Forum:Tier list unfarity?

Forums: Index → Brawl Talk → Tier list unfarity?

The tier list is unfair because only the popular characters get good strategies and combos sent to smash back room. Also slower and more powerfull characters seem to be prejudiced against. People exagerate their weakness and ignore their stengths. They also make lies about their recovery abilities. It was because of unfair tiers that Roy didn't return in Brawl. The idiots who hated powerful characters killed Roy. Roy wasn't that slow and his recovery wasn't really that worse from Marth's. --Tuth (talk) 15:34, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

It's a good thing that no means the same thing in multiple languages, because it will save me time typing it in all of them. Because that's the answer to your topic: NO. We've had this discussion many times before, and we've also proved that tiers exist. As for your comment that "only the popular characters get good strategies and combos sent to smash back room," do you even know how this work? The SBR doesn't passively wait for people to submit combos. 99.99% of the SBR are professional players who don't give a damn about how popular a character is. They care who gives them the best opportunity to win. So what do they do, they play all the characters to determine who gives them the best chance to win. If you want to take your "popularity argument," I'd argue that as people like to win, the top tier characters become the most popular. So the popularity of top tier characters is caused by the tier list much more that the popularity of a character causes it to be top tier. And as I always say, if you really believe that a character should be higher tier, go play in some big tourneys and win with those characters, then tell me about their tier. Oh, and the tier list had nothing to do with Roy not being in Brawl. Kirby came back, and he sucked in Melee. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:33, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for voting but you didn't exactly prove me wrong. In fact when you said "if you really believe that a character should be higher tier, go play in some big tourneys and win with those characters, then tell me about their tier" you proved me right. If proffesionals would win a few tournaments with Ganondorf, Ganondorf would go up on the Tier List. And how do we know SBR does things fairly. All 3 fan favorite characters are high up on the list. And so what if pro-tier won on a different discussion? It dosen't mean anti-tier can't win on this one. As for Roy, I might as well shut up about him since this is Brawl talk and he isn't in Brawl. The biggest thing about the tiers is that their supposed to be how good professionals do at the characters. But even professionals can have different play styles. THERE ISN'T ONLY ONE "PROFESSIONAL" PLAY STYLE. No offense, tiers, but you got owned.

Conclusion: While the pro-tierers have good arguments, anti-tierers win overall. The main problem proven about the tiers are that there is not one proffesional play style. --Tuth (talk) 15:36, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Errr... no? I'm not normally this harsh, but your argument deserves it: epic fail - your whole argument is just so much epic fail. Your original argument was beyond weak, Clarinet Hawk's response was logical and made sense, and your response to his comment was once again beyond weak - you have no right to claim that you've won this argument, especially seeing as I would say that you've lost, and you've lost bad. Firstly, when he said "go play in some big tourneys and win with those characters" he meant that you wouldn't win the tourneys, and the reason why you wouldn't win is because the big tourneys are all won by high tier characters, simply because they're better than the low tier characters. Secondly, if a certain play style with a certain character is effective in tournaments, other smashers will try to copy it - even though Ken came up with the Ken Combo, every Marth player in the world ended up learning it, simply because it's really effective. Thirdly, anti-tier fails in every argument, and pro-tier wins - the existence of tiers is a fact of life that you just have to come to terms with at some point. Read this and then this and if you still don't agree with the existence of tiers, then I'm afraid that no one can help you as they are both quite clear arguments for the existence of tiers to which there are no logical counter-arguments. PenguinofDeath 16:27, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

"If proffesionals would win a few tournaments with Ganondorf, Ganondorf would go up on the Tier List." Yes, that is true. The problem is it won't happen. If ganon was good, he'd be played by the best players and would win tourneys. The problem is that he isn't and he won't. Also, considering you didn't ever respond to anything else, and your only argument put forth was crap, you lose. And as for there being different professional play styles, who gives a damn? The fact of the matter is that we're looking at which characters consistently place the highest and do the best. Even if, and notice I say if, your argument about there being diverse play styles is correct, that doesn't change the fact that certain characters still do better in tourneys than others. That is a fact; I don't care if you like it or not. Oh, and please don't give me this whiny shit that you want the pros to prove you right by playing Ganon and winning. I can guarantee you that they would kick your ass with him, but their not going to put their money on the line just to prove you right, which I doubt they could do. If you want to prove your point, then go do it yourself. Basically what you're saying here is equivalent to saying "I think if someone created a shot that vaccinated AIDS, that would be a great medical breakthrough. Therefore, I have cured AIDS." tl;dr version: You're wrong, I'm right. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:20, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, referencing your earlier comment (C. Hawk), no one can really "prove" that tiers "exist". Characters are better then others IMO, but there is no way to actually "prove" that. Also, referencing PoD, I would not by any means say that anti-tier-ist's lose in EVERY argument. Valid points can be brought up on their part, but in this argument, it's clear that pro-tier comes out the winner. In any case, a weak argument on the anti-tier guy here was pretty clear, and I'm sure we're all sick of hearing how they don't exist or how they do. The fact of the matter is that most professionals believe in tiers and most abide by the tier lists. No one will ever simply "prove" that they exist, (unless some kind of official list is put out by Nintendo which is just not going to happen) and to say that no character development is the cause of characters being low on the tier list is silly because if popular characters are so high, do explain why Sonic and Ike are below "B" ranking. They are popular yet are low on said tier, and there are unpopular characters high up as well, such as G&W, Lucario, and I may go far enough to say Wario. tl;dr, Your never going to win a tier argument with those "points" and you'll simply be made a fool of. Maybe next time it could be a different story, but for now, tiers exist, end of story. Kperfekt ^{BURN!!! Revert That!} 11:07, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, when has anti-tier ever won an argument? Provide a link to an argument that was won by anti-tiers and I'll take back what I said. PenguinofDeath 16:04, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Even if my arguments are weak (although that no one ever found anything about that there is no "proffesional" play style) their probably is an anti-tirer out there with good arguments but he's probably keeping his mouth shut because he dosen't want to be banned. I bet at least 5 people have been banned on this wiki by you pro-tirer/admin/kings just for speaking against tiers. Pro-tierers are noobs who can't make the most out of bad characters and can't beat anyone except Ganondorf, Link, and Captain Falcon. You act like pro-tierers are idiots and don't even give there arguments a chance. You make biased disscussions and act like their official just to try to stop people from even arguing. You act like pro-tierers are a superior race. I could throw insult after insult at pro-tierers but I think I've done enough for now because my computer is slow. Tuth the tough Mii You got owned! Visit Mint Brick Wiki!

Firstly, don't put comments in random places, put them at the end of the discussion (unless you're replying to a specific person about something that they said, in which case it should go underneath the relevant comment). Secondly, all you've said in the above comment is that you don't like pro-tiers people. That's it. Nothing about why you're right and we're wrong, just that you don't like us. No one has ever been banned just for speaking against tiers, people get banned for these reasons and these reasons alone. If you have good arguments against tiers but you're just "keeping your mouth shut because you don't want to be banned", then tell us - you won't get banned if you provide good arguments. If, however, the only reason why you're not providing good arguments is because you haven't got any, then please stop this discussion and admit defeat. If you can't come up with a logical counter-argument, you've lost - that's the one basic principle of debating. PenguinofDeath 16:04, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Exactly when have I threatened to ban someone for not believing in tiers? Given that there are really only two things said above that even remotely try to argue logically, those are the only two I will bother putting sleep off for ten more minutes to deal with. First, at KP. You claim that we can't prove tiers exist. We don't set out to do that in the treatise. Instead, we disprove the statement that they don't exist by showing that they can't not exist (note the correct use of the double negative). Bear with me in the logic, but if x is true if and only if y is false, proving y is false proves x true by extension. (We can argue about specific points of the treatise later). To Tuth. You say that I never disproved that there are different professional play styles. You're right; I just proved that it doesn't matter. Also, you're basically saying that you have no good arguments, but someone must and that person would win this argument. Again, you're right. I have good arguments. You don't. So the way I see it, by your logic I win this argument by default. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 07:05, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not looking for a tier argument. While I'm good at arguing I would get my ass handed to me about smash tiers. I don't know much about them, but what really matters here is that Pro-Tier definitely comes out on top here. Good argument... on one part at least. Kperfekt ^{BURN!!! Revert That!} 05:52, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

What if we all just stop talking about this and prove the tiers wrong. I have seen that with an excellent Gannondorf player might be able to defeat an O.K. Metaknight so the tiers doesn't even really matter. And the reason Roy was probably left out of brawl is because he's a clone of Marth. So let's just drop it and get out there and brawl!--Ba-Boom headshot!!! Want Some?! 00:12, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

"I have seen that a excellent Gannondorf can defeat a O.K. Metaknight so the tiers doesn't even really matter."

You do realize that the tier list as it is only applies to a character's full tournament potential, right? What you've said is similar to saying "Ganondorf can beat Meta Knight if MK goes easy on him". Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 02:15, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do realize and I'm not trying to get in an argument I'm just trying to state if a Ganondorf player is good enough he MIGHT beat Meta Knight.--Ba-Boom headshot!!! Want Some?! 02:30, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Accepting that a Ganondorf player has to be really, really good to even have a chance of beating a Meta Knight player directly implies that you believe Meta Knight is simply better than Ganondorf - surely a belief in tiers naturally follows? PenguinofDeath 10:59, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel that this is starting to get out of hand and this argument should stop before feelings are hurt. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(talk)☆ 11:06, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

The issue will only be resolved when one side accepts that the other side's point of view is correct and that their side's point of view is incorrect, and if we want to end all talk of the existence of tiers once and for all, then both sides must continue arguing until that happens. By closing this forum, all you would achieve would be a brief ceasefire until someone else creates a new forum on a similar topic and the issue arises again. The problem is, this isn't a philosophical debate in which many different viewpoints are correct - there is only one right answer. PenguinofDeath 12:25, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is this. Tiers exist, anyone who wants to use them use them, and don't let the tiers hinder how you play brawl. (That's all I'm trying to say.)--Ba-Boom headshot!!! Want Some?! 20:19, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

That's possibly the most sensible thing I've ever heard anyone say regarding tiers... PenguinofDeath 21:04, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ba-Boom headshot!!! Want Some?! 02:19, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

You know, Tiers were made only to compare players with similar skill and give a higher ranking to those with better matchups. However, they are not definite; there are always cases for which matches disagree with Tiers. For example, I was online-brawling someone else in a matchup with me using Lucas, and them using Falco. I saw why Lucas was ranked so low: Falco was chain-throwing continuously and flawlessly, until I went over the edge, at which point I tried to recover. In an attempt to meteor smash me, they tried a SHFF'd D-Air. But, I tethered out of the way, and they missed and ended up SDing. I managed to win, but only using good skill with Lucas. With this, I think a good Falco (who's fourth on tier) can be defeated by a skilled Lucas (who is down in the bottom at 29th), etc. Tiers exist, I don't contest that, but I do contest the fact that just because a tier list says that Falco is better than Lucas doesn't mean that Falco can own Lucas no matter what happens. It does mean, though, that Falco will have an advantage. I agree with Ba-Boom headshot!!!'s previous comment: if anyone wants to use tiers because it means that they will have a good chance of beating others, fine, but if people just don't want to use tiers because they think they are biased and unfair, fine with them too. In short, we should just play Brawl unobstructed by tiers, whether or not we want to use them. RAN1domchupunch!!99 03:27, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

By we do you mean everyone. Because it's really none of your concern how other people "should" or "shouldn't" view tiers. It's their choice, and by no means yours. But, if you mean "we" as in anti-tierist's then ok. Kperfekt ^{BURN!!! Revert That!} 18:56, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I mean anti-tierers, although I fit more into the anti-tierers-to-neutral category. As for pro-tierers, I think that they are just fine, since I assume they don't have a problem with anti-tiers so long as they don't argue. RAN1domchupunch!!99 21:23, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Look, here's how this whole thing works: Let's say that I have a ball. And this ball likes to flip out and kill people. Now, you might not like the ball, and someone might think that the ball existing is bad. But neither of those mean that I don't have the ball. What is basically being argued against tiers is that people don't like them and don't think they should exist, therefore they don't. That is completely faulty logic (the fallacy is appeal to emotion) and does nothing to answer the question of tiers existing. What I will restate (as I have said it many times) is that proving that something shouldn't exist doesn't prove that it doesn't exist. I can easily prove why homelessness shouldn't exist in the U.S.A. In no way does that prove that there is no homelessness in the U.S. Btw, I also have yet to be convinced that tiers shouldn't exist... Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:23, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

I, at least am not trying to prove wether tiers "exsist". I simply do not agree with the tiers and think that they are unfair. I understand what the tier list is supposed to be, but I don't think it is what it's supposed to be. Since Clarinet Hawk likes to point out obvious logic, I will as well. Let's say you set two computer players to level infinity. No matter which characters I chose (to a certain extent), all the attacks will be quickly blocked or dodged. So basically that means that all the characters should be tied. There are a few exceptions though.

• Yoshi, who has wierd shielding physics
• Characters that don't have at least about three attacks that have low enough lag to completely finish the attacks to shield/dodge.
• Characters that have counter attacks to substitue shielding

So since Marth has the fastest counter attack he should be in 1st place. And everyone other then the ones in the first two exceptions will be tied. Tuth the tough Mii You got owned! Visit Mint Brick Wiki!

What are you trying to say there? That you think Marth would be at the top of a tier list in which all players have infinite reaction times? Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 17:24, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha. This may be where you're going wrong.

First off, let this be your formal introduction to the two-headed monster known as SemiHawk, where we double team you with impenetrable walls of text (invariably more intelligent and logically coherent than your own), and you eventually concede because you're only making for what temporarily passes for a point.

Now, let's say that you do set two computers to level infinity, and have them play for an infinite amount of time (which, according to your position, need only to be a one stock game, but let's assume it's three, because that would, to you, make no difference), assuming that's possible, which it isn't. All attacks will not be blocked or dodged, because characters have a characteristic called priority. See, when two characters attack at the exact same time, which, in your world of infinite playing time, will eventually happen, those moves usually differ in the value of priority. If both of these attacks are not ranged, which eventually they will be no matter the character given infinite time (plus, grabs are unblockable and given infinite time will not be dodged simply because both characters will at one point attempt to grab each other) then one of these moves will win out. Let's take the obvious example of Snake and Captain Falcon. Captain Falcon has absolutely no priority whatsoever on practically any of his moves. Snake has considerably priority on practically every one of his tilts. Take the scenario of, at some point in this infinite game at infinite skill, Snake using his forward tilt, and Captain Falcon using Raptor boost. Snake will win because of his higher priority, landing a hit. Oh, and all that crap about infinity, I was just playing with you about, because there's no such things as infinite skill. There's no most optimal strategy, there's no best mechanics, there's no infinitely reactive character, none of that. Your hypothetical scenario fails if your assumptions are used, and your hypothetical scenario is completely invalid for discussions of this sort.

Now let's get to the rest of your post. It was for your benefit that I ignored the last part of your post, because you basically embarrassed yourself here. You said tiers don't exist, and then you listed differences between characters. If you'd read my treatise you'd have known that small differences can create big imbalances. But that's not even the point here. You're admitting there are imbalances, you're admitting that some characters are better than others. So, sir, I ask you one final time, what is your point? Even in your faulty scenario by your own admission there is a tier list. So, even under ideal, (read, impossible) conditions, your idea fails. So how do you think that introducing more imperfection can balance the game and eliminate the possibility of tiers?

Obviously, it can't. Your next response should prove amusing. Semicolon (talk) 17:42, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

All attacks [[would] be blocked by cpus with super-pro-reflexes. Priority dosen't matter if the attack dosen't hit anything! If you are to dumb to think of infinity, think of them at level 9000. And Semi Hawk sounds kiddy. Tuth the tough Mii You got owned! Visit Mint Brick Wiki!

Honest question: Do you actually read what you type before you post it? Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 19:45, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

More serious response: deal in the real world. You keep providing these ridiculous hypothetical examples that could never exist in the real world. I'm all for theoretical experiments, but when you refuse to even look at empirical evidence to the contrary, you're thesis loses credibility. Secondly, to say that when the characters are played perfectly they will never hit each other is completely wrong. Imagine (which you've proved you're good at given your unrealistic scenarios and beliefs) that character A attacks, character B dodges. Now, there are scenarios in which A finishes the attack in time to hit B before B can move/dodge, or vis a vis. So basically what I'm saying is that your thought experiment doesn't work, nor do the results it predicts happen in empirical studies. Therefore you fail. Oh, and about the tier list being "unfair," who give a shit. Lot's of things are unfair. It's unfair to me that my personality makes me need to respond to you every time you spout crap. Guess what? It doesn't change the fact that it does. So I can either deal with it and respond to you, or continue to be bothered by it. You can do the same thing with tiers. Either accept that they exist and stop caring about their "fairness" or keep bitching about it. Either way doesn't make a difference to me. Nor does it change what tiers are. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 19:59, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Your insult(s) is/are pointless. Because there is no such thing as a perfect CPU, and there cannot be, your thought experiment is pointless. Respond like that again and you will be banned for trolling. Provide a substantive argument that addresses the relevant points of your opponents, and I'll take a strike off, but right now you're nearing strike three. I'm not kidding. Semicolon (talk) 20:56, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify before this gets taken the wrong way, you (or anyone else for that matter) won't be banned for actually arguing. But if you continue to ignore other peoples logical arguments while repeatedly asserting yourself without any actual substance, I won't stand in the way of Semi banning you for trolling/disruption. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:01, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

The tiers are for humans not for cpu. We do not know if Ice climbers with a perfect combo and approach technique would win or if Donkeykong if used correctly is invincible but it does not care because smashers have their own techniques and tiers (i believe) are firstly based on statistics and not on what perfect fights would result.----NOT Zinnamon (talk) 21:26, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Zinnamon is right. Look at Marth players on Youtube. Hell, look at some Ken Hoang vids. Does he use counter and basically be impervious to any and all attacks? No. In the matches I've seen, the amount of Counters could be counted with only two hands. Meta Knight just so happens to be top tier becuase of amazing, quick combo moves that deal high collective damage. If we go by your infinite reaction time theory, Marth could counter every one of those moves. GUESS WHAT. Not everyone plays like a harebrained CPU. Any SMART player would take Marth's counter into thinking, and NOTICE WHEN THE MARTH STARTS COUNTERING. Really, all of the higher tiers have quick enough moves to hit Marth after the actual counter frame. There are no infinite reaction times. Falcon is so low because he gets owned by nearly everyone due to even his powerful moves being terrible in terms of priority. What shall be your next amusingly theoretical example?L33t Silvie ^{I see wat u did thar...} 00:49, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

First things first, Clarinet Hawk has been awarded the Nobel Common Sense Prize. And Tier List unfairity wasn't exactly the best thing to name this disscussion. What about tiers:a lie? Tiers are updated every once in a while, know why? It's because the previous tier wasn't correct. There is about a 98.8888 percent chance that tiers will never be correct, and even then they might be changed to something incorrect. Here's some more common since:If a person who is blind and deaf and about get hit by a car and one person he didn't even know told him it was there, while his many friends who had high places in power told him it wasn't there who would he listen to? His friends. I have decided that it is pointless to get people to understand my stuff just like it is pointless to teach a baby that 1+1=2. So you won't be hearing any more from me on this forum but don't you DARE think that you have won. Tuth the tough Mii You got owned! Visit Mint Brick Wiki!

Back to my question from before: Do you actually read what you type? And to add to it: If you do, does your IQ drop as many points as mine does when I read this? Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 00:16, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

I'll make this quick: if you'd won, we'd be the ones leaving the forum right now, not you, because you don't have a point, you don't have arguments, and you're being a troll. Another thing: We've not been arguing that the current tier lists are correct; that's a completely different discussion. And also, the back room has less respect than you'd think, and/so your blind person metaphor is silly. Love, Semicolon (talk) 15:46, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

"the two-headed monster known as SemiHawk"... Dear God... There will be no escape! Listen "Tuth", if you head ANY sense whatsoever, you might want to consult someone who can... "Argue". Because you have failed miserably at it. Kperfekt ^{BURN!!! Revert That!} 20:13, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

"There is about a 98.8888 percent chance that tiers will never be correct, and even then they might be changed to something incorrect." You are right in saying that a tier list will never be 100% accurate, but I have an important question for you. Do you know why a tier list changes over time? More importantly, do you even know what a tier list is? Judging from your posts, it seems you don't. Y462 (T • C • E ) 01:34, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

First of all I might as well take back the whole don't you DARE thing because everyone has a right to think they won and I don't want to be blocked for trolling. I came back because my latest post didn't exactly conevy the message i wanted. As I said before, I don't have a problem with tiers exsisting. In fact, as CLarinet Hawk said, it seems ipossible that they can't exsist. (Double Negative) But the problem is more the reason why the tiers change. They change as popular tatics change so if an anit-metaknight technique becomes popular metaknight will got down on the tier list. What I'm trying to say is that tiers are very poor for judging which characters are the best and only tru proffesionals can be good at every character. Finally if I made any mispellings the reason I didn't correct them because this is so long that it is slow on Internet explorer. Tuth the tough Mii You got owned! Visit Mint Brick Wiki!

You're right about techniques altering the tier list, but you still don't have much of a point. Yes, tiers change because tactics change. What's wrong with that? In the SSBM era when wobbling was popularized, the Ice Climbers went up the tier list like a shot. Why? Because, using this new technique, it became easier to win. This translated into winning more tournaments, which is one of the primary forces sculpting the tier list. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 16:35, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Subject: The new Brawl Tier List is definitly not good.

What is up with the fourth brawl tier list? I thought the third list was bad, now this! First off, how could Yoshi and Bowser be better than Mario? Mario is faster than bowser and has better agility, and Mario has a better average match-up score (see brawl match-up chart). Also, with Yoshi, he is weaker than Mario. I think Ike is also worse than Mario. Ike has the same problems as bowser. Secondly, Sheik should be way higher. In my opinion, she is on of the best characters, but they placed her in a low tier. Also, their are too many tier groups and Meta Knight has a tier all to himself. That's right, only 1 character in 1 tier! The makers of the tier lists should make it way more accurate, and try to have close to the same number of characters in each tier. Here is how I think the tier list should be:

S Tier

1. Meta Knight

2. Snake

3. Wario

4. Marth

5. Falco

A Tier

6. King Dedede

7. Diddy Kong

8. Sheik

9. Zero Suit Samus

10. Pikachu

B Tier

11. Kirby

12. Donkey Kong

13. Peach

14. Ice Climbers

15. Wolf

16. Sonic

C Tier

17. Toon Link

18. Mario

19. Mr. Game and Watch

20. Lucario

21. Luigi

22. Fox

D Tier

23. Zelda

24. Pit

25. R.O.B.

26. Pokemon Trainer

27. Bowser

28. Ike

E Tier

29. Lucas

30. Ness

31. Samus

32. Captain Falcon

33. Link

F Tier

34. Yoshi

35. Jigglypuff

36. Olimar

37. Ganondorf

Those people should definitly change the tier list. They should make polls asking smashers who they think is the best character, and then make an accurate tier list according to the results. I hate the new tier list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.111.7 (talk • contribs) 20:57, February 27, 2010

"They should make polls asking smashers who they think is the best character, and then make an accurate tier list according to the results."

That's what they do, in case you don't know. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 21:04, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

It's significantly more than just a simple poll handed out to all smashers and whoever wins gets the top spot. They look at who wins tournaments and that's how they decide. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:20, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Your olimar and zelda positions are odd if that's your actual tier list. Olimar is one of the best regardless of his recovery. Zelda deserves to be in bottom, you can DI out of all of her kill moves and she is incredibly predictable. --KoRoBeNiKi (talk) 21:35, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

0-0...... Wario isn't that good.Also the whole "polls" thing sounds a little off, some may mistake it for a popularity contest, which was a really big freakin argument just above this heading and Tiers are not just about popularity. Unless of course this was about their skills in battle popularity and not popularity in general........ That Wario is bothering me.Drakon64 (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2011 (EST)

This conversation is over a year old, please do not post in casual forums that are this old. Omega Tyrant 12:47, 11 December 2011 (EST)