User talk:Semicolon/Treatise on the Existence of Tiers

Archives 1

NOTE: Please observe these guidelines when leaving messages here: When replying, please respect threading guidelines and indent your messages appropriately with colons (:). Please sign your messages by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Do not comment here unless you can provide a detailed refute of an argument within the treatise. If you cannot supply this, then do not comment here against tiers, you'll just be wasting ours and your time. In particular, do not repeat the same arguments refuted in the treatise. This is a surefire way to show us that you didn't bother reading the treatise and this notice, and are thus someone we shouldn't take with any degree of seriousness. Keep SW:NPA at all times.

Proof in 4 words that Tiers are pointless.

Every person plays differently.

Proof that you didn't read it. MegaTron1XD 15:19, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

I did read it. Tiers don't exist, and are only supported by the fact that people keep following them. Everyone plays differently. Tiers constantly change. They do not exist. Go on, flame me all you want, but Tiers are completely pointless. The creators had no intention of putting in Tiers. The end. Case closed. Argue all you want, but for each reason you say they do exist I could counter with 10 reasons saying they don't exist.

Apparently you did not, otherwise you would understand how stupid you sound. The creators also had no intention of putting in glitches, so by that logic you are saying those don't exist. Learn to argue, please. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} (Talk • Contribs) 16:03, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

Oh, and if you can come up with ten reasons for every one reason we make up, read the Treatise, and come up with a good, logical ten reasons for every reason on there why tiers don't exist. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} (Talk • Contribs) 16:05, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

If everyone plays differently (fact), and some characters win tournaments more than others (fact), then that shows that some characters are better than others in tournament play regardless of playing style. Therefore your initial argument is false. In fact, many characters are high on the tier list because they can be successful under various playstyles, while many characters are low because they can only win by playing in a certain way (and maybe this way is easily shut down by the higher-tiered characters).

Your other arguments ("people keep following them", "constantly change", "creators had no intention") are each argued against in the treatise. If you want to try to win this debate you will have to bring up completely new arguments, which personally I don't think is possible, instead of bringing up old ones that are soundly defeated in the treatise already. Toomai Glittershine The Inconceivable 16:46, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

Dude, sign your comments please. Mr. Anon (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

The saddest thing is that you'd take a video game this seriously. It proves that you have no life. Argue all you want, flame me all you want, I honestly dont care. Goodbye.

My reply:We're a Wiki. We're supposed to take this stuff seriously. (A**hole) Forbidden7 22:15, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

How pathetic. You are cussing me out. That proves how uneducated you are. Now, goodbye for real. Flame me all you want. "TIERS DO EXIST! YOU SUCK!" etc. etc., but it will only prove my point. In the end, Tiers don't exist. They are created by fans with no life that try to get more people to play as their favorite characters and less to play as their least favorite characters. Goodbye.

Oh look, the cornered rat will try to bite the cat, but unfortunately there are more then one "cats' here. you are just trying to find a way to make yourself feel better and try to cuss US of, now were trying to cuss you up, back :p

good luck finding a way to answer in a logical way :D Lucas-IV- Think Before You Talk 10:07, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

...no comment. --24.11.24.139 10:11, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

Thank god that fucking idiot IP is gone. Even if tiers didn't exist in a figurative sense,they would still exist in a physical sense. 69.228.207.187 11:13, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

It just proves how uneducated HE(she?) is. Forbidden7 11:20, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

Especially knowing he/she FORGOT TO SIGN his/her COMMENTS. :P --107.5.57.137 07:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

[1] – Smiddle_T 07:29, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

Was my comment bad? --107.5.57.137 16:12, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

No. Forbidden7 16:21, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Your comment wasn't bad at all; I was merely referring to how this successful troll was successful. – Smiddle_T 19:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Hey dude

I'm sorry you have to go through all this shit with the admins and the tiers and everything. I do agree that tires don exits(Smashboards joke about tiers), but you really just need to stop. It's not going to help for you to continue complaining about tiers. Maybe you would get less hate learning this. --FireEmblemFan275 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

Maybe you should read the treatise too. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} (Talk • Contribs) 19:56, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

If someone argues here, they are expected to back it up with a logical argument that refutes the treatise. Omega Tyrant 19:57, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

I personally don't know why a bunch of people would let others decide which characters are best/worst,but since tiers have been created, they do exist,in a physical sense. Hell,I even have my own tier list thanks to Megatron1,so you can probably tell where I stand on this issue. Forbidden7 20:42, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

It's not people just "deciding" who's best, many objective factors went into each character's placing on the SBR's tier list, including the character's statistics and abilities, their tourney placings, and their matchup ratios against other characters. It's a gross misconception the ignorant has that the tier list was created by a few people who placed their favorites at the top and least favorites at the bottom. There's a reason why the SBR's tier list is considered the "official" tier list among the competitive community. Omega Tyrant 21:56, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

Yes,but just because someone wins with Fighter A a lot,doesn't make them better. That Smasher is just skillful with Fighter A,while others may not be. Forbidden7 22:02, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

Fighter A however, does not just have one person successful with the character, but many that are successful, while fighter B has barely any successful players. Are you going to claim Fighter B is equal to Fighter A, even though Fighter A has vastly more success in competitive play, and not just from one player? Omega Tyrant 23:06, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

Also remember the tier list does not reflect how good you are with every character, but rather how good the character is at the highest level of human play where the players are equal in skill. As such, not everyone's best character will be Meta Knight, but that doesn't mean he is not the best overall character. Omega Tyrant 23:08, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

I'm not saying tiers don exits,i just have questions I'll ask later Forbidden7 23:09, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

Okay,let's begin.

First,a bad example:If Ganondorf,suddenly went high up in the tier despite his disadvantages,what would that mean? Even if several skilled tournament players started winning several matches with him,would that throw away all disadvantages to place him high in the tier? Second...actually,that's all! Forbidden7 23:47, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

I appologize for the somewhat harsh reply below, as I misread your post an thought you were an antier. If several tourny players won matches with him against non-ganondorfs, then that would mean something new must have come up to allow for Ganondorfs matchups against those characters to be better with. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

If Ganondorfs started placing well in numerous tournies, than yes he would most certainly rise on the tier list. But it has not happened, and like Anon said, something new would have to be discovered for Ganondorf that helps him in his dreadful matchups if that prospect is to be realistic. Omega Tyrant 10:27, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

I see...which reminds me,I might try to update my tier list(again) tommonrow! :p Forbidden7 23:57, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

The correct term is a competency chart. MegaTron1XD 00:04, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

Everyone here who does not agree with the treatise

IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OUR STANCE ON TIERS, WE EXPECT A SECTION BY SECTION REFUTATION OF SEMICOLON'S TREATISE. IF YOU CANNOT SUPPLY A DETAILED ARGUMENT, THEN DO NOT COMMENT HERE. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

My opinion

I believe that tiers exist, but only in the player's world. (In other words, players make their own tier list, and it's not based on one tier list.) I feel people have enough imagination to make their own tiers. And if someone doesn't like one, just make your own, for Pete's sake! Comment on this matter here, but remember SW:NPA. --107.5.57.137 18:11, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Firstly, I must thank you for being the first person in a while to bring a serious comment in here. To continue, it's appropriate to say that tier lists exist in the player's world, here being based on the maximum potential that a certain player can pull out from a given character. General tier lists basically work in the way that every character is ordered by their overall maximum potential, regardless of the player. ^Smiddle 君怒る? 18:17, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

my point exactly. --107.5.57.137 18:20, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

I say this statement is false. The simple fact of the matter is characters are not equal, thus tiers exist whether you like them or not. Plus, your statement does not refute anything in the treatise. If you're talking about a player's competency with each character, then your statement is irrelevant. The tier list is telling you what characters are best, not what characters you play best with. Omega Tyrant 18:25, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

I must agree with that statement. --107.5.57.137 16:03, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

If you think tiers are great...

I raise you my userpage. ForgingIron (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

1. Read the article. Tier lists do not tell you who is the greatest and worst in the game. They simply tell you who has the highest amount of tourney wins.
2. Already mentioned on tier list page.
3. If someone believes that Ganondorf is winning every single tourney out there, then they need to look at results. MegaTron1XD 18:57, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Response:

1. If you look at a character's page, it will say "Character is ranked Xth because of his good meteor smashes..." or something.

2. I know, just reinforcing the point.

3. Thank you Captain Obvious. And Captain Irrelevant. ForgingIron (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

1.The tier list is not telling you who you'll play best with, but which characters are the most successful competitively when varying skill is not a factor.

2.You did not refute Semicolon's argument on the page, you just repeated the anti-tier argument he refuted. That is not how you refute.

3.This point is irrelevant. And it's not people who "don't like tiers" that are shunned, most players don't give a crap if you "don't like them". What will get you ridiculed is repeating the tired old anti-tier arguments that have been refuted and refuted. Omega Tyrant 19:10, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

I realize that the user who started this conversation is now blocked, but I feel he should still know this. If you simply have an anti-tier argument, bring it to a forum. This talk page (as I thought I made it clear enough with the big rext :P) is only for direct refutations of Semicolon's argument. Because you didn't directly address any of Semi's points, this wasn't the place for you to post this. Just letting you know. The wiki does not have problems with users putting up anti-tier arguments; what we do have a problem with is when users do not make adequete points on the matter.

General consensus in the Smash Bros. community is that tiers do exist, and indeed some statements by official sources indicate that even Nintendo admits it. As such, claiming that tiers do not exist in itself is an extraordinary claim, and as such we expect that you back it up with extraordinary evidence. Thank you, and I hope you follow this when you get unblocked. Mr. Anontalk 19:57, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

Misinterpretation

I think tiers do exist but some people misinterpret them. Like me for example. When I got serious about Brawl, I got interested in tier lists. I observed that Meta Knight was GOD TIER but before, I didn't really think he was all that great. I tried maining MK for a while but I was not very good. I then realized I had the wrong idea. Tier lists aren't to tell you which character is better, it's just which character has won more tournaments. But I think some people still have that idea. FireMario1534 (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2013 (EST)

No, you're misinterpreting it. Tier lists are to tell which character is objectively better in competitive play with both players at a high equivalent skill level, tournament success is just one of the primary factors for determining it. What a tier list is not is a ranking of how good you will be with each character; every player responds to each character differently, and as such, it's feasible for a player to be better with a worse character than they are with a better character. What will happen though, is that while you may perform better with Mr. Game & Watch than you do with Meta Knight, an equivalently skilled Meta Knight player will certainly consistently outplace you at tournaments, and that is where tiers practically come into play.

Think of it of a simple formula like: (character's ability/potential) + (your competency with the character) + (your base skill at the game) = how well you perform. The tier list measures the first variable only, and thus in no way can be used as an accurate measurement of how good you'll be with each character.

Additionally, never use your own ability with a character for determining how good the character is. Omega Tyrant 01:49, 19 November 2013 (EST)

You're telling me right now that tier lists explain which character is better in competitive play and tournament success is just one of the factors. But if there are, for example, very little tournament victories with Meta Knight, it would be impossible to know if Meta Knight is good in competitive play. I guess what I'm trying to is, what other major factors are there? FireMario1534 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2013 (EST)

"very little tournament victories with Meta Knight, it would be impossible to know if Meta Knight is good in competitive play."

This isn't reality, so this statement is completely meaningless. And when the game first came out, the BBR held off on making the first tier list when they had insufficient data.

"what other major factors are there"

You got plain old objective analysis of the character, analysis of how good their matchup spread is compared to other characters and consideration of any significant counters, and consideration of the general consensus of the character and of any major argument for/against them. Omega Tyrant 21:18, 19 November 2013 (EST)

Sorry I replied so late, I forgot about the conversation. Anyways, when I say MK has little victories, it's just for the purpose of an example. Do you want me to use an example that's true? Okay. Take Ganondorf. He's last on the tier list but this does not necessarily mean he is the worst character. The problem is he is very hard to master because he is very sluggish. Since Ganondorf takes a lot of practice, a lot of tournament players don't bother playing with him. Do you catch my drift? FireMario1534 19:16, 25 November 2013 (EST)

Olimar and the Ice Climbers take significantly more practice and are much harder to master than Ganondorf because of all the mechanics and shenanigans involving their partners. MK takes a lot less skill to play well enough to win, but probably reasonably equivalent skill to master. They are all top tier. Difficulty of mastering can be a factor in tier position (Olimar was stuck in the middle before people got good enough at him to realize he's super), but most of the time large changes like that only occur in the first few years of a game's life. Toomai Glittershine The Jiggy 20:21, 25 November 2013 (EST)

That is most definitely true. However, I didn't say or mean to imply that Ganondorf was top tier or deserved to be had he been practiced with more. FireMario1534 20:48, 25 November 2013 (EST)

If a character only does bad at a time because they're "hard to master", it starts showing eventually (such as Toomai pointed out with Olimar and Ice Climbers, and for Melee there's it taking years for people to see Fox/Falco as superior to Sheik and that Pikachu isn't low tier) as the character's players get better. However, when the game is in its twilight, with everything to know about the game is known, and the best players of Ganondorf still have bottom tier tournament results, then you can't chalk that up to being "hidden potential not realised". Additionally, objective analysis of Ganondorf shows his traits are just supremely bad (being the slowest character with almost no recovery, while being incapable of camping nor combating opposing camping, isn't gonna make you "hard to master", it's gonna make you an objectively inferior character). Plus for my classic example, compare Ganondorf to Snake, you'll see the latter is statistically, objectively superior in about every way, and no amount of player ability can change that. Additionally, what could potentially be achieved in TAS is irrelevant (such as with Ganondorf, constant 0-deaths with Flame Choke chains), as no human will ever realistically get anywhere close to approaching it. Omega Tyrant 00:50, 26 November 2013 (EST)

Rankings vs Tiers

Rankings do not immediately imply tiers. With the rankings involving x variables to the nth degree, rankings should exist, and I am not saying that they don't. However, tiers implies that the bottom character of a tier is undeniably better in every way that cares in comparison to the top character of the next tier down, while the top character of a tier and the bottom character of the same tier are roughly equal. Rankings may exist, but that doesn't immediately imply that tiers also do.121.127.215.124 07:31, 23 May 2015 (EDT)

This page (and talk page) is the textbook definition of censorship

Can't bring up a valid argument against tier-lists here, otherwise your "anti-tier" position will render your research as mad-man's work. An essay, by the way, is a collection of opinions backed up by facts, but debatable nonetheless. 23.27.245.117 19:32, 19 September 2016 (EDT)