Talk:Tier list/Archive 7

current talk page

Archives

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

NOTE: We understand that tiers are a point of contention among members of the Smash community. However, this page discusses the tier lists that the Smash Back Room have posted. These are accepted by almost every high level player, and as such are important and notable content to this wiki. 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 discuss the tier lists, go to these Forums; (Forum for Brawl, forum for Melee). If you want to argue tier placements, take it to Smashboards, not here. Additionally, do not use this page to argue about the existence of tiers. If you firmly believe tiers do not exist and are intent on changing the Wiki's stance about it, go see the argument we have on it on this page here, and thoroughly refute the treatise on its talk page, do not argue it here.

Simplified version of the above: Don't edit this page unless you have something to contribute about what the SBR said and the content of this article. We don't care if you disagree with them or tiers in general.

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?

I'm not particularly interested in joining this debate, but Mew2King, ZeRo, Anti, ESAM, 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.

"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)