of usage. Dots (talk) The Metal Gear REX 19:19, 23 January 2015 (EST)

Personally I believe six months is enough time for the community to decide who the best characters; it's already clear people think Diddy and Sheik are the best characters. If things change we can change the description. If it's the case that people think that Sheik is the best character in the game, we can add that into the description as well. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:12, 23 January 2015 (EST)

This argument is way too damn long, it's 33 KB alone. Once this is wrapped up we have to archive, and I cite Brawl's first tier list as why 8 months (seven for this one) is not long enough to make a good tier list. Olimar is at 18 (now 3), Ice Climbers at 13 (now 2), Game & Watch at 4 (now 16), Donkey Kong at 10 (now 21), Dedede at 3 (now 13), Didd Kong at 11 (now 4), Zero Suit Samus at 21 (now 9), Zelda at bloody 20 (now freaking 2nd worst at 38), R.O.B. at 6 (Now 18), Bowser at 22 (now 33), Sonic at 33 (now 22), Snake at 2 (now 6), Kirby at 14 (now 20). As you can see, a freaking lot has drastically changed from the seven month tier list from Brawl. They're definitely going to wait until after apex to post a new one, since they had said they regretted Brawl's first tier list. Laikue (talk | contribs) 23:17, 23 January 2015 (EST)

To further my point, the differences from Melee 1st Tier List-to-latest are less drastic, but still notable none the less: Mario from 5 to 14, Jigglypuff from 17.5 to 5, Zelda from 7 to 19, Mewtwo from 26 to 21, Ness from 17.5 to 23, Icies from 11.5 to 8, Captain Falcon from 15.5 to 7, Luigi from 7 to 13, Yoshi from 19.5 to 18 (not notable atm, but with aMSa, Yoshi is gonna rise further). See my point? Tier lists cannot be good in that short of a time. Laikue (talk | contribs) 23:25, 23 January 2015 (EST)

If that's such a big deal, why do we even put up a tier list in the first place? Why should we ever make a tier list if it's just going to be inaccurate? What matters when you rank the top tier characters is the metagame at the present, the first tier lists do not have to be lasting forever. If people's opinions eventually change, then we change the content of the article to reflect that. Awesome Cardinal 2000 23:34, 23 January 2015 (EST)

I was using that as an example as to why we can't trust first impressions. It's only been four months since Smash 3DS's release and only two since Smash U's. There haven't even been many big tournaments for them either. This definitely isn't enough time to see what the metagame is gonna be like, hell not too long ago Diddy was considered mid-tier and Bowser top. I want to ask you something though, why do you want this little tidbit in the article so bad? I realize that it's true, but this article is for listing tier lists, not for "who is considered the best". The tiers (as I see them) are like a basic graph of where each character stands in the metagame. Most people I know use it simply to see where their main is, other people who want a deeper thing just forgo the list since they know the list won't actually teach them anything. Really, putting just the top 5 or 6 doesn't satisfy that. It seems like you're making a bigger deal out of this than it needs to be and it's not healthy for the wiki. Laikue (talk | contribs) 23:55, 23 January 2015 (EST)

To keep it short and simple, tier lists do not necessarily measure who's the best character but it is a measurement on how all characters do in tournaments. It takes time for the complete metagame to be realized, so no, Diddy Kong is not clearly confirmed "the best character" yet, therefore we should not list that fact yet. Dots (talk) The Team Fortress 2 00:08, 24 January 2015 (EST)

"To keep it short and simple, tier lists do not necessarily measure who's the best character but it is a measurement on how all characters do in tournaments."

It's true they measure the performance of all characters in tournaments, but they also measure how good all of the characters are compared to each other. When a character is at the top of the tier list, it means it's better than all the other characters on the tier list. When someone says "XXX is a top tier character," it means people think it is one of the best characters in the game. How could a character be worse than someone who's below them on the tier list? I'm planning on listing some of the best characters in the game because there are already strongly formulated opinions in the community about who they are. As far as I can tell, there's no real consensus on who the worst characters are, but if there is a consensus, we can list that too.

"It takes time for the complete metagame to be realized, so no, Diddy Kong is not clearly confirmed "the best character" yet, therefore we should not list that fact yet."

Once again, we report on what the community thinks. It's not a fact that MK is the best character in the game, it's a fact that the community think's he's the best character in the game. Similarly, it's not a fact that Diddy Kong is one of the best characters in the game; it's a fact that the community thinks he's one of the best characters in the game. If the metagame is just going to change eventually, what's the point of even making a tier list? The tier list is only relevant to the current state of the metagame, and is not intended to be a reflection on the past or an indicator of the future. Stating the characters people think are top tier is relevant to the current metagame, and thus should be listed on the page. Don't repeat the same arguments that I've discussed already. Awesome Cardinal 2000 09:10, 24 January 2015 (EST)

Okay let me try to rephrase this all as concisely as I can for you.

• "The community" is not a valid citation.
• "Top tier" is meaningless without a complete tier list.
• This page is about tier lists specifically, nothing further.

I fail to see what about this could be unclear. Miles (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2015 (EST)

Therefore, we should probably wait until the Smash Back Room releases their full tier list. Not what the entire community thinks as that includes everybody who participates in Smash, including the casuals that don't know about competitive play aspects. They could have a completely different opinion than what competitive players think. Dots (talk) The Knee 09:50, 24 January 2015 (EST)

""The community" is not a valid citation."

Read everything I wrote instead of repeatedly echoing stuff I previously discussed. The Smash scene wouldn't exist without the community. Professional players provide important, notable, and reliable citations, and their opinions on stuff should be put in the article. The SBR tier lists are literally based on the opinions of professional players.

A ton of shit on this wiki is based on the opinions of the community. The tiers exist because the people in the community think they exist. The buffs and nerfs across games are considered buffs and nerfs because people in the community think they improve or weaken their characters. Tripping is considered a really dumb mechanic because everyone in the community thinks so. MK is considered to be broken because everyone in the community thinks so. There's a meme that Villager is psychopathic because people in the community made that up. The community's response has always been huge in this wiki. This is important encyclopedic information, and this wiki would be incomplete without stating the overall reception in the community.

"Top tier" is meaningless without a complete tier list."

What the hell is so hard to understand about saying "Diddy Kong is a top tier character in Smash 4?" If that really bothers you that much, we can add in the generally accepted tier positions for every single character in the game.

"This page is about tier lists specifically, nothing further."

Read everything I wrote instead of repeatedly echoing stuff I previously discussed. "Tier" and "Top tier" both redirect here. "Tier list" is a horrible name, because it just leads to people like you whining about how shit related to the topic of the article shouldn't belong because it's not in a "list" form.

"Not what the entire community thinks as that includes everybody who participates in Smash, including the casuals that don't know about competitive play aspects. They could have a completely different opinion than what competitive players think."

Pretty much any competitive player of Smash 4 thinks that characters like Diddy Kong and Sheik are among the best in the game. A casual player will probably tell you that Kirby and Ike are the best in the game, but the tier list is centered on the competitive community.

You know Miles, what really irks me, is that in all the times I posted here, I responded to all the points you mentioned above, and yet in all the times you posted (usually a couple of sentences), you never provided any attempts at replying to what I said about your arguments. You just keep repeating everything that you say and expect me to listen, even though you don't provide any reasoning. Don't expect things to end in your favor if you never respond to anything the other people say and just keep echoing the same statements over and over again, without trying to back your points up. Awesome Cardinal 2000 10:51, 24 January 2015 (EST)

I am quite thoroughly reading your walls of text. The issue is that you are continually sidestepping the central points I am trying to make clear to you. There is at this time no single, complete SSB4 tier list produced by a representative group knowledgeable about the state of the game's competitive scene and metagame. There are no "generally accepted tier positions for every single character in the game" yet. And the titling of this article is deliberate because the page has a very specific scope which you are brazenly attempting to expand by a large amount. If you have specific citations to disprove those first two points, you're more than welcome to share them. As for the third point, that's not changing unless you can provide a much more convincing argument. Otherwise, you are wasting your time and mine. Miles (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2015 (EST)

Do you see what I mean? You responded to almost nothing I said in the last "wall of text," and when you did, you just made a bunch of statements without putting any reasoning behind it, repeatin the same shit you've been saying this whole discussion that I already addressed. How do you know there's no generally accepted tier position for every character? Have you seen the tier lists community members, including pro players, make, ranking characters in top, high, mid, low, and bottom tiers? You should just stay out of these debates if you're not going to back up your statements whatsoever.

"As for the third point, that's not changing unless you can provide a much more convincing argument. "

Is that really all you're going to say? "You need to convince me more." Refute the fucking statement if it really doesn't convince you enough. An admin of over five years should be able to back themself up better than this. Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:22, 24 January 2015 (EST)

I feel that I need to point out that a tier list is not necessarily ordered based on what characters are the "best". Maybe the tier list could be based on that, but it could also be based on what characters are "more likely to succeed". If X is the theoretically best character, but requires insane tech skill to reach that level, then they probably won't win all the tournaments and so may not deserve being at the top of the tier list. We can't make that call. Toomai Glittershine The Quintonic 11:12, 24 January 2015 (EST)

See, this is what Miles and I have been trying telling him all along but he refuses. Now if your kind enough to not continue an Talk:Mario (SSBB)/Neutral attack/Hit 1, let's just move on then. Dots (talk) The Snoopy 11:18, 24 January 2015 (EST)

Are there any instances of a character being one of the best characters in the game but at the bottom of the tier list? Are there characters considered to be horrible but at the top of the tier list? The ranking on the tier list is not an exact determination of the overall fighting ability, but there is a very strong correlation, and characters at the top are considered the "best," while characters at the bottom are considered the "worst". Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:22, 24 January 2015 (EST)

Yes, that is very true that top and high tiers are one of the best characters in the game and that same says that low and bottom tiers are among the worst in the game. But don't you think people can already tell by themselves? If a character is top tier, then he simply ranks high on the tier list due to his/her great performance and attributes. There is no further explaintion and I don't see what's so hard about this. Dots (talk) The Poké ball 21:07, 24 January 2015 (EST)

I wanted to include this on the page though because there are people here like Miles who seem to think that being top tier has nothing to do with being one of the best characters in the game. Awesome Cardinal 2000 00:27, 25 January 2015 (EST)

Do get that a tier list doesn't necessarily mean that its suppose to help people choose only the good, if not the best characters in a game (like a high school class ranking so that colleges will only grab those who are top 1% and not care about anybody lower). Tier lists are to show which characters are most likely to do well in tournaments and while yes it has something to do with who's the best, this is just all about the metagame. I think it is unfair for only the top tiers to be listed until the full tier list comes out, and listing whoevers the best character is irrelevant like we said many times. Dots (talk) The Orange 01:04, 25 January 2015 (EST)

After reading all that, I only have one question:

WHAT IS UNCLEAR ABOUT THIS?

The tier list is about all characters relating to each other. Not how one character who is supposedly at the top is better than all the rest. And another thing: citing the community as a source? You make me laugh HISTERICALLY. Normally, if you ask anyone what their least favorite thing about a video game is, they'll probably name a level, or a character, or a stage, or some other shit like that. But me? I yell at the god damn fanbase. Seriously, the Smash fandom is about as bad as the Sonic fanbase. They make shitty decisions constantly, and they act like idiots when they try to defend their claims. You, my dear friend, are no exception. Don't think I'm hiding behind the admin because he has all the power, because I'm not, but miles has clearly stated that it's either all or nothing. That is all. I do not understand what is hard to get from that.

And another thing. If you want to name the "top tier characters", where do you draw the god damn line? What the hell does "top tier" even mean? Does it mean they are OP? Does it mean that they're hard to master? Because I can name several characters who ARENT top tier and fit both of those descriptions. And even if you go by numbers, how far do you go? 5? 10? 15? There are basically limitless possibilities here.

Which brings me to my final question. Why the fuck are you trying to force this on us now? Smash 3DS has only been out for 4 months. Smash Wii U has only been out for 2. Even things like EVO and MLG haven't happened yet. Why bother making some incomplete shit now, WHEN WE'LL BASICALLY HAVE TO REWORK IT OUT IN FIVE MONTHS?

I think I've made myself clear. It's late, I don't have time for this, and I just think it's time this whole argument would shut the fuck up. BlueStreak Speeds By 01:07, 25 January 2015 (EST)

"The tier list is about all characters relating to each other. Not how one character who is supposedly at the top is better than all the rest. And another thing: citing the community as a source? You make me laugh HISTERICALLY. Normally, if you ask anyone what their least favorite thing about a video game is, they'll probably name a level, or a character, or a stage, or some other shit like that. But me? I yell at the god damn fanbase. Seriously, the Smash fandom is about as bad as the Sonic fanbase. They make shitty decisions constantly, and they act like idiots when they try to defend their claims. You, my dear friend, are no exception. Don't think I'm hiding behind the admin because he has all the power, because I'm not, but miles has clearly stated that it's either all or nothing. That is all. I do not understand what is hard to get from that."

Read everything that I wrote. The people thinking this are not a scrubby "fanbase" as you perceive them to be, these opinions are based off people from the competitive community and professional players. They are the most knowledgeable players in the community. I don't know what to tell you if you think these players don't know shit about the game they play.

":where do you draw the god damn line?"

Read the shit that I wrote. There are several characters perceived by the community to be top tier, while others are perceived to be high, mid, low, or bottom tier. We report on what the community thinks. The community has already made strong opinions towards these characters, and there is a general consensus among which characters are top tier already. Because the page feels awkwardly blank without any information about Smash 4, and the fact that the community thinks certain characters are top tier is important and notable encyclopedic content. Yes there'll be an "official" tier list in a few months, but how hard is it to just change the content of the article? If you don't like reading something, don't read it and don't let it bother you. Don't reply to me if you really don't want to. Awesome Cardinal 2000 09:05, 25 January 2015 (EST)

Well, with this page being put under protection for two weeks by an admin who opposes your edit and the other admin has explained why he's not going to let you do it, I think that this debate is quite frankly over and your not going to do anything about it. I really, really, don't want to almost have to make two archives of this one discussion like on the Neutral attack talk page, so let's just say you lose, and it's game over for this debate. Dots (talk) The Arceus 01:24, 25 January 2015 (EST)

I have absolutely no objections to that. Before this edit was made, this page alone was a whopping 52 KB. ...I think what we should do next is self explanatory. BlueStreak Speeds By 01:26, 25 January 2015 (EST)

Why should I lose when you guys, including the admin who protected this page, have clearly failed to respond to the stuff I said? I'll add it back in when it becomes unprotected then. Why does it matter that administrators oppose my viewpoint? Adminstators are not kings. Awesome Cardinal 2000 09:36, 25 January 2015 (EST)

Clearly nobody agrees with you that "the page feels awkwardly blank" is a reason to jump the gun. Can you accept that?

Now, that being said, lost in all this is the fact that there is indeed a Japanese tier list that we could potentially add somewhere. But to do that, we would need to conclude that it has strong standing within the Japanese community, and I don't know how to prove that. Toomai Glittershine The Indescribable 09:11, 25 January 2015 (EST)

I certainly don't feel that the page is awkwardly blank without Smash 4 stuff. And also, I dunno about the Japanese tier list, because it's from reddit, and basically anyone can make a tier list, regardless of region. BlueStreak Speeds By 09:13, 25 January 2015 (EST)

The source I linked in the section above was not written by someone from reddit, it was a link to a translation of Japanese text. I can't read Japanese, but you could probably look more into the original text if you want.

Even if this doesn't go into effect, I hope you all at least realize that the conpetitive community's opinion is an important, notable, and reliable citation, and that the title of this page shouldn't severely restrict the content of the article. Awesome Cardinal 2000 10:42, 25 January 2015 (EST)

We can cite "the community" when we can offer one or two links that refer to a conglomeration of many high-ranking community members' opinions - and that's when the tier list comes out. Toomai Glittershine Da Bess 10:48, 25 January 2015 (EST)

Original Japanese Tier list source: https://game8.jp/matome/16664 , now I remember another list from that site (this one: https://game8.jp/matome/14157) being cited as just some people's opinions when it popped up as "official" a few months ago, and was really only cited as official from the american community (iirc) The Smashboards post probably still exists, but I can't seem to find it right now.... As for this, I don't know what the Japanese community thinks of it, but their old tier list dis-credits it a bit. Laikue (talk | contribs) 12:39, 25 January 2015 (EST)

Honestly, general consensus so far sounds more like it belongs in the Metagame page, since we still don't have any specific sources to go off of. That's just my opinion. 107.77.90.35 13:17, 25 January 2015 (EST)