Forum:Tier list debate 2020: Part 1

This discussion is in regards to a proposed change on SmashWiki. The discussion must first meet with a consensus before it is implemented.

Historically, SmashWiki was part of SmashBoards, and SmashBoards was the unchallenged hub for all Smash Bros. discussion and research. As a result, we only recognized tier lists produced by the SmashBoards backrooms, as they were accepted by the entire community as being the most accurate and trustworthy.

But since then, some depressing realities have arisen:

• SmashBoards is no longer the community's uncontestable central location, and does not even have a backroom for SSBU.
• Some games (i.e. SSBM) may have a metagame that's substantially changed since the last SmashBoards tier list.
• Nintendo keeps applying updates to recent games, regularly invalidating any high-effort tier lists. Only quickly-collected ones with less data can exist.

So we have a problem: we hold up SmashBoards as being the only source for The Tier List, but they have stopped making them. And even if they did, the community might not respect it as they used to.

This will change.

Option one: Step back and go hands-off

Fundamentally, tier lists are opinion. Often a combined opinion of many skilled players, but an opinion nevertheless. In a world where many tier lists of various states of credibility run rampant, perhaps it is best to only note whether a character is good or bad, and let the reader make their own judgement.

• Remove exact tier position from all character pages. Keep general designations like "high-tier" or "mid-tier", but do not go as deep as a specific ranking outside historical notes or extreme outliers.
• Remove exact current tier lists from the tier list page. Keep the history of SmashBoards tier lists.
• Remove matchup charts. Maybe keep them on a "for historical purposes" page.

This is certainly the easiest option: a one-time burst of extra work plus not having to care about tier lists forevermore. But after having tier lists for over a decade, the wiki will feel a bit emptier and less complete, and newer readers will likely feel slighted that they have to look elsewhere.

Option two: Pick a new source for The Tier List

There is an expectation for a series' prime wiki to contain tier lists, so if SmashBoards isn't helping us, we should look somewhere else.

• Select a new source to draw "official" tier lists from and begin using them instead as simply another step in history.
• Remove matchup charts. There's no way we'll find a source that has complete ones.

This is the "cheap" option in that it requires the least work. But it will be very painful to pick the new source, especially as the wiki is supposed to be neutral, and we need to be very confident that whoever we pick has enough staying power so we don't have to repeat this process for a while. (Presumably you have a source in mind if you vote for this option, but try to keep that understated. We're not picking the source in this vote.)

Option three: Aggregate many trustworthy tier lists

There is an expectation for a series' prime wiki to contain tier lists, even if doing so requires a large amount of work and consternation over what is considered acceptable and notable.

• On a semi-regular schedule, or when a major shift/update happens, create a SmashWiki Aggregate Tierlist (SWAT) that combines multiple trustworthy tier lists together. We would show character placements on each list, perhaps elaborate on why each list is valid and notable, and use the aggregated ranking on character pages and such.
• Keep the history of SmashBoards tier lists, but use the SWAT on the main tier list page.
• Remove matchup charts. (Yes, this is happening either way. We can't fix them.)

A whole lot of effort and bureaucracy will be necessary for this idea to work. (Don't worry about the details for this vote.) But if it does work, it ought to be quite useful, and be a mark of pride on the wiki.

Votes

There is no "status quo" or "other" option. Make your stand. Toomai Glittershine The Brass 19:54, January 30, 2020 (EST)

Option 1: Hands-off

1. Support. Unless an official tier list that the majority agrees upon is released, it's better to keep tier placements general. This allows the best accuracy as tiers other than the top tier are often immensely different from one opinion to the next, especially with a roster as big as Ultimate. Hitbox Enthusiast Zeck (talk) 20:02, January 30, 2020 (EST)
2. Support. Ultimately, outside of extreme cases such as MK in Brawl, there is no such thing as an objective placement for a character on a tier list. All tier lists are opinions, and a factual wiki is not the place for opinions. I wouldn't be completely against option 3, since it's at least a bit more fair than treating any specific tier list as "official" (which is in hindsight kind of a stupid thing to do), but I think our best option is to simply provide information about how the community generally views the strengths and weaknesses of each character, rather than outright stating that this character ranks at this specific position. Alex the Weeb 20:06, January 30, 2020 (EST)
3. Support: While I don't really care for tierlists, having an up-to-date understand of what character falls where has been valuable information for the Smash Bros. community. That said, we live in a time when updates are continuously happening, which can put some work strain on those at SmashBoards, so I'd rather wait for a finalized tier list than one that is constantly changing. Alex95 (talk) 20:10, January 30, 2020 (EST)
4. Support. Without much competitive expertise personally, I feel like this is the best option. If there isn't a definitive Ultimate tier list to begin with and it's constantly subject to change anyway, it's probably best to just continue what we currently do and list the collective opinion of the community without making a definitive placement. As above, if a widely-agreed-upon tier list is created, we can use that, but I don't think we should make our own list, since as stated earlier the community simply isn't centralized. ~ Serena Strawberry (talk) 20:13, January 30, 2020 (EST)
5. Support. Option 2 can't prove to be reliable, and would require some arbitrary bias. Option 3 would take quite a bit of time, and ultimate's ever growing roster would cause this method to demand a lot of commitment. Also this option suits best for the amount of diverse strengths and weaknesses the roster has. Super ASuper A (talk) 20:13, January 30, 2020 (EST)
6. Support. Everyone agrees upon tier placements, but in most cases no one agrees where in the tier characters should be placed. I feel like generalizing it is the best, since not only does it give us a more neutral point of view towards all professional opinions rather than just the Backroom, but it's also something people would debate less, especially on the placements. Also, the MU charts - aside from Brawl's - are mostly inaccurate nowadays, although I still believe best and worst MU's should still be noted somewhere. CookiesCreme 20:15, January 30, 2020 (EST)
7. Support I think specific numbered tier placements are sort of outdated nowadays, and I think keeping the old ones for historical purposes is a good option either way. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer Leave a message if needed 07:37, January 31, 2020 (EST)
8. Support: More general statements like "this character is generally considered to be mid tier" are better suited for a wiki that strives to be neutral. Option 3 is interesting, but it poses a problem in that the continuous updates, and various other metagame developments, continuously call in question the ordered placements within a tier, especially within the lower ones. I think that if we want to pursue option 3 we have to do it only after Ultimate has stopped to receive updates for good, so for now it's better to just stick with option 1. --Rdrfc (talk) 05:32, February 1, 2020 (EST)
9. As per my comment I support going hands-off. SupαToαd64 09:13, February 1, 2020 (EST)
10. Support: Due to the reasons mentioned, at least until (if) a back room is ever convened for a future tier list. Option 2 would be highly prone to bias and Option 3 would have the same problem in addition to taking more time and effort to aggregate. Until there's a clear and obvious alternative we should avoid giving exact tier placements with obvious exceptions like Brawl MK. Antimony (talk) 13:49, February 2, 2020 (EST)
11. Support: I feel this is the best option simply because aggregating a tier list from "trustworthy sources" introduces a plethora of problems. For example who would qualify as "trustworthy" and how do we avoid appearing biased? If we're talking tier lists from notable players, they tend to update those very often and often times find themselves not numerically organizing lower tier characters? Does that mean we should avoid numerically ranking characters and simply stick to a letter categorization format? Then comes the question of if there's even enough tier lists to create an aggregate tier list without seeming too one-sided. In the end, there are just too many factors to consider and a lot of maintenance would be required. Maintenance after every patch would likely not be fast enough to keep up with ever-changing opinions. Pokebub (talk) 21:13, February 2, 2020 (EST)
12. Support: I think that Smash Wiki aggregation would cause a lot of issues, such as what tier lists to aggregate and how they'll be meshed together. I think it's not Smash Wiki's power to do such a thing anyways, and the Wiki should try to remain objective. --Mpo9 (talk) 22:37, February 5, 2020 (EST)

Option 2: New source

1. Support: I think we could find another trusted source for this.Kesterstudios (talk) 20:08, January 30, 2020 (EST)
2. Support. I feel that a new source would be easier than both other options. Option 1 seems to have way too much subjectivity that would make the platform too easy to discredit. Option 3 would be highly subjective and take quite a bit of work that I don't believe SmashWiki will always be able to afford. It doesn't appear sustainable. In terms of what source to use, I feel that one that uses a mix of empirical and general analysis would be best: usage for effect on the metagame, general perceived matchup spread, results, character and overall metagames, and more. While this would likely be difficult to find, I believe that this is one of the best approaches to take without causing some weird outcry that the Smash Community likes to do. --Plague von Karma 20:07, January 30, 2020 (EST)
3. Support for the same reasons as Plague von Karma. Aykrivwassup (talk) 21:43, January 30, 2020 (EST)
4. Support I think a better source is a better idea if not maybe this website should decide or make a tier list Thegameandwatch (talk) 06:18, February 2, 2020 (EST)

Option 3: Aggregate

1. Support I believe this to be the best method. Picking just one tier list to arbitrarily refer to would just show bias and create controversy as to why we picked this and not others. Listing multiple significant tier lists the competitive scene finds reliable and having an aggregate of that list would be the best way to go. EDIT - I would like to add that Wikipedia has a very similar method for ranking US Presidents based on scholarly surveys. The principle is exactly the same and can be applied to tier lists for us. And for people voting for Option 1, please think long term about this as Ultimate won't always be updating; there will be a time when the patches stop and this isn't just about Ultimate. EDIT 2 - There seems to be running theme in the Option 1 votes that tier lists are based on opinions and therefore don't belong here. 1) Wikis document opinions all the time - I know we're not Wikipedia for me to refer to it again, but I think it's good to take a peek at how they do things: that scholarly survey for US Presidents I mentioned earlier is also based on opinion, and any article for a movie, book, video game, music album, etc. will have a section dedicated to the reception that piece of art received based on the reviews (opinions) it received. All these things are based on opinions and that's okay; all it does is acknowledge how people feel about it by documenting it. While the opinion itself is subjective, it is an objective fact that people feel a certain way about that piece of art; Wikipedia is just simply documenting that, and the same is true for a myriad of other Wikis. The same with the tier list. Yes, they are based on subjective opinions, but it is an objective fact that people feel certain ways about characters and tier lists is the most common and digestible way it is expressed, which leads me to the next point. 2) Tier lists are noteworthy enough to document - Tier lists have such a big part of the Smash community that even if I were to give you the point of it being just an opinion, they still have such a significant place in the community that it would be irresponsible of us to not document them (not to mention we're a common reference for the competitive scene). The best we could do is document the significant ones and create an aggregate. In fact, the original concern brought up on our Discord about the tier lists we currently have was not whether we should have them, but how outdated they are since we normally only use SmashBoard's Back Rooms tier lists, which haveb't been updated in years. On top of that, this concern was brought to our attention by a reddit post on r/SSBM, which just goes to show that people care about not only tier lists, but our documentation of them. Getting rid of them isn't the solution, using current ones and adapting to how they are made now is the solution. 3) A good read - For those downplaying tiers as "just opinions", I encourage people to read Semicolon's Treatise on the Existence of Tiers. VoqéoT 17:14, February 1, 2020 (EST)
2. Support. Given that this wiki is very much focused on not only the franchise, but the community surrounding it, I feel like option one shouldn't even be an option. I also feel like option two isn't the best way to go, because having one source and only one source limits our options (see our current predicament). By both logic and process of elimination, option three seems to be the best. I almost feel like the "general" ranking part seen in option one should be here, because we can very easily say which category (based on letter, not "top/high/mid/low") each character falls into, even while doing this; it would save us the time of, say, "averaging" out the rankings on multiple tier list sources. Aidan, the Rurouni 20:05, January 30, 2020 (EST)
3. Support for basically the same reasons as Voqéo. Tier lists will always be fought over and have multiple thoughts on the matter, so it's best we factor together multiple sources instead of depending on a single one. That way we may be able to achieve the most accuracy possible. Only concern I have is how exactly this WILL be done. It's easy to say there will be a way to combine tier lists, but execution is always harder than ideas. Crazy456Rhino (talk) 20:10, January 30, 2020 (EST)
4. Support: I generally think that aggregated tier lists is a good idea. On one hand, you'll have the opinions coming from the best players in the world, and all of these opinions combined would make for a solid substitute for the Backrooms. While we might have the occasional Samsora with "King K Rool is Top 15", if we opinions from enough top players, it'll balance itself out in the end. Wizardgeno (talk) 20:32, January 30, 2020 (EST)
5. Support Top players make tier lists every day, combining them and listing them with there update number seems to be a great way to get a general overview of tiers. Just dont use sites like Eventhubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CR4VE (talk • contribs) 20:39, January 30, 2020‎
6. Support. KungFuLakitu, Spiny Overlord 20:45, January 30, 2020 (EST)
7. Support - Aggregating tier rankings from various trusted sources seems like the best option to go with. Option 1 doesn't sound encyclopedic to me, and at the moment i don't think there is any single widely accepted tier list that we could use for option 2.- Searingjet (talk) 20:57, January 30, 2020 (EST)
8. Support: In a game with over 80 characters, general "high-tier" and "low-tier" has a lot of gray area to it. A high tier can be the very best character in the game, or they can be be the fifteenth best. While Ultimate doesn't have a dominating top tier like Meta Knight, many people on the internet do agree that the best character is Joker. Option 2 favoring one tier list would be a bad idea, as there are multiple reliable tier lists, while Option 1 would make this wiki feel blank after listing the most widely-accepted tier lists for years. Averaging out the tier lists of the top players sounds like the best option, as it doesn't completely favor one player as God, but it also doesn't make this wiki way too vague. While specific numberings may arbitrary, there are too many characters to simply generalize the tiers. 72.203.118.154 16:40, January 31, 2020 (EST)
9. Support: I feel that a reliable tier list is one of the most integral parts of any Wikipedia of an online multiplayer game - players will visit this site much more often to find a tier list than they will to find, say, the size of a stage or frame data on a move. I also think that a compromise could be made between options 2 and 3, and if option 2 was not an option than it's supporters would favor option 3. Of course, a tier list will always create controversy, no matter what. But it's important to have, to create a discussion of what characters need to be changed, and how. And if this site does not have a tier list, controversy will still happen, but there'll be more of it and it'll happen in other places. Mogo (talk) 14:55, February 1, 2020 (EST)
10. Support: In my humble opinion, this option will be the best one for the community. Both other options have their uses, of course, but I feel like it's the most respectful for the community as a whole to try and create an accurate, ultimately beneficial tier list instead of stepping away from it altogether. Although it would take an irritating amount of work, granted, I believe doing this would make the community at large more grateful in the long run. GloverMist (talk) 05:50, February 2, 2020 (EST)
11. Support: This method is easily the best. You're gathering opinions from multiple sources and as such it becomes less controversial. It's unbiased and works perfectly in the long run. Falcon-X (Freedom House) 13:15, February 2, 2020 (EST)
12. Support for reasons pretty much already mentioned above. I think the Wiki should have some form of tier list, and I don’t really like Option 2, hence my choice. Gizmo (talk) 14:57, February 2, 2020 (EST)
13. Support: I think that even though aggregating multiple tier lists will undoubtedly require lots of work and deliberation, these aren't really bad things and are frankly the best for both the community and the wiki. Having an unofficial tier list based on averaging our others is better than having no tier list at all, especially for a website where some players may refer to for information about how a character fares or has fared competitively. I think it will be worth it in the long run to spend time searching for worthwhile tier lists and aggregating them. Acgamer28 19:02, February 2, 2020 (EST)
14. Support: This is the best option. Although I'd love to designate a new official place for tier lists, I personally think it'd be better to create a group of people that take tier lists from various trusted sources and put them together. Of course there will always be controversy, but this method is able to give a voice a number of different places rather than just SmashBoards. Nevertheless, it's been far too long since we've had an update to SSBM's official tier list, and I feel like it suggests (be it true or not) that Melee is dying. Regarding SSBU tier lists, however, I don't think it'll be possible to have one for quite some time. Nitrodragon523 (talk) 02:02, February 3, 2020 (EST)
15. Support: The most encyclopedic approach. Anthony1996 (talk) 21:47, February 3, 2020 (EST)
16. Support. Character pages already have recorded opinions based on how well they're doing in tournaments from Smashers. And yeah, those MU charts are never going to be updated again so absolutely no use for them. MHStarCraft 22:37, February 3, 2020 (EST)

Comments

My biggest reason for not choosing option 3 is that I'm not the biggest fan towards numerical placements, especially for anything Smash. Having witnessed the dumpster fire of the Fall 2019 PGRU and the 2019 MPGR - where many placements and bias were called into question - I believe that even if we do aggregate the tier lists there will still be some discord. CookiesCreme 20:36, January 30, 2020 (EST)

Another point that I should make: Melee and Smash 64 basically have less viable characters than Ultimate or Smash 4, and therefore it's easier to place where the better characters are. Even by the end of Smash 4's lifespan the placements of certain characters like Jigglypuff, G&W, and King Dedede were up in the air since the metagame was still changing 2 years after the last patch. None of these options really cover this point well, but I still believe option 1 does it the best since it's a generalization. CookiesCreme 20:39, January 30, 2020 (EST)

Considering that Brawl and 4 no longer maintain active competitive scenes, i think it'd make sense to keep the SmashBoards-sourced tier lists for those specific games, instead of changing them to a new tier list system. - Searingjet (talk) 21:17, January 30, 2020 (EST)

I agree with this. We could even keep this for Melee and 64 too, just for preservation's sake as well as because their tier lists are hardly ever updated anyway. Aykrivwassup (talk) 22:28, January 30, 2020 (EST)

Ramble:

I'm surprised we kept the matchup information on the pages to begin with: we have considered removing them before after all. But evidently, that proposal went nowhere despite pretty significant comments that the information was at least useful if not horribly out of date, and it was at least worth preserving if not on the character articles where it only detracted from what the rest of the page demonstrated. If we do go the excision route, we might as well nix the tier information in the start of each character article and save it for the history sections, since obviously that information isn't relevant to any other part of the article. Yeah, it'll make the place feel a bit emptier, but I'm hoping that the majority of people can adapt.

Option 2 is never going to work. At least, not anymore. Endless arguing over tier lists created by reddit, eventhubs, and even those of Smash pros make it unlikely in my eyes that there will be a single entity to cite. Even the SBR's tier list was never safe from the flack (however minor/inconsequential it was). Of course, once notable always notable: the back room tier lists should obviously be noted for their historic reputation. But recent developments in the metagames should largely be divorced from them. I can't fathom to count the number of times I've read "viability/tier placement is up for debate": at this point, this seems less as the exception and more of the standard. The Smash community is also bigger than it's ever been, and that will only make establishing consensus for these kinds of things all the more difficult.

But on that note, since we are never getting around a shitstorm, one that's actually productive to the Wiki would be the best choice. Let's begin an effort to at least somewhat iron out the assessments of Smash players. Because honestly? The community already does this. Take everyone's opinion, weigh them based on reasoning, and make a judgement from there. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is exactly how this Wiki works. I imagine the only problem will be "drama", but.....let's be real people. Disputing the notability of certain opinions and sources are literally what talk pages on Wiki's are meant for. If the community can't do that, it probably has no place on the Wiki in the first place. So, since the community will endlessly argue who is the best and the worst, we might as well make it into something productive. If they can decide what sources do and don't matter, we will report on it. If it demonstrates nothing except Smash fans will never agree on anything, let's bury the hatchet and leave this debate in the rungs of threads filled with those satiated by the vapid need to delve into the meticulous detail of something that may never have even existed.

End rant. - EndGenuity (talk) 21:30, January 30, 2020 (EST)

As someone who doesn't play or watch competitive Smash, I'm of the opinion that tier lists shouldn't be on character pages as they go against the neutral point of view, if anything we should have a competitive history page for the fighters for this matter. Tier lists are opinions. Even if they're commonly agreed upon by players, they're still opinions. However we still often treat the tier lists as if they're "official", which they're not, and even though SmashWiki is not official, we shouldn't take opinions from players and treat them like it's "official", as wikis are not supposed to be opinionated.

When we put tier placements on character pages, we're basically describing who is the best and worst respectively. But the problem with tier lists is that once a fighter has been established as a top or high tier character, they become popular in competitive play and thus continue to advance, whereas low or bottom tiered characters are considered garbage and are never used, and if they have untapped potential, chances are it will never be known due to how rarely they're used. Take Melee for example: For years Fox has been consisered the best character in the game and so is seen everywhere in competitive play, and the rest up to the Ice Climbers have recieved good results in competetive play. However everyone else is only occasionally used and a lot have almost non-existent results, and so we cannot say how accurate everyone's placing actually is. When it comes to untapped potential look at Yoshi in Melee: it wasn't until the 12th tier list in December 2015 for him to rise out of the low tiers, nearly 13 years after the first tier list. We often even go as far as saying "X has awful matchups and is non-viable" which goes against SW:NPOV and SW:MOS. And then look at Brawl's tier list: it centers around how well a character can match up against Meta Knight. The question is though "How are the other characters against each other?" "How will it look if Meta Knight was taken out?". A tier list that revolves around one character does not make a reliable source on how good a character is, and we shouldn't make that detetmination.

The biggest problem with option 2 and 3 is that, as I said, it's still an opinion. For option 2 here's the issue: If a new source is chosen, the question is "How accurate is it?". Even if everyone agrees a character is the best in the game, it's still an opinion and we will never know exactly if that is 100% true.

Now for option 3. If we aggregate reliable tier lists, we're still making an opinion based on players. I don't see how this would be any different from the current situation when it comes to accurate tier lists. What we're basically doing is inventing our own tier lists. Of course it is more reliable as it's combined opinions, but nonetheless, it's still an opinion, and goes against the neutral pount of view.

However, competitive Smash is still a big part of the community and we cannot discard tier list altogether, as I'm of the opinion "once notable, always notable". For historical puropses they should stay, but not on the main character pages. As I've mention above I believe adding a competitive history page for each individual character can be considered someday.

So in conclusion option 1 is the best one. It best follows with the wiki policies while still giving an idea on how said fighter matches up. SupαToαd64 09:12, February 1, 2020 (EST)

"[...]tier lists shouldn't be on character pages as they go against the neutral point of view[...]"

In what way? Judging a character based on how well they perform (which is exactly what a tier list does) is not being necessarily biased. This discussion has been had before.

"However we still often treat the tier lists as if they're "official", which they're not, and even though SmashWiki is not official, we shouldn't take opinions from players and treat them like it's "official", as wikis are not supposed to be opinionated."

You're looking at the "we aren't official" thing the wrong way. We aren't official because we aren't affiliated with Nintendo. That's all that policy states. Additionally, the usage of "official tier list" has, in the past, only referred to the one main tier list from SBR that, while they were still active, was accepted as fact.

"[...]whereas low or bottom tiered characters are considered garbage and are never used, and if they have untapped potential, chances are it will never be known due to how rarely they're used."

Is that a fact?

"And then look at Brawl's tier list: it centers around how well a character can match up against Meta Knight. The question is though "How are the other characters against each other?" "How will it look if Meta Knight was taken out?". A tier list that revolves around one character does not make a reliable source on how good a character is, and we shouldn't make that detetmination."

The problem with Brawl, though, is that Meta Knight is undoubtedly the best character in the game, and is perhaps one of the most broken characters in fighting games in general. Thus, the meta of Brawl centers around that. I know you said you don't watch or play competitive Smash, but this is still important in the grand scheme of the game, because if you can't stand up to a god, then where does that place you?

Aidan, the Rurouni 14:13, February 2, 2020 (EST)

If I may butt in, I don't think Shulk is the best example since his most dedicated mains have always performed pretty well at tournaments. I believe SupaToad has characters like Zelda and Jigglypuff in mind, who all have their gimmicks and bouts of success but didn't have the time and the players for metagame development. CookiesCreme 16:24, February 2, 2020 (EST)

My main point was that Shulk is a lower-tiered character in Smash 4 (not as low as Zelda or Jigglypuff, but still low) whose "untapped potential" has been known due to the memes surrounding the infinitely long acronyms for his intricate techniques that have made him not terrible. The people who dedicate their time to play him play him well, but that can be said for just about any character, no matter how bad they are. Aidan, the Rurouni 19:45, February 2, 2020 (EST)

Should option 3 come into fruition, would it be unwise for SmashWiki (admins and perhaps any other trusted users) themselves to create a backroom of players? It would continue Smashboards' method of creating tier lists and if properly managed, would be fairly simple to create new tier lists every couple of months. Of course this plan in mind would require a lot of cooperation as well as careful selection of top players. To be honest, I'm not sure if it'd really work, but I think this would be the best way to go about creating a new aggregate tier list. Pokebub (talk) 21:13, February 2, 2020 (EST)

If I may clarify a few things, I never said tier lists as a whole create bias. Truthfully not only should I have worded it better, this was put in the wrong place. It was supposed to be with why I didn't choose option 3: there can be bias surrounding where the character should be placed on the tier list and there will be disagreements when we are aggregating the tiers. So except for extreme cases like Brawl MK, we shouldn't put the exact placements on the character pages unless it was fundamentally agreed upon that they belong in that spot.

Your second point is justified since I misunderstood the "official tier list" parts.

Cookies already went over the "untapped potential" part with better examples, though for me it was more of the Yoshi example I used: he had the potential to be better but it wasn't fully seen until the 12th tier list.

Even though MK is absolutely busted we still need to see how characters fare against others besides MK as well, especially if it is decided option 3 is the best, which I'm not at all against but still have some concerns about. SupαToαd64 21:25, February 2, 2020 (EST)