User talk:Semicolon/Treatise on the Existence of Tiers/Archive 1

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

Protection

I hope you don't mind that I took the liberty of protecting this page. It's pretty much expected for trouble to pop up here. If there are any problems, don't hesitate to contact me. FyreNWater - (Talk • Contributions ) 01:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being on top of this, Rita. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Done

I have to say, this is quite logical and well-stated. However, there are a couple of things you might need to take into account. 1) The First Brawl Tier List was compiled not only of tournament results, but also of Matchup potential. This means that it's likely to be more variable than Melee and 64 tier lists, but it invalidates (at least partially) one of your "Counter-arguments". 2) This page is very wordy, and uses a fairly advanced level of vocabulary. Many of the intended audience (people who disbelieve tiers exist) likely will have trouble sitting through all this and/or comprehending it all. 3) It should probably be stated somewhere that tiers are designed to discuss implications in Balanced Play, aka Tournament Play, aka 1 vs 1, Items off, Stages restricted to those deemed "Neutral". In play without these descriptions, Character Choice and even play skill take a backseat to events beyond the players' control (or beyond an individual's control, such as being double-teamed or interrupted while comboing/edgeguarding). --Wildfire393 (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The point on match-up potential was calculated in all of the tier lists, but that doesn't invalidate our argument. The argument is not that match-ups are irrelevant to the tier list, but simply that a character being above another does not inherently imply that the match up is in favor of the higher tier character. For example, many people argue that (in Melee) tiers don't exists because Marth is a good match-up on Fox but Fox is higher. Well, that's true, but Fox is better against more characters than Marth is, ergo Fox is a higher tier character. However, it is important to note that match-ups still do factor into tiers. For example, Mewtwo has, on paper good things going for him: a reliable chain grab, great recovery, powerful throws, projectiles and ways to deal with projectiles, good strength, and a great wavedash. So why isn't Mewtwo a high tier character? Quite simply, almost every other character in the game is able to take advantage of him and his match-ups are quite poor. This is the paradox of the tier list: it doesn't describe individual match-ups, but it is the best indicator of overall match-up potential.

As for the advanced vocabulary, this is what happens when you put a linguist and a music theorist together... Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 04:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, I withdraw my comment about the Matchups, I had misread the page the first time. I thought it was saying that Tournament results were the only determining factor and that Matchups were not taken into account, when really it was saying "just because one character can beat another, it deosn't mean that the first character is higher placed than the second". Anyways, you should still probably address the third point I brought up: The tier lists given are tier lists for a specific ruleset and a specific metagame. If the given ruleset or even the given metagame does not apply, then the tier list should be disregarded, and also your input to the tier list doesn't really have any bearing. --Wildfire393 (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This might be worth posting to SmashBoards (minus the "SLAPAHO" part...) — I particularly enjoyed the debunking of the variety of responses this type of treatise might have. That section, however, could also use some strengthening: Go into the possible responses to their responses, and then further debunk those. --Sky (t · c · w) 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We're still trying to get it completed (such as adding the points you mentioned). Once we do, we probably will post it to the Smash Boards. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 16:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Did this ever happen? :) --Sky (t · c · w) 17:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this has definately made me approve of tiers. But, the last section, where the rock paper scissors style is mentioned, this made me think-why tier lists, why not tier charts? Paradox Juice (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Official?

Would you approve (and the community, as well) of making this the official SmashWiki stance on the existence of tiers? That way we can make it the site's statement, not just yours. You (meaning SLAPAHO) would of course receive credit as the authors. Miles (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not our job to rule on it. Let the SBR officially haggle it out with the naysayers. --Sky (t · c · w) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant more that we approve this as the "SmashWiki Treatise on the Existence of Tiers, coauthored by SLAPAHO members Foghorn and Ax". Miles (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is decidedly SLAPAHOs and not SmashWiki's; while I think it provides an excellent defense against the naysayers, it isn't SmashWiki's to claim as in own, even giving credit to the authors, due to the fact that SmashWiki doesn't care about the disputes; only that they exist. --Sky (t · c · w) 18:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Very well, Sky. Miles (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I suppose the authors need to give the o.k.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 17:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Request

Can you please rub this in the face of the next idiot to insult/criticize the tier list? KTHNXBAI. Blue Ninjakoopa 03:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

For any users who thinks that tiers ruin the game and/or tiers must die, here's the userbox you need.

This user thinks tiers ruin the game.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Alex (talk • contribs)

Um. I think that's gonna be a tough sell sitting on the talk page of the thing that proves tiers exist :(. Semicolon (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor question

In the "Arguments in opposition" section, should the argument "Because the tier list changes so often, tiers must not exist" be added? Please note that I do not agree with this argument (I believe in tiers), but I feel that some people do. 71.29.15.99 23:53, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see how you counter that specific argument as well. Miles (talk) 04:19, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

I would rephrase the statement like this:

"If the tier list were correct, it would not have to change. The tier list changes. Therefore, the tier list must be wrong. If something is wrong, it is useless. Therefore, there is no point to the tier list existing."

Then the rebuttal would be:

"The tier list is based on the metagame. The metagame changes. Therefore, the tier list must change to remain correct."

Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 14:35, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

All right, here it goes. First of all, I will counter the assumption that if the tier list is wrong in anyway it is useless. Compare this to a governmental budget. It is impossible for the budget to ever be perfect for a long period of time simply because of the multitude of variables involved that can not possibly be properly projected. But good agencies come close enough that the budget is useful, basically until it isn't. Then we get a new one. That's what we do with the tier list. We make one that works well enough given the information we have now and when it doesn't work, we work on a new one. Second, I will argue that unlike a budget, we're not creating a tier list so much as we are reporting on it. It's not being said, Meta Knight is the best character, go play him. Instead, we report on the fact that Meta Knight has been shown to be the best character. Therefore, it is completely plausible that we are reporting that things have changed since we last reported. Three, the tier list doesn't change all that often. There have only been nine lists (one of which was a hoax) from the SBR for Melee, and that game was released in 2001. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:15, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

What about the "Tier lists are based on the player's skill, not the characters ability" argument? 58.107.230.245 06:53, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Well, the definition of a tier list disregards players skill as a factor of tier inclusion, just generally. A tier list assumes equal skill from players. I believe we wrote in the treatise that player skill is the most important factor in the outcome of a game. In fact, I don't believe that anything else even comes close. Tiers are meant as pretty good predictors of who will win given somewhat equal skill, with the tier differential marginally compromising for the skill differential at times. And you can't react account for player skill in tier lists. There are some really bad people who play Pit, and some really good people who play Pit. How do you average that, or survey it, or make anything useful of that information at all? It's the same for every character. Every character has good players and bad players, so even talking about player skill generally can't add anything to a discussion of who the best innate characters are. Semicolon (talk) 16:08, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Nerds

wow i had no idea that people existed like this that actualy think 'tiers' are important, its crazy o.0 ive been reading this out-loud to my friends and theyre laughing by how serious the writter of the article is. it speaks as if these are real politics rather than a childrens video game. im really really amazed that someone took the time to write such a pointless article that has probably been read all of 4 times, let alone taken the time do do hours of research for nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.54.106 (talk • contribs) 12:10 January 22, 2010

You do realize that you're an idiot, right? Do you think this was difficult for me? It's all obvious stuff that stupid scrubs like yourself are unable to understand, which is why I have to write it down. I'm doing it for you. Know why? Because I care. If by 'hours of research' you mean 'I don't know wtf I'm talking about' then yes, you're right. There isn't research involved here. Where do you see facts and figures? And also, we can check how many times the page has been viewed, and guess what? It's not four. And guess what? Your friends are stupid too. Before any of you say anything else, yes, I'm trolling again, but here's why: this comment was unacceptable. It was ignorant and self-righteous and had the kind of attitude that I have taken upon myself to punish in this ass-end of the internet. Will it do any good? You can bet your ass it won't, but I feel good doing it. And as for you, author of this abhorrent crap, grow up. Semicolon (talk) 23:03, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware, but there are people who take games very seriously and play them for money. You know how kids play hockey for fun, but adults dedicate their lives to making tons of dough at the professional level? If you aren't one of those who intend to play the game at a competitive level, then serious analysis (i.e. tiers) doesn't apply to you, and you can feel free to ignore such. But don't call people "nerds" just because they're taking something more seriously than you are. Everyone's a "nerd" (in this context, engrossed in a subject to the point of it being a very large part of life) at something, right? Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 15:08, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. How is playing SSB competitivly different from chess tournys? Would you call a chess grandmaster a "nerd"? 98.117.158.220 00:49, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'd say a grandmaster at anything would be "engrossed in a subject to the point of it being a large part of life." Cheezperson {talk}stuff 01:02, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, if that's the definition of a nerd... well, Brawl isn't a stupid game. 98.117.158.220 02:32, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not the exact definition of a "nerd"; I'd say it's more of a "geek", although many people blur the terms (along with "dork"). But that doesn't matter; the point is that some people take certain stuff seriously, even though one may think such is wasteful. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 02:44, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

football anology

Your football anology does not work that well. The black team would have a harder time seeing their opponents, but the white team would have a harder time finding their teammates. You should find another anology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.21.239 (talk • contribs) 17:26, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

One would presume that the player is fully aware of the character he is using, and that his actions generally do not respect being entirely aware of the positions of his teammates outside of the passing game, where his targets are marked by controls. Semicolon (talk) 04:30, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Lol u misspelled analogy and yes, it does work.highway pumpy ^sfs 04:37, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Some critic

First of all on the argument of propability:

While indeed it is nigh impossible to construct a game sufficiently complex to be enjoyable so that it is also balanced enough to allow any form of character ranking whatsoever, there is also one counter argument for the opposite. In a game with a very large number of possibilities, variables and other factors, even with restriction such as those used for tournament play, it is also near impossible to sufficiently rate and compare all those factors and variables to form a clear and overall viable ranking. Indeed, that is why the very foundation of tierlists at the end cannot be anything but the evaluation of statistical data. However, this is were many of your assumptions start to be built on all but solid ground. As, if tierlists should be anything but a study of contemporal official tournament play for a game, you would indeed need a whole lot of data and a set up which, if based on actual tournaments, is nigh impossible to guarantee. At the very least, you would have to objectively asses player skill, select equally large groups of players for each character with equal distribution of skill in every group and then play a number of tournaments large enough to be statistically significant and also carefully analyise the results for any form of influence unrelated to the game itself.

In conclusion, from my knowledge on tournament play, which may be incomplete, this is much more than is ever likely to be achieved.

Thus, while I wholeheartedly agree on the fact that perfect balance is hard to achieve, I also want to point out that assessing conclusive evaluations of character performance, moreso in an absolute fashion, is any more likely.

Change in metagame and all the other arguments to justify variance in tierlists are ultimately just manifestations of the inherent difficulty of the task.

Additionally, the recursive argument actually is another good point of argument to show where tiers statistically speaking, fail to be of true value. The formation of a tierlist itself and the influence it has on the "test subject". in other words the tournament gamers, is, doubtlessly an outside influence to skew the formation of any further tierlist. In addition though, many more factors such as character popularity, motivation in playing a character (Which includes the nature of the learning curve for a certain character, the similarity or sometimes the exact dissimilarity to conventional character types in fighting games, the strength of most popular moves, uniqueness and many more) play a huge role. If for example only a minority of players use one character, chances of finding good strategies are slimmer than for those characters whom many people who regularly play and who benefits from sharing of strategies. Yes, further, the player demographic you choose to observe is a huge influence, as it excludes any non participants of tournaments.

Lastly, while indeed variance which makes overall balance highly improbable as well as other factors, such as creators intent (some tierlists are fully intentional) indeed prove that individual performance of characters is very unlikely to be overall equal, I argue that most tierlists fail to be significantly more than a momentary documentation of character performance in a certain group of gamers.

On the other hand, especially due to the recursive argument, "tierlists" can indeed be very stable, especially in games which do not rely on patches for exactly that purpose and thus "exist" indeed.

The most controversial fact any way, more than the existence of any specific tierlist, is how strongly the thus decreed rating of a single character affects outcomes of single matches and / or tournaments. It is at least my observation that tierlists at best are a valuable tool to calculate the probability of outcomes of tournaments among the community observed for making said list. Thus, the question: For any purpose other than tournament observations, specifically for any individual player, do tierlists serve a purpose in games such as Brawl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.xx.xxx.xx (talk • contribs)

Finally somebody who's not a complete retard arguing against tiers. I think I'm dreaming.

1. Yes, it is very difficult to enumerate all of those factors, but you don't have to because, as is written in the treatise, tiers are decided empirically. If we had a spreadsheet of all objective values for all relevant attributes we wouldn't need tournament results to make the tier list and it would never have to be revised. This is why tournament results are used with a standard ruleset. You can ensure that rulesets are constant, because there is one official ruleset from which tournament results are considered in the tier list, namely, the SBR ruleset. And yes, as you said and as is also written in the treatise, you do need to control for player skill. This is difficult, but if you consider that the best players in the world are playing in the tournaments that decide tiers, and any extraneous variables can be marginalized by the volume of data which the SBR has, these extraneous variables are essentially non-factors in tier placement. Essentially you're saying that you'd need a ton of data to make these decisions, and I'm saying yeah, you do, and I'm also saying that SBR has one. Go look it up. It's the official tourney results thread on Smashboards.
2. I don't understand why an evaluation of statistical data is a bad thing. It's more accurate because it is an evalution of actual data than simply a compilation of anecdotes. That the data have practical offshoots is less a concern of the actual data, and yes, they do lead to conclusions.
3. Nobody is saying the tier list is perfect. You need time, and lots of data, and when you get to a certain amount of data, then yes, conclusive judgments of character ability are not only inevitable but extremely accurate. If you have a database of 1000 matches on neutral stages and Ike always loses to Kirby, for example, are you going to say that Ike is just as good as Kirby? Okay, how about an example where Ike loses to Kirby 8/10 times in the entire database. The same conclusion can be reached with somewhat less accuracy, but with a good degree of certainty. Now, what if Ike loses in 7/10 matches, and Kirby wins in 7/10 matches? If you have a lot of data, and you can discern patterns, then you're looking at truth. That's not only my assumption, that's the assumption of the entirety of science and statistical analysis. What other explanation is there? That Kirby is lying that he wins that much, or that Ike is throwing matches cause he owes his bookie?
4. Why are changes in metagame and all the other arguments to justify variance in tierlists ultimately just manifestations of the inherent difficulty of the task? You provide no evidence. I say they're reflections of a changing game. There, now that we've asserted both our points and said nothing else about them (minus what's in the treatise), we're even.
5. Your points about the recursive argument ignore the fact that matches come before tier lists. The SBR waited until they had sufficient data to make judgments to release a tier list. Unless pros are psychics, and able to see the future to see what the tier list is going to be, they're basing their play on who they think is good, and after enough matches, patterns develop.
6. Non participants in tournaments are irrelevant. Please read the treatise more carefully. We deal with this.
7. Once again, tier lists are far more than simply documentation of who is playing best at a certain time. If this was true, we would see much more fluctuation in who wins tournaments. We don't. The volume of data disproves this.
8. That is exactly what tier lists are and nothing more. They are only tools for understanding what characters perform best in tournament conditions at the highest level of play, but they have extremely profound implications for that level of play, as you see only a very very very few tournaments won by any character other than those atop the tier list, and none at the bottom. We issued an addendum to address just this point. Please read the March addendum. Semicolon (talk) 15:32, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

tier lists...pointless

are tier lists even really necessary....if tiers are built on tournament results then i can only assume those who play competitively would already know who the best characters are and therefore wouldnt need or care about a tier list because theyve alrady made their own evaluations after testing each character,and would anyone really care,those who play competitively are going to play and test each character to find which one is best for them and those who play for sport are going to play with the characters they like regardless of what any tier says,so in the end tiers help no one,and it seems pointless to list every single character since tiers are meant for those who play competitively,meaning they only care about those who are considered the best,the rest are of little significance,and what fun is a tier anyways,instead of simply telling people who the best characters are its best to let them figure it out on their own,in the end the only thing thats of any significanse is each players individual skill and nothing more,if someone is skilled enough to win a tournament im sure theyre skilled enough to figure out the advantages and weaknesses of every character on their own and those who are unskilled will simply lose regardless of wether they are using top tier characters or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.188.119 (talk • contribs) 14:46, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Your lack of grammar has made it impossible to figure out what your point is. Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy 14:54, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Is that your ignorant way of brushing off something you cant argue against? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.188.119 (talk • contribs) 15:14, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm just saying that it's difficult to refute an argument you can't discern. I guess I'll try anyway, though: No, we do not need a tier list. In fact, gaming would be better without tier lists, because then we wouldn't need this treatise. But people like to win, and they will study what kinds of things make it easier to win. The results of these studies show that certain characters win more than others. This then gets passed and filtered through hundreds of experts who then come out with a list that shows what characters win most often - a tier list.

I did manage to pick out a particular line in your paragraph - that the lower tier positions shouldn't matter because everyone will play to win with the top guys. This isn't true for two reasons:

1. Preferences. Take Gimpyfish in the Melee days. Bowser was always bottom tier yet Gimpy would continue to be "way too good" with him and go on to become famous because of it. There are plenty of other examples.
2. Matchups. Just because a character is top tier doesn't mean he has a counter somewhere down the list. In the Pokémon world, there is no "best" Pokémon for this reason - no matter how you train a Pokémon, there is a weakness somewhere.

Oh yeah, and you mention how players of more skill should be able to win with lower-tired characters. Well, it doesn't work like that. The tier list is designed around the metagame of players at the known skill ceiling. There's a different (undocumented) tier list for every level of play - Yoshi's probably top tier in the complete newbie tier list because he's heavy and doesn't need a triple jump.

Now, it's likely I completely missed your point, because again it was badly written. I'm not using such as an excuse because I'm not lame like that, but it was basically argument soup and I had to find the cracker crumbs in it. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 15:35, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

The people who care that much about winning are the ones who create the tier list therefore they wouldnt need it,they try every character,testing each one,finding each characters weakness,finding the best ones,then they win tournaments after finding the top tier characters and then only after they've found out which characters are top tier then is a tier list even made,so what would be the point of studying anything when the players who would care to look up the research already know what it entaiails through their own trial and error tests,and even with the existance of a tier list,in the end youd still have to try the characters yourself to see if you can be any good with them,and top tier might not be what your best with as you said refrencing Gimpyfish and his extraordinary skill with bowser who is bottom tier.What purpose is there in a tier list when in the end youll still have to try the characters yourself and find out whos best for you regardless of where they stand in tiers,and what i meant when i talked about the difference between skilled gamers and unskilled ones was that a skilled gamer will discover the top tier characters on his/her own without the need of a tier list,so in the end with or without a tier list those who are skilled will notice the advantages top tier characters provide and take advantage of their abilities without needing an actuall list that tells them wich characters are the best,and say a skilled gamer finds unique ways of fighting with bottom tier characters like Gimpyfish did with bowser,would they stop playing that bottom tier character for a top one simply because the tier list says the other characters are better,people have to play the characters and decide for themselves where they stand in their own tier list,for the most part there will be a consensus and the pros will end up playing the same top tier characters because they are effective but theres no real need for a tier list to be made because this is all stuff the players will discover on their own while playing.The simple point im trying to make is theres no need for a tier list because the players themselves will decide whos effective and whos not on their own making tier lists pointless

Tiers are Ridiculously Stupid

Tiers to me have never offered any advantages over skilled players, I myself am a Melee Champion. I played Link and i was able to beat other Skilled players playing higher tier characters such as, Fox, Falco, and Jigglypuff.

I noticed that by playing Melee (as Link) for many hours against all other characters in the game, I would always come out on top, because i knew the stages and i knew each characters strengths and weaknessess. Being Link did not mean i always got beaten by a Higher tier character but in turn me beating them.

I see no advantage to playing as a higher tier character. All the characters in the Smash Bros games have the ability beat the other. It is only a matter of the Player.

What I'm saying is that, tiers are: 1:No fun, (Because then you have everyone playing freakin' Fox or Falco) 2: Are compleate lies, (Because there is no advantage to one guy who plays fox and the other that plays bowser, It is the player that matters not the tier list).

Unless you can explain your tier list in a logical form, i want the Tier list on this Wiki to be taken down in Honour of The True Smash Bros players. --BellaKazza (talk) 23:25, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read the page before posting. Have a nice day, Shadowcrest 22:30, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

This is the "Tratise on the Existence of Tiers" is it not? --BellaKazza (talk) 23:25, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

If you want a name, make an account. Read the functions of a tier list.--MegaTron1XD 23:15, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

I already have an account, and i know how the tiers work. --BellaKazza (talk) 23:25, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Then do not complain about how they're stupid. They're created for a specific reason, not what you posted.--MegaTron1XD 23:26, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

They were created because there are idiots who just want to play the "This guy is better then this guy" crud and then pass it off as fact. --BellaKazza (talk) 23:33, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Those are matchups. Fully read the article before you start complaining about tier lists.--MegaTron1XD 23:34, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Matchups against certain players not the World of players. There is no tier list just a list of preferred characters by certain players. --BellaKazza (talk) 23:36, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Preferred. That's it. It's just telling you what is preferred and is based on numerous things, not just preference.--MegaTron1XD 23:42, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

This is based entirely on the preference of Certain players. You still have not rebuked my argument, I want a True bias free SmashWiki not a false tier based one. --BellaKazza (talk) 23:53, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

If we didn't have information about tournaments (and therefore tier lists), we would be lacking important information and therefore be biased. I suggest you re-read the treatise, because you obviously understood less than half of it if this is what you're coming up with. Toomai Glittershine 23:56, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

The tier lists are nothing but statements by certain players saying this one is better then this one when all characters are in Reality, have the ability to defeat another one and it only the player that matters. The Player is the one who is better not the character. It is in this way that you are being biased by accepting the tiers. I demand a True SmashWiki with TRUE SmashBros fans. --BellaKazza (talk) 00:04, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

READ THE DAMN TREATISE. It is never stated that MK will pwn Ganondorf. It is still up to the player to decide who wins the Brawl.--MegaTron1XD 00:20, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

It is implied that MK will defeat Ganondorf in the tiers. See your getting angry, you know you are losing the debate. Now lets remove the bias SmashWiki and add the Non-bias SmashWiki. --BellaKazza (talk) 00:44, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm annoyed at you for simply being a stubborn and ignorant. It is implied on a minor scale, not a major scale. On average, a good MK will pwn Ganon. Doesn't matter unless the player playing as Ganon is exceptionally good with him. I am not losing this debate. This debate is instantly won. It doesn't matter if you feel that this is complete BS. Read Toomai's post. We are to cover this if we are to even try to be complete. To remove the tier lists means removing matchups and techniques, because the techniques just imply what to do. We do not go through that. We cover the professional scene of the SSB series, which includes tier lists.--MegaTron1XD 00:56, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Debate? This seems more like a anti-tier failing to address the points on the treatise and just shouting tires don exits, yet claims to be winning a debate that isn't even happening. Now BellaKazza, if you really want us to get rid of the SBR's tier list so badly, actually address and refute the points in the treatise. Simply stating your opinion and a couple of weak points that the treatise refutes while demanding the Wiki to become "non-biased" is just going to annoy the userbase. I suggest you stop before this causes any more unnecessary disruption. Omega Tyrant 01:06, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

For you to say you won is clearly a sign you have lost. I don't like that the entire tier list is just people who pick whos the "coolist" and puts them at the top and then picks the "lameist" then puts him at the bottom. And when someone trys to say something about this great mistake the people who created and support the tiers reply with a "you're stupid" comment. Its ignorent to support the tier list when it is made up by egotistical players who think "this guy is better". Only little children support the tiers because it was little children that created them. We True SmashFans need a real SmashWiki instead of a biased one. --BellaKazza (talk) 01:14, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

@Omega This is just biasd point by someone (yourself) who is a pro-tier.

Stop feeding the troll please Miles (talk) 01:18, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict

You remove my post and then claim us to say we won this "debate", yet you were one who said so. So by what you just said, you clearly lost this "debate" since you said you won it. Now please, read my last post, construct an actual argument that addresses the points of the treatise and doesn't insult the entire professional community, or just go away. This Wiki is in the middle of an important move right now and we don't have time to deal with ignorant anti-tiers like you. You don't like tiers? Fine then, but don't try to force your opinion on a community that doesn't care when you can't properly back your opinion up. Remove a post of mine again and you'll be blocked. Omega Tyrant 01:20, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

You remove my post and then i put mine back and remove your then you threaten to block me? Shows what you are, nothing but a coward, you can't stand up to my arguments so you block. Coward. --BellaKazza (talk) 01:28, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Stop feeding the troll please Miles (talk) 01:36, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

== I'll stop feeding them soon miles ==--BellaKazza (talk) 01:43, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Where's semicolon when you need him? Mr. Anon teh awsome 02:06, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I know your probably playing starcraft right now but...

I have a slight objection to part of the argument. It is indeed possible to have characters with varying stats to all be balanced. If there was a smash game where every character had a zero-death combo, then the entire cast would be perfectly balanced, no? SSB64 is close to this, although certain character (like Samus) don't have a zero-death combo. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2010 (EST)

It's difficult to say that giving everyone a zero-to-death combo automatically makes them balanced. The combos would have to all have the same setup and execution difficulties on every possible opponent. It follows that each combo would have to have the same amount of hits (shorter combos are harder to mess up) and all KO opponents off the same blast line (in a timed match, where it's mostly a battle to avoid the opponent's combo starter, the time difference between the top and side blast lines could be a factor). So while the characters wouldn't have to be balanced, their combos would have to be mostly identical, and that would be hard to do even intentionally. Toomai Glittershine 09:22, 23 December 2010 (EST)

I know this is kinda late, but that's going a bit too far in detail. What I mean is that through TAS, it has been proven that in a match in SSB64; say between Link and Ness; whoever gets the first hit is guaranteed to get that stock. It eventually boils down to who gets the first hit of each stock, leaving the game completely to skill. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2011 (EDT)